D&D General The DM Shortage

[DetachedObserver]

A few articles have appeared recently that focus on the "DM shortage." Long story short: with all the people joining the hobby, there are apparently not enough DMs to fill need. This, of course, drives a paid-DM economy (work I have done but I found is not really for me) as well as a lot of online consternation.

One thing I see a lot of on reddit an similar places is groups of 3 or 4 or even 5 friends unable to find a DM. My first thought for this people is: duh, one of YOU be the DM. That's how this works. Then I think about how I learned to DM way back in 1985 with a Red Box that actually taught the skill, step by step, at the same time it taught the players how to play. D&D had "beginner products" but nothing (I am aware of) that actually handholds a new DM through the process from a to z.

The other thing I thinks is: Do you know how many non-D&D GMs are desperately seeking player for their Fate or M&M or STA or Cthulhu campaign? Try something besides D&D! But, i remember when D&D was the "only" game and so I understand the tendency for new players who got interested because of Critical Role to try some non-D&D game first.

So, what do you think is driving the DM shortage? How do you think we (the community) and/or WotC can or should address it?

Also: before anyone else brings it up, Questing Beast did a video on the subject and he basically said "Run OSR!" (unsurprisingly) and I can't say I disagree with him, but that is still advising to play a game that is something other than the D&D on the shelves that drew them to the hobby in the first place.

I stopped DMing for randos at cons and game stores because player buy in is at an all time low. Everyone wants to run these amazing, romantic, memorable characters but they put zero effort into learning the rules. As a DM, I already shoulder the VAST majority of the load when it comes to making sure everyone has an enjoyable time - I cannot tolerate at all any player who cannot be bothered to learn how the game works. Or buy a PHB. And they're everywhere.

 

[seebs]

Running a modern game takes 1-3 hours of prep for every 1 hour of play.

wat

 

[Zardnaar]

wat

Can do I used to do that now I invert the ratio.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The game has always been as deadly as the DM wants. The DM has unlimited dragons, can double tap, can disintegrate if they want. The DM always determines difficulty.

I don't know why you keep insisting that somehow old school D&D must be deadly. It was easier for a DM to accidentally kill PCs which is why we probably avoided some monsters and types of traps. But avoiding a medusa because it can instantly turn you into stone is not the same as house ruling, fudging or any other claim you want to make.

Give up. When he says "deadly" , he means "random" or "unpredictable".

Yes, the game was more swingy by RAW. A single roll could decide who wins.

Most DM's I know however made sure that you get enough magical items to protect you from the game and most players used tactics like "always magic missile spread on all enemy spellcasters".

We had played ADnD 2e every weekend, often for 10 hours or more back then... and still most of my characters have miraculously survived. No. It was not deadly at all.

Edit. Hmm. Seems I was on an old unupdated page and I was 17 pages behind... I hope my commentary was not totally irrelevant.

 

[Aldarc]

I've noticed, however, that many of the sources you mention kind of assume that you already know what the spells are like, because of D&D. Same with monsters, who typically lack detailed descriptions because everyone knows what a dragon or orc or basilisk is like, because of D&D.

I think that there is some truth in that, though it seems to be an unproveable assumption and people likely know of dragons and orcs from things other than D&D, but you could extend that argument throughout the entire gamut of the TTRPG industry and just say that people must know X or Y because of D&D. However, I'm not sure if that means that D&D must necessarily have longer spell/monster write-ups and more detailed descriptions or even a greater quantity of spells/monsters or that these other games aren't making conscientious design choices with writing their books more concisely.

 

[pemerton]

5e D&D is a fun game - I will not deny that - but the sheer amount of spells can be daunting IME when compared to other TTRPG systems out there.

I've noticed, however, that many of the sources you mention kind of assume that you already know what the spells are like, because of D&D. Same with monsters, who typically lack detailed descriptions because everyone knows what a dragon or orc or basilisk is like, because of D&D.

I think that there is some truth in that, though it seems to be an unproveable assumption and people likely know of dragons and orcs from things other than D&D, but you could extend that argument throughout the entire gamut of the TTRPG industry and just say that people must know X or Y because of D&D. However, I'm not sure if that means that D&D must necessarily have longer spell/monster write-ups and more detailed descriptions or even a greater quantity of spells/monsters or that these other games aren't making conscientious design choices with writing their books more concisely.

As it happens I've got my copy of OD&D out. It has 12 pages on spells and magical research, detailing 70 MU spells (to 6th level) and 26 cleric spells (to 5th level). The typical spell description is 2 to 4 lines, though some are a little longer than that.

Moldvay Basic has pithy spell descriptions too.

Monsters in OD&D tend to be one line of stats, and then 5 or so lines of description. In Moldvay they are generally a bit longer than that.

I'm definitely of the view that modern D&D tends to suffer a bit from text bloat.

 

[S'mon]

Also: before anyone else brings it up, Questing Beast did a video on the subject and he basically said "Run OSR!" (unsurprisingly) and I can't say I disagree with him, but that is still advising to play a game that is something other than the D&D on the shelves that drew them to the hobby in the first place.

I kinda feel it seems easier to create an adventure in OSR type rules and then run it in 5e, than to create a 5e adventure. I mostly tend to run 5e, but I very often use material created for (eg) Labyrinth Lord to do it. Pre-2e D&D definitely felt like a GM-centric game with a focus on the GM creating and running stuff. This focus definitely seemed to get lost, leading to a shortage of willing GMs.

 

[S'mon]

Those starter sets don't necessarily teach how to DM, though -- at least not in the way the 1983 Red Box did. The only comparable product I can think of is the Pathfinder Beginner Box.

I definitely agree with that. The 1e PBB is the only good intro to running D&D I've seen in the 21st century, aside from OSR clones of Moldvay Basic. And in many way it's better than them. No WoTC stuff comes anywhere near. I kinda get the impression WoTC don't have any idea how to create a new GM.

 

[Minigiant]

wat

Key word is modern. Modern play is not barebones and the DMG doesn't help at all.

I definitely agree with that. The 1e PBB is the only good intro to running D&D I've seen in the 21st century, aside from OSR clones of Moldvay Basic. And in many way it's better than them. No WoTC stuff comes anywhere near. I kinda get the impression WoTC don't have any idea how to create a new GM.

It's not that WOTC don't know how to do it. It just wasn't the point.

Again. The explosion of popularity of 5e was not expected. The 5th edition core books and strater sets were written for people who already play D&D.

5e wasn't designed to teach new DMs. It was designed to teach 5e to old DMs.

5e was designed for

• 1 veteran DM who left D&D in 2nd, 3rd, or 4th edition
• 2-3 D&D fans
• 1-2 newbies who would have "Human Champion Fighter" thrown at them

The assumption was that your DM already knew how to DM. Because the DMG didn't teach you know to DM. It taught you how to convert your old settings to 5e.

 

[Aldarc]

As it happens I've got my copy of OD&D out. It has 12 pages on spells and magical research, detailing 70 MU spells (to 6th level) and 26 cleric spells (to 5th level). The typical spell description is 2 to 4 lines, though some are a little longer than that.

Moldvay Basic has pithy spell descriptions too.

Monsters in OD&D tend to be one line of stats, and then 5 or so lines of description. In Moldvay they are generally a bit longer than that.

I'm definitely of the view that modern D&D tends to suffer a bit from text bloat.

It's IMHO text bloat plus sheer spell volume. There are a lot of ways that D&D can improve its layout and/or writing without committing the cardinal sin of vaguely reminding Edition Warriors of something 4e did.

I feel like a lot of that was the result of accumulation of spells across editions, with a lot of spells seeming kind of redundant or game-breaking because they were created as work-arounds to prior spell limits (e.g., conjuration/transmutation spells that effectively act as evocation damage spells, etc.) or spells meant to get around the resource attrition mini-game (e.g., Leomund's Tiny Hut, Rope Trick, etc.).

Part of the difference is that official 5e material is written defensively, that is with the rules lawyers in mind. The assumption is that if something is not spelled out the table will not know what to do. The DM will be unable to make a ruling and the players will be unable to accept a ruling.

Same thing here: these games are able to cut down on the word count of spells because they assume that the table will be able to figure out how they work. Whitehack takes this farther: a spell does what it says, and costs a variable amount of hit points to use depending on DM ruling. Insofar as this requires conversation between DM and player, as well as adjudication by the DM, this is regarded as "mother may I" mechanics.

I agree this is true for some of my examples, such as Black Hack, but I don't think that it somehow invalidates my overall point. Neither the Blue Rose AGE nor Dungeon World nor Shadow of the Demon Lord, for example, are of the OSR persuasion. And while WWN is self-described as OSR it has a lot in common with WotC-era character building (e.g., foci/feats, partial class combos, talents, etc.).