I'm curious to know what everyone's take is on this. 

1. Would you be comfortable being a player in a campaign with a DM who has a little experience? Doesn't know all the rules, not a lot of long-running (or any) campaign's run previously, and so on. 

2. Would you rather be a player or a DM?

3. Roleplay, mixed or combat?

4. Does the world you play in need to be fairly fleshed out first, or would you be okay with a DM that builds the world on the fly as your characters progress?

This would have to do with how I felt with the DM as a person. If they were a friend, sure. If they were a stranger, it probably wouldn't make the cut. Not enough hours in the day. Part of the reason I make time for D&D is that it doubles for time spent with friends.

And I have to speak up every time I see roleplay implied as the alternative to combat. Roleplay happens throughout the game, whether you're in combat, at a tavern, exploring the woods, etc. Roleplay is making choices that your character would make, and some of the most dramatic choices can happen in the thick of battle when everything's on the line. I think what you mean is social encounters and exploration rather than roleplay. I know it might sound pedantic, but it's an important distinction.

1. Yes, as long as they're aware this will be a learning experience. Personally I feel like it's probably easier to get your feet wet as a player, learning the rules while only needing to worry about your one character, but I'm not opposed to someone starting out DMing. 

2. I enjoy both. If I had to pick only one I guess player but I also enjoy running the games I run. 

3. Mixed. Personally, combat only with little to no RP would bore me, and roleplay only with no combat could be fun but too much of D&D is built around combat, I would probably look for a different game if I wanted a no combat experience. 

4. I'm fine with a world being built as we go along. Even in games where I start out with a fleshed out setting I'm always building upon it or tweaking things on the fly. My recommendation is to start in a slightly isolated area, like a single large city and the area around it, or a region of the world the party will be traveling through, and flesh out that chunk, then world build in the background from there. 

1. Yes.

2. Player.

3. Mixed.

4. Anything is fine.

1. Everyone has to start somewhere. If they can learn the basics and get taught along the way by experienced players, then yes. If they have no motivation to learn and snap against people who try to teach them, then no. It all boils down to if they're happy to progress, play and learn with the rest of the campaign.

2. Player. A DM requires a lot of things, most of which I don't have. I'd be happy to learn- but I'm sure it'll eventually get really tiring.

3. If I understand your question correctly, mixed. This should be pretty self explanatory. Just one of either would end up being extremely boring.

4. Building the world on the fly could be interesting. I feel like it would actually be better than having a complete, or almost complete, world/universe because that way the DM could innovate and create fitting challenges for players based on their race/class/background/backstory

1. Yes, as long as the DM was running an enjoyable game.

2. I prefer DMing, but I wouldn't pass up a chance to be a player if the group and campaign was the right fit.

3. Mixed.

4. I don't care if the world is planned or improvised as long as the adventure hook/initial quest is solid enough to provide a way forward. Sandbox games where you have to figure out why you're adventuring in the first place and how to occupy your time don't appeal to me.

1. I do not mind playing with a GM who is inexperienced. I rather play with friends than strangers though, so unless the GM is Matt Mercer or something, I am not going to play with a stranger GM no matter how experienced they are.

2. I rather be the GM.

3. A mix would be nice.

4. Does not really matter, as I do not have a preference.

1. As many others have said, I would be fine with a newer DM, but I prefer to play with friends, or at least online friends rather than strangers.
2. 50/50
3. Mixed
4. Either way as long as it’s interesting.

1. Yes. Every DM is inexperienced at first.

2. I want to do a lot more of both.

3. Combat is roleplaying. I like a mix of all three adventuring pillars: Social, Exploration, and Combat.

4. Ideally as a player I shouldn't know whether the DM's homebrew world is fleshed out or is being made up on the fly. I should be experiencing it organically and learning things as my party interacts with them. Even if the DM has a whole setting bible fleshed out I don't want to be given a textbook infodump in session 0 or session 1.

Quote from Sarcy >>

I'm curious to know what everyone's take is on this. 

1. Would you be comfortable being a player in a campaign with a DM who has a little experience? Doesn't know all the rules, not a lot of long-running (or any) campaign's run previously, and so on. 

2. Would you rather be a player or a DM?

3. Roleplay, mixed or combat?

4. Does the world you play in need to be fairly fleshed out first, or would you be okay with a DM that builds the world on the fly as your characters progress?

1) RP in my opinion is a group activity so if a new GM wants to run a game that I know then I will help them out...but there also comes a time when a GM can lose players by not knowing the rules or at least the basic rules.

2) Yes I enjoy both.

3) It really depends on the story and the GM as both extremes can be an issue if the GM has serious problems with that style. ie either RP or combat they have trouble with but are ok in the other can eventually sink the game. 

4) It really depends on the story the GM is telling, for me generally the big issues are play style scenery vs knowing how basic things work or would work. ie when walking down the street to the Inn you are going to you cannot look in a shop as there is nothing behind the face of the building. in this case parts can be well defined but the lack of other definition causes problems. Note the opposite can be an issue for a GM and group also as the GM and or group has to spend a lot of time on areas and or things that will not come into play.

General note: GM's and players are not generally professionals or masters of GMing or RPing, so cut each other some slack and try and have a good time. And if you have issues that you cant work out part on good terms and wish each other luck.     

1. Yes, I would, since I have been that DM. Everyone needs to start somewhere, and it's fun to learn with someone.
2. Both, definitely. I love weaving quests as a DM, but I also enjoy exploring worlds as a character. I think DMing is slightly more fun, but it's easier to be a player.
3. Mixed probably, but more roleplay than combat.
4. Builds on the fly, so my characters can help shape the world. It's good when they plan a few sessions ahead, but not so much that they have entire sections of the world planned to the last detail that we never explore. That would be too hard for them.

1. Yes, absolutely. D&D is improvisational theater, not contract litigation. As long as the DM is entertaining, and is open to accepting maybe a little feedback and advice from their experienced players. Everyone starts somewhere. Being a DM is one of those things that you can only learn by doing. 

2. Both. I love being a player. But I've been a player for a bunch of years now and I'm really starting to feel the itch to get back into The Chair.

3. Mixed. I love deep immersion roleplaying. But our characters live in a very dangerous world, so it's reasonable to expect a bit of combat nearly every session. Maybe not a two hour boss fight, but at least something. We should also remember the time dilation that occurs when we play D&D. By that I mean - as players we might spend 25% of our playtime in combat, because combat is complicated and involves a lot of dice rolls and player decisions and such. But, from our character's perspective, that fight that took us 90 minutes to adjudicate only took them like 90 seconds. And there's downtime, too. So if our characters are getting in a fight like that every day (which is a lot!) then they're only spending one-tenth of one percent of their time in combat. I feel like DMs and groups should be more aware of that differential and lean more toward roleplay accordingly. 

4. Build-as-you-go is fine. Heck, for most of my years playing, that was the standard! It does help, though, for the DM to at least give each player a quick rundown of stuff their character would be aware of at the start. Like, during the Session Zero of a new campaign, the DM should introduce the very basics of the world at least. Not a full map or anything, but at least enough so we know which way is the nearest ocean, how far is it to the nearest big city, and what's the climate of the area. 

1. It helps if the GM is a friend. Not sure about doing new GM in person/online. Totally find with PBP new GM.

2. I really enjoy playing but maybe because opportunity to play is so rare. I'm usually GM because nobody else wants to do it.

3. There needs to be a bit of all three in order to make a campaign successful.

4. As long as there is detail for where my PC is standing about as far as they can see, then it's all good.

1.Sure. Not for lack of alternatives (granted there is a lack of them for me), but it's a bit hypocritical and snobbish to deny others the opportunity to learn and grow. It makes them better players. I'd prefer it if they did an adventure as a player first though  so they can grasp the rules better, get a feel for how it works, and generally understand the game. Otherwise, I'm going to end up DMing, just from the wrong side of the screen - and that's not healthy on many levels. I don't mind helping in the least, but everything is healthiest when I'm giving tips and helping to smooth the edges rather than doing it for them.

2. DM. Not because I'm precious about the game or anything, I just prefer the set up. Then again, I've not been a player with a confident DM or even a decent sized party, so maybe that would change my feelings.

3. Any game that only has one aspect will suck in 5e. It's just designed to have some balance. I lean towards combat, but roleplay is essential too.

4. A good game never demonstrates which it is. If a DM leans too heavily (for their skillset) in onr direction or the other, the game will suck. Too prepared and things become dry, railroaded and boring. I'll know that my choices are meaningless and I'll get frustrated. Too improvised and the inevitable inconsistencies will make the world uninteresting to explore. Choices and even lore mean nothing because it will all be different next session as they make up new things for that.

The important thing to note though is that it's not about how prepared/ad libbed the campaign is, but how prepared/ad libbed it is compared to the DM's skillset it is. If you're amazing at making things up on the spot, fully capable of doing so while maintaining great continuity with previously estabilished lore etc, then great. If you can prepare so much that you can account for every possible foreseeable choice that we can make, then that's great to. I will never be able to tell the difference between the two. It's when someone over prepares or under prepares for their abilities that things go badly. Where that sweet spot is will be different for you than for me. If you're doing a good job, it will be virtually impossible for me to tell the difference in nearly all circumstances. Even the rare instances where I can tell, the good bits will cover those sins!

1. I'm  okay playing with inexperienced DM, wether it's with friends in person or a stranger online.  It let them know they can always ask me for help or feedbacks.

2. As one of my passions, i enjoy D&D as much as player than DM!

3. My preference is a fair mix of roleplay, exploration and combat.

4. I prefer more fleshed out world of well known campaign settings to little fleshed out homebrewed ones.

1. Yeah, sure. Everyone get to start somewhere. But I would be more comfortable with they were running a pre-written adventure first.

2. Mostly DM.

3. I like all aspects of D&D, they all should be present for a good game imo.

4. Honestly, that's why I suggest pre-written adventures for newbies. World building is time consuming and it's better done when you have a sense of what you're doing, with a couple games under the belt.

1.) I don't mind new DMs. I see the point about there being TTRPGs out there that are easier to GM because of mechanics and the way the manuals are written ... but there's so much support out there outside the manuals giving guidance for GMs and usually more specifically DMs I think it's sort of a wash.  D&D manuals aren't the most inherently easy materials to grasp; but the degree of exposure they have gives a new DM a leg up.  

2.) Mostly DM

3.) This is a matter of taste or recipe ... lean into what you as the DM finds most interesting and grow out your capacities for running the other aspects from that foundation.

4.) The DMG makes world building for new DMs real simple if the new DM bothers to read it.  Start small, unless it gives you some personal pleasure, there is absolutely no reason (and many reasons against) creating an overwrought world the bulk of which your PCs will never even hear about, let alone actually see or adventure in.