The DM > God

[Talya]

Why do so many people take offense at this statement?

God's just an NPC with awesome stats and a divine rank. The DM can still kill him off at will...

[Rutee]

Because the tone and demeanor you use to make it is "The GM is more important then everything else at the table". It's not a statement to say the GM is more important or powerful then a fictional construct; All the players are.

[Prophaniti]

Likely they're taking offense because of a confusion of God (with a capital G, as in RL monotheistic religion) and the main god of a specific campaign setting. Of course the DM has ultimate, even god-overriding, power within the context of the game. That's the whole point of having a DM.

If they take offense (as in resentful displeasure) at merely the in-game context... They're pretty easily offended, IMO.

[monty]

Of course, the real question is whether the DM is greater than the Beatles.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Because it's seldom specified that the people saying "DM > God" aren't referring to an actual deity that the listener believes in in the real world, and because people tend to take all statements in the most offensive possible manner (especially over the internet).

[Talya]

Of course the DM has ultimate, even god-overriding, power within the context of the game. That's the whole point of having a DM.

This is rather the point.

As for that first bit, I'm fresh out of roman soldiers. That one will have to wait.

Because the tone and demeanor you use to make it is "The GM is more important then everything else at the table". It's not a statement to say the GM is more important or powerful then a fictional construct; All the players are.

Because "tone and demeanor" are so obvious over the internet. Ever wonder how yours "sound?"

Anyway, everyone's equally "important." That doesn't mean everyone is equally powerful, or everyone is in charge. The DM has ultimate and complete power over the gaming session. That's the purpose of the DM. The only way to override him/her if you can't convince them, is to stop playing and pick a new DM. Oh, and the players aren't likely more powerful a God-fictional construct. Unless you're playing Exalted, and discussing a river-god or some such.

[FinalJustice]

I... I mean... God can abuse his powers anyway he wants, his players can't leave the table and play Super Smash Bros instead. ;)

[Pie Guy]

Hail fellow atheist!

[Worira]

This is rather the point.

As for that first bit, I'm fresh out of roman soldiers. That one will have to wait.



Because "tone and demeanor" are so obvious over the internet. Ever wonder how yours "sound?"

Anyway, everyone's equally "important." That doesn't mean everyone is equally powerful, or everyone is in charge. The DM has ultimate and complete power over the gaming session. That's the purpose of the DM. The only way to override him/her if you can't convince them, is to stop playing and pick a new DM. Oh, and the players aren't likely more powerful a God-fictional construct. Unless you're playing Exalted, and discussing a river-god or some such.

The characters likely aren't more powerful or important than fictional gods, but the players certainly are, on account of existing.

[Raum]

Anyway, everyone's equally "important." That doesn't mean everyone is equally powerful, or everyone is in charge. The DM has ultimate and complete power over the gaming session. That's the purpose of the DM. The only way to override him/her if you can't convince them, is to stop playing and pick a new DM. Oh, and the players aren't likely more powerful a God-fictional construct. Unless you're playing Exalted, and discussing a river-god or some such.

While I'm glad your gaming group appears the enjoy the same style, it's not universal. Not everyone plays the way you describe. For that matter, as GM, I don't want a game where I'm expected to babysit. I want a game I can enjoy playing as well..playing as GM. Yes, that means I limit my NPCs to the rules of the game.

There are many styles of gaming groups. Some may be simulationist and try to recreate a version of reality. Others are narrativist and use game play to build a story. There are also playwrights where the DM directs the PCs to act in a story. Some truly enjoy nothing more than hack and slash. All are valid styles, not all are games or stories.

[Hal]

I must admit to being amused by the Goblins comic, where the dwarven cleric actually worships the GM. His prayers are quite amusing.

[Talya]

Yes, that means I limit my NPCs to the rules of the game.

You're really gonna hate 4e.

[Gralamin]

You're really gonna hate 4e.

Having seen the 4E rules, I fail to see how this statement applies to the quoted text. If you are suggesting that since PCs and NPCs use different rules, they are not limited to the rules of the game, you are in error.

[Raum]

You're really gonna hate 4e.

What makes you say that? We've already established that we like different styles of gaming.

That said, I may well not like 4e. As I stated in one post, it appears to be a hybrid - not the detailed and crunchy system 3.x was nor quite a streamlined cinematic system such as Savage Worlds or Unisystem. Shrug, I won't know whether I'll like the hybrid till after trying it. I do know there are aspects of it I like and aspects I dislike. Of course that's no different from 3.x - it has it's own set of good and bad points.

[BardicDuelist]

The characters likely aren't more powerful or important than fictional gods, but the players certainly are, on account of existing.

And we have a winner!


And to add somthing useful: the DM only has his in-game power due to a social contract with the players. Other than that, there is no reason for a player not to respond to "Your character died" with "No he didn't."

[EvilElitest]

I don't think your referring to the Real World relgion involving God, but rather the DM's place in the game. Well here is why people take offense.

The main basis of D&D is taht the DM creates the world, he maintains the world, he runs the world, he makes the adventures, he runs the NPC's, he plans the reactions, ect ect ect. This means that the DM does more than the players, and essential, he is more important than the players, in the same way a referee is in a soccer game. However, he needs to be fair. The game shouldn't normally be the PC sucking up to the DM in hopes of his appeasing them, and a DM shouldn't be abusive or unfair. In the same note, the PCs shouldn't be entitled to stuff within the game simply for being PCs, they should earn stuff through their wits and intelligence and most importantly their competence. The DM's job is to be the judge and to provide the adventures, but he must also keep the PCs in check, avoid a monty haul game, keep everybody happy. In essence, he is a ref. However like a ref, he needs to be fair, and must keep the game fun, other wise the Players won't well, play.

The DM needs to make sure the game isn't nothing but player entitlement, and shouldn't act as their entertainer (As D&D's founder very wisely put it) but he should also be fair, reward smart PCs and make sure his NPC are held to the same limitations and can't use metagaming knowledge

Now some people resent this, with one player having more power, but that is kinda the way it is played. the DM ideally should be like a ref, keeping everybody in check. Now bad DM can make a really really really bad game, but that is just a risk in teh system

Having seen the 4E rules, I fail to see how this statement applies to the quoted text. If you are suggesting that since PCs and NPCs use different rules, they are not limited to the rules of the game, you are in error.

Actually, them not using the same rules does actually hurt the games, and makes the game play in one style only, an inconsistent one
from
EE

[Talya]

What makes you say that? We've already established that we like different styles of gaming.

Well, you said "Yes, that means I limit my NPCs to the rules of the game." By default, the NPCs in 4e operate on an entirely different ruleset...basically a different plane of existence, from the players. It's like two separate games melded together...

[RukiTanuki]

If the intent was to say "the gods in the campaign world (along with the other NPCs, really) make their choices because I feel that's what they would do," then the statement makes sense and doesn't carry negative connotations.

However, "the DM is greater than God" sounds like an even more authoritative form of "the DM is God." Historically, across fantasy literature and roleplaying game tables in particular, when one person declares themselves God, the others start looking for the check/fire exits/blinking red weak spot.

As DM, I try to present a story (in the context of "interesting things going on with meaningful people involved") for my players to join and contribute. I am the referee for the rules, the mediator for interpersonal conflict, and most of all, the entertainer for the evening. I just can't approach my task with the kind of mental attitude that would cause me to proclaim myself God in any context. It's not about whether it's technically correct, it's about whether I approach the game with that attitude.

I, and my friends, are having an evening of entertainment. I make choices based on what will be fun for my players and myself. I do not make choices to ensure that my story remains as I planned it, nor to ensure that my universe stays consistent in ways the players don't care about, nor to make it clear to the players that their existence in this activity continues at my whim.

I doubt you disagree with most of this. Proclaiming "the DM is greater than God," however, sounds like it suggests otherwise even if it doesn't. I didn't seem to be alone in that concern.

[Talya]

Having seen the 4E rules, I fail to see how this statement applies to the quoted text. If you are suggesting that since PCs and NPCs use different rules, they are not limited to the rules of the game, you are in error.

Having copies of the 4e PHB/DMG/MM as well myself, blah blah blah.

Using different rules is close enough to not limited to the rules for me.

[EvilElitest]

I don't think the DM so much as an entertainer (taht implies too much PC entitlement) so much as a referee, a judge, or maybe a director
from
EE

[Talya]

I don't think the DM so much as an entertainer (taht implies too much PC entitlement) so much as a referee, a judge, or maybe a director
from
EE

Referee, judge, director. Yes.

Producer too.

The DM also likely writes the largest chunk of the screenplay/dialogue, unless one PC is extremely talkative.

[Rutee]

Because "tone and demeanor" are so obvious over the internet. Ever wonder how yours "sound?"

I've got a pretty good idea. I'm also not the one asking questions on why there's such a failure to communicate, now am I?

Anyway, everyone's equally "important." That doesn't mean everyone is equally powerful, or everyone is in charge. The DM has ultimate and complete power over the gaming session. That's the purpose of the DM. The only way to override him/her if you can't convince them, is to stop playing and pick a new DM. Oh, and the players aren't likely more powerful a God-fictional construct. Unless you're playing Exalted, and discussing a river-god or some such.

I'm pretty sure that I as a player am more powerful then these gods. I'm real. I exist. I have real desires and thoughts, rather then an appearance of them. I can pick up a sheet of paper, or type this message out, because I'm real. Let's see Pelor operate a PC.

An idea or a message can be a powerful thing, but not when that idea or message is "The fictional omnipotent creator of a fictional setting".

[Talya]

"The fictional omnipotent creator of a fictional setting".

Or any other setting.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: Discussions of Real World Religion are inappropriate on these boards. This last post makes clear the ambiguity that forms the point of the OP. This thread is inappropriate at best and trolling at worst.