Legends and Lore : The Fine Art of Dungeon Mastering

[BryonD]

I'm not at all convinced that's true.

Maybe that depends on what "the module mindset" is. My first guess is that's the mindset where the DM figures he'll make his campaign out of published modules, and not write his own adventures. There's no reason why one can't have an amazing gaming experience that way.

If you want to call a module-based campaign "bad DMing", we're going to have an argument in about three more posts, so I hope I've got you wrong.

No no

I'm just using the term given and, I believe, in the context provided.
The implication was that using ToH early would ingrain on a DM that everything hence should be played in that manner. Thus giving "bad" modules to new DMs would create "bad DMs". I'm disputing that notion.

I 100% support the concept of running modules in the spirit written. (Which also isn't to claim that some modules couldn't be turned on their head and run vastly better by a good DM who felt compelled to do so, but that is a completely different matter)

 

[OnlineDM]

DMs are the most vital resource yet also the hardest to produce. Is there anything WOTC can do to increase the supply of DMs out there?

This is a very important question, and one that I'm guessing folks at WotC and Paizo and other companies think about frequently.

While I'm sure this isn't exactly the case, it does feel to me in many cases that DMs are born, not made. Certain players seem to get excited at the idea of sitting behind the screen, and others just aren't interested.

I only know of one player who's exceedingly enthusiastic about the game, plays a lot, really knows his stuff, and yet has no interest in DMing. Usually the people who are most interested in the game are the ones who enjoy DMing.

That's not to say that there's nothing a game company can do to encourage people to give DMing a try. But if the goal is to create more people who voluntarily choose to spend their time running the game instead of running a PC, I think the goal will probably have to be to make the game more attractive to the type of person who will want to DM once they get into the game. It's less about getting existing players to become DMs.

 

[Umbran]

I'm just using the term given and, I believe, in the context provided.
The implication was that using ToH early would ingrain on a DM that everything hence should be played in that manner. Thus giving "bad" modules to new DMs would create "bad DMs". I'm disputing that notion.

Okay. That's not what I got out of what you wrote - I'm glad to be wrong

 

[Quickleaf]

If a group sets out to play a lethal dungeon crawl - or lethal campaign in general - that's a very different thing from a DM who either sets out to murder PCs from the start, or has a tantrum and resorts to it at the drop of a hat whenever something doesn't go the way he wants.

Ok, I'll agree with you that there's no hope for a tantrum throwing, murder your PCs because I can, no warning of a lethal dungeon crawl type DM. I think the way to handle a DM (let along a person) like that is, to quote Ben Harper, "walk away and head for the door."

I can imagine that there are "DMs stuck in the module mindset". But that would simply fall under the bad DM heading.

A now-good DM could start his career using ToH, run it as a newbie and have terrible results and still learn from the experience.

Sure, and I can have a crappy karate teacher and still learn something. But if my teacher was good I'd learn a lot more and sure get more enjoyment.

The point is if you want to teach someone to be a good DM, teach them well. And IMO besides another good DM to show you the ropes, the best way to do that is via modules. Again, show don't tell.

The association that a kind of module predestines DMing quality is completely false.

Predestines? That's a total exaggeration. Don't do that.

I mean, was your first DMing experience with a module or did you make up an adventure? Did you spend more time reading the DMG than the module? That might explain why you don't highly value modules as training wheels to making a good DM.

I think, indisputably, the best way to become a good DM is to learn from a good DM in person. Next best I'd say are modules, then graduating to running your own adventures, informed by the great module design you learned from. Then perhaps the DMG and other sources/discussions which provide DM theory.

I'd also challenge the new claim here that ToH is not a "good module". It is an awesome module. As I readily agree, it isn't in MY personal preference. But it is designed with a certain style of gaming in mind and it delivers. There are TONS of RPG fans out there with great stories and memories of their adventures and misadventures through the Tomb.

*nod* I played it and it was fun, in its own quirky way.

I never said ToH was a bad module. I was drawing a comparison to Mike Mearl's description of undesirable elements in a game and offering a reflection that a lethal game isn't necessarily not fun.

But I get that there are people out there who consider "Killer DM" a real and actual phenomenon as distinct from ToH. Personally, I think it's so small as to be negligible and, frankly, is a trait of an immature person. No cure for that in any DMG or module, unless you count killing Blackleaf...

 

[BryonD]

Sure, and I can have a crappy karate teacher and still learn something. But if my teacher was good I'd learn a lot more and sure get more enjoyment.

The point is if you want to teach someone to be a good DM, teach them well. And IMO besides another good DM to show you the ropes, the best way to do that is via modules. Again, show don't tell.

Shrug. Equating a module to a teacher is deeply flawed.

Trying to learn how to DM from a module is like trying to learn martial arts from a Destroyer novel.

Predestines? That's a total exaggeration. Don't do that.

It may be an exaggeration of your intent, but it consistent with what you said.

If you are going to be touchy about how people interpret you, take better care to say what you actually mean.

I mean, was your first DMing experience with a module or did you make up an adventure? Did you spend more time reading the DMG than the module? That might explain why you don't highly value modules as training wheels to making a good DM.

I honestly don't recall. But I do know with absolute clarity that there were a lot of other PEOPLE involved.

I think, indisputably, the best way to become a good DM is to learn from a good DM in person. Next best I'd say are modules, then graduating to running your own adventures, informed by the great module design you learned from. Then perhaps the DMG and other sources/discussions which provide DM theory.

Obviously I agree about learning from other DMs, but I don't accept the premise that modules are, can or should be viewed as DM teaching tools.

And, back to the point, you called out ToH as a specific example of the problem. Quite simply, ToH was awesome at being what it intended to be and trying to blame it for failing to be something it was in no way intended for is flawed.

 

[I'm A Banana]

We can solve this objection [that I can't play a character different than myself] through good rules. If R&D is smart and identifies what people want to do in D&D, we can build those abilities as options into the game. That’s where the idea of the skill system as a tool to customize a character comes in. For that reason alone, I think it’s a good idea to have skills (or a mechanic that fills a similar role) in the game.

While true, I think the idea that Mearls proposed about skills serves as a barrier to this, as we see in the next paragraph:

One of the things I really like about the skill system that Monte Cook created was that it allows an expert to shine. The brilliant diplomat can talk his way past the half-drunk town guards, effortlessly conning them in a situation that would leave the half-orc fighter tongue-tied. Even better, a player who wants to gain an advantage can engage with the DM, coming up with creative plans and interacting with the game in an immersive way rather than turning to the rules in search of a +2 bonus.

Right. When I have to engage with the DM, I get a system that doesn't let me pretend to be something I'm not. It's down to personal charisma, persuasive argumentation, knowledge about the subject, and DM leeway.

So by the criteria of "lets me be a character I'm not," Monte Cook's skill system is not a success. It's too dependent on DM judgement calls.

Which was kind of the original objection to the idea. So that's still valid.

Of course, that's not to say that DM judgement calls don't have their place, but couched in circumstance bonuses and "Take 10/Take 20" rules, DMs have a stronger base for those calls, and a less absolute effect compared with a binary "pass/fail" system.

The rest of the post is pretty good insight, though he's omitting a distinct possibility: some those DMs who go bad don't want to be bad DMs. They want to be good DMs. The rules and advice were not there to guide them into being good DMs.

That's why it's important to have a good rules underpinning that you can, of course, depart from. What makes a rule "good" varies from table to table, since individual DMs are skilled at different aspects of the game (and need more support in others).

And "Make It Up" isn't a good rule. Though it's usually pretty good advice.

 

[Matt James]

This thread is a great one and something I know Mike intends when he puts them up. He's not aiming to provide specific fixes to perceived issues. In many cases, he just throwing things at the wall and is seeing what sticks. These threads are apart of that process. I wouldn't read too deeply into his L&L articles or take them more than what they are: a conversation. The game will improve if the conversation includes many, many people.

 

[Quickleaf]

Obviously I agree about learning from other DMs, but I don't accept the premise that modules are, can or should be viewed as DM teaching tools.

I'd like to focus on that point, rather than get into it with you BryonD. Obviously we disagree.

But where do you see the most important way to cultivate good DMs and what can WotC do to contribute to that? I think that's a really valuable question and the more voices the better.

And, as an aside, what do you feel the role of modules should be?

 

[Matt James]

I'd like to focus on that point, rather than get into it with you BryonD. Obviously we disagree.

But where do you see the most important way to cultivate good DMs and what can WotC do to contribute to that? I think that's a really valuable question and the more voices the better.

And, as an aside, what do you feel the role of modules should be?

This is why I support basic and expert sets for adventures. The basic sets should include more support for cultivating the DM.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Obviously I agree about learning from other DMs, but I don't accept the premise that modules are, can or should be viewed as DM teaching tools.

I understand where you are coming from, but I think modules can play a role in improving GM skills (just like the DMG can play a role in improving GM skills, in teaching a GM how to GM). It is part of a comprehensive process that usually involves learning from other GMs or learning through trial and error (I know some great GMs that just kind of learned by doing).

In my own case I can definitely think of a few modules that showed me what an adventure can do. One that really changed my view of GMing is Feast of Goblyns. It definitely had some issues and did things that I would avoid, but there were some great lessons in the role of NPCs in an adventure and how to use a domain as a setting. As a GM I always looked at modules as a widow into how other GMs approach things and how they think creatively. Rarely did I ever run one straight through (I ran about 8 modules from beginning to end, the rest I used for ideas).

I do think, however, that modules are imperfect teaching tools. The nature of what a module is, often means a fair amount of railroading and not enough customization. But you can pick up a lot of tricks and approaches reading modules. You just don't want to do it divorced from the practice of GMing. There are for sure things that look good on paper but just don't work when you try them.