Legends and Lore : The Fine Art of Dungeon Mastering

[Quickleaf]

Y'know, that's a really interesting question.

My first refereeing experience was a dungeon I made on my own - in fact, I wouldn't run a published module for at least three or four years after I started playing.

Yeah I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of us started with a pad of graph paper. For me I began as a Co-DM with Slave Pits of the Undercity, but I quickly started making my own adventures because, well, I though most of the ones out at the time were kinda boring.

It would be cool if you'd kept your notes from your first adventure to see how you've developed as a DM over the years.

Shortly after that first experience, I was introduced to The First Fantasy Campaign, Wilderlands of High Fantasy, and the Temple of the Frog in Blackmoor, and those had a significant influence on the dungeons, towns, and wilderness I churned out after that, as did Wormy, but I was still creating my own stuff.

I've always wondered how The First Fantasy Campaign and Wilderlands of High Fantasy were to DM. They're more hex-crawling sandbox right?

The DMG came out nearly two years after I started running my own games . . .

I won't tell anyone

 

[delericho]

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.

I didn't have any modules when I learned to DM. Somehow I managed.

But guitars don't teach you how to play and modules don't teach you how to DM. <snip>

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

What they could probably usefully do is a series of modules for beginners that incorporate those bits of the DMG that are relevant to the module right into the module. So, instead of putting "how to run encounters" in the DMG and then having the module present just the encounter (and assuming the DM is familiar with the appropriate bit of the DMG), have the module present the encounter together with the relevant bits of "how to run encounters".

Of course, such a module would necessarily have a much larger page-count than the equivalent adventure that doesn't do as much "hand holding", so it's best suited for those beginner adventures. So that does suggest that these should be a separate, dedicated product. (Or perhaps a "DM's kit" including several such modules, where the DM who has run them then 'graduates' to the full DMG (also included).)

It's also perhaps worth noting that WotC did try to do a module for beginner DMs, "Scourge of the Howling Horde". It failed, but it's not clear whether it failed because of the type of the product, or if it was because they screwed it up in just about every single possible way they could (and chose that product to debut their new, higher, prices).

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?

Yes and no. "Tomb of Horrors" is module S1, that is "Special 1". It was a particular type of module intended for a particular type of use, and in that use, it's fine.

Where it goes wrong is if it is mistaken as just any old module, to be used by any DM for any purpose. It's not a module for newbie DMs, and it's probably not a module to try to insert into general campaign play. It's also not a module that should be used as the general pattern for module construction going forward (unless you're explicitly trying to emulate that death-trap mentality, for the same special use). Used improperly, it can indeed contribute to the creation of bad DMs.

And I think that's where we've gone wrong, that the uniqueness of ToH wasn't highlighted as clearly as it should have been, and that it's been taken as a general guide. And that's something the publisher(s) can be blamed for.

 

[Pentius]

Huh. It never occurred to me that people use modules to teach themselevs how to DM. I mean I can see it as having something to start from, but not how to structure an adventure or any of the other business.

I had barely played before I decided to become a DM, and it was all my own adventures. In fact I've only ran two modules (one was by request of the group), and the number of pre-made adventures I'd like to run are very, very small.

My first time playing was as DM. I didn't use a module, but I would have killed for one. I used the next best thing. Yes. That's right. We played the "Example of Play" from the AD&D1e DMG. I fleshed it out with the random dungeon tables in the back of the book. It wasn't a great reference, but it helped answer the question of "Oh, holy god, I have to run a game, there needs to be something here other than F-All. Holy crap, what do I do?"

Beating a dead horse at this point. 3rd ed didn't necessarily start this direction of 'neutralzing' the GM but it certainly moved forward with it. 4e took that on head first.

The next edition they make, I hope they realize that there are, oh, 4 to 5 times as many players as there are DM's and focus on how even one bad player can ruin a campaign for everyone as opposed to, "GMs are bad unless they say yes to everything and have to run the games as written because to do otherwise would be unfair to the players and the game as written."

Blah.

Odd. I've had the impression that 4e hands a good bit of power back to the DM. The reality buster spells are reigned in a bit, the skills are more broad, requiring less "look at the book" and more DM fiat.

I agree about including advice for being a better player, though. I consider myself a good player these days, but every single thing I do right was hard earned by doing it disastrously wrong first.

 

[BryonD]

Nope. It's how it changes from being just a game to a roleplaying game.

Exactly. "Game", "Roleplaying", and "Roleplaying Game" are three distinct things.

I actually agree pretty largely with the spirit of KM's point. But then he starts putting the "transcending the character sheet" idea as something that fights for dominance with the game elements of the experience. And I don't buy that at all.

All these things that become subjective and meta are in the hands and run the risk of harming the experience depending on how the DM handles them. But that doesn't make them bad, it just makes them elements which require good DMing. And 900 pages of rules on the other hand still isn't going to cover everything, so expecting that to replace the need for calls from a DM would be, imo, even less satisfactory.

The trick is using the rules to strongly inform those elements which transcend the character sheet and doing it in a consistent way and in a way that is invisible to the players. That covers a wide range of things from being consistent in how you simply apply modifiers to circumstances to not letting the player who just happens to be more charismatic have his character get away with things you wouldn't have let the character of a less eloquent player get away with.

And that can create virtually catch-22 level conflicts such as when a bard is trying to talk a dragon out of something (as an example for its simplicity). Great roleplaying is a fundamental part of the goal. And an outgoing player is more likely to earn a bonus by many players standards. There is no one right answer to being consistent on that, but good DMing comes back to letting the situation transcend the character sheet AND still having the results be strongly informed by the pages of rules (in the end it comes down to how well the CHARACTER does, not the player) AND keeping these issues invisible to the players.

 

[ExploderWizard]

If there ain't no rules, it ain't no game.

Of course rules are needed by the game, they just shouldn't be the game.
IMHO lengthly rules are more about spelling out exactly what you can't do to the nth degree than anything else. An rpg is the one gaming vehicle with limitless possibilities. Reducing all those possibilities to a finite menu of options defeats the purpose of the medium.

If you believe the rules are the game then why bother with a DM at all? You don't need any judgement, since the rulebook decides all. Just take turns rolling for the monsters.

 

[BryonD]

What they could probably usefully do is a series of modules for beginners that incorporate those bits of the DMG that are relevant to the module right into the module.

Certainly. That could be a good idea.

I'm not convinced that the hobby really needs to focus so much on teaching newbies. Generations of us did fine swimming in the deep end from day one.

But your suggestion would certainly be a different product that would address the point.

 

[MrMyth]

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."

Oh yeah. I mean, I'm used to gaming with folks I am already friends with, so reading some of these occasional horror stories is almost hard to believe - that some folks don't have that luxury, and do rely on 'local gaming groups' or other opportunities to get their D&D fix, and that sometimes, that involves dealing with some folks who really, really don't belong in the DMing seat (or even, often, at the table.)

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...

I think (and hope!) stories about DMs like this are a relatively rare occurence, and even their seeming presence is more due to stories about bad DMs being more memorable than stories about good ones.

That said - I've seen enough of those stories that I think it is worth considering as a DM. And while I haven't encountered the worst examples of it... I've come across some DMs, in Living Campaigns, that do come close. And I think that is a specific area where Mearls' discussion is quite relevant - how do you keep the DMs in such an environment from being able to arbitrarily murder one set of PCs? In theory, the more codified the rules, the more such DMs are held in check.

Should it be the sole focus of the rules? Of course not. But I don't think it is worth simply dismissing it as unsolvable or irrelevant. And while I don't think Tomb of Horrors is an example of what Mearls meant, I think it is relevant in that it gives an even better goal - to have a set of rules that can allow for something like that while hopefully hindering DMs ability to inflict similar arbitrary deaths for no reason at all.

Is that even possible? Hard to say. Current editions have moved away from 'insta-death' mechanics which has gone far to hinder this sort of bad DMing - but also makes it harder to run a truly lethal 'Tomb of Horrors'. You can still get close, but the dynamic is fundamentally different - in the end, there has been a trade-off.

Is there a way to get the best of both worlds? Maybe yes, maybe no, but I think Mearls fundamental goal remains to get people talking about it, and seeing what sort of options play out from there.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Were I in charge of producing a product to teach new DMs, I'd put some effort into replicating what happens when an experienced DM teaches you. It really does put you on a fast track to understanding, even if you mainly swim on your own. Case in point, the way I got my start.

I had the Red and Blue boxes. I had Keep on the Borderlands and the example of play. I had studied the rules, made characters, and fooled around with it some. So picture me circling around the main idea, but not quite pinning it down. (I had Keep on the Borderlands. So I had a module, but I still had to write my own adventure. )

I was asking an older cousin who had played for awhile for a few pointers. He wisely did something more than give advice. He wrote a quick adventure, on my graph paper. Took him 20 minutes. It was a tower with three levels, one room per, a wall around it, and a 3 room dungeon underneath. It had a giant scorpion, some goblins, a big spider, and a gargoyle in it. There was one trap, and several treasures, including a +1 dagger to give us a shot at the gargoyle.

Then he ran several of us through it. Took two hours. Then while the rest of the players wandered off, he showed me what he had written, why it was there, and how he had adjudicated things we had tried. Then I got to take it home with me. The next adventure I ran was that one. My group was off like a shot.

So sure, have a module to help teach people. Include a guide with the module that shows how it was put together, why it was done that way, and actually show the messy steps. Use scratch graph paper and hand-written information. Then provide a link to a website where the author is on a video talking about it. And then a link to a forum where people can discuss it amongst themselves--preferably with a few older hands.

Don't try to teach them the rules in this product. Or how to make a character. That is what the main books are for. If you want to supplement that information with advice elsewhere, by all means. But teaching someone how to DM is not, "fast play adventure dumbed down so that everyone can get started playing within 30 minutes of opening the box." At least it shouldn't be that, even for D&D.

In game design there is often "smoothing" done to things, that can conceal how it was done. (Well really in most design. This is endemic in software design.) This is great for the users who just need their application to work. It is rather lousy as a teaching tool, as it creates an illusion that Element X sprung whole from the head of Zeus. To make a module a good teaching tool, ruthlessly destroy that illusion for the wannabee DM.

 

[KidSnide]

That said - I've seen enough of those stories that I think it is worth considering as a DM. And while I haven't encountered the worst examples of it... I've come across some DMs, in Living Campaigns, that do come close. And I think that is a specific area where Mearls' discussion is quite relevant - how do you keep the DMs in such an environment from being able to arbitrarily murder one set of PCs? In theory, the more codified the rules, the more such DMs are held in check.

I'm going to nitpick here. The objective isn't to prevent DMs from murdering PCs, hinder bad DM styles or hold DMs in check. The objective is to provide guidelines for well balanced play and fair rules to prevent arbitrary death in balanced encounters.

The DM sets the encounters. If the DM wants to kill the PCs, he only needs to serve up grossly unbalanced encounters. There's nothing a designer can do to stop that other than suggesting that players find another game.

What the designers can do is provide good information (e.g. monster levels instead of CR) that informs the DM how dangerous an encounter is likely to be. That information allows the DM to predict how dangerous an encounter is and make a well-informed decision about whether the encounter will be fun. If the DM is looking for loopholes (like a pre-errata Needlefang Drake Swarm) to create killer encounters with nominally fair encounter levels, you need to either graduate high school or find another game.

-KS

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I think that Crezy Jerome's idea is very good also but thinking about it the basics are there. If one were to take the Robot Chicken and the Pax videos and do a commentry/match analysis of the session, having the module to hand.

This could prove very useful to newbie DM's