I think a lot of experienced DM's do that. I don't like to run modules or encounters because my players will read them and them plan for the encounters. If I make my own encounters then i can plan for my party .
Grognard view of One D&D?
Really? I’d consider that cheating, and ruining the point of playing.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
Agreed; but if one is running a bunch of experienced old-school DMs as one's players it's inevitable that any classic module will almost certainly have been either played through or run by at least one of them and sometimes by all of them.
I'm a good example: there's a bunch of classic modules I'd never want to play in now as I just remember them too well through having DMed them.
MNblockhead
A Title Much Cooler Than Anything on the Old Site
Depends on the group(s) you play with. In my experience it usually isn't that the players agree to play in a campaign, then run out and buy a book they don't have so they can read it to "win."
More likely, many players are also DMs or just fans and buy the books, read them because they enjoy them and some time later their group decides to run an adventure they have already read. Or you may have some very active players that played some or all of an adventure with another group or adventurer's league, but they still want to participate in your game.
Many players are mature enough to not metagame. I'm fine if a player tells me "I read that adventure but I never got to run it. I would love to play in this campaign. I'll avoid metagaming and will let players who haven't run the game make decisions where my pre-existing knowlege of the adventure might be a spoiler." As a DM I would likely make some changes anyway to mix things up.
Currently, I typically run third-party adventures because I don't have the time to homebrew entire campaigns and the third-party adventures better match the style of game I want to run than the WotC games. They also have the benefit of not being familiar to my players.
Man in the Funny Hat
Hero
NO edition of D&D has an expiration date. Doesn't matter why they might want old Grognards to drink the koolaid - they just don't have to buy into 5E if they don't want to. Nobody does. Everyone can play any past edition to their hearts content until they die. The problem the old guard might face is finding people to play. 5E is the 800# gorilla and just doesn't need to care about grognards (old schoolers, or whatever you want to call them). The NON-5E numbers of players are simply insignificant to their success.
I have enjoyed playing 5E, but I have no desire to RUN it as a DM. If players WANT me to run a game then they're certainly gonna be playing 3E E6 or house-ruled 1E. I'd been thinking I might stoop to running a 5E Spelljammer game, but that's feeling less likely as time goes by. Part of the problem IS that the people I want to play with aren't all in the same area. The idea of a truly 3D VTT to run games on DOES have appeal to me. WHEN I SEE IT, I will then assess if it's worth actually trying. Until then it's all just everybody's WILD, largely baseless speculation. They're also making rules changes. I have no idea what effect those would have on 5E gameplay as it currently stands. Frankly, I don't much care because I'm STILL more interested in running older editions and NOT in running 5E. But if someone else invites me to play in a 5E game, or OneD&D game - I'll bite. My enjoyment of such a game would not then hinge upon the system but upon the game as presented BY THAT DM. That was always the case and always will be. A good DM can run an enjoyable game of even not-very-good rules, but if the DM just has little or no interest in the underlying rules then the game they present will greatly suffer accordingly. The rules matter a lot more for me as DM than they do for me as a player.
Frankly, the best outcome for me at this point is a new OneD&D VTT that I can use for OTHER editions as well and not have to commit to running ONLY OneD&D with it. I don't see that as terribly likely. Again - they don't have a REASON to care about older editions or those who might prefer them. And in terms of programming a VTT, they're taking on a HELL of a lot bigger task to adapt it all to multiple rules editions and/or house rules than to cater only to the rules they WANT to cater to. Herding everyone to ONE set of rules is better for them for sales. They've been doing it since they bought TSR in the first place. They tried a VTT once before back in the beginning in the 3E era and it failed quite hard. I'm not convinced yet that THIS attempt will actually succeed to the degree they want people to believe it will.
I will wait and see, and hold my final judgements until then.
I have enjoyed playing 5E, but I have no desire to RUN it as a DM. If players WANT me to run a game then they're certainly gonna be playing 3E E6 or house-ruled 1E. I'd been thinking I might stoop to running a 5E Spelljammer game, but that's feeling less likely as time goes by. Part of the problem IS that the people I want to play with aren't all in the same area. The idea of a truly 3D VTT to run games on DOES have appeal to me. WHEN I SEE IT, I will then assess if it's worth actually trying. Until then it's all just everybody's WILD, largely baseless speculation. They're also making rules changes. I have no idea what effect those would have on 5E gameplay as it currently stands. Frankly, I don't much care because I'm STILL more interested in running older editions and NOT in running 5E. But if someone else invites me to play in a 5E game, or OneD&D game - I'll bite. My enjoyment of such a game would not then hinge upon the system but upon the game as presented BY THAT DM. That was always the case and always will be. A good DM can run an enjoyable game of even not-very-good rules, but if the DM just has little or no interest in the underlying rules then the game they present will greatly suffer accordingly. The rules matter a lot more for me as DM than they do for me as a player.
Frankly, the best outcome for me at this point is a new OneD&D VTT that I can use for OTHER editions as well and not have to commit to running ONLY OneD&D with it. I don't see that as terribly likely. Again - they don't have a REASON to care about older editions or those who might prefer them. And in terms of programming a VTT, they're taking on a HELL of a lot bigger task to adapt it all to multiple rules editions and/or house rules than to cater only to the rules they WANT to cater to. Herding everyone to ONE set of rules is better for them for sales. They've been doing it since they bought TSR in the first place. They tried a VTT once before back in the beginning in the 3E era and it failed quite hard. I'm not convinced yet that THIS attempt will actually succeed to the degree they want people to believe it will.
I will wait and see, and hold my final judgements until then.
Thomas Shey
Legend
This is really the issue with non-D&D games, too; if you don't have an established group you're going to move over to a new game (and know are not allergic to the whole idea) you just have to accept that you're fishing people out of the vast mass of D&D players, current and past. Its just the gig.
Whizbang Dustyboots
Gnometown Hero
I run my main campaign in Ptolus, a setting packed with major secrets, including earth-shattering ones about the nature of the world. Several of my players own the book and run games in it as well, and thus almost certainly know all the secrets I'm making relevant in the campaign. There has never been an issue in more than a decade of play.
However, I also knew everyone for more than a decade beforehand and we'd done collaborative works together, so I knew they'd be fine. If a random person wanted to join the campaign, I would ask them not to buy the book or read spoilers about it until I had a better sense of whether they would be able to not let their outside knowledge influence play.
Honestly, I don't think I've had an issue with players cheating this way -- and I do think of it as cheating -- since middle school, which is a bad standard to hold any adult to. I hope everyone has grown since middle school.
Last edited:
FitzTheRuke
Legend
It's pronounced groan-yard, right? Not grog-nerd?
GuyBoy
Hero
I reckon so: French sounds better than Dwarvish.
Whizbang Dustyboots
Gnometown Hero
"Jif."
Similar Threads
