Is the DM the most important person at the table

[Ovinomancer]

Interesting. See, here is the exact statement I found problematic:


1) People don’t know which they actually want! They think they want AA, but they really want AOCM...or vice versa.

And here is my full response:



Now, given that I have repeatedly made statements like, "It's great to encourage people to play differently, to try new things, etc." you would think this could be put to rest pretty easily.

...and yet. For some reason, it's really, really important for a cohort of people to insist that they understand other people's preference better than they do.

Well, good for you! Insist away. I'll just be all insidious-like, with my weird belief that we should respect the differences other people have, instead of insisting that other people don't know what they want.

I'll assume the "you" in the last para is just a rhetorical device applied in haste and not the accusation it appears to be. I wouldn't want to assume insidious behavior over hasty phrasing after all.

And, sure, there are jerks that think they know what other people think better than they do. I don't recall them posting in this thread, though. I'm not sure why you keep insisting we remember these jerks exist when they aren't currently present and participating in the thread.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I apologize; I wasn't trying to be obscure.

What I mean is that there are plenty of non-D&D alternatives to play. There are tons of games that are built to support a style of play, easily, that allows for inter alia all the player narrative and control anyone can want!

What I'm saying, instead, is that there is a reason that many tables aren't playing it. Again. this is partly due to path dependency (I play D&D because that's what everyone plays, and has always played), but it's also partly because there is a massive group of people that enjoy that style of play.

At a higher level, I would say that games like Blades in the Dark (or any Forged in the Dark system) will never appeal to the majority of gamers to the extent that D&D does; not because they are bad systems (far from it), but only because they are very, very good at appealing to the players that they appeal to; to make the analogy, there is nothing wrong with being Taylor Swift (for example), and there's nothing wrong with being God's Illest Joe- just, you know, different audiences.

This goes from a good point (that people may not play a different game because they aren't aware, lack opportunity due to group, ir straight up don't prefer them) to an assumption as to the numbers of each where you assume you know what many people think and it aligns with your opinion. This is as correct as someone else assuming it's because they don't know any better. There's no support for either statement.

All that can be said is that the large majority of RPG players play 5e edition*. That doesn't tell us much else as to why, or even if those D&D counts include also playing ither games.

* which has many different assumptions from, say, 0e, as 5e does from many other games, if not in the primary role of GM.

 

[Nagol]

Yup, different people have different opinions on what's hard. We've gotten to the point in the conversation where we're explaining to each other what opinions are.

This is why I don't feel the desire to debate what's harder DMing or playing, and instead want to focus on methods to make DMing easier.

Do you have any ideas on that?

Dozens, possibly more. It depends a lot on the game engine, campaign type (common environment, level of continuity between missions, expected PC power level, expected amount and power of extraordinary abilities aka magic), , and specific GM (what does the GM find difficult during a session and what costs time outside of it).

Let's start with the GM first. Many newer GMs have confessed they get overwhelmed during a session by adjudicating consequence. Either they are afraid of the players going the 'wrong way' or that they don't want to hurt the players' feelings (I had one Paranoia GM that refused to kill the PCs, like ever).

Like most new things, start small and practice. Make sure the game you are running fits what you want to run. If you feel uncomfortable killing PCs, pick a game where that is highly unlikely or impossible as opposed to one where multiple PC death is game conceit.

Other advice would depend a lot on the campaign type: sandbox means there is no wrong path, AP if the PCs wander off script, let them founder a little, but find ways to keep offering them back onto the path. If the players refuse to take the ramps, talk to the players about expectations.

If the DM is uncomfortable with improv design, again practice and keep individual areas small and highly contained. Also learn some basic paradigms like the 5-room dungeon so you have a basic framework to riff on. Practice "yes and" answers to player declarations to keep the table moving and engaged. Try to avoid hard blocks when the players try something entirely unexpected. It's OK to take a 5-10 minute break to regroup and think through consequence and ramifications. Create a few index cards or equivalent with thematic collections of antagonists and rewards. Collect traps, tricks, and puzzles to drop in to distract.

Above all, listen. The players will almost certainly be discussing possibilities and they have multiple brains. Liberally steal the best of ideas though toss in some twists to make them your own.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Nagol]

This goes from a good point (that people may not play a different game because they aren't aware, lack opportunity due to group, ir straight up don't prefer them) to an assumption as to the numbers of each where you assume you know what many people think and it aligns with your opinion. This is as correct as someone else assuming it's because they don't know any better. There's no support for either statement.

All that can be said is that the large majority of RPG players play 5e edition*. That doesn't tell us much else as to why, or even if those D&D counts include also playing ither games.

* which has many different assumptions from, say, 0e, as 5e does from many other games, if not in the primary role of GM.

Anecdotes abound of tables refusing to pursue other games and DMs capitulating. Heck, I can't get my tables to consider BitD despite my enthusiasm. Luckily for my players, my current campaign is still of interest to me or they'd be facing a stark choice.

I saw similar bias towards d20 game engines in the 3.X era. Some people want the comfort of a familiar engine even if a different engine offers better* game play.





* by some set of arbitrary measures.

 

[prabe]

(I had one Paranoia GM that refused to kill the PCs, like ever).

Um.

That sounds like an entry in the point-missing hall of fame, dunnit?

 

[Ovinomancer]

But it doesn't align with my opinion, does it? So, maybe don't tell me what to think? I mean, I just called D&D the Taylor Swift of games, and if you're familiar at all with what I write, you should understand exactly how I meant it.

No, I am not familiar with your opinion of Taylor Swift. I did assume that what you presented was your opinion, so apologies. What is your opinion of why most people seem to play D&D, then?

And if you aren't familiar, maybe you're the one leaping to conclusions to support your own point of view?

This seems a tad hostile -- I did my best to follow what you've put down. Usually, though, when one is unclear in how they present themselves, blaming the audience is a poor choice. As you've admitted above you argued by familiarity with unstated (in this thread) opinion and that you presented an idea that wasn't your opinion without calling that out, I'm not well motivated to assume responsibility for this miscommunication. I'll admit I can be mistaken, but I'm awaiting the correction, still.

In a certain way, nothing means anything, does it?

In a another, also certain way, revealed preferences count for something. Not quality, but something.

...and I think we're good now!

I think that you taking that most people play D&D is a revealed preference right after saying it could be through group conformity pressure or unawareness of other options is premature. You haven't done the work to show that the disparity in popularity is indeed through revealed preferences rather than other options. I think you could advance that theory, and I'm not adverse to it, but you can't claim evidence to support it -- it's more of an inference. Having had experience running games in game stores (I once managed a hobby shop with a large RPG section in addition to running in other stores), I'd say that the monoculture effect of 'it's what I can play' and 'it's all I've played' are pretty strong influences as well -- inferentially speaking based on my experiences, of course.

 

[Nagol]

Um.

That sounds like an entry in the point-missing hall of fame, dunnit?

It was... weird, certainly. I played about 4 different adventures with the same clone before "I got too busy" and bowed out.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Anecdotes abound of tables refusing to pursue other games and DMs capitulating. Heck, I can't get my tables to consider BitD despite my enthusiasm. Luckily for my players, my current campaign is still of interest to me or they'd be facing a stark choice.

I saw similar bias towards d20 game engines in the 3.X era. Some people want the comfort of a familiar engine even if a different engine offers better* game play.





* by some set of arbitrary measures.

Oh, comfort is a big thing. I don't deny that. I'm questioning if that counts as evidence that they might not enjoy other games if they overcame that barrier. I've had good luck getting groups to play other games. Presenting one shots or short runs so that there's not much opportunity cost seems to work well. That might be the groups I've encountered, it might not. I will say that, until the last few years, all of the games we tried had pretty strong traditional roles for players and GMs. A few blurred the lines a bit, but the structure remained. Still, I haven't had much trouble getting my current group to play Blades -- they love it. We are, however, currently playing 5e because we like that game, too. I'm excited to try running a Scum and Villainy game soon, which I know I'll have little trouble pitching and will have to actually be selective in players, but that's because I know a lot of Firefly fans and I'm pitching a game in that vein. I hope to get back to 7Sea 1st ed sometime, though, as I think I can make that game really sing by moving towards a 'play to see what happens' mode rather than the GM determined games that always seems to wilt a bit.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It was... weird, certainly. I played about 4 different adventures with the same clone before "I got too busy" and bowed out.

Paranoia is a game that I think would work better as a PbtA hack rather than the rules as released. The game promise was snowballing danger leading to hilarity and hijinx, but that takes a really talented GM to orchestrate according to the rules presents. A system that actually supports the snowball mechanically seems a much better fit. I think you could do it with FATE, maybe, or Savage Worlds, but I really think an engine built around building consequences would be a great fit.

But, yeah, not killing clones is :yikes: