Do you prefer to be a player or GM/DM?

[Easy e]

I imagine that people on a message board dedicated to RPGs tend to skew towards Gamemasters.

[Jason]

I imagine that people on a message board dedicated to RPGs tend to skew towards Gamemasters.

Because Gamemasters spend much more time between sessions thinking and talking about RPGs?

[earthseawizard]

Forever DM for 20 years. The idea of orchestrating a living fantasy world that players around a table can interact with through rules written in physical books still intrigues and excites me and I consider that to be playing Dungeons & Dragons. The prep is also playing to me so, so not work. I've only ever played with close friends so experienced little burnout or frustration with player antics.

[JusticeZero]

I always GM. I don't play in published IPs, and it's easier to keep out of things like Waterdeep or Tattooine or whatever if I'm the one controlling the worldbuilding.
Plus, I feel like I have a hard time contributing as a player. I'm quiet a lot while other people are doing things and then I feel really out of sorts trying to contribute. Like, my contribution should be better.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I have ADHD, and it can be hard to keep focused on the game as a player, especially when you have both a big group and a crunchy ruleset. I usually prefer GMing, where I'm engaged 100% of the time.

I'm also the one who tends to find/write new systems, which also tends to land me in the GM seat.

[Witty Username]

I prefer DMing, but playing a PC is how I recharge.

I really like the act of making, the notes, characters, scenarios etc. And DMing is a better outlet for that. With a single PC I will always wander a bit mentally, its worse for video games where I can just start another run or mess with creation. As a DM, that mucking around is all content I can use periodically.

But alot of the social and prep stuff is not natural to me, after awhile of DMing, burnout sets in and I need to be away, rest up, and do the whole process over again.

[KorvinStarmast]

Forever DM for 20 years. The idea of orchestrating a living fantasy world that players around a table can interact with through rules written in physical books still intrigues and excites me and I consider that to be playing Dungeons & Dragons. The prep is also playing to me so, so not work. I've only ever played with close friends so experienced little burnout or frustration with player antics.

Bravo, glad you joined into the conversation.

[TheHalfAasimar]

I'm gonna be honest, I would like to DM and play 5e, but I just want to play third party/homebrew stuff for 5e, or make it when I DM for my players to use. Which they don't. Hence, why I like to DM. Homebrewing feels more friendly. As well as, I can use third-party rule systems when the official books don't cover something I want to use. Only problem is, not many DMs (from my experience) will allow third party/homebrew.

As for PF2e, I'm gonna go with play, because there is just a lot more random stuff to keep track of with PF2e, and while I like both, I'd rather play, because character creation is just so much more in-depth and rewarding when you create a character who can backflip over his foe, scream at them, and then stab them in the foot so they can't move. Or a Barbarian, who, when raging, grabs a conviently placed piano/rock/halfling and throws it at an enemy. And then, if I want to do something, there's probably rules for it on the Archives of Nethys, which is my favorite RPG resource because it has 3 RPG's worth of content (PF1e, 2e, and Starfinder) all for free.

And that's about all the RPGs I've played.

[Leon]

Err on the side of player, have GMed in the past and would like to GM now that i have a bit more energy but energy levels are always a concern for thinking about running anything regularly as wouldn't want to inconvenience people. Has happened enough as a player in recent times.

[MrStabby]

I like both, but GMing is more stressful and there is always the risk of burnout and it is harder to do when you are really tired because of work or whatever.

I generally try to avoid running multiple campaigns at the same time. Running one and being player in one or two other groups is my sweet spot.

Er... the idea of simultaniously DMing multiple different campaigns scares me. I have a job, kids, a home... but thats a level of responsability I am not ready for.



Both being a player and being a DM has its joys and frustrations.

As a DM, when things go well, its superb. The feeling you get when people explore your world, delight in what they find, grasp onto details and subtle plot hooks and make Epic Fights actually Epic is awesome. That feeling of having done it right is fantastic.

On the flip side, the buck stops with you. An encounted doesn't work out - you can' really blame your players. People losing interest, thats on you as well. People not enjoyin characters and wanting to swich or ignoring plot hooks or flat up murdering NPCs than anoy them - it might no exclusively be your fault but the onus is on you to learn from the bad thigns that have happend. Its hard work, and not just in the way prep is hard work.

I do love to DM but I find I DM to my own tastes. I like exploration parts of games and the discovery of a world. I like to encourage and support homebrew and I wnat a game that supports characters over builds and that sidesteps the constrained optimisaton problem that so many games devolve into. Its a style; I don't caim it to be the best one but it works for me - I just wish I got to play in games of that stye rther than DM them. I have no douby that our group's other DMs feel the same way about their games.

As a player I find the powerlessness a bit frustrating some times. To have a vsion of what your character should be good at an bad at, but by the constraints of whatever system you are playing (usually D&D 5e for us) you can't deliver on that in game. Or maybe there is an exciting chaacter development path for your PC, but reluctantly the campaign Doom Clock limits time for side quests and others take prioriy. I find that sometimes my strong beliefs around DMing unfortunately undermine enjoyment of some games. Again, the oppositie is also true - DMing handeled well in a game in whch are a player is beautiful and having DMed helps you appreciate that a lot of circimstances have no universally good solution.


I guess ideally I like a mix of he two. I think that the rewards are higher for DMing and I think that the engagement can be a ot deeper but the effort is a lot more and I am not always sure its worth it. Sometimes its good to just pick up your character and do your thing.

[Quertus]

Definitely prefer to be a player. Not 100% sure the path to maximum enjoyment is me being a player 100% of the time, but I’d definitely prefer 80+% of my time be spent as a player.

World building, cultures, style? I do all that as background for my characters.

Adventures, magic systems, power? Single author fiction.

To put it in the most approachable terms I can think of, as a player, I get to experience the mystery, experience the world, experience the unknown; as a GM, the only unknown is how will the players respond to this content differently than if this were single author fiction? And… that’s just not enough, for me.

[AMFV]

GM/DM. Making up worlds, cultures, creatures, adventures, and magics is the better part of why I'm into this hobby.

It also gives you power, which is not intrinsically bad. The GM has authority to shape a lot about the pace, tone, and feel of the game, and I think that power well worth the responsibilities which accompany it; and if a rule system has frustrating or badly thought-out elements, I like being in a position to remedy them directly.

I prefer DMing although I don't like to never play, which has been the state of things for me. I love designing encounters and problems and watching how things unfold when the players deal with those things. I could take or leave world building and rule modification. Those things are alright, but they're not the main draw for me.

[Xtreme_Banana]

I hate GMing. Tried several times, never managed more than 5 or so sessions.
Thinking up campaigns and finals is fine, but I cannot force myself to think about what do I want next session. Sessions are just too stressful, even if everyone tells me they've had fun: I almost never do. I have this mental hangover after every GMed session, regardless of how it went and forcing myself for next session becomes harder and harder. I dont have as much control over the story as I'd want and improvisation never gets me anywhere sensible.

I hate that, and tried many times but for now it seems I cannot change it. The worst thing is that it's easy to get together a new group as GM, and painfully hard to do so as a player.

[KorvinStarmast]

I dont have as much control over the story as I'd want and improvisation never gets me anywhere sensible.

I think I see where your problem lies.
Not sure if you have had a chance to read any of The Alexandrian's posts about GMing on his site, but his articles about not making plots, but setting up situations, are worth reading.

[CreepyShutIn]

I've tried GMing, but I'm not well suited to it. Executive disfunction means I'm not gonna be able to plan ahead, and simple lack of ideas means I falter and fizzle out when asked to improvise. I have had some success with modules, but even that's pretty limited, and the players clearly chafed at the railroady nature of it and my inability to adequately respond to their ideas.

So, player, by necessity.

[gbaji]

I think I see where your problem lies.
Not sure if you have had a chance to read any of The Alexandrian's posts about GMing on his site, but his articles about not making plots, but setting up situations, are worth reading.

Yeah. He's got some great advice on that site (he's probably a lot more prepped than I usually am as a GM though).

I think where the stress comes in is exactly what you're talking about: Trying to "write a story". I think a lot of GMs make the mistake of trying to make their games run like the adventures they see in TV series' or Films. It's not surprising, really. We've all watched these things, and see the spins and shifts in the story as the characters make decisions and take actions, and it's all super exciting to watch, so it's reasonable to assume that would be super fun and exciting to play out, right? Then, we try to do this, and nothing works. And the reason is very simple: There is no longer a single author, and the players aren't going to just coincidentally do exactly the things that are needed to make those kinds of stories work.

The key, as is mentioned in the links, is to not try to write the plot to a story, but rather simply write what Justin calls "situations". Ironically, I've used similar arguments in the past, but what he calls "plots", I call "scripts", and what he calls "situations", I call "plots". So... terminology aside, the point is to not write a planned sequence of events and actions that lead to an end. Instead, just write what is happening. What are the bad guys doing? Why are they doing it? What is their end goal? Then, fill in with "how do the PCs discover what's going on?" (what I call "the hook"). Then follow the story naturally from there.

This does not mean that you can't effectively storyboard your adventure. You just should not put in specifics about what happens, but instead what is where, and what events will happen if not changed, and what could be done to prevent it. It's also a mistake to overfill the adventure. What I generally do is just write a very very broad outline of the adventure. What is happening. How the PCs get involved (and you have to think about why they care, and why they may be the only folks available to do what needs to be done if that's relevant). Provide within the adventure both the bad guys and what they are doing, and the tools the PCs may need to use to stop them. That doesn't mean hand them out, but make sure they exist and the PCs have some means (clues) to get them.

I often will also outline broad chapters for the adventure. These are often the expected (broad) sequence of events I expect to happen. But I do not detail those chapters initially. They are just headers in the main document for the adventure. I'll fill those in as I go (and may change them entirely based on what the PCs actually do). What I expect and what the players actually do are not always the same thing. While I may have created a specific set of "things that are needed to stop the BBEG", that does not mean that the order and means by which the PCs achieve/obtain those things will be how I expected going in.

Each chapter is an individual doc that I write as they become needed. I have my broad outline to follow (which is rarely more than a short paragraph). I fill in details based on what the PCs are actually doing, but also to inject some additional stuff that may be there for them to encounter and interact with that may have nothing to do with the "main adventure" (you want the world to feel full of "things to do"). And, of course, whole new, unexpected chapters may occur if/when the party decides to go off on some tangent.

The point is that, as long as I've already decided what my main bad guys are doing, and where, and why, I can kinda run that in the background while the PCs do whatever they want to do. And IME, the players will generally take the hook and run with it, so I've never had a problem with the players just ignoring the adventure or the threat of some bbeg.

Dunno. It works for me. It's also relatively low stress. I'm as much "finding out what happens" as the players. Sure, I'm writing content kinda in front of them as they go, buit that's perfectly fine. It's pretty easy for me, if I know that "the party is going to be wandering through the mountains to get to <some specific place, to do some specific thing>, to just come up with what's in the mountains along the way, and what they encounter when they get there (even if that's not part of the "main adventure"). I think where folks get stressed is from writing too much stuff. Less is often more here.

[MrStabby]

I hate GMing. Tried several times, never managed more than 5 or so sessions.
Thinking up campaigns and finals is fine, but I cannot force myself to think about what do I want next session. Sessions are just too stressful, even if everyone tells me they've had fun: I almost never do. I have this mental hangover after every GMed session, regardless of how it went and forcing myself for next session becomes harder and harder. I dont have as much control over the story as I'd want and improvisation never gets me anywhere sensible.

I hate that, and tried many times but for now it seems I cannot change it. The worst thing is that it's easy to get together a new group as GM, and painfully hard to do so as a player.

Not a total solution, but a partial one: I have recently run a campaign with the premise that it woul be really rail-road-y. Listed as such from the start. Basically linked dungeon crawls.

Setting expectations took the pressure off. Less open world meant less stressful social ineractons. Everything was controlled. It wasn't my finest DMing but it was what I could commit the time to delivering.

[crimson_witch]

I definitely prefer to be a GM. However, that was not a conscious decision, I realized that after many years of gaming. I just love the amount of creativity, and the satisfaction that comes if the players like what I do. The feeling of a job well done when a story emerges from the series of scenes.

Sometimes I manage to play, but it's actually harder for me to come up with a character than a game. I'm still confused about why that is so, but that's how things with me.