D&D General The DM Shortage

[Smackpixi]

Agree.



Oh absolutely agreed. There are a lot of different styles of games and different tables will enjoy certain things and also will different players will have (fairly or unfairly) some hard "no" where they draw the line on what they can enjoy. And while you can run pretty much any style of game with any game system, some systems will fight you more than others depending on what you trying to do.



Absolutely agree. A dungeon is so much easier to prep than event based and character driven play and more importantly, so much easier to do adequately well and hit everyone's aesthetics of play. You can always with a little thought put social encounters in a dungeon, and eventually you start realizing that everything is a dungeon and from there you can start working with bigger stages without ending up with something degenerate or trivial.



In general, I agree with Ginny that "don't overprep" is terrible advice for a newbie DM. IME, the single biggest indicator of how good a GM is is how much time they spend prepping. The truth is, if you had limitless time, there would be no such thing as over prepping. The more detail to prep for, the richer and more immersive the game can be and the better able you are to handle and provide for player agency while still bringing the twists and narrative arcs that give your game big payoffs.

"Don't overprep" is actually, if we are to be generous with it, shorthand for some much more complex advice that a novice DM is not going to understand without a whole lot more explanation. It's a recognition that we as GMs don't have unlimited time and so we have to choose what to prepare. It's also a recognition that it's possible to prepare badly, leading to the GM either thinking about their game in the wrong way (budding novelist) or being actually completely unprepared for what happens in play.

It means things like, "Don't prep the wrong things. Focus your prep time on the things that are definitely going to come up, and not on the things that aren't. Or to put it in a phase, don't world build to the exclusion of having a rich neighborhood to explore."

It means things like, "Don't prep out a lengthy storyline in detail, because you never know exactly what is going to happen. And don't spend a lot of time fantasizing about the exact events that you want to have happen and how cool they will be, because not only will it turn out much of your prep is made obsolete by player choices, but you'll be tempted to railroad players or disappointed your plans don't come to fruition."

It means things like, "Don't prep for things you don't yet know if you have player buy in for. Make sure you know where the players want to go and do before you plot out the whole railroad or build out the whole sandbox. If you aren't sure, ask them in session zero or at the end of a session."

As far as the "Lazy DM" goes, whether or not the Lazy DM is giving good advice or not depends very heavily on you and your players tolerance for illusionism. I personally have a really sensitive illusionism detector and I personally hate, loathe, and utterly cannot stand illusionism. (By "illusionism" I mean that the game universe shapes and reshapes itself according to the metagame. Nothing is actually fixed until a metagame need establishes what happens. Simple illusionism and somewhat forgivable illusionism might be an event that is timed to occur when the PC's arrive at a location, and not at a fixed time in the game universe. That is to say a can't miss event. The Lazy GM veers toward advising the GM to save prep time by doing everything in response to the metagame.) If my illusionism detector pings off, I probably won't get up from the table and walk, but I probably will politely decline to ever play with you again and speak poorly of your game and even be a little bit angry. You try to pull the "Lazy DM" BS with me, and I will not only notice but will pack my bags. I'm not kidding. I left a group after 5 years in large part because a DM pulled a Lazy DM stunt on me. Probably not fair and yes it's probably an exaggerated pet peeve, and yes I know as a DM everyone uses a little bit of illusionism from time to time for reasons good and bad, but still it's a thing. The trouble with illusionism is it works really well as long as players never know it happened, but as soon as they find out that it happens you've got a problem.

I get real a-hole player vibes out of this. Think I’d be happy to see you walk. You seem to be expecting a DM to have an open world ala Witcher 3 fully fleshed out for you. Like, when presented with Options A, B, and C you pull a haha, came up with D. Then get pissed you can tell the DM just recycles A on you or whips out a random sheet from their bag reserved for when adventure goes sideways. You can like what you like, but it’s a cooperative game, not cooperating with the DM is pretty lame, happy to see you go, maybe I misunderstand? It’s all made up dude, why get angry about if it was made up yesterday or today, or be upset you’re creating the story?

 

[Celebrim]

I get real a-hole player vibes out of this. Think I’d be happy to see you walk. You seem to be expecting a DM to have an open world ala Witcher 3 fully fleshed out for you. Like, when presented with Options A, B, and C you pull a haha, came up with D. Then get pissed you can tell the DM just recycles A on you or whips out a random sheet from their bag reserved for when adventure goes sideways. You can like what you like, but it’s a cooperative game, not cooperating with the DM is pretty lame, happy to see you go, maybe I misunderstand? It’s all made up dude, why get angry about if it was made up yesterday or today, or be upset you’re creating the story?

"A good novel tells us the truth about its hero; but a bad novel tells us the truth about its author." - GK Chesterton

 

[MNblockhead]

Well... I don't know what to say. It doesn't. Maybe don't snip sentence fragments out of context, and they'll make more sense to you? I don't know how to make it more clear. You can run all games with the same style while still preferring games that make it easier to do so. In fact, it seems blindingly obvious that you would do so, to me. That's not a contradiction, its a logical syllogism so simple that I fail to see the need to spell it out. Or... well, I did before now, I guess.

I didn't snip them out of context. I just broke up into the two statements. Here is the full quote, not broken into two.

I guess I'm struggling with what you mean by the severance from mechanics and game play. Read literally, that should mean that the Hickman Revolution only has relevance in an AD&D paradigm. Quite simply, the mechanics have very little impact on play style, and people with playstyle preferences (which are most people) will tend to run most games according to their playstyle, regardless of mechanics, and will probably also tend to dislike or be frustrated with games who's mechanics make their playstyle more difficult to pull off—or they will ignore or houserule significant portions of the mechanics anyway.

There seems to be a bit of cognitive dissonance here. You start by saying that mechanics have very little impact on playstyle and that people will tend to run most games according to their playstyle, regardless of mechanics. But then you go on by arguing that if the mechanics make their preferred playstayle difficult to pull off, players will tend to dislike or be frustrated by them, leading them to ignore or houserule significant portions of the mechanics (or, in my experience, decide to play a different game). If players are finding the mechanics frustrating or unenjoyable and that is causing them to change the mechanics, it would seem that mechanics are having more than a little impact.

Perhaps I am being obtuse. Is your point simply that people are not going to change their playstyle because they will just ignore, change, or otherwise not engage with mechanics that don't match their preferrances? I mean, I guess. But that's like saying that recipes don't change people's personal tastes. I would have to agree to a point, but there are a lot of gamers who enjoy experimenting with different systems and the mechanics can have a significant impact on the game experience, including influencing the players' playstyle.

If my preferred playstyle is highly tactical combat and player-skill dungeon exploration, but I decide to play Dialect or Alice is Missing, I'm going to have to significantly change my normal playstyle or just decide not to play that game. Further, in my experience, playing one game can influence how I play other games. In my personal experience, exposure to different game systems does have an effect on people's play styles. Some players may only like a specific type of game and play style, others like a great deal of diversity of gaming experiences, and most are probably in the middle of those extremes--though that's based on anecdotal evidence from my own experiences and observations. I've never seen any data from surveys on this.

 

[MNblockhead]

But no, instead we get a bunch of random supplements that have like 5 pages of material each I might use and as such aren't worth the cost.

D&D Beyond I think only exacerbates this for those who prefer their D&D in print.

I find that heavy use of DDB makes you engage in the rules less by source book. The more useful grouping combine material from multiple books into one place. E.g., spells, classes, monsters, magic items, etc. It is very convenient. Also, DDB allows you to buy, say, just the monsters, class options, magic items from an adventure or supplement without buying the entire work. Kinda like buying a song rather than an entire album...or buying a subscription and tending to search by songs, often ignoring the albums.

You can pull up a source book in DDB, but then it because as inconvenient as (perhaps more inconvenient than) using the print version. s

What I find telling is how inconvenient pulling up certain rules in DDB can be for specific rules like cover, conditions, stealth, magic line of sight, cover, object AC/hardness/HP, etc. Simply searching tends to bring up a tone of material with the specific rule you are looking for not among the top results. The search options and performance has improved a bit over time, but the natural language approach to rules in 5e make it difficult for keyword searches to be precise when looking up rules.

It really highlights how poorly organized much of the core rule books are. At least with physical books I can use sticky tabs.

The PHP and DM should come with a few quick reference pages that could be used as DM screens. This would be especially powerful in DDB, but would be awfully helpful in the print books as well.

 

[MNblockhead]

I wonder if DM shortages may be caused by more modern long campaign/adventure path play and DMing seeing as more of a hobby role rather than a session role. Can this make existing DMs a hurdle that prospective DMs have to jump over?

Say you have a group of 4-6 friends who can get together once a week for 4-6 hour sessions. How many opportunities arise to switch the DM? For DnD I only have two periods to compare: (1) late 70s through the 80s (Basic and AD&D) and (2) 2014 to now (5e). In my personal experience, the DM role switched frequently in the late 70s and 80s. I think a lot of that had to do with the fact that we almost entirely ran modules. Most modules could be completed in one to three sessions.

The adventures published by WotC today need months to complete. Unless you play in multiple groups, you are likely going to be playing with the same person DMing for months at a time. Co-DMing is a thing, but doesn't seem that popular. I personally wouldn't find it satisfying to switch between being a player and being a DM during the same published WotC adventure.

TTRPG streaming shows tend to etch into many new players that long campaigns focus on character development and grand story arches are the core to the D&D experience.

There are lots of third-party publishers putting out short adventures but they aren't going to influence newer players as much as if WotC would publish one shots.

I like WotCs slow-burn publishing of rule books, settings, and large adventures, but it would be nice if they would publish more short adventures on a regular basis. Not just expensive books collecting together a lot of adventures and not just DMs guild, but an adventure a two a month with the full DDB treatment. Really, all they would need to do is take the Adventurer's League adventures and put them into DDB and give more attention to a style of play where a group can get together a play an adventure in a session or two. Take their characters from one adventure to the next without worrying about story continuity across adventures. Taking turns running adventures. Make it as casual as getting together for a board game.

Not having to take on the burden of familiarizing yourself with hundreds of pages of adventure material and creating an engaging "campaign" for all characters to develop satisfying character arcs, would be quite freeing for casual DMs who just want to get together now and then and play a game with no long-term commitment. It would even allow for you to cycle D&D into board game groups.

Even for players, D&D seems like a commitment. Find ways to support casual gaming in D&D and far more people will be willing to DM.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I wonder if DM shortages may be caused by more modern long campaign/adventure path play and DMing seeing as more of a hobby role rather than a session role. Can this make existing DMs a hurdle that prospective DMs have to jump over?

Say you have a group of 4-6 friends who can get together once a week for 4-6 hour sessions. How many opportunities arise to switch the DM? For DnD I only have two periods to compare: (1) late 70s through the 80s (Basic and AD&D) and (2) 2014 to now (5e). In my personal experience, the DM role switched frequently in the late 70s and 80s. I think a lot of that had to do with the fact that we almost entirely ran modules. Most modules could be completed in one to three sessions.

The adventures published by WotC today need months to complete. Unless you play in multiple groups, you are likely going to be playing with the same person DMing for months at a time. Co-DMing is a thing, but doesn't seem that popular. I personally wouldn't find it satisfying to switch between being a player and being a DM during the same published WotC adventure.

TTRPG streaming shows tend to etch into many new players that long campaigns focus on character development and grand story arches are the core to the D&D experience.

There are lots of third-party publishers putting out short adventures but they isn't going to influence newer players as much as if WotC would publish one shots.

I like WotCs slow-burn publishing of rule books, settings, and large adventures, but it would be nice if they would publish more short adventures on a regular basis. Not just expensive books collecting together a lot of adventures and not just DMs guild, but an adventure a two a month with the full DDB treatment. Really, all they would need to do is take the Adventurer's League adventures and put them into DDB and give more attention to a style of play where a group can get together a play an adventure in a session or two. Take their characters from one adventure to the next without worrying about story continuity across adventures. Taking turns running adventures. Make it as casual as getting together for a board game.

Not having to take on the burden of familiarizing yourself with hundreds of pages of adventure material and creating an engaging "campaign" for all characters to develop satisfying character arcs, would be quite freeing for casual DMs who just want to get together now and then and play a game with no long-term commitment. It would even allow for you to cycle D&D into board game groups.

Even for players, D&D seems like a commitment. Find ways to support casual gaming in D&D and far more people will be willing to DM.

Yup 5e misses Dungeon magazine

 

[Aldarc]

I wonder if DM shortages may be caused by more modern long campaign/adventure path play and DMing seeing as more of a hobby role rather than a session role. Can this make existing DMs a hurdle that prospective DMs have to jump over?

Say you have a group of 4-6 friends who can get together once a week for 4-6 hour sessions. How many opportunities arise to switch the DM? For DnD I only have two periods to compare: (1) late 70s through the 80s (Basic and AD&D) and (2) 2014 to now (5e). In my personal experience, the DM role switched frequently in the late 70s and 80s. I think a lot of that had to do with the fact that we almost entirely ran modules. Most modules could be completed in one to three sessions.

The adventures published by WotC today need months to complete. Unless you play in multiple groups, you are likely going to be playing with the same person DMing for months at a time. Co-DMing is a thing, but doesn't seem that popular. I personally wouldn't find it satisfying to switch between being a player and being a DM during the same published WotC adventure.

TTRPG streaming shows tend to etch into many new players that long campaigns focus on character development and grand story arches are the core to the D&D experience.

There are lots of third-party publishers putting out short adventures but they isn't going to influence newer players as much as if WotC would publish one shots.

I like WotCs slow-burn publishing of rule books, settings, and large adventures, but it would be nice if they would publish more short adventures on a regular basis. Not just expensive books collecting together a lot of adventures and not just DMs guild, but an adventure a two a month with the full DDB treatment. Really, all they would need to do is take the Adventurer's League adventures and put them into DDB and give more attention to a style of play where a group can get together a play an adventure in a session or two. Take their characters from one adventure to the next without worrying about story continuity across adventures. Taking turns running adventures. Make it as casual as getting together for a board game.

Not having to take on the burden of familiarizing yourself with hundreds of pages of adventure material and creating an engaging "campaign" for all characters to develop satisfying character arcs, would be quite freeing for casual DMs who just want to get together now and then and play a game with no long-term commitment. It would even allow for you to cycle D&D into board game groups.

Even for players, D&D seems like a commitment. Find ways to support casual gaming in D&D and far more people will be willing to DM.

Great idea! I think that one-shots or short adventures are great ways to get comfortable with game-mastering. They provide bite-sized chunks of content, and you can even change the content session to session to try your hand at running different scenarios. Plus, players who like trying out different classes get a chance to create new characters for the scenario.

That would also be an easier way to get new people into the GM role because running one-shots is only asking them to run the game for maybe one to two sessions without the long term time commitment of a long haul campaign or adventure path.

 

[Minigiant]

I wonder if DM shortages may be caused by more modern long campaign/adventure path play and DMing seeing as more of a hobby role rather than a session role. Can this make existing DMs a hurdle that prospective DMs have to jump over?

I think a lot of the problem is that people see modern long campaign/adventure path play but don't break it up.

Personal opinion: D&D is best and easiest to learn if laid out like a episodic TV show. Run D&D like Saturday Morning Action Cartoon or Weekly Action Seinen or Weekday Night Live Action Drama.

1 Episode = 1-2 Sessions (AKA the Hickman Manifesto Part 4)
4-8 Episodes = 1 story Arc = 6-10 Sessions
1 Season = 1-2 story Arcs + 1-3 Filler episodes
1 Campaign = 2-4 seasons

 

[robus]

I think a lot of the problem is that people see modern long campaign/adventure path play but don't break it up.

Personal opinion: D&D is best and easiest to learn if laid out like a episodic TV show. Run D&D like Saturday Morning Action Cartoon or Weekly Action Seinen or Weekday Night Live Action Drama.

1 Episode = 1-2 Sessions (AKA the Hickman Manifesto Part 4)
4-8 Episodes = 1 story Arc = 6-10 Sessions
1 Season = 1-2 story Arcs + 1-3 Filler episodes
1 Campaign = 2-4 seasons

Yep, I would love a lot more of a plug and play approach and then we could synthesize an AP by connecting modules with an overarching story if desired.

I kind of did that by mashing together LMoP, ToD & SKT, but it also meant ignoring large swathes of ToD & SKT. The resulting campaign was a great success though.

 

[payn]

I wonder if DM shortages may be caused by more modern long campaign/adventure path play and DMing seeing as more of a hobby role rather than a session role. Can this make existing DMs a hurdle that prospective DMs have to jump over?

Say you have a group of 4-6 friends who can get together once a week for 4-6 hour sessions. How many opportunities arise to switch the DM? For DnD I only have two periods to compare: (1) late 70s through the 80s (Basic and AD&D) and (2) 2014 to now (5e). In my personal experience, the DM role switched frequently in the late 70s and 80s. I think a lot of that had to do with the fact that we almost entirely ran modules. Most modules could be completed in one to three sessions.

The adventures published by WotC today need months to complete. Unless you play in multiple groups, you are likely going to be playing with the same person DMing for months at a time. Co-DMing is a thing, but doesn't seem that popular. I personally wouldn't find it satisfying to switch between being a player and being a DM during the same published WotC adventure.

TTRPG streaming shows tend to etch into many new players that long campaigns focus on character development and grand story arches are the core to the D&D experience.

There are lots of third-party publishers putting out short adventures but they isn't going to influence newer players as much as if WotC would publish one shots.

I like WotCs slow-burn publishing of rule books, settings, and large adventures, but it would be nice if they would publish more short adventures on a regular basis. Not just expensive books collecting together a lot of adventures and not just DMs guild, but an adventure a two a month with the full DDB treatment. Really, all they would need to do is take the Adventurer's League adventures and put them into DDB and give more attention to a style of play where a group can get together a play an adventure in a session or two. Take their characters from one adventure to the next without worrying about story continuity across adventures. Taking turns running adventures. Make it as casual as getting together for a board game.

Not having to take on the burden of familiarizing yourself with hundreds of pages of adventure material and creating an engaging "campaign" for all characters to develop satisfying character arcs, would be quite freeing for casual DMs who just want to get together now and then and play a game with no long-term commitment. It would even allow for you to cycle D&D into board game groups.

Even for players, D&D seems like a commitment. Find ways to support casual gaming in D&D and far more people will be willing to DM.

Isnt this what Adventurers League is though? Pathfinder Society?