There’s a lot of really good stuff in that article that make me step back and think about things for a moment. For starters:

“the host often has additional authority to allow them to fulfill those responsibilities. This is non-dictatorial. With the exception of kicking people out, any authority granted to the host, such as the ability to establish a schedule, plan events and so on, is ceded to them by guests for any number of reasons. Most often it is because the guests understand that these things must happen, but they are not in a position to do so themselves.”

I find this interesting because the DM might find themselves in this position one of two ways: as host of the game and as physical host of the group. I know a very large number of groups depend on the DM to do all the organizing and scheduling as well as planning and running the game.

“Sometimes guests step up and assist with these responsibilities – they clear dishes, clean up, drive people home and so on. Done right, this can greatly decrease the burden on the host, but this does not absolve the host of responsibility.

This is all opinion, so take it as that, but it is also something else: it is and explanation of what I consider the necessity of the GM.

(And as a small additional point, it is also part of the reason I object to the GM as host)”

The man’s got a point. If the DM has to physically host the game, it’s more for him to have to worry about than just planning the adventure.

Depending on your group (and your chosen host), getting ready for a session might take a little time or a lot. In our group, wherever we play (which could be several locations), the host generally tends to clean up the place before people show up and cleans up once everybody leaves. They get some help at the end of the night but by and large if we host at my house I spend 5-10 minutes cleaning up a mountain of soda cans and sweeping up crumbs. We order a pizza usually, which makes food prep and dish cleanup pretty easy — but if you’re the type of group that sits down to a home-cooked meal beforehand, this could get a lot more time-intensive.

If you’re a DM and you feel like you have way too much to do and there’s never enough time to get everything done before the session starts, this might be a good thing to look at. Talk to your group, and see if you can take some of the non-DM-specific responsibilities off your shoulders and put them on one of the five or six other pairs of shoulders in your group. Work it into your group’s social contract. This will distract them so that you can more easily plan their untimely demises.

Way back when I was in college (sweet Odin, has it really been almost 10 years?), I had to take classes on management and small group communication. It was lots of stuff that didn’t interest me at the time, but ever since I left school and started working a real job I recognize little snippets of those classes’ materials every now and then. Lately, I realized some of it might apply to roleplaying games too!

Herding +3 Cats

You’re about to play DM for your group. You’ve carefully worked out a plot and encounters to run and now there’s 6-8 people sitting there who are going to do things you never expected to happen in your wildest dreams. One of them is consuming mass quantities of E.L. Fudge cookies. You fear for the well-being of the story and the campaign, to say nothing of your sanity. You have also probably devised means by which to cope with this.

In management theory, you can view the roles of the management and employees lots of different ways. I’m going to briefly go over three of them commonly discussed together, known as XYZ management theory. X,Y, and Z are all different styles.

• Theory X assumes that workers hate work and believes that you have to exert a lot of direct control over the workforce or they’ll never get anything done. The boss calls the shots, the workers don’t get a say, and if anyone doesn’t do what he says they’re subject to disciplinary action. Theory X managers are generally not well-liked.
• Theory Y is different in that it assumes workers are creative or inspired and would be happy to do work of their own accord if left to their own devices. Management shares decisions with the group, and feedback is generally welcome.
• Theory Z is sort of a hybrid of X and Y. While less participative than Y, it has a much higher regard for the needs of the employees than X. It also assumes that the workforce is happy to do their jobs provided the management is going to support them and look out of their needs.

So what does all this have to do with roleplaying games? While I don’t think that XYZ management theory maps 1:1 with everything we do in roleplaying, I do think some important parallels can be drawn.

Dungeon Management Theory X

I’m assuming many of our readers have had to play a session with a DM who might take enforcing the social contract just a smidge too seriously. I’ve seen amazing feats of douchebaggery such as EXP penalties for a player being late to the session.

This is an example of X, albeit an extreme one. This DM wants things done his way or he will exercise his vast powers and authority and put offenders back in their place. He’s authoritarian. (And an asshole, but that is another story.) I’m all about setting guidelines for the group, and if there’s a problem you bring it up as a group. If you can’t work it out, then maybe it’s time for the offender to find a different group to play with. But petty disciplinary action? You’re playing D&D to have fun. In my opinion, this does a hell of a lot more harm than good and I for one advocate talking through things like grownups. Grownups wearing elven chainmail.

There are much saner versions of X you’ll see now and then. From an administrative standpoint, Theory X groups typically follow the DM’s lead. He may have come up with the social contract, or still be using the one that was there when he joined. The degree to which this goes varies between groups, of course. I’ve seen groups let the DM have sole jurisdiction over everything from where/when they play, if new players can join, to whether he gets free pizza. I’ve seen a lot of perfectly functional groups work this way, and I’ve seen some flame out and die when everybody wasn’t on board with the man in charge.

Interestingly, I’ve also seen Theory X groups play and switch DM’s. Then it’s the new guy’s call on everything. (And I’ve seen a lot of scared looks around the table when the new guy does something way different than the old one.)

As far as actual gameplay goes, I’ve seen several DMs (myself included) attempt to put the session “on rails”, where the players are still doing things but by and large what happens is in full control of the DM. Invisible walls are a tool I’ve seen used to do this, as are powerful creatures that the PCs can attack all day but never hurt – and the DM explains away everything. This is not to say that Theory X gameplay is necessarily bad, but having the players’ destiny out of their own hands too long can lead to unrest.

Dungeon Management Theory Y

Administratively speaking, in a Theory Y group, most things are subject to vote by the group. Where you play, when you play, who’s in, who’s out, what’s for dinner. The group establishes the social contract, and they can collectively change it whenever they feel like it.

In gameplay under a Theory Y campaign, the DM lays out places the party can go and things they can do, and the party decides where to go. They get nudges now and then, but for the most part it’s the party’s decision. Theory Y can lead to some seriously amazing adventures and it feels wonderful working as a group — unless the group has no idea where the hell they are supposed to go and they are blind to Leopold the Dancing Plot Point who is doing the Riverdance right in front of them. Then they get frustrated. Too much of that, and you’ve got unrest among the ranks!

You can’t win! OR CAN YOU?

Dungeon Management Theory Z

“If you tighten the string too much, it will snap. And if you leave it too slack, it won’t play.”
- Siddhartha, Epic Level Buddhist

Like its management theory counterpart, Theory Z is a hybrid between X and Y. The DM has a bit more weight in the decision making process than the rest of the group, but the group still makes the bigger decisions for itself. For instance, in our gaming group, the DMs sometimes make a call on where we should play so they can sequester in the basement and plan our demise. But other times, we play somewhere else in case someone can’t get a babysitter.

Gameplay under Theory Z is, unsurprisingly, a mix between X and Y. The world may be wide open for exploration sometimes, but there’s places to go and things to do that need to be accomplished, and the DM will nudge a bit harder to get them there.
Players in a Theory Z game might recognize the signs that this nudging is occurring, and metagame just a little to go with the flow. There’s give and take, and the players know the DM is going to throw them a bone eventually in the name of fun.

But Which One Is My Group?

Good question! Your group may not map to one of these exactly, or it might handle things like Theory X administratively but play like a Theory Y. The point isn’t to have a label to assign to your group and to your DM, it’s to get you to step back and take a look at how you play. Knowing how you play and how you think might be more fun for everyone might make the difference for your group’s roleplaying experience — especially if some players aren’t having a good time right now!

Well, now I don’t feel quite so much like all those hours in class were such a waste of time. How does your group play? Are there any variations that your group does that I haven’t described here? Throw us a comment, and let us know!