D&D 5E Character play vs Player play

[Neonchameleon]

Ok, first off I wasn't addressing anything you said, so not sure what you saying or not saying has to do with the phrase of mine you quoted...

Second, not sure how the fact that GM material is transferable (what does this even mean?) has any bearing on what I am saying since technically you only need one PHB for an entire group if everyone is willing to share. Does the fact I presented prove there are more players than DM's... no, but the fact that DM materials sell magnitudes less than player materials does support the assumption that there are less DM's than players...

The point I was making was that even DMs don't always buy DM Stuff. We've probably read almost all of the non-system specific advice somewhere else, and there is limited advice that is system specific. The 4E DMG2 is an excellent book - but most DMs I know simply don't own it. Why would they? I'm not sure when one of the regular DMs at my table last bought an RPG book, period. And in a group of five, three of whom DM, none of us are buying the 5E DMG.

To me, it seems like a very mainsteam mid-to-late-80s through 90s style of play, that I think was especially mainstream during the 2nd ed AD&D era.

That's my take as well. And it's not a style I'm at all fond of.

Because I use a lot of modules, I have views on what makes for a good one. A good module presents interesting situations (in D&D this means interesting locations and antagonists that are both thematically and mechanically interesting). And it should be reasonably easy to strip these situations off the module-writer's chassis (which almost inevitably will assume some sort of plot sequence) and re-arrange or re-deploy them as makes sense for the game actually being played.

A module that I think is pretty good for this is OA7 Test of the Samurai. Another is B10 Night's Dark Terror. A module that I think is not very good for this is Dead Gods. Another is Expedition to the Demonweb Pits.

More traditional (early AD&D) dungeon modules can be OK for this provided it is feasible to turn them from an exploration focus to a more pithy encounter focus. I think I achieved this with G2 in my 4e game. I don't think G1 and G3 would lend themselves to it in the same way, though, as they have too much traditional dungeon-crawling/cleansing in their lower levels.

Used in this way I don't think that modules have to be the RPG equivaent of microwave dinners.

Oh, indeed. You're effectively buying pre-prepared items, sorting them, and then using them. It's how I use modules as well.

 

[Imaro]

The point I was making was that even DMs don't always buy DM Stuff. We've probably read almost all of the non-system specific advice somewhere else, and there is limited advice that is system specific. The 4E DMG2 is an excellent book - but most DMs I know simply don't own it. Why would they? I'm not sure when one of the regular DMs at my table last bought an RPG book, period. And in a group of five, three of whom DM, none of us are buying the 5E DMG.

Again I fail to see the relevance to what I posted (since you quoted me specifically). Again, players don't always buy players stuff... so we've got two groups that don't always buy the stuff intended for them and yet one group's products tend to sell magnitudes more... seems like it still would point (not prove as I stated earlier) at a larger base of players as opposed to DM's. Again I'll ask, do you have any data that would support a contrary asserttion?

 

[Emerikol]

There is no doubt that there are more players than DMs. Getting new DMs (that are good) though is the number one way to grow the hobby. So books for DMs can help sell your other stuff as well. Personally I buy nearly every real DM oriented book they put out and I've been DMing for well over thirty years. I always think new takes on familiar ideas to be worthwhile. I actually bought Ultimate Campaign from Paizo even though I don't play Pathfinder. I considered the subject matter important enough to just own the book.

 

[Hussar]

I think there is also something of a false dichotomy here too. Is Complete Fighters (or whatever splat) a player book or a DM book? Well, it's a bit of both really. How about a Monster Manual (beyond the first), is that something only DM's buy? Well, maybe not, especially in 3e or later, because there's tons of player stuff there too.

Now, I will agree that there are more DM's out there than players. I think that's pretty uncontroversial. But, OTOH, I would also say that the divide is a lot less than people want to claim. Like I said, how many groups do you play with that include one and only one person with DMing experience? Outside of a new group (which would also tend to explain sales - since it's the new groups that are buying the most books I think - WOTC talked years ago about how buying tapers off after 30), I would think that many, many groups have at least two people with DMing experience.

But, the point remains, the dynamic in a group with 2 or more DM's in it is very different than one with only 1 DM.

 

[Lanefan]

But, the point remains, the dynamic in a group with 2 or more DM's in it is very different than one with only 1 DM.

The extent of said difference being largely determined by ow well these people can doff their DM hats when they are players in someone else's game. Some DMs can forget their DM traits when just playing, others (and here I'm guilty as charged, much of the time) can't; and that does change the dynamic.

That said, we've got so many potential players and so few DMs most of the time (and so little time!) that I can't really relate to [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] 's situation where someone's always after his job, so to speak.

Lan-"slotting a module into a campaign is work, but once started it should largely run itself if well written"-efan

 

[Hussar]

Heck I haven't regularly DM'd in about three, maybe four years now. Loving it.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Again I fail to see the relevance to what I posted (since you quoted me specifically). Again, players don't always buy players stuff... so we've got two groups that don't always buy the stuff intended for them and yet one group's products tend to sell magnitudes more... seems like it still would point (not prove as I stated earlier) at a larger base of players as opposed to DM's. Again I'll ask, do you have any data that would support a contrary asserttion?

I'm not sure what you are trying to show.

First I will say absolutely there is not more than one DM per player. Second there is not fewer than one DM per half dozen or so players. Break both those bounds and the game does not work.

In my experience, buying habits fit several tiers:
1: Casual. Might have the PHB and possibly another book or two. But not much more than that. Very seldom DM.
2: Whales. Will have most books that interest them - a shelf full or more.
3: Completionists: Will have everything.

And in my experience the Whales (I'm in this category) are almost all DMs - and even here the market for DMing materials is ... limited. 3.X being the main exceptions where the barriers to entry for the DM were much higher so there were a greater proportion of whale players.

 

[Sadras]

[MENTION=5143]Majoru Oakheart[/MENTION], having read your roleplaying frustrations through your numerous posts, I think its best you don't take everyone's 'criticism' here too harshly, we each have different groups of varying people and different playstyles - our playstyles have evolved differently. I believe what is critically important though is to have been fortunate to experience different DMing styles as I was growing up through the years and not have had a closed homogenous group whose growth becomes severely stunted. I know it benefited me greatly as player, but most significantly as DM.
Enworld also helps in this regard. Some groups have not been fortunate in this regard, I have had the displeasure of experiencing that first hand.

It is my opinion that should you wish to change the playstyle of your players, given all that you have said about your group, then you yourself as primary and most knowledgeable roleplayer of the group have to show them the way and that can only be done by altering your DMing style as it doesn't sound that they are exposed to anything/anyone else to broaden their minds. You, as member on Enworld, are!
Try loosening the DM reins and see where the players take you. I'm not saying you do this for your Alpha Campaign but as a side project in a rules-light setting, it might help and alleviate some of the responsibility and weight you bear as a DM in your group's usual playstyle.

I'm only posting this because I feel sometimes we judge to harshly on these boards with sharp words, which I'm often guilty of, and 80 pages of what may be misinterpreted as "You're doing everything wrong" is a difficult pill to swallow for anyone, and instead we should be encouraging you to attempt a hopefully less-stressful and more enjoyable roleplaying style for both you and your group. Admittedly a lot of the posters here have done that already and far eloquently, I'm just not convinced 80 pages in that it sunk home amongst all the 'noise' and 'garbage' given your last few posts.
I'm only encouraging you to explore these other styles and take from them what you (as a group) like.

Apologies if I come across as sanctimonious in this post, that is not my intention. It is just that I recognise your playstyle all too clearly and the heavy burden that you have identified with being a sole DM in your group.

 

[Imaro]

I'm not sure what you are trying to show.

Maybe because you didn't read my original post that was specifically addressed to a statement made by [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]? I think it was pretty clear what I was saying but just to reiterate... My point was that I don't believe a group full of DM's (or even one with 2 regular DM's) is the norm... I then used market purchases of DM vs. player materials as a data point to support that assertion.

First I will say absolutely there is not more than one DM per player. Second there is not fewer than one DM per half dozen or so players. Break both those bounds and the game does not work.

I would say this is highly dependent upon campaign style, number of games run, and other factors. A single DM could have a group of 5 in-person players on Saturday and another group of 5 that he runs games for online Sunday... that DM is running for 10 players at that point... and the games still work

In my experience, buying habits fit several tiers:
1: Casual. Might have the PHB and possibly another book or two. But not much more than that. Very seldom DM.
2: Whales. Will have most books that interest them - a shelf full or more.
3: Completionists: Will have everything.

Unless you have some real data to back any of this up, what your experiences are don't really help in determining whether there are more DM's vs. players and what that ratio might be...

And in my experience the Whales (I'm in this category) are almost all DMs - and even here the market for DMing materials is ... limited. 3.X being the main exceptions where the barriers to entry for the DM were much higher so there were a greater proportion of whale players.

So again do you have any type of data that isn't your experience or guesses? That was why I included the player materials vs. DM materials because it was a data point outside of anecdotal evidence. We all have anecdotal evidence what I'm asking is do you have any other data to support a table full of DM's being the norm? Or even a table having an equal number of DM's vs. players being the norm?

Just for the record my experiences hew much closer to [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] than they do [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s or yours. In my regular group of 10 players (They don't all play at the same time) there is 1 DM other than myself who only DM's occasionally. Everyone else is a player with no desire to DM (and yes some have given it a go and weren't bad at it but enjoy the experience of being a player much more than the DM side).

 

[Hussar]

Whereas my experience is generally about 1 in 3. Probably goes a very long way towards explaining our differing viewpoints on the game though, [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION]. When you game with so many DM's, the idea that "well I have an adventure, you should shut up and play" doesn't fly very far. Nor does the idea of, "Well, I'm the DM, so you should respect my authority". Big daddy pants DMing is a whole lot harder when you've got two or three other people sitting around the table with just as much experience, if not more, behind that screen as you do.