D&D General A Rant: DMing is not hard.

[Reynard]

The rewrite is definitely more digestible to me than the original post. The original post made me feel like I was defective for finding DMing difficult. I mean, the title says "DMing is not hard," and there is a paragraph whose first sentence is "DMing is not that hard."

Unfortunately, even this positive spin feels hollow. As someone who has hard time DMing, I don't want a pep-talk. What I want is specific advice—which is probably why a market for these products exist.

I strongly suggest you look into Matt Coville and Ginni Di's videos on YouTube. As I stated in the OP, there are plenty of not-grifters there to help you learn how to GM and gain confidence.

 

[GrimCo]

Seeing the numbers for how many games die out so quickly I’m surprised WOTC and other companies don’t focus more on tools to make running games easier. I saw before that was what Mearls wanted to do and he left WOTC because of it.

For that, they would need solid data why games die out. But, anecdotally, from personal experience and those around me, most games die out due to - life. At least when it comes to adults. In HS and Uni, it's mostly cause people get bored or someone has cool idea and then they try to run it, and you end up in few campaigns that run at same time, so one by one, they slowly die out. In adult life, well, it's periods of not playing that kill campaigns. You start, play few sessions, then something happens and you don't play for month or two, then few sessions, then few months off, and campaign looses it's steam, so you start something new. I meet with guys from group over coffe on Sunday and we were discussing what should we play. Our last session was in early June. In the meantime, one of the guys moved to another country, other one's mother in law has cancer and is in chemo, so he and wife spend weekends in another city helping her. 2 old campaigns with their characters are out and we will probably scrap them all together (both were under 15 sessions played).

DMing is not hard per se, but, specially for new DM's, it's fair amount of work. Like any other skill, it's easier for some people and harder for others. But, rest of the group can help make game run easier and smoother for new DM. First - learn rules. Second- don't put all organizing responsibility on DM. Third- don't argue over rulings, go with the flow. Fourth and final - give DM time to fail, don't rub it in. Point of the game is for everyone at the table to have fun. DM can fumble trough session and still, it can be fun few hours for everyone. Personally, i had blast and loads of fun, even when DM fumbled most of the session. We loughed trough it and cheered him on. Sure, some constructive criticism is ok, we learn from feedback after all. But it was always prefaced by telling him we had fun session.

In the end, it's a game. We play it to hang out and have fun. It's hobby, it's about enjoying process. Sure, with time, some people will get "better", but in this case, better is highly subjective.

 

[Lanefan]

With respect, your personal experiences are not data, and should not be treated as such to counter arguments.

A major problem we have is that nobody does regular surveys of RPG players to maintain reliable data. But, I'll turn back to the 1999 WotC market research for some idea.

In that research, the questioned folks about how many sessions of play they went through before "reset" - starting over with new characters. The results:

If you've been playing for
less than a year - average sessions before reset 8.8
between 1 and 5 years - average sessions before reset 12.9
over 5 years - average sessions before reset 19.6

So, for what we can call "new" gamers, the average number of sessions before reset was not high - 8.8.
While we don't know the distribution, the basic assumption would be that about half of all campaigns for those new players then lasted for fewer than 8.8 sessions.

Siiiigh.

Yet again I have to point out that the survey you're quoting threw out all data received from any respondent aged 35 or over, which just happens to be the cohort most likely to be involved in longer-running games.

The cynic in me says this was very intentionally done in order to skew the results toward shorter campaigns so WotC could present that as the norm in order to set the expectations of cycling through campaigns faster...and thus have to buy more books.

 

[HatWearingFool]

Siiiigh.

Yet again I have to point out that the survey you're quoting threw out all data received from any respondent aged 35 or over, which just happens to be the cohort most likely to be involved in longer-running games.

The cynic in me says this was very intentionally done in order to skew the results toward shorter campaigns so WotC could present that as the norm in order to set the expectations of cycling through campaigns faster...and thus have to buy more books.

Both enword’s data and WOTC’s shared earlier in this thread indicate most players are under 35 though.

So this seems like a reasonable decision.

I guess since e the survey you mention was 1999 and the other data was 2020 you could ask if that focus is driving off older players but I doubt it.

 

[definiteFreakyFishGuy]

I strongly suggest you look into Matt Coville and Ginni Di's videos on YouTube. As I stated in the OP, there are plenty of not-grifters there to help you learn how to GM and gain confidence.

What makes you think I haven't

I also like Bob World Builder. He seems so chill.

EDIT: Oops I was in the middle of writing a different post, and that got all jumbled in there.

 

[definiteFreakyFishGuy]

Just want to add one more thing and I'll move on from this thread.

When I do participate in an RPG, whether as a player or a DM, I do not do it lightly. I saw friendships shatter, and experienced something deeply traumatic. I believe something about the nature of role-playing brings out vulnerabilities that don't show up say, in a game of Settlers of Catan.

So yeah, DMing feels like pretty high stakes to me. I don't feel comfortable brushing off failure in DMing as something one can easily bounce back from to try again.

Thank you all for a civil discussion. Happy Monday!

 

[touc]

Let us not forget "many are called, few are chosen" (Knights of the Dinner Table, a statement about the gamer Dave Bozwell who occasionally gets the urge to step behind the screen and always does a cringe-worthy job by making the adventures all about his former characters), and the game store owner Pete.

Of course, Pete's wisdom inevitably comes with a sales pitch for a "must-have" product from his store that luckily he just had in stock. But the simple truth remains that everyone who wants to trying DMing should, not everyone will be suited for it no matter how many "grifters" or Petes say with their product it shall be otherwise, and maybe the best advice is not to take advice. If you're not second-guessing yourself or trying to emulate another's table, you might be less inclined to panic. But, if you're going to buy anything from Pete to DM, whether 10yo or 50yo, buy a barebones Starter set with its mini rulebook and prewritten adventure, and try it with some friends who have your back.

 

[prabe]

Another thing to remember is that something being “Hard” isn’t inherently a negative thing. In fact I’d say most things I enjoy are “Hard”.

Things that are “easy” often don’t have staying power. Look at the cup stacking fad versus chess for example. Nobody thinks chess is easy, but that’s where the fun comes from.

The trick is being hard and fun at the same time. And having a way to onboard people reasonably.

Almost any game/hobby with staying power is hard/difficult to master.

It’s constantly having ways to improve, and things to learn that keep a hobby interesting.

There's "hard" that's enjoyable and worth the effort, and there's "hard" that isn't. I'm no good at all at chess, and I don't enjoy playing it. I enjoyed music until my ears went to crap, and I was a pretty good musician at times, and I picked stuff up pretty quickly. There are prodigies who are good at a thing almost from the get-go, and who always find new ways to surprise, but they're rare.

Let us not forget "many are called, few are chosen" (Knights of the Dinner Table, a statement about the gamer Dave Bozwell who occasionally gets the urge to step behind the screen and always does a cringe-worthy job by making the adventures all about his former characters), and the game store owner Pete.

Sure. There are some who are better at it, more easily, than others. This does not contradict what you said in the same post ...

Of course, Pete's wisdom inevitably comes with a sales pitch for a "must-have" product from his store that luckily he just had in stock. But the simple truth remains that everyone who wants to trying DMing should, not everyone will be suited for it no matter how many "grifters" or Petes say with their product it shall be otherwise, and maybe the best advice is not to take advice. If you're not second-guessing yourself or trying to emulate another's table, you might be less inclined to panic. But, if you're going to buy anything from Pete to DM, whether 10yo or 50yo, buy a barebones Starter set with its mini rulebook and prewritten adventure, and try it with some friends who have your back.

I think maybe the best advice is to always pay attention to whether the advice makes sense to you. My own approach is to think on whether it'd make for a game experience I'd enjoy as a player, but that obviously isn't universal or universalizable.

 

[Belen]

This is another thing that a dedicated TTRPG advocacy group could help figure out. Is there a shortage of GMs? If so, with regards to what games? What demographics? Why? Etc.

You could form a non-profit academic style society for TTRPGs. It’s not that hard. I remember advocating for that 20 years ago.

I have experience managing societies. You just need members willing to pay dues, a leadership group that can get benefits running, and a journal never hurts either.

I used to try and convince Morrus it was a good idea. An advocacy group for players/GMs/consumers is a good idea.

 

[HatWearingFool]

Just want to add one more thing and I'll move on from this thread.

When I do participate in an RPG, whether as a player or a DM, I do not do it lightly. I saw friendships shatter, and experienced something deeply traumatic. I believe something about the nature of role-playing brings out vulnerabilities that don't show up say, in a game of Settlers of Catan.

So yeah, DMing feels like pretty high stakes to me. I don't feel comfortable brushing off failure in DMing as something one can easily bounce back from to try again.

Thank you all for a civil discussion. Happy Monday!

I agree. I’ve seen a few friendships/friend groups blowup over a TTRPG.

I pondered this when watching a recent Colville video where he stated he didn’t understand how a referee couldn’t run an TTRPG that they wanted to just because their players said no, all we will play is D&D.

He seemed so perplexed by this situation and I was just watched him like he lived in an alternate universe.

I believe this is a fairly normal situation (which is why he addressed it) and I can see why it is frustrating for him as a person that wants people to play a game besides D&D. But it was so weird to see him baffled that someone who runs games couldn’t run draw steel because their players wouldn’t participate.