Yeah, agree, though there's always a non-story component where if someone really needs a babysitter, they're probably going to need a DM soon too cos who wants to do that much hand holding. (The whole "the DM is a player too!")
100%. More in the sense that there has to be an adult in the room to settle everybody down from time to time, manage the time at the table, etc.
The problem with people thinking Critical Role means D&D is passive entertainment is WILD, because Critical Role only works because every single player at the table is utterly focused on the game, contributing to the story and gameplay... it is a perfect table because there's nobody phoning it in. It's so strange to me that people watch that and think "I'm going to play this game and the GM will entertain me" because those players are on fire. Same with Dimension 20, Natural Six, NADDPOD... They all have great DMs but they have players DMs would die for.
Exactly why I said those people are clowns. I don't know how you can honestly engage with something like Critical Role and think that you could DO what they're doing and still be the viewer. It's like saying you could be a great actor in a movie, showing up on set and just watching everyone while going 'wow, you guys are doing a great job! I really believe this story!' You're still just being a spectator. You're just doing it from way closer and in a way more disruptive way.
Babysitter might be too extreme, but GMs are like kindergarten teachers.
That's what I meant. 'Babysitter' in the nicest possible way. Just someone to... wrangle everyone.. from time to time.
but you guys do such a good job steering the ship that I rarely feel I'm adding anything.
I agree about some characters making more sense being more passive, but I do take issue with this. Every time you engage, you're definitely adding something and don't doubt that.
You're the DM, so you decide the schedule.
You decide the plan.
You decide the snacks.
You take attendance and decide the minimum to run.
Yeah, I don't agree with this stuff at all. DM should be leading the table. Not everything to make the entire night happen. Although I think I do probably believe the DM should decide minimum to run, just based on how difficult/easy it is for them to run if X number of people don't show up. That can really throw a wrench in things and -as a DM-, I'd rather be the one to decide what number is my cut-off based on how I prep sessions.
You could really have some fun with it if you let the players customize their class, subclass, or feats. Then they get another "boon" after each successful fight. In Hades, a god gifts you with their strength. Zeus, for instance, might give you a chain lightning attack. Every time you hit an enemy, lightning hits four more foes for 10 damage each. You could liberally steal from Hades with different god boons. They'd translate well enough to a TTRPG.
Maybe every run you have to choose a pantheon to serve, and during the game you will get random boons from the gods in that pantheon, a lot like Hades does? Oh, you picked Norse because you thought you'd get Tyr and some kind of badass mega-attack? Well, you got Freyr and your special ability is a love spell. Figure it out.
That happened to me at work several years ago. In a meeting, my manager assigned some work. I asked, "Wouldn't it be better if we broke it up X way instead?" It wasn't a challenge or a confrontation. It wasn't even a suggestion. It was a genuine question.
I was called into HR for insubordination and refusal to do my job. I was put on a 30-day PIP. In an attempt to finish the job, my manager gave me an impossible pile of work to finish in 30 days or I'd be let go. In the 30 most stressful days of my life, I got it all done.
What douches.
