The cost of insulating the game against one type of bad DM through rules, in my opinion, is too high. Instead, it’s up to the designers to provide good DMing advice, easy to understand methods that beginners can learn, and flexible rules that help DMs build great campaigns and compelling adventures. Treating the rules as padding against a bad DM is attacking the problem from the wrong angle.
(. . .)
When looking at the game, R&D needs to make sure that it addresses mechanical problems with mechanical solutions and DM technique issues with advice and guidance. Rules built in fear of a bad DM represent a misplaced priority, effort better spent on showing a DM good techniques and useful approaches.
Yes, but no mention of improved module design? That's how most new DMs cut their teeth on learning to DM.One of the worrying trends I see in RPGs, and D&D is equally guilty of this, is the idea of using rules to neutralize bad or mediocre DMs
Most of what's been published in Dragon since going online, the H-P-E series, Revenge of the Giants?The linear story that has no real player choice,
The Lost Heir from the upcoming Neverwinter Encounters season?the Mary Sue NPC who saves the day,
Tomb of Horrors?the pointlessly murderous game that slaughters PCs with no rhyme or reason—these are all timeworn examples of the art of the DM gone bad.
The Lost Heir from the upcoming Neverwinter Encounters season?
Maybe the article is more bent on showing that they finally 'get it' and maybe even aimed at an internal audience. Also, to show where their thinking is heading, trying to wrap their own heads around the idea and seeing what the reactions out there will be (from a broader audience than just Enworld...)
Brilliant article. I agree with it 100%.
I do find it amusing that some of the things he says should be avoided (the designers alienating a section of the player base and railroad adventures especially) are things that WotC have been doing for a while now.