Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Does WotC suck at selling games?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6386915" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>I learned to GM from a standing start, using Moldvay Basic. And I'm absolutely certain that thousands, probably hundreds of thousands, of other kids did the same.</p><p></p><p>And the explanation for that isn't just that the early 80s was "fad time" for D&D. The explanation includes the fact that Moldvay Basic has excellent GMing advice. It doesn't just present the rules. It tells a GM what s/he is expected to do with them, and walks through simple but very clear and illustrative examples.</p><p></p><p>In the early 1980s I owned two RPGs: black-box Traveller, and Moldvay Basic. I was given Traveller first, I read the rules, and I had no idea what I was meant to do to play the game. I knew that playing it involved characters who would experience events giving rise to some sort of story, but I literally did not understand how I was meant to do that.</p><p></p><p>Then I was given Moldvay Basic. <em>It told me how to play</em>. It didn't just present rules, and flavour. It told me what to do with them. Especially, as a GM, it told me how to set up and referee the game. Simply, and with pithy but useful examples. (Such as the lists of possible adventure sites, and possible scenarios. And then the worked exampe of the Haunted Keep.)</p><p></p><p>I was able to get into D&D straight away. And from that point on I was also able to play Traveller, because I had now been told what was involved in refereeing an RPG.</p><p></p><p>The lesson I take away from this is that it is possible to GM from a standing start, provided you are told what is actually required.</p><p></p><p>In the Essentials example, the final (failed) check is a Streetwise check to identify a building. The consequence of that failure is that some thugs, who were earlier scared off with an Intimidate check, turn up again to fight the PCs. The technique in use here is to draw on an earllier element of the challenge (the NPC thugs) to estabishe a consequence for the failure of Streetwise, and of the challenge - even though those thugs weren't themselves part of the framing of the Streetwise check.</p><p></p><p>That technique is an important one for running skill challengs, or any similar "indie"-style conflict resolution system. But it is not self-evident, and I know from my posting experience on these boards that it is very counter-intuitive to many experienced D&Ders. I am familiar with it, an recognise its use, because I have read advice about in written by Robin Laws in HeroWars/Quest, and by Luke Crane in Burning Wheel. The Essentials rulebook, by contrast, does not call out or explain the technique.</p><p></p><p>For the DMG example, look at Uldar towards the bottom of p 77. Uldar's player says "Okay, calm down everyone. . . . I empathise with your desire to protect your people, Duke, and I assure you that we want to accomplish the same thing. But to do that, we really need your assistance." And then the mechanical commentary explains that this is resolved as an Insight check. Why Insight? How did the GM and player establish this as an Insight rather than a Diplomacy check? There is no explanation or advice.</p><p></p><p>Another weakness in the example: look at the opening Diplomacy check - the PC tells the Duke that he and his friends want to help against the goblins. This succeeds. Per the GM's notes for the challenge, this also opens up History. And the GM has to Duke respond "I do remember the Battle of Cantle Hill. Nasty business." What the GM is doing here is having the duke respond in a way that makes fictional sense of the mechanical fact that History has been unlocked as a skill. But there is no explanation that this is what the GM is doing (ie keeping the fiction and the mecahnics in sync.) Nor is there any discussion of how the GM might have had the Duke respond if the PC's Diplomacy attempt had involved a slightly different subject-matter that made it harder to have the Duke respond with a simple download of his past - eg what if the first Diplomacy check made had been an attempt to hose down the conflict resulting from the failed Intimidation? How does a GM respond to that in a way that smoothly unlocks History as a possible skill?</p><p></p><p>There are GMing techniques at work in these examples, and it is quite feasible to identify them, call them out, discuss them, talk about their scopes and limits, etc. Other RPG authors do this in their rulebooks. I think it is a big weakness that the D&D books tend not to. (And I don't think it's a coincidence that most of the strong advocates of skill challenges on these boards are familiar with similar techniques from other RPGs, where they are better explained!)</p><p></p><p>*******</p><p></p><p>I should apologise if this post seems a bit ranty. I'm not hostile to 4e - I think it's one of the best RPGs ever produced and I've GMed it virtually straight for nearly 6 years. (Nor am I hostile to 5e.) I'm just hostile to poor advice - or rather, to a design approach (that Monte Cook called "Ivory Tower") that favours presenting the rules and the flavour as if that's all there is to playing the game, without any attention to explaining the practical details of actually taking those rules, and that flavour, and turning them into a play experience.</p><p></p><p>I really do think that it's a pity that the quality of advice in thise sense (as opposed to mechanics and flavour) for D&D seems to have peaked over 30 years ago!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6386915, member: 42582"] I learned to GM from a standing start, using Moldvay Basic. And I'm absolutely certain that thousands, probably hundreds of thousands, of other kids did the same. And the explanation for that isn't just that the early 80s was "fad time" for D&D. The explanation includes the fact that Moldvay Basic has excellent GMing advice. It doesn't just present the rules. It tells a GM what s/he is expected to do with them, and walks through simple but very clear and illustrative examples. In the early 1980s I owned two RPGs: black-box Traveller, and Moldvay Basic. I was given Traveller first, I read the rules, and I had no idea what I was meant to do to play the game. I knew that playing it involved characters who would experience events giving rise to some sort of story, but I literally did not understand how I was meant to do that. Then I was given Moldvay Basic. [I]It told me how to play[/I]. It didn't just present rules, and flavour. It told me what to do with them. Especially, as a GM, it told me how to set up and referee the game. Simply, and with pithy but useful examples. (Such as the lists of possible adventure sites, and possible scenarios. And then the worked exampe of the Haunted Keep.) I was able to get into D&D straight away. And from that point on I was also able to play Traveller, because I had now been told what was involved in refereeing an RPG. The lesson I take away from this is that it is possible to GM from a standing start, provided you are told what is actually required. In the Essentials example, the final (failed) check is a Streetwise check to identify a building. The consequence of that failure is that some thugs, who were earlier scared off with an Intimidate check, turn up again to fight the PCs. The technique in use here is to draw on an earllier element of the challenge (the NPC thugs) to estabishe a consequence for the failure of Streetwise, and of the challenge - even though those thugs weren't themselves part of the framing of the Streetwise check. That technique is an important one for running skill challengs, or any similar "indie"-style conflict resolution system. But it is not self-evident, and I know from my posting experience on these boards that it is very counter-intuitive to many experienced D&Ders. I am familiar with it, an recognise its use, because I have read advice about in written by Robin Laws in HeroWars/Quest, and by Luke Crane in Burning Wheel. The Essentials rulebook, by contrast, does not call out or explain the technique. For the DMG example, look at Uldar towards the bottom of p 77. Uldar's player says "Okay, calm down everyone. . . . I empathise with your desire to protect your people, Duke, and I assure you that we want to accomplish the same thing. But to do that, we really need your assistance." And then the mechanical commentary explains that this is resolved as an Insight check. Why Insight? How did the GM and player establish this as an Insight rather than a Diplomacy check? There is no explanation or advice. Another weakness in the example: look at the opening Diplomacy check - the PC tells the Duke that he and his friends want to help against the goblins. This succeeds. Per the GM's notes for the challenge, this also opens up History. And the GM has to Duke respond "I do remember the Battle of Cantle Hill. Nasty business." What the GM is doing here is having the duke respond in a way that makes fictional sense of the mechanical fact that History has been unlocked as a skill. But there is no explanation that this is what the GM is doing (ie keeping the fiction and the mecahnics in sync.) Nor is there any discussion of how the GM might have had the Duke respond if the PC's Diplomacy attempt had involved a slightly different subject-matter that made it harder to have the Duke respond with a simple download of his past - eg what if the first Diplomacy check made had been an attempt to hose down the conflict resulting from the failed Intimidation? How does a GM respond to that in a way that smoothly unlocks History as a possible skill? There are GMing techniques at work in these examples, and it is quite feasible to identify them, call them out, discuss them, talk about their scopes and limits, etc. Other RPG authors do this in their rulebooks. I think it is a big weakness that the D&D books tend not to. (And I don't think it's a coincidence that most of the strong advocates of skill challenges on these boards are familiar with similar techniques from other RPGs, where they are better explained!) ******* I should apologise if this post seems a bit ranty. I'm not hostile to 4e - I think it's one of the best RPGs ever produced and I've GMed it virtually straight for nearly 6 years. (Nor am I hostile to 5e.) I'm just hostile to poor advice - or rather, to a design approach (that Monte Cook called "Ivory Tower") that favours presenting the rules and the flavour as if that's all there is to playing the game, without any attention to explaining the practical details of actually taking those rules, and that flavour, and turning them into a play experience. I really do think that it's a pity that the quality of advice in thise sense (as opposed to mechanics and flavour) for D&D seems to have peaked over 30 years ago! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Does WotC suck at selling games?
Top