I already have a feeling this thread is gonna have some...disagreements.... But I'm really curious about opinions on the matter! INCOMING RANT!!

I've been reading through this DM board (and occasionally posting) and have started to see some of the same "characters" that are frequent responders. It seems to me that there is a 2-way split between the common attitudes of DM's. And before you read these and give me the whole, "well-actually..." know that I am Generalizing.

Attitude 1. The king/parent/babysitter: a lot of DM's I've seen on here view their position as "better" than the players or more important. They view it as their duty to set the rules and enforce the game THEY want to play. I often see them referring  to the game as "MY table" and viewing themselves as an ultimate decision maker and final word. I personally do not agree with this approach (as you probably can already tell reading this lol) because what I've noticed with some DM's I've seen posting on forums is that this attitude of "I'm the boss and the final decision on what's correct" translates to their personality as well with stuff like "playing dnd like this is wrong" and "I wouldn't deal with that at my table, I'd tell them to leave".

Attitude 2. Another Player: The other approach I've seen is viewing the DM as just another player at the table. YES they have some authority seeing as they control the challenges and encounters, but they are on equal grounds as the players. Now, I already know what the reply to this section will be: "But the thing is, DM's Arent equal to players. The work that goes in... blah blah blah"... But the thing is we ARE just players. We're all playing a game. Albeit an indepth one, but still a game. Now I'm not saying this type of DM has no authority, I'm saying this DM adjusts and changes things with the sole motivation on player fun. I also know that this style of DMing comes with issues. Most of which stem from players taking advantage of the lax nature. 

I want y'all to understand that I am fully aware that effectiveness of EITHER of these styles are completely situational. If you are a LONG time DM who has had many groups over the course of decades, role 1 probably works better since the DM as an impartial king will work effectively with players who are new to the group, don't know each other, or only know each other from DnD. And with this style, it makes sense that the DM has developed a Boss/Employee relationship with players as well as a hard opinion on what the game should be.

On the other hand, If your group has consisted of the SAME people for a reeeeally long time and everyone is close OUTSIDE DnD, and everyone knows each other extremely well and wants the same thing from the game, the second attitude is more common. If this is the case then is there a "wrong way" to play? I see a lot of criticism against Critical Role because they're "Too theatric" or "not what DnD is like". But what if the group IS like that? Then is there a problem if EVERY player ( INCLUDING DM) wants the same thing out of it ?

TL;DR

What do you think? Is there a "Wrong way" to play DnD? Or is the "Right Way" whatever the table agrees on?

There is no wrong way if the group is having fun.

That said there are certainly times I'm inclined to say "this wouldn't fly at my table.". But that's more what I personally would or wouldn't allow.  Which isn't the same as rather or not something could be okay overall.  Or even in other tables in my group.

Ie I have a game where the DM blends magic more along theme and element than arcane/divine so I have a Wizard using the Sorc dragon bloodline as my tradition and a smattering of druidic weather and lightning and wind spells in my book.  It works fine for their game and the world they've built but I wouldn't allow it in my Eberron game.

One thing I need clarity on is where do you draw the line between role 1 and 2 in terms of authority? 

You say that one person acts like a king and the other acts like a player with a certain amount of authority, and its that "certain amount of authority" that I am curious about. At what point would you draw the line between the roles and say that a DM is making decisions which make him less of a "player" and more of a "king" ? 

Heh. This is exactly like a discussion of the types of conductors you see in front of an orchestra.

The old conductors, like Toscanini, Celibidache, Stokowski, Reiner... they were the podium tyrants. The music had to be played exactly how THEY want it, and the orchestra musicians were interchangeable cogs in the machine.

(An old story says a musician once held up a telescope pointed toward Fritz Reiner, saying "I'm trying to find the beat!" Reiner's response was to hold up a very small piece of paper with the words "You're Fired" written on it... Carlos Kleiber once walked out of an engagement in Stuttgart with the parting words "Scheisse Posaunen!" - "s***ty trombones". The player's committee sent him a letter demanding an apology, and he returned a short note that said only "Scheisse Posaunen!")

New conductors tend to go the other way - they recognize that every musician in the group is an expert at their instrument and their repertoire. They are just present to serve as a traffic cop, basically, coordinating the 85 musicians on the stage into one single performance of a piece of music.

It's the same with DMs.  :)

I guess one major difference would be the difference between denying actions vs denying opportunity. An example off the top of my head would be "level 15 character with a LOT of gold is in a tavern and wants to make an offer to by the place from the owner. An attitude 2 DM MIGHT be like uhhhhhhg but ultimately entertain the idea rather than the attitude 1 DM who would say 'not important, can't do it' or 'tavern keeper says no' without a speck of consideration because property ownership isn't something the DM wanted to do"

 

So I guess something like the willingness to adjust and mold your DMing to make the game more enjoyable to players is a key difference. (Note this does not mean 'giving into players'. It means that if the whole party is more interested in running a tavern than the current adventure you've prepared, then simply saying 'they're not playing right' shouldn't be the go to. Cause if you're the only one in the group thinking that, then YOURE the problem lol)

I see. Thank you for clarifying. 

While no one likes or wants to play with a tyrant, there are situations where a DM should be able to "pull in the reigns" on where a campaign is going, and whether it is done justifiably or not all depends on player-DM communication, especially with session zero. Using your example for this, lets say the players decide they want to stay in a town and own a tavern rather than progress forward on the journey. Is the DM acting like an unjust tyrant to push them in one direction or another? I would say that depends. Did the DM and the players hold a session zero in which they discussed and understood what type of campaign they wanted to play? If they did and they agreed on a traveling adventure, then it was understood beforehand between all players that they probably wouldn't be in one place for too long. If they didn't, then that reflects poor communication and planning between everyone, and the DM should be more lenient to perhaps allowing them to do something like this. That being said, if the DM is in no way prepared to pursue a particular story line, then the players may not get what they want out of the experience either (as the DM rushes to try and figure out the implications of what is being done). 

Generally speaking, I would say that Attitude 2 is probably the preferred way to go. That being said, it only works well if the players respect the authority when the DM chooses to wield it. The players should keep a certain amount of choice and influence over the world and what is happening, but they should not entirely control the narrative as a whole. If the players want to lead the campaign in a direction the DM isn't prepared or excited to deal with, then interactions the players have with the world may become bland and stale. 

Basically, I am going to say something that has been reiterated about 1000 times here on D&D beyond. Hold a Session Zero and make sure there is a strong understanding between the players and DM about expectations for the campaign. If that is done, I would say that you are less likely to have situations where a DM feels the need to act like Attitude 1. 

I've had some bad experiences with the "I am God!" type DM's that really soured me on the playstyle. It was an attitude very prevalent in the 3.5e days.  That being said , I am currently the most picky DM that I know and will lay down the law especially about character creation. I am a PHB + 1 type guy, no UA and no homebrew.  While I do consider myself another player, I also am not shy about being firm with what I will and will not allow at my table. Some of my players consider me "soft" because I don't have a player vs. DM mindset. All my rolls are openly made. I simply don't allow rolls for things that don't have a chance of success. I am also big on player comfort and use LARP safety techniques at my table to make sure everyone is being mindful of each other's autonomy. My game has a lot of in-character arguments and some competitive personalities, so it's been invaluable. I'd say I'd definitely pull out the "I am your DM" defense if someone tried to argue with me at the table for no good reason, and I have had to put my foot down about certain rulings. So I guess I'm a mix of both. 

I definitely feel like the 1st Mentality is super damaging. It doesn't lend itself to roleplaying or freedom and often leads to a railroad.

Years ago I played in a NWN module with 2 of my friends. NWN was in its heyday, and we were progressing through a 2nd set of characters (the first set having already gotten to level 20), using some popular modules on the NWN Vault. There was this module for level 8-12 characters that I will not name here, and it started with this really odd scene. In it, a character, the "Dungeon Master" appeared and scolded the players (this is an online module so the author literally did not know any of his players) for having too much treasure and having it too easy in other modules and now you are going to see what a "real" D&D module is like. Following this he stripped our characters naked so that we could not use our "ill-gotten gains" (again, assumption on his part) to run riot in his module. Well, we weren't going to sit for that so we took our stuff off and stored it in a chest outside his module, and went in bare, did his module (which was meh), and then after it was over got our stuff back again. He did lots of other things like this in the module, all in the name of "real D&D". When it was over one of my friends put it this way... he said the module author was following the "DM as angry god" model of DMing.

That is kind of what I think of with "Attitude 1." It is very alien to me because my friends and I never really used the "DM as angry god" model. We used the "DM as your best and hardest working friend" model (the "Attitude 2" I guess). Although I am not sure it was exactly the same because the DM was not considered "just another player" - the DM was the DM. But we all worked hard to help each other have fun and be friends with the table and not be the "king of the table." We never had a "DM vs player" mindset as dragonbride mentions. The DM/GM's goal was for everyone to have fun and nearly every adventure we ever had, we intended for the player characters to be victorious.

So given the Attitude 1 vs 2 choice, I'd go with 2. Though I am not sure it is exactly an accurate model of how my group used to play, either. It's just a lot closer than 1.

That said, I voted "whatever the group wants to do is fine." If people like the "DM as angry god model" go for it. Fun is in the eye of the beholder.

This may be an unpopular opinion but I do not believe that methods 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive. DMing is alot like training a puppy. You use rewarded and patience and let the puppy learn at it's own pace the majority of the time. But occasionally you need to use the alpha methon roll the puppy over and very clearly let it know that you are in charge. But this should never be the norm and should be used in extreme cases. 

It's the same with being a DM I prefer to give my player's as much agency and freedom and control over their PCs and the world as they can realistically have. However sometimes you need to remind the players who is in charge of the table and what will and will not be allowed. 

I will totally be a type 1 DM with regards to my table rules IE if you are trying to bully other players during their turn to do what you think they should do. Or insisting on being a murder hobo when no one else wants to be a murder hobo. Or generally being a dick to the other players I will come down on you like a ton of bricks. It is my way or the highway in this regard. I want everyone to have fun and feel welcome.

As far as in Game  choices and RP and how to handle adventures and such I am very much type 2 most of the time. Players are there to live out their fantasy and have fun we as DMs have the responsibility to facilitate that and let them be who they want to be as a PC. If they want to try and murder hobo the king of my painstakingly created kingdom and rule it themselves cool let them. Now I'll have a cool resistance adventure I can create in response to their actions. In game stuff it is better to react to what your players want than force what you wanted. That being said real world consquences are still a thing in my game. IE I have a player who is a cleric of a lawful good God but is insisting he as a priest of this God and be chaotic neutral if he wants. He does thing like threaten shopkeepers to give him free stuff, act outwardly racist and kill the women and children of his enemies so more won't come after him. We're 15 sessions in and for the last 3 or 4 I have been dropping hints that his god is not pleased with him. And it will soon come to a head where his god will abandon him and strip him of his power. But I don't see this as being a type 1 DM and forceing my will on the player. But rather a mix of the 2. I let the player do what he wants but respond to it in a realistic way.

Often times the argument of type one or two come from DMs who want to tell a certain story or players who what to do whatever they want without consquences. In my experience most players and DMs fall somewhere in the middle. It's like politics it's a spectrum not a side

I started gaming in early in my second decade of life, around 11 years old if I recall correctly.  In the 36 years that have followed I have noticed the following truism in role playing games: there are dozens and dozens of "players" for each DM/DM/ST/SG.  My early groups comprised of my best friends who loved TTRPGs as much as I did.  That said, the role of the DM was usually a game of "Not It!"  Why? Because we are all b!tch players that had to have our moment in the spotlight and couldn't sublimate our fun for the good of the group.  Accordingly, games did not run long and frequently ended as the current DM grew fed up with not "getting to play" and demanded someone else take over.  Since we were in fact friends this did not spark animosity, it was simply recognized as the way of things.  Everyone wanted to be a Player and no one wanted to be a DM.  As I got older my circle of gaming expanded and I met the grognards, old school gamers that used terrain and laid out intricate plans.  These irascible GMs were not only seemingly happy in their roles as "perpetual DMs" they relished the attention and the power they held.  They had honed their craft and held weekly clinics in the depths of the comic and game shops on how to challenge their players, destroy their characters and keep them coming back for more.   There were no "Session Zeroes", you played what the DM wanted to play.  Full Stop.  You played with the rules the GM wanted to play. Full Stop.  The DM vetted your PC and if it did not pass muster, you were out.  If you disrupted the game, they booted you.   These esteemed GMs might seem like they had a god complex, but if you wanted to play you understood the tuition.  But, like paying a crushing debt to Harvard or another Ivy, you learned under these GMs, you learned how to give just enough to the players to allow them to overcome the challenges set before them, but not so much that the game looses focus.  You learned pacing, arc planning, how to roll with the unexpected, and how and when to ditch the rule book entirely.  One famed Champions GM of my acquaintance never "built" a single one of his supervillians or adversaries, he just wrote some short notes and winged them whist in combat, and everyone wanted to be part of George's game.  

This centrality of the importance of the DM has not wavered.  Players want to play their latest build idea and/or explore this or that facet of the "human" condition.  A majority of players in my experience want to have fun, mostly directed internally (read selfishly).  A minority of players are mature enough to recognize the needs of everyone else at the table as well, those players take it on themselves to ensure other players are having fun too.  The dedicated DM is one of these types of players.  They have recognized that for them to have fun, everyone else has to have fun.  That is why they run games.  For me, I realized a long time ago that I was a bad passenger.  I always wanted to, or in my younger years actually implement, take over the game and run it as I saw it happening.  This was not burgeoning or ill-placed player agency, it was nascent or ill-placed GM Agency and there was just one cure for it: Stop being just a player.

DMs are not just another player at the table. Vexadent and I have jousted about this topic before to neither parties satisfaction so I will not belabor it or engage in it's veracity again.  The DM develops the stage, the sets, and baits the hook.  The DM decides what will and will not work in the world they are spinning.  This World building is immensely satisfying to almost every DM to a greater or lesser degree.  If they are wise they set guidelines, if not redlines, for participation in their games, because they know that setting up boundaries actually enhances enjoyment rather than hindering it.  Because good DMs have learned through experience that rolling with the unknown and being comfortable in terra incognita are essential qualities in a DM they have become open to the musings of the players and recognize the wisdom of allowing the players to be their own worst enemies.  They also know when to guide the adventure and when to allow choice.  In a previous post an example was made of a flush PC asking to buy an Inn/Tavern seemingly out of the blue.  In my case, I would tell the player (and the table) OOC that this action deviates from the established adventure and that doing so will result in unforeseen consequences.  I would then ask the player to restate his character's intentions and adjudicate any outcomes from that action.   If this meant the "world" ends because the GOO is summoned just because the PCs decided to set up shop and run a few sessions of Retail Sim, that would be fine with me.  If would give them a consolation of fighting back the hordes of madness as the "real adventure" brought itself to their doors. 

 

DMs are a small and valuable resource in the TTRPG community.  Players are literally a dime a dozen and most of them lack the chops at the table to engage as selfless players interested in furthering the fun of others over themselves.  I suggest rather than trying to divide DM/GM/ST/SG into two groups with one side that the OP prejudicially dismisses, players look at each other and ask: How can I make this game better?  My near universal answer is to pull on the big girl pants and learn how to be a DM.  It will not be easy, there will be bumps, bruises and hurt feelings along the way, but in the end if you stick it out you will be a legend.  Just like George and Mike, Brian, and all the other Grognards I learned under all those decades ago.

A great many GMs are selfless, most end up that way, but it can be for selfish reasons.

I might care about my players but my initial crossover was simply wanting to tell a specific kind of story and my main DM didn't want to do that.  So off I went.

That said, being that kind of selfless shouldn't excuse bad behavior and the question isn't rather or not GMs can do anything but seems more about if different styles are okay vs a "one true" method.

The only wrong way to DM is to run games in a way that the DM does not find engaging or satisfying.  Everything else is window dressing.

Quote from Hawksmoor >>

The only wrong way to DM is to run games in a way that the DM does not find engaging or satisfying.  Everything else is window dressing.

 In a perfect world where everyone is willing to stand up for themselves a bit?  Sure.

In a world with introverts afraid of confrontation and sometimes a mentality of bad gaming is better than no gaming?  Not quite so easy a line.

Quote from Hawksmoor >>

The only wrong way to DM is to run games in a way that the DM does not find engaging or satisfying.  Everything else is window dressing.

 

I am not sure I agree with that. I mean, the DM needs to find things engaging, sure. But I would argue that the only wrong way to DM is to do it in a way that the rest of the players do not find engaging. As a GM, I always felt that it was my responsibility to make sure everyone else was having a good time. And the thing is, as long as they were, so was I.

This topic has come up a few times in the last few months and I have tried to think of it from both sides. One of the great points that Hawksmoor makes in another thread was that as a DM the world you DM lives and breathes by your will. If a player doesn't show up the game still continues and the PC is run by someone else or is in town or whatever. Of the DM doesn't show up there is no game there is no world. Hawksmoor I know I 100% am not quoteing you exactly but I think that was the gist. 

So in fact yes the DM is more important to the table than a player. And the very definition of a DM is to set the rules enforce the rules guide the story and ensure player engagement. But does that mean the same in the community?

No I don't think it does. the DnD community needs players and DMs and in that sense bother are equil and rely on eachother to have fun and enjoy our hobby. For The OP this poll and the way you started the conversation was bated and highly biased. There are not just 2 ways to DM there is literally a way to DM for every DM in the world and by thinking there is and asserting there is a wrong way and a right way you become the very thing you say you are against, someone who thinks that their way is better than others.

The only right way to DM is to not belittle the way other people choose to play the game.

Much as many others have said, the right way to DM is where everyone (players and DM) are having fun. There's no hard and fast rule. I know what I think is right, but that's because it works for my table, and may very well be incredibly wrong for another group. As far as me being God. Well, yeah. Mainly because SOMEONE has to have the final say, otherwise the table can dissolve into a mess of arguments. Someone needs to have the authority to say "let's move on." Let me say though, it's an authority I hold very gently, because I'm aware that it's an authority bestowed upon me by my players. So i can't be reckless with it, or weild it like a club.

I have plenty of philosophy about what a DM is, but it's my philosophy, and not one that I believe every dm should subscribe to. I've seen dm's I would consider terrible, but who am I to say, it's not my game, not my fun, not my place.

The only thing I would venture is that if a DM and the Players aren't playing together, I imagine it's only  a matter of time before there is serious conflict in the group.

I care little for modern day dungeon masters and their "inclusive" hypocritical [REDACTED]. At my table I AM GOD. I mean the DM is the universe and EVERYTHING in it..how can you NOT be the god. However that doesn't mean running the table as a tyrant and abusing that "power". In my case it means transparency and consistency while sticking to it. And there is a great deal of trust between me and the players. Everything can be discussed in between sessions and is taken into consideration. Homebrew rules are often discussed before implementation etc. Which is common sense. Every type of relationship needs proper and open communication. However at my table i'm not just the game arbiter, but my friends also look at me for dealing with other disputes. And they are ******* indecisive meaning I just make a call and tell people to move on. Otherwise we'd end up going nowhere. As for the games being run. I decide on that. Simply because they don't know what they want. However ideas are being mentioned, before making my final call. 

In the end I'm between 1 and 2. I mostly despise attitude 2 as described by the OP. I'm not a player when DM'ing, nor do I see myself as such at all. I'm the arbiter and loreweaver and observer....not a player. As DM I have my own kind of fun.

Is there a wrong way to play? The only way that is wrong is the whiny way. Other then that who cares what other tables do. At my table and games people have always had fun and there have been DM's asking me how to do things. So I must be doing something right. In that case why care about other tables.

never "built" a single one of his supervillians or adversaries, he just wrote some short notes and winged them whist in combat, and everyone wanted to be part of George's game.

Sounds familiar. However for me its mostly pragmatism. I learned to not bother statting out every NPC like we used to do. Especially since players often go in entirely different directions, or do something else. You learn where to put your effort as DM and when you learn the numbers game you can create NPC's on the fly. Should the players want to attack someone it isn't difficult to use your descriptions given to know what the AC, HP and attack/damage of that NPC is. For supervillains I often only have a theme in mind with 1 or 2 key skillsets they use to emphasize that theme. Then add the rest on the fly.

We can't ignore the fact that there is a social aspect to this game. And thus, we are not only judged by how equal we are as people who want to have fun together. A Dungeon Master is not only just a Dungeon Master. At most of the groups I played at, the DM was the one to make sure a session will be on time, that people behave, taking care of problematic players, knowing the rules of the game better then the rest (especially if its a new system).

Of course, such responsibilities will position the individual in a leadership role at the gaming group. You can't do it if the DM can't control the table, if he is interrupted, they won't be taken seriously or persuaded by players to change events in the game. You can play the first session of a new system if the DM knows the rules and the rest don't, but you can't do it if the DM won't learn the rules.

Without control, leadership and some form of a disciplinary authority, it just won't fly. 

I am not saying that DM should be a tyrant. But no, he is not equal to the players. We do different things at the table, we do different things outside the table, and DMs are usually are much more scrutinized and judged about their performance then players.
And when I say that DMs are not equal I don't mean that they are better. A soccer judge is not better than the soccer players, they just have totally different roles, and in order for the game to work one of them needs to have authority over the other.

Quote from Godforsaken >>

We can't ignore the fact that there is a social aspect to this game. And thus, we are not only judged by how equal we are as people who want to have fun together. A Dungeon Master is not only just a Dungeon Master. At most of the groups I played at, the DM was the one to make sure a session will be on time, that people behave, taking care of problematic players, knowing the rules of the game better then the rest (especially if its a new system). 

 

In Champions they used to say to think of the GM as the host of a party (a dinner party type of party, not a party of adventurers). Yes, the host is having fun and enjoying the party but the host is also setting everything up before you get there, inviting the guests, taking everyone's coats, serving the food, providing entertainment or activities (the Super Bowl on the big-screen TV, the party games, etc) and making sure everyone is having a good time. They pointed out that even when you are not actually the physical host (i.e., it is at someone else's house and not yours), you are, as the GM, still the "host" of the evening. And their point was, you need to be a good host.

I think that is one of the best descriptions of GMing I have ever read, and I have never forgotten it.

I think it's a combo of both. There is absolutely a wrong way to play and I try to be a close to RAW as possible, with minor variations for flavor and creative thinking. As long as the table is having a good time, including the DM, that's what really matters. I have been at a few homebrew tables for a short time that were just over the top with rule changes and variations that it just didn't make sense. They quickly turned into bad games that nobody really cared for and they fizzled out. Although they have made some mistakes, I trust that Wizards has done a great job with their rules and playtests that it's a pretty solid system and try to live within it. Some may say that strict adherence to the rules can choke the fun out of a game, but I have found just the opposite. It takes away the "my DM is being a jerk" sentiment I have had for the homebrew types that play more loose with the rules. If you as a DM are loose with the rules on your end, a player may hold it against you if you do not give him the same latitude and that could ruin a game.