Where Are All the Dungeon Masters?

In light of the Labor Day celebrations happening in the U.S., now's a good time to look at the amount of effort tabletop role-playing takes. Is it holding the hobby back from a bigger audience?

View attachment 100911​

[h=3]Why Oh Why Won't They DM?[/h]Dungeons & Dragons and many tabletop role-playing games that debuted after its release have struggled with an inherent part of its structure: one of its participants has a disproportionate share of the game's work. This isn't to say that players can't help, but the structure of the referee role as envision by co-creators Gary Gygax and Dave Arenson created a very different form of play for one "player." What this means is that there are always more players than Dungeon Masters (DMs) and Game Masters (DMs) -- by necessity, the game is built this way -- and as tabletop RPGs grow in popularity, a GM shortage is a real possibility.

The GM challenge stems from a variety of factors, not the least of which being the level of organizational skills necessary to pull off playing not just one character, but several. In Master of the Game, Gygax outlined the seven principal functions of a DM:

These functions are as Moving Force, Creator, Designer, Arbiter, Overseer, Director, and Umpire/Referee/Judge (a single function with various shades of meaning). The secondary functions of the Game Master are Narrator, Interpreter, Force of Nature, Personification of Non-Participant Characters, All Other Personifications, and Supernatural Power.
​

With a list like that, it's no wonder that potential DMs find the role intimidating! Spencer Crittenden, the DM for HarmonQuest, summarizes why it's so challenging to be a Dungeon Master:

Being a DM, like being a ref, means acknowledging you will make mistakes while still demanding respect for the authority you have over the game. It means taking charge and reducing distractions, it means observing everyone to get a sense of their feelings and levels of engagement, and keeping people engaged and interested. This is not easy, especially for beginners. There's a billion things to keep track of on your side of the DM Screen: maps, monsters, rules, dialogue, etc.
​

It's a lot, but there's hope.
[h=3]The Best Way to Learn[/h]D&D's style of play was unique: part improvisation, part strategic simulation, with no end game. But the game's popularity has increasingly made the idea of playing D&D less foreign to new players as other forms of gaming have picked up the basic elements of play, from board games to card games to video games. The idea of playing an elf who goes on adventure with her companions is no longer quite so novel.

That familiarity certainly made it easier for the game to be accepted by the general public, but learning to play the game is best experienced first-hand, something not many future DMs have a chance to do. Enter video.

Thanks to the rise of live streaming like Twitch and video channels like YouTube, prospective DMs can watch how the game is actually played. In fact, the sheer volume of video viewers has begun to influence Kickstarters on the topic and even merited mention by the CEO of Hasbro. If the best way to learn is by watching a game, we now have enough instructional videos in spades to satisfy the demand.

And yet, if this thread is any indication, there still aren't enough DMs -- and it's likely there never will be. After all, knowing how to play and having the time, resources, and confidence to do so are two different things, and not everyone wants to put in the effort. That's why there's an International GMs Day, conceived on this very site.

But you don't have to wait until March 4 to say thanks. If you ended up playing a game this weekend, it's worth thanking the people who help make our games possible. To all the GMs and DMs out there, thank you for everything you do!

Mike "Talien" Tresca is a freelance game columnist, author, communicator, and a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to http://amazon.com. You can follow him at Patreon.

 

[jimmifett]

Really, the only problem is getting everyone to commit to a schedule. We're all busy pretending to adult and to family, but it's very discouraging when your players either consistently miss sessions or try to get the session day/time moved. As the DM, it's not my job to wrangle ppl like cats. I've set a day, i've set a time, players have joined the group knowing that, and barring holidays or family emergencies, if you want to be part of the game, then be there, esp when most of my games are now online, so you can play from the comfort of your home.

 

[pemerton]

The problem with games that don't require prep is that to be successful, they need the GM to have a skillset of running a game without prep! Improvisation is a skill, and if you are new at it, your games are probably going to be poorly paced, and questionably interesting. I don't know if I'd advise this as a way to make it easier for people who don't normally run games to pick up GMing.

I think it's easy to exaggerate this as an issue.

The GM needs to be able to come up with ideas for opposition, for developments, etc, but I think most RPGers have got enough familiarity with various genre fiction that they can think of stuff - castles with ogres or witches; cultists with strange writings; merchants with cunningly concealed strongboxes; etc. At least in my own case, the stories that emerge from RPGing are not particularly great literary creations: the pleasure isn't in the reading/viewing of them - it's in the playing of them.

I think this is another respect in which system and system resources make a big difference. If a PC searches the castle to find a widget, are their simple and clear rules for finding out what happens? If a demon is unexpectedly summoned, is it simple to work out what happens when the PCs confront it? If the system makes it easy to resolve interesting action declarations, then I think the players will declare interesting actions for their PCs; and if the players declare interesting actions for their PCs, many issues of pacing and interest have been resolved!

I think that poorly-paced or uninteresting RPGing is more often a result of a system, or an approach to GMing, that encourages stringing the players along, drawing things out, and discouraging the game from coming to a dramatic resolution, as if fun and excitement have to be earned. (Of course there are reasons in the history of RPG design that explain this tendency; but I think it's a tendency that, these days, probably needlessly holds back many games and GMs.)

 

[Sadras]

I think that poorly-paced or uninteresting RPGing is more often a result of a system, or an approach to GMing, that encourages stringing the players along, drawing things out, and discouraging the game from coming to a dramatic resolution, as if fun and excitement have to be earned. (Of course there are reasons in the history of RPG design that explain this tendency; but I think it's a tendency that, these days, probably needlessly holds back many games and GMs.)

I strongly believe the resource attrition mechanic encourages this drawing out you refer to... Also with the traditional approach to D&D, I suspect that by always showcasing the dramatic resolutions might be viewed as railroading the story. Maybe.

 

[BadBreath]

In most of the groups I have played in over the years... from the late 80's through to now there have always been 2-3 principle DM's taking turns running major campaigns with opportunities for other players to run shorter games/modules in-between. Keeping in mind that the groups I have played in have always been small with between 4-8 members at any given time. Anyhow - that way everyone got a chance to be a player and get experience being a DM. I personally prefer being a player, and dont consider myself a great DM by any means and I usually use Modules for inspiration or from start to finish (latest being Ravenloft for 5e)... but have developed through the above way of working into a principle DM for our current group.

 

[pemerton]

I strongly believe the resource attrition mechanic encourages this drawing out you refer to... Also with the traditional approach to D&D, I suspect that by always showcasing the dramatic resolutions might be viewed as railroading the story. Maybe.

I agree with all three points - about resource tradition; about the view concerning railroading; and that there should be a "maybe", because the whole issue of "story" in standard/traditional D&D play is pretty vexed.

One of the guys who has worked with Luke Crane on Burning Wheel wrote a PDF supplement called Burning THACO which talked about adapting classic D&D modules for BW play. It includes the following comment (on pp 12-13, under the headings "Pushing Conflict Early" and "Ignore Filler"):

t seems that every module I pick up has the structural integrity of mushy peas. You'll have to take it into your own hands. Front load conflict. The first module I ran . . . had the players join up with a caravan in a town and described days of journey before it got to the point that something happened (other than random encounters, natch).
We're talking potentially hours of play before something significant happens.

Don't let that happen. As a Burning Wheel GM, you have a ton of information at your disposal that D&D DMs don't. You have your players' characters' Beliefs, Instincts and Traits. You know what they got excited about when you gave them the briefing on the module. And in addition, like a DM, you have module itself. Use those tools to create conflicts and issues the players will have to address. If your module starts with pages of journey and exposition before anything happens, give the players a few sentences of synopsis and fast forward to the good stuff. . . .

A lot of obstacles and opposition in modules is filler. It's there to take up time, to provide a reason for the niche skills of one type of character, or to make the experience seem "real." It's ok to leave a few of these in for old time's sake, but mostly, unless it's something your players will really get a kick out of, just go ahead and invoke the Say Yes or Roll Dice rule. Give maybe a sentence describing how the characters overcame the obstacle and move on.​

The last time I posted that on these boards it provoked outrage! And more-or-less for the reasons you've indicated - creating conflict, and fast forwarding to the good stuff, is seen as railroading. In another current thread, about what is hard about GMing a RPG session, there is more than one post saying that it's hard to get the players to do what they are "supposed" to do (eg they spend time interrogating NPCs who have no information) - but why don't those GMs either just tell the players what they're supposed to do? or cut straight to it (eg don't introduce NPCs into the situation who are nothing but window dressing)? or else adapt to what the players are having their PCs do (eg if the PCs are very interested in NPC X, and succeed on an Intimidation roll or otherwise successfully convey their threateningness, then have X tell them something interesting)?

I think in most cases the answer will be something about railroading, or metagaming, or both.

 

[smbakeresq]

This article explains the success of Gloomhaven, which is more of less D&D with auto-DM.

My current DM assignment of DMing for 10-12 year olds has taught me more about DMing then anything else. You can’t stop the game for even 30 seconds, it too much downtime. On the positive ANY reasonable explanation for ANYTHING is ok, you don’t need a “perfect” solution, just keep going.

Since they are kids, they don’t overthink something and become paralyzed by analysis, they don’t rationalize decisions by using the rule set and math, they just GO. I wish more people played like this, but it’s hard to find. All of us on this forum have so much love for the game that we are into its intricate details, no matter how small. It’s hard to let go in the situation and just go with the flow.

 

[smbakeresq]

The biggest advance I see with 5e over 3e is that it is just easier to DM (with 4e in between). 5e has a lot for players, but its very DM friendly.

As for videos...I am sure they help. Playing helps. But it is a "just do it" kind of thing. What really helps is having something like the starter set and its adventure , as their B and X equivalents did back in the day.

The real impact of the videos, and 5e, and hobby gaming's popularity, and ability to find games on the interwebs, is that there are now a bunch of players looking for DMs. The shortage is probably worse then its ever been. But it should work itself out.

In 3e just going through spell selection for creatures took a lot of time, to the point I just stopped doing it and essentially moved to what is used in 5e now. Stat Blocks for level 10+ were always a page long, combat just bogged down.

4e I liked very much, it was much simpler to DM. However combat became too intricate in many cases, with many off turn things happening that interrupts another players turn which is bad for flow of game around table. I liked the names of the powers though, if the powers were fewer it would have been better. The scaling of damage was good, and giving players basic attacks but with small effects and cool names was a winner IMO. I thought the healing system was best also, as it just kept the game moving along.

Essentially 4e was impossible without the CB online for players also. I do think 4e would be differently received if released today or a couple of years from now as mobile devices are now ubiquitous.

 

[Nagol]

I agree with all three points - about resource tradition; about the view concerning railroading; and that there should be a "maybe", because the whole issue of "story" in standard/traditional D&D play is pretty vexed.

One of the guys who has worked with Luke Crane on Burning Wheel wrote a PDF supplement called Burning THACO which talked about adapting classic D&D modules for BW play. It includes the following comment (on pp 12-13, under the headings "Pushing Conflict Early" and "Ignore Filler"):

t seems that every module I pick up has the structural integrity of mushy peas. You'll have to take it into your own hands. Front load conflict. The first module I ran . . . had the players join up with a caravan in a town and described days of journey before it got to the point that something happened (other than random encounters, natch).
We're talking potentially hours of play before something significant happens.

Don't let that happen. As a Burning Wheel GM, you have a ton of information at your disposal that D&D DMs don't. You have your players' characters' Beliefs, Instincts and Traits. You know what they got excited about when you gave them the briefing on the module. And in addition, like a DM, you have module itself. Use those tools to create conflicts and issues the players will have to address. If your module starts with pages of journey and exposition before anything happens, give the players a few sentences of synopsis and fast forward to the good stuff. . . .

A lot of obstacles and opposition in modules is filler. It's there to take up time, to provide a reason for the niche skills of one type of character, or to make the experience seem "real." It's ok to leave a few of these in for old time's sake, but mostly, unless it's something your players will really get a kick out of, just go ahead and invoke the Say Yes or Roll Dice rule. Give maybe a sentence describing how the characters overcame the obstacle and move on.​

The last time I posted that on these boards it provoked outrage! And more-or-less for the reasons you've indicated - creating conflict, and fast forwarding to the good stuff, is seen as railroading. In another current thread, about what is hard about GMing a RPG session, there is more than one post saying that it's hard to get the players to do what they are "supposed" to do (eg they spend time interrogating NPCs who have no information) - but why don't those GMs either just tell the players what they're supposed to do? or cut straight to it (eg don't introduce NPCs into the situation who are nothing but window dressing)? or else adapt to what the players are having their PCs do (eg if the PCs are very interested in NPC X, and succeed on an Intimidation roll or otherwise successfully convey their threateningness, then have X tell them something interesting)?

I think in most cases the answer will be something about railroading, or metagaming, or both.

Scene framing signals where the GM thinks the next interesting/important development will happen. If done well, the players are all on board and play keeps skipping along. If the players aren't all on board -- either they think the next scene should be something else or they are not yet finished exploring the current situation, it takes agency from them. People tend to overuse railroading because its a familiar term.

One consideration for hard scene framing when any form of exploratory play is part of the game has to be the players could not discover more information useful for extrapolation at the current situation.

 

[pemerton]

One consideration for hard scene framing when any form of exploratory play is part of the game has to be the players could not discover more information useful for extrapolation at the current situation.

If the game is low or no prep, then discovering information that is useful for extrapolation isn't really part of the game. (I don't think.)

To elaborate: in the fiction, the PCs might discover stuff from which they can extrapolate; but at the table, if the game is low or no prep, then "discovering stuff" is just more fiction that shape the direction of the unfolding story.

For instance, in the no prep Cthulhu Dark game I GMed on the weekend, at one point the players (as their PCs) learned that the sailors on board a ship were all being ordered to stay down below decks. Having this information provided the PCs with a basis for extrapolating that something interesting was happening about the loading of the boat (which the captain didn't want the sailors to see). And at the table it was one part of the shaping of the way the session ended up. But had it not come up - eg because the players never had their PCs go to a waterside bar where they were able to talk to some sailors - then something else would have happened at the table, and a different series of events would have unfolded.

Scene framing signals where the GM thinks the next interesting/important development will happen. If done well, the players are all on board and play keeps skipping along. If the players aren't all on board -- either they think the next scene should be something else or they are not yet finished exploring the current situation, it takes agency from them.

There are obvious solutions to this: (i) take suggestions - that's part of the function of some of those game features that the Burning THACO author points to; (ii) if, as GM, you say "OK, now it's XYZ" and a player says "Oi, what about ABC that I hadn't done yet" then resolve ABC before moving onto XYZ.

(ii) has to be used with some caution, because if a player is trying to use ABC to turtle or to generate insurance against anything happening to his/her PC then the game will lose its pacing. This is another respect in which system comes into it, because turtling and generating insurance against consequences can't even happen in some systems (eg Cortex+ Heroic) while they're the very essence of some other systems (eg classic D&D).

But if players are prepared to send signals and make suggestions, and the system facilitates this (both by whatever affirmative means, and perhaps more importantly by an absence of burdens on this), then I think a lot of worries about pacing and interest go away.

 

[Ratskinner]

I'm gradually working my way through games on my "I'd like to play this" list. Dungeon World is on the list but I haven't got to play it face-to-face (only PbP with [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]).

My advice is to beware of third-party add-on classes. Some of them have moves that "overreach" IMO.