It is fun and comfortable to argue about metagaming, railroads, and player agency; it allows us to retreat into tired positions, well-tread by prior arguments, and reiterate our righteous outrage that others do not play the same way that we do. But in the end, those discussions are less about helping other DMs find their own way than it is to assert our own preferences.
I worked at a hobby shop many years ago, and despite loving RPGs, I hardly ever wanted to hear someone talk about their character or their campaigns. I found most such discussions to be rather boring because I didn't share a common frame of reference with them. "Oh, you've a god named Shadow Weaver who has a sword covered in runes, and when he stabs his foe whatever rune the blade lands on has an affect on the target? Oh. Cool, cool, cool. Oh, and if anyone kills Shadow Weaver they become Shadow Weaver? Awesome." (Actual conversation I had with someone.)
They exception was when we talked about printed scenarios like Ravenloft, Keep on the Borderlands, or The Temple of Elemental Evil. If we had both played the scenario, we had common experiences which made conversation easier. We could both talk about the #@%#^# teleporation trap in Castle Ravenloft's crypt while cursing the Hickmans.
And that's why conversation is so difficult here even when talking about D&D. Because a lot of us really expect WotC to produce a version of D&D that aligns with how we play it. And it also makes it very difficult to give advice on how to DM.
But then I'm often surprised by how much DMing advice really hasn't changed over the years. Listen Up You Primitive Screwheads: The Unexpurgated Cyberpunk Referee's Guide was published in 1994, and offers advice on running long term campaigns, the style & atmosphere of the setting, power players, and other topics that are relevant to almost any game.
"Despite all best efforts, every referee comes to realize that there is no absolute control over a campaign."
rationally speaking a secondary dm focused book only about how to build up settings and adventures would both sell reasonably, be useful for retention of customers and even if less money is made would be so useful that it being a loss leader would be viable
I worked at a hobby shop many years ago, and despite loving RPGs, I hardly ever wanted to hear someone talk about their character or their campaigns. I found most such discussions to be rather boring because I didn't share a common frame of reference with them. "Oh, you've a god named Shadow Weaver who has a sword covered in runes, and when he stabs his foe whatever rune the blade lands on has an affect on the target? Oh. Cool, cool, cool. Oh, and if anyone kills Shadow Weaver they become Shadow Weaver? Awesome." (Actual conversation I had with someone.)
They exception was when we talked about printed scenarios like Ravenloft, Keep on the Borderlands, or The Temple of Elemental Evil. If we had both played the scenario, we had common experiences which made conversation easier. We could both talk about the #@%#^# teleporation trap in Castle Ravenloft's crypt while cursing the Hickmans.
And that's why conversation is so difficult here even when talking about D&D. Because a lot of us really expect WotC to produce a version of D&D that aligns with how we play it. And it also makes it very difficult to give advice on how to DM.
But then I'm often surprised by how much DMing advice really hasn't changed over the years. Listen Up You Primitive Screwheads: The Unexpurgated Cyberpunk Referee's Guide was published in 1994, and offers advice on running long term campaigns, the style & atmosphere of the setting, power players, and other topics that are relevant to almost any game.
"Despite all best efforts, every referee comes to realize that there is no absolute control over a campaign."
I agree 100 about the need to define terminology, especially in RPGs. I learned this lesson from watching 30 years of the the Nebraska Unicameral Legislature, in particular my favorite Senator, Ernie Chambers. He frequently hammered home the crucial idea that in order for a law to be enforceable the key terms must be defined in statute. And it was also equally clear to me, that this is not easy to do. This proved by the hundreds if not thousands of hours he dedicated to "cleaning up bills" especially in reference to the way "shall" and "may" are used, and what they imply in the enforcement of laws.
And I think for the this thread specifically, I don't know that a GM has to argue about the definition of either "railroad" or "fudge" they could just define what they mean by it.
I'm not sure that's true. If it isn't the same, "do what feels good" of the 2014 DMG, all it will do is give advice for how to play the WotC way, whatever the new books decide that is. Providing generally applicable advice just isn't possible. You either agree with someone's take and it feels good to you (and not to others) or you disagree and it does nothing good for you (but not for others).
MGibster just referenced another older book with good advice that Micah praised as great, which seems contradictory to his previous statement that "Providing generally applicable advice just isn't possible". I think that's false, and given his comment about Listen Up You Primitive Screwheads: The Unexpurgated Cyberpunk Referee's Guide, I suspect that's not what he meant. I'm guessing he meant that UNIVERSALLY applicable advice isn't possible. Which, sure, but we should know better than to make the perfect the enemy of the good.
I want to say too that I am glad I saw this thread. I want to start a local gaming club at the library. And one of the things i want to do is create a GMing course for any who are interested.
This thread helped reinforce the idea that I need to define terminology I want to use in my presentation. And that I do not have to use any prior terminology, or rather, I can redefine prior terminology.
For example, one of the things I want to address is the GMs role in roleplaying games. I know the term "story game" can be controversial, and gatekeeping. So i have thought of other terms I can use.
But for me, as I define it, story games is not a pejorative term. And I have to say, traditional rpg isn't a term I like.
So I thought maybe this:
Roles Playing Game - each player at the table is either a game master or a player. These roles are distinct, the responsibilities of each are separate, and do not overlap.
Story Game - everyone at the table is responsible for most aspects of running the game. No one person exercises complete control over the rules or group.
The upcoming release of 5e! Here We Go Again has led to a lot of conversations about what might be in the upcoming Dungeon Master's Guide (the DMG). Which is entertaining, because, as we all know, no one reads the DMG.
Ahem. But one of the major issues of contention is that many people believe that the prior 5e DMG did a very bad job of providing advice for new DMs, and there is a hope that the new DMG will be more effective at helping onboard new DMs and giving them the tools and and advice they need to run the game. Given those conversations, I was reminded of some prior thoughts I had on DMing. Specifically, why people crave advice, give advice, and why the topic of good DMing can be so contentious and filled with so much one-true-wayism.
Please note- in this post, I will be using the term "DM" instead of "GM," because (1) I feel like it, (2) I'm mostly discussing D&D, and (3) you can't tell me what to do. Feel free to use your preferred nomenclature.
1. We will always argue about definitions. I love long walks, especially when they are taken by people who annoy me on the internet.
Any one who has spent time on the internet is familiar with the quote from Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass, when Alice and Humpty Dumpty are arguing, and the arrogant egg says, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less." It is unfortunate that this quote has taken on a second life as a meaningless "DERP" in internet debates, akin to Godwin's law, whenever a political argument on the internet goes on long enough, someone will inevitable cite Humpty Dumpty. However, the actual argument between Humpty Dumpty and Alice and what the quote means is more interesting. Lewis Carroll had a background in mathematics and logic, and he was using that argument to explore the idea that terms must be defined to be discussed. Carroll reiterates the point in Symbolic Logic:
In opposition to this view, I maintain that any writer of a book is fully authorised in attaching any meaning he likes to any word or phrase he intends to use. If I find an author saying, at the beginning of his book, “Let it be understood that by the word ‘black’ I shall always mean ‘white’, and that by the word ‘white’ I shall always mean ‘black’,” I meekly accept his ruling, however injudicious I may think it.
And so, with regard to the question whether a Proposition is or is not to be understood as asserting the existence of its Subject, I maintain that every writer may adopt his own rule, provided of course that it is consistent with itself and with the accepted facts of Logic.
Id. p. 166.
What does that mean? Well, just like the people who quote Shakespeare, "The first thing we do is, let's kill all the lawyers," the people who are using the quote don't understand the context and are completely missing the point. But hey, it's the internet! Anyway, I bring this up (using words ... so many words) to illustrate the idea that from one point of view, any meaning can be attached to a word, so long as that meaning is provided. This is in contrast to the more common conception we have, pace Wittgenstein, that language is a social construct, and that there is no private language. More succinctly, words have the meaning that we all agree upon.
Which gets to the main point- if one person is creating a specified and defined use of a term, either in mathematics, logic, or even creating their own terms of art or jargon, then it is incumbent that the defined term be known at the beginning so that others can understand the usage. However injudicious the definition, it is still possible to discuss if it is known! If a person says that they are going to create a jargon term called "white" that means "black" then so be it.
This is looking like homework! Okay, let's bring this back to TTRPGs.
Two people on enworld are arguing about "railroading" because it's enworld, so of course they are arguing. Zeno says railroading is always bad, and Achilles says that railroading is often good. Approximately 500 pages into the argument, Zeno reveals that they define "railroading" as "removing player agency by repeatedly punching players in the face," while Achilles states that, "No, railroading means discussing what AP to do while eating ice cream." Of course, this is the internet, and there will be another 500 pages of arguing about the definition, and then the thread will get shut down because Brick killed someone with a trident while talking about Warlords ....
This example is extreme, but it follows an established pattern; people argue about some piece of D&D / TTRPG jargon (insert "railroading," or "player agency," or "skilled play," or "story now," or "fudging," or any of a number of abstract and jargon-y terms), and only later find out that they don't have the same definition or conception of what the jargon-y term means. And then, instead of coming to a general understanding of why those different definitions matter to the discussion, they instead start to argue about which made-up definition is correct.
2. Why advice to DMs is often sidetracked by debates about jargon. I wouldn't say I was the BEST DM. But I would say that I was in the Top One.
There always seems to be an imbalance between the number of people that want to play and the number of people willing to DM in D&D. It is a truism that in most places, at most times, there is a greater supply of players than DMs. For example, while there are opportunities for people to make money DMing, you never hear about people making money playing D&D. Which means that the issue of DM scarcity, and the related issues of "how best to DM," and "how can we teach more people to DM," often come up. This is especially true with the impending release of a new DMG with 5e: XXL.
There are two ways that the issue of "DMing better" will usually arise; the first is the request for specific advice. A DM has encountered situation X, they don't know how to deal with it, and they reach out to the community to see if anyone else has any ideas. These are usually handled fairly easily because specificity is the soul of good advice- if someone is reaching out for advice on how to make a specific ruling, or how to handle a particular situation (Help! My party killed the BBEG before the adventure really started!!!!), then it's much easier to provide bespoke, individualized advice. Don't get me wrong- ask four enworlders for their opinions, and you'll get five answers and an edition war, but still.
However, it's the second type of issue that drives most of the conversations about DMing better. The abstract questions about how to be a good DM. "Does a good DM railroad?" "How often do you fudge?" "What is most important, player agency or rule 0?" "Is it okay to allow players to metagame?" "Derek wants to play a Bard again, do I kill his character immediately, or kill his character immediately with extreme prejudice?"
By invoking certain terms that are both jargon (terms of art) and laden with connotations, these conversations necessarily invite misunderstanding. Normally, the use of a specialized term, of jargon, is to allow people who are familiar with the term to avoid having to go through the longer explanation for it every time it comes up. For example, in many professions (doctors, lawyers, engineers, scientists) you will see jargon used - if doctors are discussing an M&M or a D&D, they aren't talking about candies or role-playing games. It gets more complicated, however, when these specialized terms don't have a widely understood, and generally accepted, definitions. And the problem with using these terms in D&D is that we don't have a good working baseline definition for a lot of the jargon that is used.
Two examples will illustrate this point:
Fudging- there are many kinds of fudging, but generally people use the term to refer to the specific practice of dice fudging. Even more specifically, "fudging" generally refers to the practice of DMs changing the results of secret die rolls, as opposed to players changing the results of die rolls, which is usually called cheating. Other than some extreme examples, most people can generally agree on what fudging is.
Railroading. I have seen people adopt positions on railroading that seem extreme to me, on both sides- everything from "Choosing an adventure to run is railroading, since it removes player agency," to "Having players act out their parts in the DM's pre-written script isn't railroading, as long as the players don't figure it out." If you search out definitions on the web, you won't get much farther; here are a few that I quickly googled-
Rrailroading is the act of ensuring the players stay on plot by use of game mechanics.
Railroading is the GM forcing the players on a predetermined path through a story.
Railroading is a GMing style in which, no matter what the PCs do, they will experience certain events according to the GM's plan.
Railroading is when the GM takes any measure necessary to ensure there is only one direction the campaign may proceed — his planned direction.
Notice that "railroading" always carries a bad connotation, but it's unclear what it precisely means. Given that the use of almost any prepared material (including APs, which a lot of people use!) would fall within the ambit of "railroading," it seems that most discussions of railroading as a general concept would bog down into pointlessness; which they do. Contrast that with fudging; since most people understand exactly what it means, it is possible to have productive conversations about it (do you do it, when, why, do you roll in the open, what effect does that have, etc.).
3. With all that noise, how do I become a better DM? Start every day with a smile so you can be done with it as quickly as possible.
One of the best things to happen to D&D is the rise of the streaming games; but that is, simultaneously, one of the worst things to happen to DMs. Yes, there are actual games by actual DMs streamed out there- but the truly popular ones? Those aren't D&D games, those are entertainment. You will learn as much about being a good DM for your home game from watching Critical Role as you would learn to be a considerate lover from watching adult film clips off the internet; it's just not in the same ballpark.
Please note that I am not saying that Critical Role is scripted. IT IS NOT.
Instead, I am making the point that home tables do not consist of a bunch of talented entertainers. And that most DMs are not Matt Mercer. And that most of us aren't paid to prep and run games, and can't afford to put in the prep time that Mercer does. Or have the amazing battle maps. And we don't have an audience that we are aware of.
If you have picked up some tips from Critical Role, that's awesome! They do an amazing job. They have brought a lot of people into the hobby. But expecting a home game to be the "Critical Role" experience will lead to disappointment.
Instead, a new DM will need to learn through trial and error, and evolving their own style. Remember that what works for some people, may not work for you, and vice versa. One DM might thrive on being uber-prepared, another might prefer more free-form and improv. One DM might like to run Wizards' APs, and another might prefer a sandbox in their own setting. But, with that said, I have found the following to be helpful:
A. Don't listen to players. Not on the internet. I understand this sounds harsh, so I will make it more explicit- you're a DM. You probably have a table with a number of players! Let's say you have Pete, who likes to write 50 page histories for his characters and demands that you read them and find "hooks" for them in the campaign. And then there's Chad, who rolled up a Barbarian named Kronan, and wrote in the same thing for Traits, Ideals, Flaws, Bonds, and History- "Likes to Kick Butt." Sarah is an optimizing rule lawyer, and is living for the moment when she can pounce on you or not knowing a rule ... so that it will work to the advantage of her uber-optimized Paladin, Lady Smites-A-Lot. Then there's Jane, who just learned to play the game, and is all about having fun and doing fun things with her pet as a Bestmaster. And Derek. Derek is just playing so he can raid your liquor cabinet. Yeah, we all know. DEREK!
Do you think all of those players would give the same advice to a DM on the internet? Do you think they all have the same interests? Do you think the same techniques that some of us obsess over would matter to all of them? Probably not! And if not, why would the opinion of any one of them have more importance to you just because they are on the internet?
B. Don't listen to other DMs. Not on the internet. Look, all of us that give advice, myself included ... we mean well! But we don't know your players. We don't know you. To the extent that we are giving out grand pronouncements ("Don't railroad!" or "Always roll in the open," or "Create a culture of corruption and accept bribes in exchange for favorable rolls") you should feel free to ignore that advice. And you should be especially careful when it comes to those who are telling you about some method or technique or theory that they started using that solves all problems, ever- there is nothing worse than the zeal of the newly converted.
Instead, look for specific examples that you can use to apply to your game. DMs discussing how they handled a particular issue at their table, and how it worked. That's the type of specific and applied advice, applicable to a particular TTRPG, that DMs should seek out.
C. Run a different game. There is no single "best DMing technique" that always works, across all games, and all tables, with all varieties of players. Mix it up a little, if you can. Running different types of games will often give you insight and techniques that you can apply to D&D, if and when you run it again.
D. Keep on, keepin' on. There is no magic solution to this. Only getting in the reps, and learning from your mistakes. No DM was flawless from the beginning. More importantly, the DM you are today is not the same DM you will be 5, 10, or 20 years down the road. You will always be evolving and changing. Things that work today with the game you are running and the players at your table may not work with a different system and different players; it is better to be flexible than dogmatic.
4. Conclusion. There is nothing more discouraging than the sheer number of people that are shocked by honesty and the paucity of people shocked by deceit.
It is fun and comfortable to argue about metagaming, railroads, and player agency; it allows us to retreat into tired positions, well-tread by prior arguments, and reiterate our righteous outrage that others do not play the same way that we do. But in the end, those discussions are less about helping other DMs find their own way than it is to assert our own preferences. Getting bogged down in jargon and definitions is part and parcel of these arguments. It is far better, and more productive, to look at the specific ways in which your own DMing style can improve or evolve, so that Chad's Kronan can have fun kicking butt while Sarah can shine and smite to her heart's content. ... I'm not sure that any advice will keep Derek out of the liquor cabinet.
And all of this is why, in my opinion, the advice for new DMs in the upcoming DMG will be viewed as lacking by people. One of the major issues that we see in D&D is that there is always a tension between WoTC telling people how to run the game and WoTC allowing flexibility for the infinite variety that table might have. If the new DMG is overly prescriptive, telling DMs how to run games, I am sure that people will rebel against that. On the other hand, if the new DMG (like the last DMG) is too "here's a bunch of stuff, do what feels good!" people will complain that it doesn't provide enough specific guidance for new DMs.
But maybe I'm wrong! We will find out soon enough,
As ever, I find myself agreeing with you. If you happen to have an opening for disciples, goons, and/or henchfolk, I'd like to forward an application.
For me, however, what I find lacking in the DMGs is less about general advice and more about what I'll haltingly call "content" (what was that you said about Humpty Dumpty?). That is, I want the sorts of random generation tables that could help a new DM quickly standardize (gods, I hate that word) a play experience: per encounter treasure tables adjusted for difficulty class; random monster tables based on the level of the dungeon; outdoor random monster tables based on the relative difficulty of the region (similar to what we got in XGtE), etc. I guess I want DM-facing crunch?
When I picked up the BECMI Red Box (praised be thy name!) at 10 years old, I had such a clearer sense of how to structure a basic play experience (and play the game) than if I would have begun with the 2e rules. The 2e DMG was...also not terribly helpful. I feel like 1e and 3e had the best DMGs for what I'm looking for, whereas 2, 4, & 5 were almost superflous for me.
Instead, a new DM will need to learn through trial and error, and evolving their own style. Remember that what works for some people, may not work for you, and vice versa. One DM might thrive on being uber-prepared, another might prefer more free-form and improv. One DM might like to run Wizards' APs, and another might prefer a sandbox in their own setting. But, with that said, I have found the following to be helpful:
A. Don't listen to players. Not on the internet. I understand this sounds harsh, so I will make it more explicit- you're a DM. You probably have a table with a number of players! Let's say you have Pete, who likes to write 50 page histories for his characters and demands that you read them and find "hooks" for them in the campaign. And then there's Chad, who rolled up a Barbarian named Kronan, and wrote in the same thing for Traits, Ideals, Flaws, Bonds, and History- "Likes to Kick Butt." Sarah is an optimizing rule lawyer, and is living for the moment when she can pounce on you or not knowing a rule ... so that it will work to the advantage of her uber-optimized Paladin, Lady Smites-A-Lot. Then there's Jane, who just learned to play the game, and is all about having fun and doing fun things with her pet as a Bestmaster. And Derek. Derek is just playing so he can raid your liquor cabinet. Yeah, we all know. DEREK!
Do you think all of those players would give the same advice to a DM on the internet? Do you think they all have the same interests? Do you think the same techniques that some of us obsess over would matter to all of them? Probably not! And if not, why would the opinion of any one of them have more importance to you just because they are on the internet?
B. Don't listen to other DMs. Not on the internet. Look, all of us that give advice, myself included ... we mean well! But we don't know your players. We don't know you. To the extent that we are giving out grand pronouncements ("Don't railroad!" or "Always roll in the open," or "Create a culture of corruption and accept bribes in exchange for favorable rolls") you should feel free to ignore that advice. And you should be especially careful when it comes to those who are telling you about some method or technique or theory that they started using that solves all problems, ever- there is nothing worse than the zeal of the newly converted.
Instead, look for specific examples that you can use to apply to your game. DMs discussing how they handled a particular issue at their table, and how it worked. That's the type of specific and applied advice, applicable to a particular TTRPG, that DMs should seek out.
C. Run a different game. There is no single "best DMing technique" that always works, across all games, and all tables, with all varieties of players. Mix it up a little, if you can. Running different types of games will often give you insight and techniques that you can apply to D&D, if and when you run it again.
D. Keep on, keepin' on. There is no magic solution to this. Only getting in the reps, and learning from your mistakes. No DM was flawless from the beginning. More importantly, the DM you are today is not the same DM you will be 5, 10, or 20 years down the road. You will always be evolving and changing. Things that work today with the game you are running and the players at your table may not work with a different system and different players; it is better to be flexible than dogmatic.
Great article as always. As a forever teenage DM, I would add one to this that I think is especially important:
- Be a player for several other DMs. If you can, be a player in several campaigns.
There is always a lot to learn from, but being on the other side of the table helps you understand that there are many things a DM might like that players don't. Maybe the use of darkness to add to a setting feels right to the DM. They want to create that sense of fear among the group of players that all chose human as their species. So blowing out torches and creating lots of dim light sounds like a way to build suspense. Except for your players it's just a distraction that gives them disadvantage. Hence, as a player you learn what it feels like on the other side. You learn, have the dark cave rarely, the others are filled with glowing mushrooms and crystals.
There are a hundred examples like this. You learn from playing the game as a player: understanding PC's powers, limits, struggles, how to roleplay ideals, bonds, flaws, and how boring or exciting and cinematic skill checks can be. So DMs need to be players.
------------------------(I have no sharp quip or humorous quote like Snarf, sorry.)------------------------------------------
The second part about being a DM is the actual hard part. Many people can't. Can they learn? Sure. But for many, that learning won't come in their roleplaying lifetime, which for many is high school and college. Some people have it. Many do not.
We'll start with younger players. I have run three different D&D clubs in three different high schools in three different socio-economic schools. All had at least four tables full of players. All had at least seven or eight students that wanted to be DMs. Out of those DMs, there were maybe two that could pull it off. The others:
Didn't know the rules and refused to read the books
Didn't have the social standing to reign in the players
Didn't have the charisma
Didn't have the work ethic needed
Didn't have the quickness to think on their feet (Part of this, I think, comes from knowing the rules and putting in the background work)
All of them liked the idea of being a DM. Of telling a story or of being the one person the other students looked up to or listened to. But few would put in the work or practice. In one school I even thought it might be a smart idea to set up a day without players to practice running their session with the other DMs. None of them showed up because that isn't what they wanted.
Moving to adults, I have been part of many a game shops D&D sessions. 4e's Wednesday nights and 5e's Adventurer's League. And 4e also had some crazy tournament style adventures too. Everyone always died, but it was fun. But the point is, watching all these game store DMs, I have had my share of good and bad DMs. Most were mediocre because they lacked the same things my students lacked. Many were there because they like the idea, and many confessed that they don't like being a player. And it shows. Not being able to describe something is a blindspot for a DM. For some, it takes practice. DMs should practice. A few were good, mostly because they had it.
More Adults, such as hiring a DM. When I moved and didn't know anyone, I joined a group that had a hired DM. $25 bucks a session, once a week, 2-3 hour sessions, for three months. Our DM was good, but good as in he could think on his feet and he was good at encounter building. Lore building, highlighting things that matter versus just making up superfluous stuff that means nothing, and NPCs was not his strong suit. It worked, we had fun, and I met some really good players. We eventually just formed out own group - cut the middle-man. (We did let him know we were doing this.) And again, I am going to go back to these DMs, because I met the owner of the site that hires them, and have met three of them personally. They all really insist on just making stuff up as it goes. They are all good at impromptu - which is a great skill to have. But without direction and the sense to know what to highlight to help create foreshadowing and plot connections, the game loses half of its umph. You can still have a lot of fun, but man are you missing something that leads to great games.
Which brings us to where my bar is set: I have been a player for five different campaigns (2 4e, 3 5e). I had four different DMs. All were great. There were no weak points. They all put in the work. They all knew the rules. They all read the books. They all practiced. That's my bar, and the truth is, it's everyone's bar since the dawning of people watching online play. They all want the Critical Role or Harmon Quest or Acquisitions Inc experience. And only a few DMs can offer that because they need to have:
work ethic
charisma
time to practice
One last thing. If I were to give advice to a new DM, it would be to be a player, but also to run the same adventure several times. Five times if possible. Running the same adventure several times helps you understand how to build better encounters, highlight descriptions where needed, and flesh out NPCs. It is one of the best teaching tools I know of.
In summary, DMs are hard to find because most people aren't good at it (for various reasons).
