How much do your trust the advice of others?

[Warpiglet]

I really believe I am getting comfortable with considering the advice of others and then making informed selections.

Frankly, by hearing what others say, Char op and otherwise, I have gotten a sense of how the game and bonuses work. More personally, I don't always care about the highest bonus. However, I now believe I can make an estimate about how far might be too far in either making an ineffectual character or a cheese factory.

But my larger point is that all of these imperatives (you must/broken/trap etc) can really get in the way of a newbie getting excited and making something flavorful and inspired.

So I am thinking now for me i trust it to a point but have major reservations about accepting a d8 being the conrnerstone of a character vs. a d6.

(I hate rapiers--or the way I imagine them--and take short swords every time. I am into mental imagery). This, as an example is a case where I ignore people saying this is a terrible game shaking choice...

 

[iserith]

I agree with the comments that length of time in the DM chair means very little in terms of the quality of advice given. You can trust me on that - I've been DMing for 25+ years.

Seriously though, both DMs with very little experience and a great deal experience can suck out loud. And my experience has been that the latter tends to be the case more often than the former, depending on the system. Old dogs, new tricks, and all that. I'm very leery of joining games where the DMs have been at it as long as I have been and never assume the advice of a longtime DM is good by default.

However, I am more apt to consider the advice of a DM who has DMed for a lot of different groups though. Often you'll get a longtime DM who's been with the same group, more or less, much of that whole time. That doesn't do much for the DM's perspective in my view. Joining many groups and running lots of games for different people on Roll20 since 2011 or so has really given me some good perspective on how players think and interact, what works, and what doesn't. I highly recommend it.

 

[Oofta]

When it comes to any activity that requires skill, the quality of advice from someone who has more experience tends to be better than advice from someone who has little or no experience.

That does not mean someone with more experience is always going to give better advice - their advice may simply reflect bad habits. However, someone that has DMed for multiple groups and played with multiple DMs carries more weight in my book. Not that I pay much attention to whatever anyone else says since I've been playing and DMing for 40+ years. Off and on of course, because I've had to sleep and eat along with doing pesky things like earning a living to support my D&D habit.

 

[Nevvur]

However, I am more apt to consider the advice of a DM who has DMed for a lot of different groups though. Often you'll get a longtime DM who's been with the same group, more or less, much of that whole time. That doesn't do much for the DM's perspective in my view. Joining many groups and running lots of games for different people on Roll20 since 2011 or so has really given me some good perspective on how players think and interact, what works, and what doesn't. I highly recommend it.

I'll second this. I learned the system DMing for a table of friends, but I feel like I learned more about GMing in general when I stepped up to run AL Expeditions for my FLGS.

 

[Oofta]

I'll second this. I learned the system DMing for a table of friends, but I feel like I learned more about GMing in general when I stepped up to run AL Expeditions for my FLGS.

One of the biggest learning experiences I've had is judging for and playing in the organized play over the years. Not only getting ideas from watching other judges, but also just having to DM for a wide variety of players. I feel like I try to "read" my players and their reactions a lot more than I used to and adjust my style and pacing to suit their needs for example.

It's easy to get into a rut if you just run for the same group year in and year out. I also find that watching streaming games gives me ideas as well, both on what I like and don't like about different groups.

 

[Lanefan]

Seriously though, both DMs with very little experience and a great deal experience can suck out loud. And my experience has been that the latter tends to be the case more often than the former, depending on the system. Old dogs, new tricks, and all that. I'm very leery of joining games where the DMs have been at it as long as I have been and never assume the advice of a longtime DM is good by default.

The two types of game I'd prefer to join are a) where the DM is brand new to it and both she and her game will grow as she goes along, or b) where the DM has been at it for ages using the same system and is thus completely comfortable in what she's doing.

I'd probably be very hesitant to join a game where the DM never runs the same system twice (too much risk of confusing one system with another) and-or whose campaigns never seem to last longer than half a year (either has too short of an attention span to be a good DM or is just plain hard to get along with).

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

...whose campaigns never seem to last longer than half a year (either has too short of an attention span to be a good DM or is just plain hard to get along with).

Those are not the only possible reasons for campaigns to only last half a year.

Also, your implication that anyone that runs a campaign that is only six months long isn't a "good DM" is insulting and ridiculous - a story is not inherently better just because it has more words in it, and a campaign is not inherently better just because it takes more hours to play through.

 

[Lanefan]

Those are not the only possible reasons for campaigns to only last half a year.

If the original intent was that it would go longer, what others are there?

Also, your implication that anyone that runs a campaign that is only six months long isn't a "good DM" is insulting and ridiculous - a story is not inherently better just because it has more words in it, and a campaign is not inherently better just because it takes more hours to play through.

A "campaign" intended to only last a few months going in isn't by my definition a campaign at all, just an extended one-off.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

If the original intent was that it would go longer, what others are there?

You didn't initially add that important clause that the campaign was ending earlier than intended.

However, moving the goal post like you've done still doesn't make your two stated reasons the only possible reasons. For example, a campaign could end for reasons entirely unrelated to the campaign and also entirely unrelated to how easy to get along with the DM is or isn't. They are often referred to as "real life" in my experience, things like the play group have a change of work schedules, moving to new places, having children, going back to school, or even just deciding to take some time for other hobbies they enjoy.

A "campaign" intended to only last a few months going in isn't by my definition a campaign at all, just an extended one-off.

If you want to be an elitist, go right ahead, I won't stop you. Fair warning, however, that I may laugh at you for it.

Here's some sentences that no one has said that might illustrate how silly the one you did say is:
An "episode" intended to only last 30 minutes going in isn't by my definition an episode at all, just an extended sneak-peak.
A "movie" intended to only last 90 minutes going in isn't by my definition a movie at all, just an extended short film.
A "novel" intended to only last a couple hundred pages going in isn't by my definition a novel at all, just an extended short story.
A "song" intended to only last a couple minutes going in isn't by my definition a song at all, just an extended jingle.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

About as much as I trust them to put good grammar and a spell checker to sufficient use.