Just curious about your experience and/or opinion... Would you rather DM for a group where everyone in it has at least some experience behind the screen? Or do you prefer players who have no idea what goes on back there?

In my experience, players who’ve DMed usually work with you to keep the story on track, recognizing that storytelling is a collaborative effort. For that reason, DMs often make better players. However, some people who’ve never DMed share that understanding, and are some of my best players!

Ideally, I most enjoy DMing for people who at best know D&D as “that game the kids play in Stranger Things.” I love people who don’t come in with predetermined notions based on past games, internet memes, or Critical Role, people who aren’t too nerdy. They sometimes take time to learn combat or get comfortable roleplaying, but in the end, they’re often the most fun and adaptable players, especially when they take the story seriously!

A DM as a player could be generous in helping the DM facilitate play, and appreciative of the work done to provide the players a good game.  A DM as player could also come with some measuring sticks and be problematic player a mix of rules challenges and "backseat DMing".  And then someone who has DM'd could just integrate well with the rest of the players and have a good time.  So really, I don't think a DM is essentially a boon or bane to a table, like any other sort of player, it'll take a few sessions to see how they shake out.  

Like NaivaraAruanna I think I prefer "introducing" D&D though have had my share of 'aw, shucks' experiences being considered a "DM's DM."  New players tend to not really see the work that goes into the game, but being able to see new players light up at doing something they've never done before is worth the tradeoff.

It depends on the person.

A lot of GMs who have become players in my games have become, for lack of a better term, "Back seat GMs." They are always telling you what you "should have done" or "should do," and they know all everything before you tell it. I could live without that kind of thing. (At this stage my reaction to "this is how you should do it," is "feel free to take over as GM" since I'd rather play than GM anyway -- usually the other person backs off.)

Ironically, the best GM who's ever run for me, was never a back seat GM. It was always the mediocre or terrible GMs whose campaigns were train wrecks at best, who would try and tell me how I "should" run my game or what optional rules I "should" use. I dunno if they were just trying to be helpful... or if maybe there was an unconscious desire, born of low GM-self-esteem perhaps, that my campaign not be better than theirs, so they wanted to bring it down. With one guy, it would not have surprised me. With the others, probably not.

The good GM and one or two others have, in the past, been awesome players... they know how much work it is and they appreciate all that you are doing. They recognize some of the "DMing tricks" you are using to try and get the party to do the adventure and they help you along, gently, without trying to step in and run things. These players are absolute gold.

But I think I agree with Naivara, there is something wonderful about DMing for utterly new players who have no pre-conceived expectations and can just enjoy the game, and for whom things like gelatinous cubes or mimics are a wonder and a delight. Those players are heavenly to have as a GM.

I've had limited experience on this, but I normally play, and DM on occasion, to give our DM a break and allow him some fun.  He and I share an attitude when playing, that there is a LOT we know that our characters don't.  The other players sometimes ask us questions, knowing our DM experience would likely have us knowing the answer.  However, out of respect, if we DO know the answer, and there's no real way our character would know, we do NOT reveal the info.  Nor do we use info we have to gain advantage. 

An example (well, 2 really, since we both did this) was when our group encountered a monster who was resistant to NON-magical attacks.  On my encounter, my Monk ran in and engaged in combat immediately (we are level 6, so my UNARMED strikes are now magical) using his staff, which is NOT magical.  Our DM asked what I was attacking with, and I smiled and said "Shinn will attack with his stick!"  We shared another smile and on went combat.  When I was DM, the group again encountered a monster with similar resistances, and instead of drawing the magical dagger he'd found, he used his sword, because his character would use the bigger, badder weapon, not knowing it was going to be less effective.

I think DM's, as with players, can be a great boon to your campaign and can just as easily be a royal pain in the arse.  As I said earlier, my son and I (he's our normal DM) work to ensure everything is fair, NOT using our inside knowledge to gain unfair advantages.  We also readily accept the few variations we have on rules, which is great.  One minor example is that he has allowed us OA when a monster is pushed or pulled out of our combat range.  Myself, I only allow OA if the creature moves of it's own accord, so being pushed or pulled does NOT allow OA in my settings.  We both accept it without a single question and carry on.

My D&D group is sooo awesome for stuff like this.  Whatever the ruling is, we ALL say "Oh, ok then, now I know how that will work."

I think that DMing gives you an appreciation as to the skills required to actually DM. So that when you are a player you are better aware of what the DM is actually trying to do.

In terms of knowing too much as a player after you've DMed, I think that playing in a different campaign world with very different monsters (or even a different game system) will provide you with the same scary moments of not knowing anything about the creatures you're facing.

You would think that a GM knowing what kind of effort goes into a campaign would be supportive as a player. Ideally this would be true.

However, I think we have had numerous "discussions" about rules and/or content that prove we as GMs do not always agree on things. I'm not certain how those types of people would react to one of my games. 

Quote from NaivaraArnuanna >>

In my experience, players who’ve DMed usually work with you to keep the story on track, recognizing that storytelling is a collaborative effort. For that reason, DMs often make better players. However, some people who’ve never DMed share that understanding, and are some of my best players!

Ideally, I most enjoy DMing for people who at best know D&D as “that game the kids play in Stranger Things.” I love people who don’t come in with predetermined notions based on past games, internet memes, or Critical Role, people who aren’t too nerdy. They sometimes take time to learn combat or get comfortable roleplaying, but in the end, they’re often the most fun and adaptable players, especially when they take the story seriously!

I was going to post but then you said what I was going to. I think that a Player who has spent time as a DM will not actively try to drive your campaign off the rails (as often).

I prefer to run rather than play.  I am a very strategy based person and tend to ruin a DM's plans.  One of my players knows the rules a lot better than me and is often my source book in combat.  He likes doing it to.  But he does not like to run a campaign.  Every few weeks he takes home my hex pad and plans an epic battle.  We use that as a training session and it has no impact on the characters. 

I think many players have an idea of what is going on behind the screen even if they have never done it. 

The worst though is those who have done it and become what has been referred to as a Book Lawyer. They constantly dispute your interpretation of the rules. I am lucky that my guy will talk to me in private about what I am doing, and I listen to him.

The DM I have at my table is definitely a better player. He role plays with a voice and engages in social encounters.

If anything his flaw is that he hogs the spotlight a bit.

I can't say how good of a player he considers me at his table.

It's possible to be a good player without being a good roleplayer.

I've seen people who are excellent at roleplaying their character (at being in-character) and are absolutely dreadful to play at the table with because the players themselves are jackholes.

When I've DM-ed other DMs, I have felt a sort of meta-gamey, battle-of-wits vibe, but I like that because it means at least one person is leaning in.  As a player, I suspect I'm a pain in the ass who makes plans more complicated than they need to be.  These two things aren't unrelated.  I think your friends who know how to write up an adventure themselves will expect it to reflect what they know about you somehow.

well i think that it is nice to be the dm because if i am bored i always have something to do make a campaign, rob gp from all the character cards, and i dont always think my friends would be good at dm so dm is awesome

I'm a DM and I also play with another party. I find that i can empathise a little better with the dungeon master but it's also difficult to avoid metagaming because of how used to it I am as  DM.

Someone in my party is also a former DM and it helps to have someone who's read the DM's guide when you forget some rules here and there.

Quote from TimCurtin >>

When I've DM-ed other DMs, I have felt a sort of meta-gamey, battle-of-wits vibe, but I like that because it means at least one person is leaning in.  As a player, I suspect I'm a pain in the ass who makes plans more complicated than they need to be.  These two things aren't unrelated.  I think your friends who know how to write up an adventure themselves will expect it to reflect what they know about you somehow.

 Yeah, this gives me insight into how my DM probably sees me. He threw a monkey wrench into my campaign my murder-hoboing some guards on a side quest, but that turned into a really nice sub-plot and plot hook to the next adventure.

I primarily DM for my group, so when I get the chance to just be a player, I really enjoy not having to prepare or guide anything. I just sit back and let the DM do his thing and try to be easygoing.

I make for an absolutely horrible player.  I don't back seat drive or tell people how to play the game.  Instead, I grumble a lot!  About miserable roles, stupid, drawn out micro planning, get impatient with other players that are all about themselves rather then the group and adventure (maybe they should go play a solo game?).  On and on.  Just a miserable, grumpy player.  But on the other hand, I've mostly DM'd my entire gaming life, stretching back to 1978.  I am a story driven DM, and players really like feeling that they are a part of a story and shaping the outcome.  So that's what I will stick with.  It works...