D&D General The DM Shortage

[Desdichado]

The source is Monte Cook in his review of D&D 3.5.

Ryan Dancey did say it too. As did, if I remember correctly, Sean K. Reynolds. It's not just one half-remembered quote; it was a real narrative coming out of some of the older designers who were around at the time, and their insight was remarkably consistent across all of them.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Or said more broadly, whenever there's a conflict of play motivations at the table. Before any game considerations, the GM's zeroth responsibility, imo, is just doing the necessary vetting to ensure that every one at the table is compatible-- including basic personality conflicts.

Well, I think the choice of system does have some influence on what style of game you can easily play, and the fact that 5e is so pervasive makes it difficult to play games where the PCs aren't superheroes. I use Level Up as a compromise, but if I had my way I would be playing an OSR game like ACKS or DCC.

 

[Digdude]

I feel that bounded accuracy although is generally a good thing, has diminished magic item distribution, general stat increases, and a homogenization of armor and weapons. I think 3.0+ got too carried away with redonkulous plusses to hit but it did scale well with the really high AC creatures. I think reducing these things has for me at least been a challenge as I run 5.0 games, making it difficult to DM. Not by a large factor, mind you.

 

[Maxperson]

While I agree with your A, I also think it's more that people confuse the last point, rather badly. As explained here:


Exactly. If D&D were a storygame it would look wildly, wildly different. Speaking of, I just posted a related thread over in the One D&D sub.

I liked what that guy was saying, but he gestures too frequently with his hands and arms. LOL

 

[Minigiant]

The question is; is this a style that's widely recognized and widely used, and was it ever ascendant in any edition of D&D? I can't think of very many products that describe play this way, or any DM advice sections that describe play this way, etc. other than Perkins' DM Experience column during 4e that hinted at it, and Dungeon World which codified it into a very jargon-filled and process oriented approach in the form of Fronts, and Sly Flourish who took the Dungeon World system and simplified it in a blog post.

The problem was always the hook.

A LOT of People are sold D&D by telling them they are heroic or villainous characters who go on an adventure to have exciting experiences.

The fact that the game and the DM tended to tone this down once you got to the table is a different thing.

 

[Minigiant]

Why are you assigning a massive portion of the gm's role to a player? If you are saying that the gm should do that there's two big problems.

I'm not.

First problem is that the gm does those things normally in trad game play... Heck even classic does it. You aren't describing anything new that requires a new term

Point to me where it says "if the villian is a fighter, his henchman have longsword." "If your villian worships your god of war, he probably has an axe and all his martial henchmen might be orc berserker, human blood knights, and dwarves beastslayers"

How many DMs have organization charts for the various enemy groups of a dungeon? Or have wikis with the various info of allied and hostile NPCs.

Second problem is a pretty big one & relates to how "the modern style" is just trying to claim Hickman manifesto severed from mechanics & game play because some of d&d's most memorable npcs come from that very set of points

The modern style focuses on Step 4.

If your enemies are interesting and active, you can have a memorable "end" every 1d4 sessions. Much how a TV show makes a memorable end every 1-2 episodes.

You can't do really the Hickman Manifesto without the NPCs to display the ends.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I don't get the idea of the OSR being full of DMs and no players. Surely some of those DMs want to play, right?

Not under and OSR DM, apparently.

 

[tetrasodium]

I'm not.


Point to me where it says "if the villian is a fighter, his henchman have longsword." "If your villian worships your god of war, he probably has an axe and all his martial henchmen might be orc berserker, human blood knights, and dwarves beastslayers"

How many DMs have organization charts for the various enemy groups of a dungeon? Or have wikis with the various info of allied and hostile NPCs.

The modern style focuses on Step 4.

If your enemies are interesting and active, you can have a memorable "end" every 1d4 sessions. Much how a TV show makes a memorable end every 1-2 episodes.

You can't do really the Hickman Manifesto without the NPCs to display the ends.

Problem comes when you remove realism" or "verisimilitude the GM needs to take steps that start drawing the PCs through a story instead of allowing the players to ignore all of that worldbuilding you are now advocating for. The GM doing that makes it look very much like the GM is trying to draw the PCs through a story instead of allowing them to create a story through play instead of allowing the players create a story through play... That would be fine but "the Modern Style" also seems to come with an extreme disempowering of the gm that makes it difficult on the GM.

 

[Desdichado]

I don't get the idea of the OSR being full of DMs and no players. Surely some of those DMs want to play, right?

I'm accepting for the sake of argument Questing Beast's assertion there. Whether or not his discord poll is really evidence of reality is a question that I'm not asking for now.

 

[Minigiant]

Problem comes when you remove realism" or "verisimilitude the GM needs to take steps that start drawing the PCs through a story instead of allowing the players to ignore all of that worldbuilding you are now advocating for. The GM doing that makes it look very much like the GM is trying to draw the PCs through a story instead of allowing them to create a story through play instead of allowing the players create a story through play... That would be fine but "the Modern Style" also seems to come with an extreme disempowering of the gm that makes it difficult on the GM.

Again, This has nothing to do with story or versimillitude. It's about characters

The core issue is that

1. the modern style isn't taught by the books
2. Most of the older experienced DM are not fans of the modern style to teach it
3. The official and unofficial options for the modern style are minimal

People like like the modern style approach it incorrectly due to lack of guidance and scare themselves. So only people with years of experience playing other styles or people incentivized by money are will either create their own tools or try to saw a log with a hammer.

The modern style is VERY empowering to the GM. However it requires having a firm grasp of the works of your world. But the books tell you to "not worry about that and roll 1d100 to populate the forest willy nilly". There just aren't easy in your face tools to create meaningful aspects quickly so it becomes a slog.