DM'ing is a skill, not an art.

[Kzach]

I had an argument with a friend last night about DM'ing. He'd just come back from a game he'd run and was telling me about how the players did something he thought was a waste of time and just silly.

I disagreed.

We then argued at length about what he should and shouldn't have done and since then, I've decided that I think DM'ing is really a skill rather than an artform. By that I mean that, sure, everyone has their own way of doing things, but at the end of the day, there are some pretty fundamentally key aspects to it that should be shared across the board.

He disagreed.

In my opinion, everyone at the table is relying on everyone else to not be a douche and to contribute to the fun rather than detract from it. I believe this is an unwritten social contract people make when agreeing to get together for a game.

He was of the opinion that, as a DM, if he sets something in front of the players, then it is what it is, no matter what. If he's decided it's a dead-end, then it's a dead-end and he won't alter that for anyone or anything.

So what do you think?

For the sake of completeness, I'll relate the issue that sparked the discussion. Basically, there was a water tube coming out the side of a mountain that led into a dwarven citadel (I think this is the scales of war path so this could possibly be a spoiler). The citadel was occupied by orcs or something. The tube was originally for getting rid of waste from mining and forging. Every so often they'd open the valves and dump a load.

So anyway, the PC's split the party. One half thinking it'd be a great idea to climb up the tube to get into the citadel, the other half thinking that's just dumb. The half that went up the tube spent quite some time clawing their way to the end of it, only to discover it was locked and there was no way through.

My argument came from the stance that he should've made the tunnel climb interesting and had some sort of reward at the end of it. What that reward was could've been anything and not necessarily the achievement of the PC's goal of getting into the citadel, but then again that's an option as well. I said I would've made it a skill challenge to get up and probably would've had a trap or two in there and water hazards, possibly an ooze or something.

In other words, it would've been a fun adventure in itself getting to the end, and getting to the end would've resulted in further adventure.

He was of the opinion that the tube was just a damned tube and that was that. No adventure. Player's wasted their time going up it in the first place and he wasn't about to change the situation to cater to the players whims. And on the matter of traps and whatnot, he was of the opinion that any sort of trap would be insta-kill so he couldn't put them in there. I argued that there should really not be such a thing as an insta-kill trap as it defeats the purpose of the game. Damage is abstract for a reason.

I'm sure he'll chime in at some point to correct me of my bias against his stance, but until then feel free to bag him

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I'm with you here. Playing D&D is a joint venture between the player and the DM to have fun. Working together is the best way to do this I find.

As for the specific circumstance I also would do what you said, I would make it interesting and who knows where it may lead the adventure (this is why I run games like a mystery game too. It gives me room to build a plot and encounters but leaves the player room to do interesting things/both the player and DM build new stuff together).

 

[Crothian]

It is both an art form and a skill. It is okay though for the players to fail or take actions that will lead them to dead ends. There is nothing wrong with that. I would have though just narated that they climbed up, found there was no entry and spent little time on it. The PCs though could have stayed there till the door was opened and gotten through then, right?

 

[Kzach]

It is both an art form and a skill. It is okay though for the players to fail or take actions that will lead them to dead ends. There is nothing wrong with that. I would have though just narated that they climbed up, found there was no entry and spent little time on it. The PCs though could have stayed there till the door was opened and gotten through then, right?

It's my understanding that if the door was opened then a big rush of water would've come down the tube. I was of the opinion that that's entirely plausible, give them a few checks to hold their breath and swim up to air or something, maybe take a bit of damage. He was of the opinion that they would be insta-killed if the tube door was opened.

 

[gizmo33]

Art is a skill, not an art.

I don't think the DM should have been so judgemental about the players' decision. Let them play the game, tell them what happens, and stick to your business which is running the game. IMO it's pointless and disrespectful to be expressing opinions when you're the one holding all of the information. You put the tube there in the first place, let the players explore it, tell them they find nothing, let them try to get by the barriers (I wasn't clear from your post that the negotiation of this obstacle was handled fairly) and if they fail they have to back-track. On with the game, no reason to criticize the players or complain about what happened.

On the flip side, there's no reason that the DM has to guarrantee an exciting outcome to every decision the players make. That makes the process of making the decision less meaningful. If I can sit home, open a jar of peanut butter, and be guarranteed that something cool happens then why would I want to pay attention to anything anyway or go adventuring? IMO it's the essence of exploring something that sometimes you *don't* find something interesting, which makes it more meaningful when you do, and NEVER a waste of time (since you didn't know the outcome). That's like saying it's a waste of time to try something after you've already tried and failed. Getting past that notion is typically considered a part of maturity.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The skill/art thing isn't really the issue.

The issue seems more to be: should there be a "wrong way" to do things, or should every path lead to some interesting thing.

I think two people can disagree on this, but, more importantly, I think the best way is to have it both ways.

Sometimes, a climb up a tube is just a dead end.

Sometimes, it is a side-trek to more adventure.

Sometimes, it is an unexpected solution (for both the PC's and the DM).

I don't think there is a One True Way. I think every way is a tool in the DM's toolbox for entertaining his PC's. Without failure (and dead ends), the success is less entertaining. Without side-treks, the game feels like a railroad. Without occasional unexpected solutions, the game feels scripted. There never is a "one right answer." The right answer should be more along the lines of "It depends, which option isn't the one you most commonly use?" Use that one.

 

[MichaelSomething]

I'm sure he'll chime in at some point to correct me of my bias against his stance, but until then feel free to bag him

Then I'll say he's dumb and smelly

Seriously though, I'm sure people who subscribe to both schools of though will chime in sooner or later. It's not about finding an objective "true" way to DM, it's more like matching a DM to a group that has similar taste.

 

[Umbran]

We then argued at length about what he should and shouldn't have done and since then, I've decided that I think DM'ing is really a skill rather than an artform. By that I mean that, sure, everyone has their own way of doing things, but at the end of the day, there are some pretty fundamentally key aspects to it that should be shared across the board.

Consider that there are several different skills involved in painting with oil on canvas - brush techniques, color mixing, composition, and so forth. But overall, painting is an art.

It seems to me that it is rather the same with DMing. There are many skills involved, but overall, the activity is an art.

I think the later stuff you have, about the unwritten social contract, is a completely separate issue, and has nothing to do with DMing being an art or a skill.

My argument came from the stance that he should've made the tunnel climb interesting and had some sort of reward at the end of it.

While it might have been cool to do so, I don't think it is a failing to not do so. A DM is not required to make everything the players attempt into something interesting. Sometimes the things players try just don't have good results. Such is life.

Now, it might have been better to tell the players, "if you can climb up it, that means there's no water currently coming down, and that implies that the valve is shut, blocking the tube, so you can't get in that way," thus keeping the players from wasting their time. But again, I don't think the DM is duty bound to it.

 

[El Mahdi]

I have to agree with Crothian, I think it's a Skill and an Art. Actually, I think you (Kzach) made a good argument for the Art aspect yourself.

I think viewing DM'ing as just a skill is what leads to being inflexible as far as on-the-fly story/plot/adventure modification goes. To me, viewing DM'ing as just a skill limits it to strictly an "If-Then" exercise. Using your creativity to go outside the parameters of the adventure, to me is an "Art".

But, I agree with you whole heartedly on the missed opportunity. I would have definitely come up with something for the characters that tried something the adventure didn't have a preset answer for. That's where the "Art" aspect comes in IMO. Using my own creativity is what makes DM'ing so much fun for me. If it was just a skill for me, then I really don't see a difference between DM'ing and "Managing" (although, I'd say there is a certain amount of "Art" to good Management also).

I've been in a situation before where the DM essentially punished me for a bad decision by leaving me stranded, with no way to contribute to the adventure, for about 4 hours of real-world time (although it may have been that the DM just didn't have any idea of what to do). So, I have a distinct distaste for situations like that. However, punishing the players/characters with a really tough or dangerous encounter, because of a bad decision - well that's what the game is all about.

 

[freyar]

I don't see much skill vs art here, actually. But I do see a little bit the difference between gamism and simulationism.