Why do you DM?

[Mike Miller]

Originally I was the DM because no one else wanted to. Of course, it helped that I wanted to. I suppose even then I enjoyed creating adventures.

Now, I actually prefer character creation. I still enjoy making adventures and worlds, but I barely have time for prep. I use modules now and just tweak things a bit. I definitely enjoy seeing the story evolve and hearing the players' guesses about what will happen. Maybe this is a power trip or something, but I am an easygoing DM. I hate killing off PCs, but I have done it.

I like reading all the splat books and putting them to use. Having ALL the NPCs to work with lets me do that to an extent that being a PC wouldn't allow.

[Hrugner]

It's harder to hit that sweet spot with a challenging but defeatable encounter than it is to build a PC who breaks CR appropriate encounters. It's also fairly challenging to make a story that is engaging to everyone at the table. DMing is winning a much more challenging game than winning as a PC. I do the optimization thing myself, it's pretty fun, it's hard to do in a way that keeps the other people at the table from getting bored though. At a certain point it's just trolling. You beat encounters but make the game less fun, and annoy people just by being there, why would anyone invite that sort of player.

[martixy]

Why I DM?

Unless I did it, no one would ever create the game and setting I'd like to play in(the DM does play in the game!).
(I am incredibly permissive with character creation; the setting is full of monsters, as in cities where you can find nary a human, elf or dwarf are the norm not the exception; and the aesthetic follow ancient greek mythos storytelling tradition - epic quests, mighty foes.)

All the other things you ranted about:

The very first thing you start with seems to indicate that you suffer from the "winning/losing" delusion. It's okay. It's quite widespread. And exceedingly false.
A DM's job is to facilitate the creation of a good story. To bring about drama. To create a backdrop for heroism.

Seeing my conspiracy knot together right from under the PCs noses, then seeing them slowly unravel the tangled mess that, most times, they themselves create brings me enjoyment. Putting them in various situations that, by all accounts should create a party of corpses and getting surprised by the creative ways they manage to avoid their fate is fun. Presenting quandaries that would stump any sane person and watching them struggle with the consequences of their choices is entertaining. The performance of reprising a multitude of diverse characters is stimulating.

And lastly, as a DM and an optimizer I get to play all those crazy builds, I'd never have a chance to/be permitted to play as just another player in a game run by someone else. I'd have to be switching character every 2-3 sessions and/or overshadowing most of the party most of the time.

[Uncle Pine]

There comes a time when five friends who've never played d&d ask you about this cool thing you talk about every now and then, and how it works.
There comes a time when a player wants to play 50 or more entirely different characters, but he obviously doesn't have enough time or people around to play 50 different d&d games.
There comes a time when you realize know-it-all players can get frowned upon for being a stick in the mud, but know-it-all DMs get praised because the game works smoothly.

Yer a DM, Harry.

[Troacctid]

I'm imagining Lord Voldemort going on an internet forum to ask why more people don't just murder anyone who gets in their way and use the deaths to create horcruxes. "Am I missing something? It's win-win, right? Dispose of an enemy and live forever at the same time! Do people really care that much about their noses?" (Someone please write this fanfic, it sounds adorable.)

[RoboEmperor]

So it seems people DM because they're authors/writers of a story and gets their jollies watching other people enjoy their work. I guess it's similar to making a movie and enjoying people praising you for its quality.

Alright thanks.

Here's your first misconception. The DM doesn't lose, the antagonist NPCs do (most of the time). The DM loses when the party TPKs against an encounter that was supposed to be a normal, 20% of daily resources drained kind of encounter. The DM loses when the party is left scratching their heads with no idea what to do next because he presented things poorly. The party overcoming a combat encounter -too easily- is a DM fail unless it was supposed to be a steamroll.

You're too narrowly focused. Normal combat encounters can be interesting, sure, but the really fun combats are the boss fights; the ones that are supposed to have a moderate chance of wiping the party. Normal fights are useful for poking at various strategies and seeing how the players respond without making it too likely that they'll need new characters if you hit something for which they're wholly unprepared.

I've been exposed to mainly PvP games and the toxicity and salt in that environment made it clear to me that everyone wants to win, everyone wants to be the main star/protagonist glory hog, and no one likes helping other people enjoy the game which is why a DM who needs to do the opposite of all this puzzled me. Clearly it's because PvP games attract the worst kind of people and my mistake was using this as my basis for a gamer's mindset

The former probably wasn't all that interested in combat in the first place, generally considering even being in a fight a failure of some sort (his or the players') while the latter was either having a tough time dealing with a problem player or had the wrong attitude about combat encounters in the first place. If the monsters and NPCs are "your team" as a GM, you've already made a terrible mistake.

He was interested in combat. He just didn't mind watching PCs steamroll over CR appropriate monsters because he likes watching us be epic and heroic. Of course we weren't TO or mega high-op, we were mid-high op.

A standard combat encounter is supposed to burn about 20% of the party's daily resources; Hp, spell slots, rage uses, smites, turning attempts, etc and so on. If the PCs face four encounters in one day, a 5th level appropriate challenge should carry a major risk of one or more characters being killed even though that same challenge at the beginning of the day would be easy enough. Finding the sweet spot between cake-walk and meat-grinder is one of the toughest parts of being a combat focused GM.

See this doesn't sound fun at all. This sounds like a true chore. I don't understand how anyone can get their jollies from tailor making encounters to their player's enjoyment and not their own. That's like saying a kid who does all of his friend's homework for them while they're out having fun is having fun doing all the homework. This arguably takes up the most of the DM's effort and time which is why it puzzled me. Why would anyone do this voluntarily?

Sorry that I'm only replying to Kelb_Panthera's posts. Everyone else's post is either included in his or I have no comment because you guys explained yourselves very well.

[Uncle Pine]

See this doesn't sound fun at all. This sounds like a true chore. I don't understand how anyone can get their jollies from tailor making encounters to their player's enjoyment and not their own. That's like saying a kid who does all of his friend's homework for them while they're out having fun is having fun doing all the homework. This arguably takes up the most of the DM's effort and time which is why it puzzled me. Why would anyone do this voluntarily?

It's also not really a required chore. As long as a foe isn't glaringly grossly overpowered, which can be assessed fairly easily, you can generally throw everything you see fit at players. "Tailoring" an encounter to a party isn't as tough as it sounds because you don't need to calculate that % of resources usage, as it's naturally incorporated and assumed as part of the CR system (which has many faults, but I still find plenty useful). There are times in which I don't know beforehand how my players will deal a certain monster, but since I'm aware it's within the scope of things they can overcome and it makes sense in the story I just roll with it.

EDIT: Remember that being both a DM or a player is always a collective effort to enhance the fun of everyone at the table.

[Knaight]

So it seems people DM because they're authors/writers of a story and gets their jollies watching other people enjoy their work. I guess it's similar to making a movie and enjoying people praising you for its quality.

That's what a lot of these seem to be saying - but coming back to mine, I emphasize "performance" for a reason. I don't author a story; I don't even have any real idea of the course of the game at the start - that's one of the things that player input determines. That input is also a large part of the reason it's fun for me; I have to think on my toes and adapt to a changing situation because of the other people involved, not just memorize a performance then do it.

[Eldariel]

Initially I GM'd because nobody else in the group would and I wanted to play. I think this is a rather common starting point in many groups but it evolves. DMing is actually fun and particularly if you have even an inkling of storyteller within you it can feel awesome. Eventually many reasons unfolded for me:
- I have very deep, broad system mastery. This allows me to run games at a higher power level than anybody else I usually play with. So if I want to play a high-powered (Tier 1, high level) game I'll almost have to DM it for it to be rewarding.
- I love running sandboxes. Contrary to popular belief, players don't always have to win and not all encounters are fair or even really winnable. I love letting the players sculpt their own fate. The world just responds in kind.
- I have many game worlds I want to run. I use the games as a vessel to bring those worlds to life, and let the players sculpt their stories in.
- I love building characters and creatures. I have too many builds I like and want to run. As a DM the gameworld can contain any number of those and any number of synergistic ones in an organisation and any number of monsters modified in any way. Never as a player could I run all the things I'd want; there aren't enough games in the world. As a DM I can run any number of any builds I want in one game and it's all good. Of course, the build may never come up or enter an encounter on-screen but so what? I still get to run anything I want. This also means I can make do with minimal prep since I can just enter stuff I have floating around into the game. I had a ton of unique different Orc ToB-based Warriors in a LotR-inspired game I've been running for example.
- Ultimately, giving other people good experiences is a lot of fun. People tend to enjoy playing with me at least based on the feedback I've received, so I gain pleasure out of that. I enjoy everyone having a good time and I enjoy letting people do things they couldn't normally do (I'm rather permissive far as DMs go as long as the power level of the game has been set appropriately).

[Pleh]

So it seems people DM because they're authors/writers of a story and gets their jollies watching other people enjoy their work. I guess it's similar to making a movie and enjoying people praising you for its quality.

No.

It's more like making a movie with your best friends with no budget, just a personal camera and whatever you make for costumes and props.

The DM may be the one holding the camera, directing, and making decisions about what changes to make to each scene, but they all get to share the glory of the story that ends up getting told. Even if the actors are only performers, not creative contributors, it's still just as much THEIR movie as it is the DM's.

[NichG]

As a DM, I tend to consider something a victory if it causes the players to change in some way. It could be that they were ready to hate some organization thoroughly, but then found something redeemable in it. It could be that they came to some realization or new idea about the setting's cosmology. It could even just be that they decided to change their build based on ideas or pressures that they experienced during play. Presenting something which is compelling enough that a player thinks differently in some way after encountering it is the best outcome one could hope for.

The legions of enemies who lie dead at their feet are merely a tool to achieve that outcome - them dying to the PCs isn't a loss and them killing the PCs isn't a win. A loss is if they die without their death contributing to the thing I'm trying to set up or communicate or worse, if their involvement gets in the way - e.g. popcorn monsters are a success if my goal is to teach players how their abilities work or build confidence in their characters' capabilities and a failure if they kill half the party; a boss monster is a success if it causes the players to take a moment to think tactically and change their approach and then kindly dies to the new method, and a failure if even after tactical consideration the monster is too difficult and as a result sends the message that tactical thought is meaningless.

[Dimers]

This sounds like a true chore. I don't understand how anyone can get their jollies from tailor making encounters to their player's enjoyment and not their own. That's like saying a kid who does all of his friend's homework for them while they're out having fun is having fun doing all the homework.

People can like all kinds of things, including what others consider 'work'. I enjoy cooking a meal and my wife only does so grudgingly; she loves to work in the garden and I'd consider it a chore. At my library, I'm glad my coworkers handle children and in-depth questions, and they're glad that I enjoy cataloging. I wouldn't have a good time making art, like my daughter does, but she would hate the heavy-mechanics boardgames I adore.

I first understood this idea thanks to Tom Sawyer, the bit about whitewashing a fence. (Which wasn't the point of the story, but it's what I took away from it, my first lesson in positive thinking.) People can approach a task with an attitude of enjoyment or an attitude of drudgery.

[Delta]

So it seems people DM because they're authors/writers of a story and gets their jollies watching other people enjoy their work. I guess it's similar to making a movie and enjoying people praising you for its quality.

Similar, but different.

If you're "just" a wannabe author and want to "tell a story" that way, your game is most likely gonna be very railroady and not a lot of fun for the players. There's a big difference in the kind of story you tell and the way it's being told.

Or maybe put it like that: A good DM doesn't tell a good story, a good DM creates the stage, props and supporting cast for the protagonists to create their own story. The same way I love it when a player says "Wow, that was awesome!", a DM can say after a game "Wow, that was awesome!" and honestly be in awe of what the players did, that's an experience you simply can't have as an author or writer, because in the end, everything that happens in a story you write is exactly what you write. When running a game, all bets are off. In the campaign final I mentioned above, I had no idea which of the characters (if any) would survive. I had no idea what their last words would be, I had no idea how exactly everything would play out. Embracing that is a big part of being a good DM.

[Jay R]

DMs always lose because you're supposed to.

One huge difference between a player and a DM is the huge difference in the score of what they are doing.

Even if we trivialize it to the point where I think of the people I'm running as "my characters", I still win more than I lose.

Yes, I'm running the tyrant baron you just defeated, but I'm also running the thousands of people he's been oppressing.

Yes, I'm running the pirate crew you just killed, but I'm also running the hostages you just freed.

Yes, I'm running the ogres who kidnapped the princess, and who just slaughtered, but I'm also running the princess you just saved.

Yes, I'm running the evil priest you were hired to stop, but I'm also running the good priestess who hired you to stop him.

To the extent that I identify with anyone in the scenario, it's the decent people who needed help, not the evil they needed help against.

[Nifft]

One huge difference between a player and a DM is the huge difference in the score of what they are doing.

Even if we trivialize it to the point where I think of the people I'm running as "my characters", I still win more than I lose.

Yes, I'm running the tyrant baron you just defeated, but I'm also running the thousands of people he's been oppressing.

Yes, I'm running the pirate crew you just killed, but I'm also running the hostages you just freed.

Yes, I'm running the ogres who kidnapped the princess, and who just slaughtered, but I'm also running the princess you just saved.

Yes, I'm running the evil priest you were hired to stop, but I'm also running the good priestess who hired you to stop him.

To the extent that I identify with anyone in the scenario, it's the decent people who needed help, not the evil they needed help against.

But none of those NPCs have the opportunity to hurt, belittle, humiliate, bully, or otherwise assert their power over anyone.

How am I supposed to feel good about myself if I'm not hurting, belittling, humiliating, bullying, or otherwise asserting power over someone?

[Kelb_Panthera]

See this doesn't sound fun at all.

Subjective point is subjective. That said, I find the solving of puzzles quite enjoyable and this is a continually changing puzzle with myriad answers. The tactical engagement during the actual encounter at the table is fun too but it can't be if you half-ass the preparation.

This sounds like a true chore. I don't understand how anyone can get their jollies from tailor making encounters to their player's enjoyment and not their own.

By not doing that. I don't tailor the encounter to their fun. I tailor the encounter to their characters' limitations and abilities and then do my level best to kill their characters with the too-little resources I've provided myself. The fun for all of us is in seeing just how far I get with those too-little resources (which does occasionally get somebody's PC bodied.)

That's like saying a kid who does all of his friend's homework for them while they're out having fun is having fun doing all the homework.

That kid exists. He's a weird kid but he's out there.

This arguably takes up the most of the DM's effort and time which is why it puzzled me. Why would anyone do this voluntarily?

Whether it's the lion's share of prep' depends on what kind of campaign you're running. It's definitely a slightly different kind of fun than just character building but it's in the same vein. The biggest difference is in the goal. The PCs just want victory, the GM wants to get as close to victory as possible in what is usually supposed to be an unwinnable scenario. It's like dark souls in the early levels.

[Jay R]

I teach fencing, and enjoy it.
I run fencing tournaments I can’t compete in, and enjoy it.
I've judged arts competitions I couldn't enter, and enjoyed it.
I teach algebra and statistics, and enjoy it.
I’ve tutored students, and enjoyed it.
I cook dinner for me and my wife (and at present, my mother), and enjoy it.
I spent two summers as a Philmont Ranger, teaching wilderness skills to Scouts, and enjoyed it.
I’ve been an Assistant Scoutmaster, and enjoyed it.
I’ve run tourney games of Cosmic Encounters and KingMaker at conventions, and enjoyed it.

And yes, I DM games of D&D, and enjoy it.

I can’t explain why. Either these things appeal to you, or they don’t.

And if DMing doesn’t appeal to you, then please, please, for the sake of your players, don’t do it.

[Troacctid]

I mean, if you're really a powergamer, DMing is the fastest way to powerlevel your characters in 5e organized play. Just today I ran a high-level adventure and earned almost 50,000 xp, which I can now apply to any of my characters, and when I do, it comes attached to about 20,000 gp and a magic item.

[Saintheart]

For me, the cooking analogy probably comes closest.

Why do you host and cook something for your friends when they come round for dinner? Chefs at least get paid for what they do, why do you cook? You're at best an amateur entertainer, you could hire a goddamn band to make your friends smile or just sit down and watch a movie and order some pizza. Why go to all the trouble?

Because: you love the whole process. You love the gathering and preparation of ingredients, the creation, as much as, if not more than, what happens when your friends eat what you've made for them. You love the calculation, of determining X number of grams to Y cups of water. You love the smell of the dough as the yeast, flour, water, and salt combine. You love the warmth that starts to build in your hands as you knead this dough. You love the anxiety as you screw up part of the process or part of the calculations and have to improvise something. You love that moment when the timer goes 'ping' on the oven and it's time to bring out what you've made. You love thinking about the smiles, the agonised looks, the surprises, and the satisfaction on your friends' faces while you're doing all this. And when you're actually hosting, you love the process of passing out what you've made, watching their faces as they react to the thing on the plate for the first time, and you love -- hopefully most of all -- what goes on amongst you and your friends as you proceed to consume that meal. And if you're lucky, you remember at the end of the night, when everyone's headed home happy and full and laughing, that ...

... sure, none of this could happen without you, but more hopefully you'll remember that you also have an awesome group of friends -- or acquaintances over a web camera -- or strangers you will never meet -- who turn up. That's important because at the end of the day, all you have to offer is an experience, and every time they turn up to a session, or make a new post, or connect to you online, they are affirming the experience you give. It is both delayed gratification and continuing gratification, if you want to get cold and psychoanalytical about it, but it's also a social game, as in, one of the many games we play as people getting along on this planet.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

I have a lot of reasons to DM.

The first one is that my group need one(the reason I started DMing).

The second one is a list of everything else:

• I get to play all the characters i ever made, some of them as npcs, some as enemies, ext..
  
• I am the world, I am everything.
  
• I get to make my friends to have fun.
  
• I get to make people think, thinking pepole are making this stupid world smarter.
  
• I get to mess up my friends.
  
• I get to create weird and crazy stuff with my DM power to change the world.
  
• I am always the main character(like the BBEG).
  
• I have more stuff but I need to remember it
  
• 
  
• 
  

[LordBlade]

I DM because nobody else wants to. :p

I don't mind it too much, but I have to be in a creative mood to do it well. I prefer to do it when either I've found a decent campaign to run that I've got well memorized, or I've come up with something nice and complex of my own. But that takes time, so I like it when we get to rotate who's DM.

[Rynjin]

I DM because it's the only way to make sure a game I want to play in actually exists somewhere in the world.

...I try not to think about how depressing that is a lot of the time. But eventually if I run enough games maybe a player will pick up the same set of houserules and stuff I use and run one for me. ='(

I also GM because I like pulling stuff out of my ass and testing my improv skills. I have a severe allergy to planning more than a basic outline of what's going to happen, and I tend to just roll with whatever the players do. The game I started up a few weeks ago has been testing this to the limit, largely because I off-handedly mentioned to a player I allow a lot of third party, and I'd even let them play a Pathfinder-ified version of the Clod, and they immediately fell in love.

DMing for a character that is functionally a child in a burly man's body has been both challenging and very useful and rewarding (I can always count on them to do something pretty dumb, so I can count on them to make something happen when there's a lull in the action that I can bounce off of).

And I GM because it's just fun to make other people have fun. The cooking analogy above is good. I love cooking, and trying out new recipes (or modifications of old ones). I love when people enjoy my food, or my games. It makes me feel good to CREATE. The act of creating something is such a pure joy, it's the best feeling in the world to me. I have never felt more alive than when I'm tinkering with a new subsystem, writing the rules for a potential board game I may or may not publish, attempting to write a story, or just GMing a game (where creating MOMENTS is the art).

It's easy to get burnt out or overload on any of those, of course, but that's why you need to take it easy and play, read, have someone else cook for you, or whatever some days. But a mix of both is best, in anything.