Legends and Lore : The Fine Art of Dungeon Mastering

[BryonD]

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.

Design system that are not intended to compensate for poor DMing but instead reward quality DMing. Promote the idea that new DMs are going to make mistakes but that it ok and it is really not hard to quickly learn from your mistakes and become that great DM yourself.

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

Motivation.

 

[BryonD]

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).

Having a guitar to practice on is a mandatory part of learning to play guitar. Having adventures to run, be they modules or home made is a mandatory part of learning to DM.

But guitars don't teach you how to play and modules don't teach you how to DM. You can pick up a guitar and teach yourself over time through trial and error. And you can teach yourself to DM with no aid but modules through trial and error. But in both cases that is you teaching yourself.

The DMG is like a book on "how to play guitar." (at least key parts of it)


But, back to the start of this: Do you think that Tomb of Horrors is an example of a problem that contributes to the creation of bad DMs and for which the publishers should be blamed?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Having a guitar to practice on is a mandatory part of learning to play guitar. Having adventures to run, be they modules or home made is a mandatory part of learning to DM.

But guitars don't teach you how to play and modules don't teach you how to DM. You can pick up a guitar and teach yourself over time through trial and error. And you can teach yourself to DM with no aid but modules through trial and error. But in both cases that is you teaching yourself.

The DMG is like a book on "how to play guitar." (at least key parts of it)

I don't think the module-guitar analogy works. I would compare a module to existing pieces of music that you can learn from but not to the instrument itself.

But your point applies to learning from another GM as well (or from a guitar teacher). Until you put what you've read or been taught into practice your skill isn't going to improve, but that doesn't mean you weren't being taught by these things. I look at it as a complete package. When I was in highschool I learned guitar with a teacher. Part of my education involved spending time with him and having fundamentals explained, him observing my playing and offering criticism, etc. But I also had to listen to music for homework. I had to study guitar books for homework. These were all teaching tools. It was a process that involved absorbing information, getting ideas and then trying things out.

I suppose we just disagree, which is fine. We may also be splitting hairs over terms here. I would never suggest someone learn to GM by modules alone. But I would encourage any new GM to learn from them.

But, back to the start of this: Do you think that Tomb of Horrors is an example of a problem that contributes to the creation of bad DMs and for which the publishers should be blamed?

I never ran tomb of horrors, so I don't have much of an opinion on that module. Personally I don't worry too much about bad GMs, since I really haven't encountered many. I suppose if a GM only played one specific kind of module he may develop a boxed in style and pick up some bad habits. The biggest problem with bad modules is they fail to inspire GMs beyond the module itself. A good module will inspire you for the next 10 adventures.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Design system that are not intended to compensate for poor DMing but instead reward quality DMing. Promote the idea that new DMs are going to make mistakes but that it ok and it is really not hard to quickly learn from your mistakes and become that great DM yourself.
.

This I agree with completely. Mistakes are an important part of learning to do anything. And I definitely think it is better to reward good GMing rather than build a system to prevent bad GMing.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Not to mention, who releases a game, thinking, "Wow, this will be fun to play, but it really sucks to have to run it." Obviously any designer that releases a game believes it will be fun to run it. Odds are that's why he designed it the way he did.

I wonder how such a thing could happen? The game would have to be needlessly complex and so rules focused that the prospective DMs would abandon it for greener pastures. Such a game would have a very short life cycle indeed.

 

[Mark CMG]

When I have to engage with the DM, I get a system that doesn't let me pretend to be something I'm not.

That's how roleplaying transcends the character sheet.

It's down to personal charisma, persuasive argumentation, knowledge about the subject, and DM leeway.

All of that factors in, and mind you that the GM leeway is the GM allowing for your roleplaying to be effective as something you are not with the guidance he gains from the information on your character sheet.

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy to fear not being perfect at roleplaying and falling back on the dice and stats. Roleplaying (any tabletop game with a facilitator, really) is about doing the best you can and allowing the GM to account for the disparity by including not only the roleplaying effort but *also* the dice and stats.

 

[BryonD]

I don't think the module-guitar analogy works. I would compare a module to existing pieces of music that you can learn from but not to the instrument itself.

I can accept that modification without seeing it as really changing the point.

Again, you could learn to play by trying to dive right in copying songs. That would be a very poor way to do it, but you could get there eventually.

But would you say that Satisfaction was a bad song because it didn't do a good job of teaching people to play guitar?

 

[Bedrockgames]

I can accept that modification without seeing it as really changing the point.

Again, you could learn to play by trying to dive right in copying songs. That would be a very poor way to do it, but you could get there eventually.

But would you say that Satisfaction was a bad song because it didn't do a good job of teaching people to play guitar?

Most musicians I played with learned first by imitation. It is definitely one way to go

 

[Agamon]

I wonder how such a thing could happen? The game would have to be needlessly complex and so rules focused that the prospective DMs would abandon it for greener pastures. Such a game would have a very short life cycle indeed.

Right, that was my point. Nobody puts out a game like that. So why ask for someone to put out a game that's not like it when most are already?

 

[Bedrockgames]

But would you say that Satisfaction was a bad song because it didn't do a good job of teaching people to play guitar?

No. I would say it is a good song and one way to learn and develop as a guitarist is to emulate solid material. Just like a writer reads and emulates good books to improve his writing. Good modules offer a strong model to emulate. I think the difference between modules and songs or books is there is room for instruction in them. It would have been strange if Bram Stoker broke the tension in dracula by offering advice on characterization or dialogue. But in a module the format allows for there to be a small gm section with pointers.