Why does everyone always treat being the DM like they are the cuck of the group and as if they are doing everyone else a favor? I'm almost always the DM and honestly I prefer it to playing and I don't need how someone wouldn't. You are always in the spotlight, you never have to wait for your turn, and you get to choose the scenario. I mean everything is in your control.
>b-b-but I don't get to play a character
It's called an NPC companion. Just don't make him OP. And don't do it if there are more than 4 players in the group.
God, being the DM is so much more fun. I guess if I was playing in a sandbox game like BX or Traveller I could be tempted to play. Ive been taking a break from DMing and I'm itching to get back in the saddle again. I used to run 3 games a week when I worked part-time. Gods I was strong then!!! I can't see how anyone prefers DMing to playing.
Not only is GMing better than playing, but it's also better than DMing.
The cool thing about GMimg is that, when you have the ability to stick to a structure and run a game with an actual structure, you can play the game, too.
You think GMing is more liberating than DMing?
Let me tell you about Refereeing.
I have a wealth of random tables, morale checks and reaction rolls.
I have no idea what will happen and get to experience the story as much as the players. Until I find a story I want to tell, then I insert a hook or two.
An NPC with a goal and a problem,
A dungeon that I build instead of use geomorphs for.
I just let the players roll every ability check they have and then use the highest result for each and then I tell them how the entire dungeon spelunking went based on the rolls
> Why does everyone always treat being the DM like they are the cuck
Anon…. you literally let other men sleep with your partners…
This. The whole we get to frick your wife thing is sort of telling.
I avoid npc companions as much as possible. I prefer to let the party fight the monsters.
>DMPC
Frick no, I HATE playing a DMPC.
Ok, then scratch that part. But EVEN SO it's clear just how much better GMing is than playing.
Depends on the group.
And the system in question.
And the setting, too.
I find being a player awful, not having the control, the story beats and moments in your palm feels so stifling.
honestly, players are fricking morons
>hey, want to listen to me self-indulgently describe rustic inns and "swirling vorteces of mysterious energy" for 3-4 hours? you only need to do some paperwork to join. btw I will drink your alcohol the entire time.
>lol 2 of you died, what a great session that was. what's that? oh sure, you can "level up", why not?
how do they keep falling for this shit
Lmao this, nothing indulges my narcissism quite like throwing a bunch of unfair bullshit at my entranced playoids. They love it
>'m almost always the DM and honestly I prefer it to playing and I don't need how someone wouldn't.
You may suffer from a lack of empathy.
I don't care about the spotlight, I just like being able to control a whole bunch of characters at once instead of a single one.
I just find it more fun to play the antagonists. Frick having one character.
>Really this is a thinly veiled excuse to run a setting devoid of freakshit and 80% human fighters
How do GMs feel about making characters of other systems cameos of the current system you're playing? I also had a specific NPC I just like to use visit games- simply just traveling around- and it was great seeing the "oh frick" reactions on players who realized. Said NPC has the same design across all incarnations, yet she doesn't really do anything and its unknown if that it is the same character or just many NPCs.
I'm not really sure to build it up to some big plot for later.
You that anon with the white-haired chick with purple eyes or something like that?
I know what you're talking about, but nope
Good idea, memeing aside people do like to see something they recognize.
immensely based
enjoying being the GM is the sign of truly being into the ttrpg hobby as you're essentially working with the system to the highest degree and can engage with the hobby outside of sessions far more than players-only can
-You are being judged by players and have to give a good performance because it's your responsibility to do so.
-You have to make "homework" to create a compelling story.
-You have to solve infights and players misbehaving.
These are only a few reasons. While as a player, you sit down and enjoy.
Unless you are a shitty D&D5 ready adventures GM, in which case you are the laughing stock of /tg/.
You don't do homework or solve infighting if you aren't playing with morons. Why would you ever play with morons though?
You don't write even basic things for your adventure?
Also, you never had infighting about the rules, or in between players about which option to choose?
If yes, then it's not my players that are morons (most of the time they are), it's yours that are rising stars.
>You don't write even basic things for your adventure?
Depending on the system and kind of game being played doing that stuff can range from unnecessary to a conplete waste of time.
5e DMs are the real laughing stock of the board. The game is notoriously pro-player and cucks DMs at every opportunity.
>5e DMs are the real laughing stock of the board. The game is notoriously pro-player and cucks DMs at every opportunity.
Never run 5e D&D. How could it be pro-player when the DM is ultimately the one that sets the rules and scenario?
It's tough for a DM to present any reasonable challenge to the party unless they create tailored encounters/environments. Everything the DM preps has to be a reaction to the player's character sheets, because so many standard narrative tools are trivialised by basic spells/abilities.
>It's tough for a DM to present any reasonable challenge to the party unless they create tailored encounters/environments. Everything the DM preps has to be a reaction to the player's character sheets, because so many standard narrative tools are trivialised by basic spells/abilities.
I see what you mean. That must be frustrating to where you're basically just metagaming the entire time
Goodberry/create water mean the party will never need to forage or hunt. They are first level spells.
Light means the party will never need to manage their use of torches. It's a fricking cantrip.
Rope trick/tiny hut mean the party never need to worry about finding a safe place to camp. Rope trick is a second level spell for christ's sake.
Want to run a chase sequence? The monk can cover 120' per round at level 2.
Want to run some undead encounters? If the party has a paladin or cleric you may as well not bother.
These are just some examples from the top of my head. These spells/abilities severely limit the scenarios a DM can present to the party without simply giving them a power trip (which is still a valid encounter, depending on the style of your campaign). If you want a legitimately threatening encounter you have to counteract so many PC abilities and options that it feels like unfairly penalising them.
Tiny hut has tons of counter tactics that are well documented
Rope trick is fairly balanced and it only lasts an hour.
"You touch a length of rope that is up to 60 feet long. One end of the rope then rises into the air until the WHOLE rope hangs perpendicular to the ground"
I.e Rope has to be shorter than the ceiling or the spell fails.
"The extradimensional space CAN be reached by climbing to the top of the rope. The space can hold as many as eight Medium or smaller creatures. The rope can be pulled into the space, making the rope disappear from view outside the space."
If you make a tiny rope enemies can run over and instantly climb or jump into the space. If you make a large rope enemies can fly into the space. Can != Must, which is used elsewhere in the spell descriptions.
>Goodberry/create water mean the party will never need to forage or hunt
So does the outlander background, 5e isn't primarily a survival game. Rations/goodberry/create water are just a way to attrite the players resources, especially low level characters, who are the only ones who survival is expected to be a concern for in the base game. You want to do survival then homebrew, like you would do with any other out of scope content.
>Want to run a chase sequence? The monk can cover 120' per round at level 2.
>Want to run some undead encounters? If the party has a paladin or cleric you may as well not bother.
Yes this is the focus of those classes well done. It's almost like characters are good at certain things and not others.
I'm not saying 5e is a good game because it's not, there are plenty of legit problems. But anyone who thinks those things are problems just isn't as good a GM/DM/Ref as they think they are.
It's as though you didn't read the reply chain, where I clearly stated these things can be countered. The point is that it feels scummy if circumstances are always such that those things are countered.
You say 5e isn't a survival game (which is true) but then why does it have a survival skill, and a survival class (arguably two survival classes), and an emphasis on exploration? I'm fine with the outlander background because it at least requires a player forage, opening up opportunities for encounters and discoveries.
If I have to do extra work to make fundamentals such as starvation or dehydration relevant then your system is shit.
If characters aren't just good at overcoming obstacles but trivialise them entirely, your system is shit.
That's fair. I'm just answering the anon I initially responded to by giving examples of the absurd busywork and metagaming required to actually threaten the players, which is something I personally find particularly unfun.
I would say 5e's problem is less player ability (there's always counterplay, even tribal races run spellcasters of their own who can frick up your reliance on magic for basic needs) and more that you will almost always have to homebrew shit to fill in the very clear and obvious gaps in their system.
>I will just make a dmpc bro!
You're coping hard and shouldn't be a gm to begin with.
Get good homosexual: read some cooperative game theory and psychological experiments with mazes (rate mazes), after that go back to some old dungeon delving adventure and then move to sandbox-style game only using what you've learned previously. Only then you can actually understand what's so fun about GMing.
Its stresfull to DM for me, i would kill to stop being forever DM
Yeah, this really. I like GMing, but It would be nice to take a break and recharge because there are far fewer things to worry about. For another, its helpful to see it from the other side of the screen sometimes, what works and what doesn't. There's always ways you can improve.
The most rewarding things in life are rarely easy.
the most rewarding things are what? subjective
True, some will never understand how it feels to accomplish something others cannot. How sad.
And some will accomplish things and go “man the reward for that was kinda shit”.
For example, for sodomites it’s rewarding to take it up the arse, but you wouldn’t be very eager to “accomplish” that would you?
Would you, anon?
Anyone can get fricked in the ass anon, it's hardly an accomplishment. Weird that your mind went there immediately.
Because it's a lot of work. The player only needs to read the basics of the setting and then react to it.
GM's job is to do everything, create the world, create the life, control it and create dungeons for players to play.
It's honestly exactly like a cuck - you're working for someone else's happiness, like raising a child of the other. Even if you enjoy it, it's still cuckery.
Also it's often unsatisfactory.
Skill issue.
>The player only needs to read the basics of the setting and then react to it.
kek, your players do that? Mine don't even work that hard, I have to spoon feed them everything about the setting myself.
The game progresses too slow if I'm not the DM. Too many gays like to pretend they're master storytellers by dragging out ever interaction like dude, I just want to buy some stupid potions, I don't care about npc potion vendor # 43's life story.
I started GM'ing a year ago as a way to finally get into tabletop gaming. I run a game in meatspace with people I know irl. Not once did they ever take interest in running a game but eventually I found an online GM'ing that wanted to take me on.
It's weird but I almost felt at a loss of what to do as soon as I stepped into the world with my character. Was like my brain had to rewire itself. I'm still unsure of what I prefer now, GM'ing or playing. It's so weird.
I usually end up GMing because when my friends do it its usually some fricking anime or video game setting I have zero interest in.
No, I don't want to do a fricking Zelda or Mario campaign. I'm going to keep GMing Dark Sun and they can come play with me when they're done.
If you have a group of honest, well meaning serious players yeah, but if even one of your players doesn't take the game seriously it instantly becomes a miserable experience bar none.
>muh kick them out
IRL friends, I do much more with them than just play dnd, not worth it.
I just told them I wouldn't DM anymore since we had to interrupt my last campaign I had worked very hard for because 2 players were basically trolling the entire session and then complaining when one of them got killed. Now I just play. Even if one of the players isn't playing "well" I can have fun and I have not wasted any effort on the session.
The best games I've had, whether as player or GM, have been with randos I met through gaming groups. Playing with friends always leads to chaotic, pointless sessions because people are too busy memeing and taking the piss to actually play the game. With strangers or acquaintances, there's more pressure to be on your best behaviour and actually participate in the shared experience so as to not spoil anyone's fun.
Only time I've ever played as been with shitty DMs who were fricking weebs and the campaign fell apart because nobody wants to Isekai'd so I can't really judge being a player properly yet.
Being a DM is great fun though, having players react well to shit you've been brewing in your head for months is a great feeling everytime. Maybe someday I'll have a postive player experience so I can compare the two.
If you enjoy it, that's what matters.
I agree, but I would never let my players know that.
I also understand why others wouldn't want the pressure or the work. I enjoy performing and I enjoy improv and I enjoy setting up dominos for the players to topple, but I recognize some people hate the idea of having to plan ahead, some people hate the idea of having to navigate the story, and plenty HATE the spotlight and need to be coaxed into participation
I love absolutely everything about DMing except the preparation of the props. I have a months-long campaign written and ready but now I need to actually start building battlemaps and entering the character sheets into our tabletop which is excruciating
No game < GM < Actually playing
GMs spend too much time reading, which is suspect. They consoom all sorts of books. Just awful people all around.
>as if they are doing everyone else a favor?
Everyone is doing each other a favor at a good table. The DM gives the players an experience, they give the DM an experience, the players enhance each others experiences.
>Why does everyone always treat being the DM like they are the cuck of the group and as if they are doing everyone else a favor?
Synonymous: humblebrag (v.) - to subtly or slyly bring attention to something you feel proud of, especially by the way of negative or self-deprecating manner.