D&D Master and Teacher roles compared (part-1)

Part 1: Why game-based teaching needs a better role model than “just use tasks”

Part 1: Why game-based teaching needs a better role model than “just use tasks”

Teachers who use games in the classroom are often told to scaffold more, debrief more, guide more, frame more. The literature increasingly emphasizes that game-based teaching requires active mediation. But it rarely points to a mature, practice-tested model of what that mediation actually looks like in action.

This post argues that such a model already exists. The way Game Masters in tabletop role-playing games manage play, guide participants, scaffold rules, maintain engagement, and connect moment-to-moment action to broader goals closely resembles what researchers say teachers must do in game-based teaching. Even more importantly, GM manuals explicitly describe how to do this work. In other words, practical answers to teacher concerns about game-based learning may already be written down in GM guides.

Game-based learning and teaching is gradually moving beyond exploratory theory and into practical classroom implementation (deHaan, 2019; York, 2019; Jones, 2020). As that shift happens, the teacher’s role becomes central. Games in classrooms do not run themselves. They require framing, mediation, and purposeful intervention.

The problem is that while we often map games onto existing frameworks such as task-based language teaching, those frameworks were not designed around managing play. If teachers are being asked to act as facilitators of structured play, it makes sense to examine a role that has been built around that exact challenge for decades: the Game Master.

What a GM is, in simple terms

The Game Master (GM), called Dungeon Master (DM) in Dungeons and Dragons (D&D), is one participant in a multiplayer tabletop role-playing game. Players control their own characters (PCs). The GM controls everything else: the world, the non-player characters, the events, and often the final ruling on uncertain outcomes.

GM manuals for major systems describe this role with a long list of labels: host, mastermind, mediator, patron, writer, teacher, actor, referee, arbitrator, facilitator. The shared core is that the GM presents adventures and challenges that make it possible for other players to roleplay their characters and enjoy a story together.

The GM may sound “above” the other players, but the relationship is symbiotic. The GM does not simply deliver a pre-written narrative. They react to player choices and adjust constantly. Players are playing to overcome challenges and pursue goals. The GM is playing to create conditions where those challenges remain meaningful, understandable, and fun.

Why this role matters for teachers who use games

Even without a formal educational setting, it is not a stretch to say GMing resembles teaching. Both roles require insight into what participants are trying to do, adaptation of materials or methods to help them do it, and the ability to explain rules and concepts clearly when confusion appears.

A GM’s success depends on the players’ experience. If players are engaged and having fun, the GM is doing the job well. One of the most reliable ways GMs try to achieve that is by understanding what players enjoy and what they want to accomplish, then giving them the tools they need in the moment. That might be information, options, time, items, or a different kind of challenge.

This is easy to connect to what teachers already recognize as good teaching: priming, scaffolding, and reflection that supports learners in doing something meaningful (Ellis, 2019; Willis and Willis, 2007). The difference is mainly the content and where it is used. Teachers support learning for curriculum goals. GMs support learning for gameplay and narrative goals. But the work of guiding participation is closer than it first appears.

Game-based learning versus game-based teaching

A lot of game-based learning (GBL) research focuses on learning that happens through play outside the classroom, especially with video games. Peterson (2012) explored sociocultural aspects of MMORPGs for language learning, including the motivational effect of participation and the opportunities for interaction. Sundqvist (2019) studied English learners who played MMOGs outside class and found that heavier game play correlated with higher English competency. Gee (2011) discusses how players develop language and literacy through games and introduces the idea of “situated understanding,” where knowledge is used inside a context that supports comprehension and mastery. There is also broader support for the idea that play-like activities can foster intrinsic motivation that enables deep learning (Bruner, 1962; Piaget, 1951).

GBL, in this sense, describes learning through games without teacher planning or mediation.

Game-based teaching (GBT), however, is about what teachers do to make those learning processes more likely in classrooms, and to connect game experience to specific classroom goals. Much of the literature has not provided enough practical guidance on how to do this. A meta-analysis by Hung et al. (2018) points to a lack of practical advice for implementation. Across multiple studies, the teacher’s role in game-based learning environments is often under-described or missing (Bourgonjon & Hanghøj, 2011; Chee et al., 2014; Magnussen, 2007; Marklund & Aiklind Taylor, 2015; Shah & Foster, 2015; Molin, 2017; deHaan, 2020; Spano, 2021).

More recently, researchers have begun centering teachers more directly, focusing on the teacher’s role and what can be done pedagogically to facilitate game-based learning in classroom contexts (deHaan, 2019; York and Thanyawatpokin, 2021; Jones, 2020). But the practical space is still not fully mapped. The range of teacher roles in game-based teaching has not been fully explored. That is part of the reason the GM comparison is useful.

As deHaan writes, “What teachers can do with games can be broader than what students can do on their own” (2019, p. 40). In his “Game terakoya” walkthrough, he argues that if teachers want students to connect a game to other skills and society, they need to design opportunities for students to do so (deHaan, 2020, p. 63). York (2019) also provides practical directions, including remixing games and extended debriefing so students can carry lessons beyond play and into broader participation, including community discussion spaces such as Reddit.

Even with these contributions, a problem remains: teachers with limited gaming experience are still hesitant to use games in classrooms. Practical examples that can serve as starting points are hard to find and often apply only to one game, one subject, or one specific goal.

A hidden requirement: game literacy

One concept that helps explain this hesitation is game literacy. Researchers have argued that game literacy is essential for effective teaching with games (Hanghøj and Brund, 2010; York, 2019). The basic argument is simple: to teach with games, teachers need to understand what the game is, how it works, and what kinds of support students will need.

This is another point where the GM comparison helps. In tabletop RPGs, the GM is expected to know the game well enough to answer rules questions and teach new players. D&D’s guides describe the GM as the person who should be best able to answer rules questions, and even link that mastery to the idea of being a referee (Dungeon Master’s Guide, 2003; Dungeon Master’s Guide, 2014). Pathfinder similarly positions the GM as the person who arbitrates rules and guides the experience (Pathfinder RPG Gamemastery Guide).

Teachers are told something similar when it comes to pedagogy. For example, TBLT is widely supported, but its benefits depend on teacher expertise and training (Long, 2016; Branden, 2016; Kotaka, 2013). In game-based teaching, game literacy plays a similar foundational role.

Where this is going

So far, the claim is not that classrooms should turn into RPG campaigns. The claim is that the GM role gives us a practical, mature reference point for what teachers are being asked to do in game-based teaching: frame the experience, scaffold participation, maintain engagement, and connect what happens in play to what participants are trying to achieve.

In Part 2, I will move from the comparison to concrete classroom problems and practical GM-style solutions. That includes how games “break” when frames get mixed, what it means to act as a facilitator around gameplay, and how GMs keep players from losing the goal when the game becomes open-ended.

Part 2: The GM toolbox for game-based teaching

Coming next: Frame switching and the “magic circle” problem in classrooms, with the Magnussen (2007) example. A three-frame view of play that helps teachers avoid collapsing the game experience (Fine, 1983; Mizer, 2014). The GM as facilitator: scaffolding, filtering information, and teaching rules without killing play. Mini-goals: how GMs keep players from getting lost, and how teachers can adapt that idea to classroom sessions (Dungeon Master’s Guide, 2014).