D&D General The DM Shortage

[bloodtide]

I see the DM shortage in my part of the world.

Online, you will see plenty of players looking for a game, but few DMs.

In real life, it is even more extreme. Both the library and game shop have lots of ads looking for a DM. any ad looking for players is filled fast. Go to the Game Keep on a weekend you might see two games being played at tables....and often ten to twenty players hanging around looking for a game. But no DMs.

It's so bad....players that hate my hard fun old school game style and overly love the D&D direction and can't wait until they can play 5.5E/6E and not have a fantasy race anymore.....are playing in game run by me. They can't find a DM, so they game with me.

 

[Maxperson]

Our metro area of 750k is down to one of those (in a mall that will soon be demolished) plus the B&N affiliated campus bookstore (which had D&D but not the sci-fi fantasy section anymore). The regular B&N here seems to never be busy (as opposed to the one in my hometown in IL or the one in Pittsburgh vaguely by Squirrel Hill).

That's too bad. I'm lucky living here in Los Angeles. We have 4 Barnes & Noble within 30 minutes of me and all have the sci-fi/fantasy sections and D&D sections.

 

[overgeeked]

I'm surprised Moldvay was relatively that long (just a bit under half) to only get to third level. But I'm guessing Cook is about the same length, so that B/X is about the same length as the new Basic rules?

I think my numbers for that are off. It was a txt export of the official PDF. There was a lot of garbled text. At a guess it’s closer to 40,000 words, which, when combined with Cook’s Expert (plus some optional rules) gets us the 85,000 of OSE Classic.

 

[Desdichado]

I think the main question for me here is: what is the GMs job? What is the GM supposed to be doing before and during games? This is a bit pithy, but:
OSR: design an interesting location, use procedures, allow for player creativity
PBTA/FITD: don't prep anything, ask interesting questions and use the answers, introduce complications, play to see what happens

I often say (in fact I think I did here earlier, in fact) that I AM old fashioned, but I'm not old school. Part of what I mean by this is that I think those playstyles that you're describing exist independently of the rules, to a great degree. Certainly some rules make some playstyles easier or harder to execute at the table, but by and large, my playstyle has been the same whether playing 1e, B/X, 3e, Call of Cthulhu, Dark Matter, Star Wars, WFRP, or any other game that I've run. Of which I'm sure I'm missing a few. Heck, I've even run Dread in pretty much the same style as D&D.

That's part of the disconnect, I think—the OSR and the 5e crowd see themselves as two different systems, but the reality is that they are two different playstyles, and the system doesn't really matter that much, and either style could be done with either system. I'm old enough to remember playing B/X, 1e and even a bit of the white box, and frankly, back in the day, we played more like what 5e is doing than what the OSR is doing, in a lot of ways. Me and my friends didn't have a wargaming background, we were fans of reading fantasy books when we got in to D&D. Most people played published modules and they preferred bigger ones with more material, they didn't get really creative with minimalist material. Modern D&D still feels like dungeoncrawling to me, if the 5e campaigns that I've looked at are any guide.

Anyway, I'm probably getting rambly (and I've got more replies to look at, so I'm probably not done) so I should probably quit while I'm ahead here, but I personally think that what you want the game to be doesn't necessarily have all that much with what the rules are (or were) at the time you came into gaming and much more the vector that brought gaming to your attention in the first place.

 

[Desdichado]

Yeah, it bugs me when fellow OSR fans (of which I am one) go off into one-true-wayism and how OSR is the best for everything, without realizing that people want different things.

however...

Certain aspects of the OSR:

• rulings over rules
• DM's world
• Less text of rules

Do help address a lack of DM's. When you have more DM empowerment and less rules to memorize, that makes DMing more appealing.

Curiously, I played 3e with all of those "OSR" traits very much front and center, because that's just how I've always played every game no matter what year it is or what system it is. I mean, 3e had lots of rules text, I guess, but if you focus on rulings over rules, it doesn't really matter that much anyway, does it? My attitude, like Mr. Darcy (not really a literary reference that the D&D crowd is necessarily familiar with) my good opinion, once lost, was lost forever, so haven't played a version of D&D newer than 3.5, but the hearsay I heard for years was that 5e was significantly simpler and more DM empowering than 3e or 4e either one had been. At least in print. So I guess that's part of where I struggle. I mean, I agree with everything you're saying, but how to you determine how much of that a game has? Relative to what standard? How do you measure it?

I suppose people who are only familiar with 5e, because they're part of the supposed grand new wave of younger players, like my daughter's fiancé, for instance, probably play a certain way because it's never occurred to them to do anything different because their experience isn't very broad or deep, either one. Maybe it never occurs to them to play 5e rules in a more "OSR-like" style where maybe they don't reference the rules during play all that often, rely on DM rulings, and don't try to rules-lawyer their way into whatever it is that they want the DM to do.

Then again, if that's what we're saying is the difference between the 5e style and the OSR style, then its curious that the supposed 5e style seems to have been super prevalent back in the early and mid 80s when we were all migrating from B/X or BECMI to AD&D. In fact, by stated design intent, AD&D was created to address specifically the style of play that we now associate with 5e, and not with the OSR. At least in many elements from a rules perspective, although if you associate 5e style instead with method acting and My Precious Character syndrome, I'd certainly say that's a major point of departure between 1e and 5e. And while I recognize that the OSR has become something different than just the second coming of late 70s through early80s style gaming, it does seem somewhat fascinating and ironic that the OSR, which supposedly kicked off officially with the publication of OSRIC which is a 1e emulator, has now become something that completely eschews and rejects the AD&D paradigm in favor of the OD&D and maybe B/X paradigm.

Anyway, that's neither here nor there, I suppose. Just a curious evolution in the hobby.

 

[Reynard]

People who don't want location based gaming don't want to be told to do a location game.

If people want to run an narrative adventure across multiple locations, factions, and peoples, give advice to run narrative adventure across multiple locations, factions, and NPCs.

If people want Bid Bad Evil Guys, give advice of how to write a BBEG and how their quirks affect gameplay.

You didn't answer my question. I was asking you specifically about what you saw specifically in the DMG that wasn't working for you.

 

[ECMO3]

So

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 learned back in red box like you. That said the starter set with LMOP does actually walk people through it step by step.

Here on this board we talk about the latest feat in Tasha's and debate the rules in the PHB but there is a far simpler version of 5E available in the starter set with pregen characters and just the starter set rules. This is analogous to the Red Box vs AD&D 1E back in the day but I would argue the starter set is actually simpler than D&D basic and Keep on the Boarderlands was in 1980 when I learned it.

I started 5E as a DM with plenty of previous experience in 1E as well as some in 3E, there are also people I know who started as a DM in 5E with no prior experience and did fine and I even played with them and they were fine.

The DM economy is not for me for two reasons, first learning to use the VTTs as a DM is much more stressing, second the amount of money you make is little compared to the time you need to put in to be good at it.

 

[Minigiant]

That's part of the disconnect, I think—the OSR and the 5e crowd see themselves as two different systems, but the reality is that they are two different playstyles, and the system doesn't really matter that much, and either style could be done with either system.

This this is it.

To me there are 3 major styles of D&D and you can more or less run them with any edition to an extent. The difference is focus.

And for all of D&D'slife, the designers were of Type 1 or Type 2. But the majority of new D&D players are Type 3.

There isn't a "DM shortage". There is a shortage of Type 3 DMs. And there are few tools and advice specifically for Type 3 DMs

You didn't answer my question. I was asking you specifically about what you saw specifically in the DMG that wasn't working for you.

Page 94-95: Villians

It tells me Villain themes and Methods.
It doesn't tell me whether

1. whether the villainis solo, has a single sidekick, an army of henchmen, and/or a few lieutenants.
   1. whether the henchmen are loyal, paid, convinced through fear or just have allied goals
   2. whether the henchmen are equal between each other or have escalating power
   3. which quirks and traits lieutenants might have
2. possible villainous organization structures
3. possible villainous abilities
   1. by race
   2. by class
   3. by type
4. how to build encounter based on the villain's henchmen
5. what type of dungeons they might hold up in or use as bases
6. how a villain's style might alter a dungeon

 

[Desdichado]

This this is it.

To me there are 3 major styles of D&D and you can more or less run them with any edition to an extent. The difference is focus.

And for all of D&D'slife, the designers were of Type 1 or Type 2. But the majority of new D&D players are Type 3.

There isn't a "DM shortage". There is a shortage of Type 3 DMs. And there are few tools and advice specifically for Type 3 DMs

I'm curious what you see the three styles to be and the characteristics of each. I'd mostly say that currently there are two main styles, but taxonomically I'm probably too much of a lumper, and I could see various ways of defining and splitting playstyles.

 

[payn]

What is a type 3?