General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
Has the 3.x Era Helped or Hurt the Development of Good DM's?
What are your thoughts?
Random things that come to mind for helping:
1. Growth of the Internet community to share ideas.
2. More books/ideas due to the OGL.
3. More people into D&D, more socially accepted, so more people to interact with and play with, providing more opportunities to grow. D&D is less a stigma than it used to be. Geeks are cooler than before.
Random things that come to mind for hurting:
1. Shift in game power from DM to players as opposed to older editions.
2. By far more player focused products than DM focused products.
3. So much published material on every conceivable thing that the DM doesn't have to create much anymore, just has to copy what someone else did.
I am asking because I don't know, really. I missed most of the 3.x era, stopping play around 2000, and picking it up again in late 2006. As it is, 3 of the 4 people I play with I have played with since the early 90's and before. The 4th player is new to the hobby in general. I don't go to conventions or other places other groups congregate, so I have really no exposure to other groups and players.
What are your thoughts?
__________________ ~Joe
If you like what I said, throw me some XP. I was a goblin sharpshooter for far too long.
I don't think anybody will give any kind of real answer except from their own experiences which will vary widely.
Anyway, here's mine just today I was in a game shop, had some people come in, looking to buy D&D for their son/grandson (who was somewhere on the autism spectrum0, but didn't know where to start.
I tried to point them to some of the board games they could try(and I wished the store had had a starter set in for any edition of the game in it), and suggested a few ways for them to look for groups, since that seemed more important to me than buying anything.
But obviously some people are still trying to get into the game.
I don't think anybody will give any kind of real answer except from their own experiences which will vary widely.
That's about all I figured on with this pretty open-ended question. It's all gonna come from personal experiences. No right or wrong answers. I was just curious and have no personal experiences to base any solid opinion on.
__________________ ~Joe
If you like what I said, throw me some XP. I was a goblin sharpshooter for far too long.
Helped, it was great. In fact I think your three negatives are positives in my mind. Anything that gives the players more power and makes then more involved in the game is a good thing. Player focused books again got players more interested in the game and reading the books. And I never lacked for creating my own stuff. DMs can still easily do that but the ones that don't want to due to ability or time or lazy then have the resources of using other people's material. That one is a win win.
The first problem with this question is defining a "good DM". Since no one can agree on what playstyle for D&D is "good" its impossible to create a list of "Good DM qualities" that is meaningful. I mean, the absence of some universally accepted "bad" traits (unabashed railroading, unfair DMs, Deux-ex-NPC, and sociopathic DMs aside) we will never agree on what a "good" DM is.
Because of this, we can't agree on what 3.x did to harm/heal these traits. DMs who love gritty, S&S style games bristle at the core-rule assumptions of magic and healing. Similarly, DMs who enjoy the narrative structure of 2e bristle at 3es "back to the dungeon" motif. And there is a LARGE section of DMs who hate minis and tactical combat elements of 3e.
I can say this; 3e was both easier and harder to learn than earlier D&D. Its codification and mathematical symmetry removed system oddities, but the sheer volume of "active" rules (stacking bonuses, special attacks) made it a logistical nightmare at high levels. It took a dedicated DM to learn the system interactions to run a solid game. Also, the OGL created a rich world where every DM style could (theoretically) be catered to, which in and of itself was good for DMs.
But its role on the art of DMing is impossible to measure.
In sum, I think the 3.x era neither helped not hurt the development of good DMs.
I think 3.x helped make good DMs by starting the trend towards more player control in the game, having more ideas present due to the OGL, and simplyfiying/unifying the core mechanics of the game.
I think 3.x hurt the development of good DMs in one very important way: the over-quantification of every aspect of the system, with a rule for every situation. In previous editions, part of the fun was that the system wasn't so cut-and-dried, and DMs were encouraged to come up with creative ways to handle various situations. While this could be abused and end up wrecking a game, in practice, I only saw this happen once during the 1e/2e eras. What I did see in 3.x were a lot of DMs who felt they MUST follow RAW that they overlooked a lot of creative and fun ways to handle a situation that would be more fun than the way the core rules suggested. This also carried across into adventure design and creativity IMO. There was a strong emphasis on anything a monster could do, a character should be able to do as well, and it needed to be minutely quantified (via skills, feats, spells, etc)so that the DM knew exactly how those abilities/circumstances/modifiers were generated. This mindset really chops into DM creativity IMO, and doesn't really contribute anything to the game since the monster spends such a small amount of time onscreen. Moreso than in previous editions, DMs followed a set formula of CR and EL for adventures, and most of the adventures during the 3.x era were pretty lacking due to these problems.
__________________ Gothmog
________________________________________________
"I feel like I've been mauled by Jesus." -Frye, Futurama.
3.X made it possible for just about anyone to become good enough at running the game to run modules. 4.0 improves on this, greatly expanding on the pool of DMs for the game due to its ease of use for common people. The systems in both respects do a lot of the hard work for you, leaving you to focus your energies on actualling running the game instead of dealing with under-the-hood work.
Practice will make you a better DM.
Sharing experiences can make you a better DM.
So yes, 3.x helped the development of Good DMs, since they got to learn. The fact that 3rd Edition had a few big communities playing it that met in places like EN World or the WotC forums are certainly important, too. It allowed to share experiences.
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
I think I agree with Gothmog in that 3e discourages GM improvisation & rulings in favour of rules-adherence. This can have a deadening effect on play. Whether it also discourages bad GMing is debatable, but overall 3e seemed to have an averaging effect; reducing both very good & very bad GMing.
I think having more detailed rules has both helped & hurt the game. I saw tons of games in 1E and 2E that were derailed by endless rules disagreements/debates because something was not clear in the old rules, or there was a conflict between one supplement and another. I think 3E largely fixed many of the conflicts (certainly not all, though), but the prep time for DMs seemed to grow exponentially... I think I could have planned out 6-8 sessions in 2E with the time it takes me to plan out one 3.5E session, partly because a higher level 3.5E BBEG is going to have so many different powers, skills and abilities that you're cheating yourself and your players if you don't know them all.
__________________ "Who's more foolish: the fool, or the fool who follows him?" - Obi Wan Kenobi
As a system I think it hurt. New DMs would be fast overwhelmed by the system's complexity, especially considering monster and NPC creation and gameplay, entry level play was still wonky with players easily getting oneshotted (even by their housecats) and high level play was as often has been said and repeated a mere few posts above a logistical nightmare.
As a gaming reality it more helped than hintered. Early 3E had some issues, mainly several horrible third-party products, a few badly written core rules and the 3.5 revision. But after a while third-party support averaged above WotC products, there were enough adventures and adventure paths for DMs to have to do less to run a decent campaign and the community certainly expanded, giving DMs more chances to play. And I think everyone can agree that if one thing can improve any DM it is experience.
As for the game being better accepted, I posit it has nothing at all to do with D&D and rather more with young people embracing internet culture and geeks becoming cool. D&D just reaped the benefits but did not much help itself (ofc I don't recall any of the horrible TSR era adds either so it did not stab itself repeatedly with a blunt knife either).
I DM'ed both 2e and 3e games. So, looking from that perspective:
The CR/ EL system worked out quite well as a yardstick for pitching encounters. In 2e, I was always worried about overpowering the PC's, or providing a set of easy kills. Whilst not perfect, at least the CR system provided a yardstick with which to build interesting and varied encounters. This improves DM-ing, in my mind at least.
Another 3e boon was the maths behind the game. Getting a consistent core mechanic meant that some spreadsheets could be easily built for character generation and management - and this helps the busy DM create interesting opponents. Monsters, too, can be managed in this way, and I'm finding using HeroForge or MonsterForge a big plus when writing stuff.
Negatives? Well, the complexity of the RAW, complete with detailed rules for everything bar picking one's nose can stifle creativity. But it makes for consistant rulings. And good DM's, whatever the system, will always use the rules, not have the rules use them.
Given the huge amount of OGL material (sourcebooks, campaign settings, adventures), good DM's will always find something to mould into an exciting evening's play, and Bad DM's will find an adventure to run.
I think really good DMs we given the tools to do, literally, anything they wanted.
I think marginal or poor DMs were overwhelmed.
So if you measure by the best of the best, then it was outstanding.
If you measure by the average then it was ok.
__________________ It was one of those nights when you turn out the lights, and everything comes into view
The combat system should be based on the world design. The world design should not be based on the combat system.
My 4 year old ties a towel to her shoulders and pretends to be a superhero. Roleplaying is not between the covers of a book.
As an extension of that, if you tell me that any game is the same just because you roleplay the same, then as far as I am concerned, you don't get the point.
"I just want D&D to run smoothly, palpate my gamer gland, and bring the metal." - A 4E fan
"I've got to have all that, but I require intelligent conversation as well." - Me
I think the thread is a bit unclear to be honest. Do you mean whether 3E helped new DM to develop into good DMs, dit it help older edition DMs to get better or worse or maybe both? Cause I think they are somewhat different discussions.
I think really good DMs we given the tools to do, literally, anything they wanted.
Wait, when did we start talking about M&M, GURPS and the HERO system?
Quote:
I think marginal or poor DMs were overwhelmed.
Some were, sure. But other experienced and imaginative DM's found 3e to be the wrong tool for the job. I could point you several ENWorld posters who DM'ed 3e campaigns that ran successfully for years, which were turned into popular Story Hours here, who eventually gave up 3e.
The notion that 3e is some kind of litmus test for good DM's is silly.
As for the original question: I think the 3e era, which is characterized not only by the game but be the rise of communities like ENWorld has been terrific for the development of good DM's.
I don't think 3e itself had any impact at all. The skills required to be a good DM don't come from or get nullified by a particular set of rules.
__________________ "We're pimps and killers, but in a philanthropic way." -- Boyd, Dollhouse.
The internet resources available during the 3E and beyond rules have been a great benefit to DM's.
The game rules themselves I don't think did much actual harm but I do think that old (especially OD&D & Basic) rules helped DM's become better at making judgement calls and rulings simply because there wasn't official rules content for a variety of things.
On the other hand, there was not a lot of instruction or advice on being a good DM either. Skills were learned and developed mostly through trial and error. This method has it's pros and cons too. The newer rules have more material for a novice DM to lean on which might help games run more smoothly out of the box. That very same feature may deny the new DM the number of opportunities to make key rulings and improve improvisational judgement calls. The benefit or harm provided with a more complex set of rules is largely dependent on the individual.
The game rules themselves I don't think did much actual harm but I do think that old (especially OD&D & Basic) rules helped DM's become better at making judgment calls and rulings simply because there wasn't official rules content for a variety of things.
See, I'm not sure that this is entirely true. It created an opportunity to employ judgment calls, but there is no imputes that the calls were good. A DM was just as likely to make poor ones (thinking he was making a "good" one). I specifically recall a DM who took the idea of "called shots" to the extreme of calling shots on a body part rendered it inert for 1 round. After a few cautious attempts succeeded, the game degenerated into the PCs (and the monsters) calling shots on the arms of fighters, the throats of spellcasters, the eyes of bugbears, and the legs of fleeing goblins. Every attack. Every round. The rule was abandoned, but the mound of dead was staggering from PCs (and monsters) killed because every round they couldn't attack, see, cast, or move thanks to 4-5 called shots used repeatedly.
Moral of the story: A blank canvas gives more creative freedom than a paint by numbers, but the quality of the art in the latter is more consistent; a blank canvas might yield an amateur Picasso or a group of stick figures and rude graffiti.
Moral of the story: A blank canvas gives more creative freedom than a paint by numbers, but the quality of the art in the latter is more consistent; a blank canvas might yield an amateur Picasso or a group of stick figures and rude graffiti.
Wait, when did we start talking about M&M, GURPS and the HERO system?
Those are also great systems that also do the same job. How does that contradict me?
Quote:
Some were, sure. But other experienced and imaginative DM's found 3e to be the wrong tool for the job. I could point you several ENWorld posters who DM'ed 3e campaigns that ran successfully for years, which were turned into popular Story Hours here, who eventually gave up 3e.
You call "DM'ed 3e campaigns that ran successfully for years, which were turned into popular Story Hours here" evidence of it being "the wrong tool for the job""? boggle
Moving on after nearly a decade is completely different than finding the product inadequate.
My observation is that of the "great DMs" I know, many have moved on to something else, quite a few have stayed with 3E or some very close cousin, and a handful of 4E converts.
4E is great in that it offers easy to DM. But if you don't need "easy" then that isn't a sales point. And if "easy" is not a bonus, then the trade-offs required are a net loss. By definition, really good DMs are going to get the least bang for their buck. And my personal conversations and meat space experiences match that exactly.
Quote:
The notion that 3e is some kind of litmus test for good DM's is silly.
I agree. Why are you bringing up such a dumb idea?
__________________ It was one of those nights when you turn out the lights, and everything comes into view
The combat system should be based on the world design. The world design should not be based on the combat system.
My 4 year old ties a towel to her shoulders and pretends to be a superhero. Roleplaying is not between the covers of a book.
As an extension of that, if you tell me that any game is the same just because you roleplay the same, then as far as I am concerned, you don't get the point.
"I just want D&D to run smoothly, palpate my gamer gland, and bring the metal." - A 4E fan
"I've got to have all that, but I require intelligent conversation as well." - Me
Last edited by BryonD; 28th May 2009 at 05:11 PM..
Trailblazer is now available.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
