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

[SableWyvern]

But why does it always come off as "People who only play D&D ____" where the blank is "are afraid to try other games", "stick with the game because it's all they know", "would play other games is the only understood what those games are like".

Because, "People should play other games in order to increase the pool of players I personally have to draw on," has zero chance of creating an environment where people feel pressured to branch out.

Personally, I don't really understand people who want to stick to just one game forever, but I will forever defend their right to do so.

 

[Hussar]

It’s not hard. It is and can be a lot of work to do it well.

IMO, lots of people try to make is sound difficult because they do not want to do the work.

Isn't that the definition of hard? It's a lot of work, which I don't really want to do, so, it's hard. If there wasn't work, then it would be easy...

The fact that you talk about "put in the time" pretty much defines "hard". You don't have to "put in the time" for something that is easy.

There's a whole segment of the hobby - modules, pre-packaged settings, pre-generated NPC's, endless Monster Manuals - all devoted to making the DM's life easier.

 

[prabe]

Personally, I don't really understand people who want to stick to just one game forever, but I will forever defend their right to do so.

In my own case, the game is working for me and for the players at my table, and I don't persistently have more energy than it takes to run the two 5e/ToV campaigns I'm running. It's also not exactly "forever," but that's a different thing.

 

[soviet]

"I'm just a D&D guy is all, the system works very well for me so why change it? I definitely didn't choose it because of the brand name or because it's the one in all the shops."

"Oh cool a new edition that changes half of the system, I'm in".

(Not meant to be a response to any poster in particular, just a position I sometime see)

 

[Cadence]

Personally, I don't really understand people who want to stick to just one game forever, but I will forever defend their right to do so.

Do bridge, rummy, multiple solitaire, mtg, cribbage, ascension, and the board game bonkers count as other games for this purpose, or only ttrpgs? (Should tttpgers branch out to other classes of games?)

 

[Hussar]

But why does it always come off as "People who only play D&D ____" where the blank is "are afraid to try other games", "stick with the game because it's all they know", "would play other games is the only understood what those games are like". I'll never say people shouldn't play whatever game they want, personally I enjoy D&D 5e and see no particular reason to go to cost and effort to switch.

Because, unlike, say, a basketball team, where the people who are getting together are only there to play basketball, RPG gaming is broader. If someone at the table wants to run a new system, and no one is willing to play it, then that person is SOL. Someone who plays with you can only play D&D with you, no matter what because you won't play a different game. The why is fairly immaterial.

The closer analogy would be refusing to play 2 on 2 basketball and only playing full court.

But, then, you seem to believe that it's ludicrously easy to find whatever game you want to play whenever you want to play it because there is this giant ocean of DM's out there just waiting to snap up new players. Which does seem to run rather counter to the evidence as shown by the mountain of LFG type advertisements vs looking for players. I know, right now, that if I posted that I needed five players at any point in time on any day of the week, I would have a group in under 24 hours. There are FAAAAR more players out there looking for a game than there are DM's.

IME, the reason there are far, far more players out there than DM's is because running D&D is a LOT of work.

 

[Belen]

Isn't that the definition of hard? It's a lot of work, which I don't really want to do, so, it's hard. If there wasn't work, then it would be easy...

The fact that you talk about "put in the time" pretty much defines "hard". You don't have to "put in the time" for something that is easy.

There's a whole segment of the hobby - modules, pre-packaged settings, pre-generated NPC's, endless Monster Manuals - all devoted to making the DM's life easier.

Just because it required effort does not make it hard.

 

[Hussar]

Just because it required effort does not make it hard.

Ummm.... that's the literal definition of hard.

 

[Cadence]

Because, unlike, say, a basketball team, where the people who are getting together are only there to play basketball, RPG gaming is broader.

Why can't people only be getting together to play D&D instead of RPGing?

Going the other way, why stop at RPGing and not expand to all table top games?

Why do the people need to be a "basketball team"? They could play horse with the same ball and court. In gym class we also used the same floor for volleyball and other things. (In grade school we even had to use it for square dancing and doge ball - not at the same time).

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Because, unlike, say, a basketball team, where the people who are getting together are only there to play basketball, RPG gaming is broader. If someone at the table wants to run a new system, and no one is willing to play it, then that person is SOL. Someone who plays with you can only play D&D with you, no matter what because you won't play a different game. The why is fairly immaterial.

The closer analogy would be refusing to play 2 on 2 basketball and only playing full court.

But, then, you seem to believe that it's ludicrously easy to find whatever game you want to play whenever you want to play it because there is this giant ocean of DM's out there just waiting to snap up new players. Which does seem to run rather counter to the evidence as shown by the mountain of LFG type advertisements vs looking for players. I know, right now, that if I posted that I needed five players at any point in time on any day of the week, I would have a group in under 24 hours. There are FAAAAR more players out there looking for a game than there are DM's.

IME, the reason there are far, far more players out there than DM's is because running D&D is a LOT of work.

I see it as being like cuisine.

I know Italian cuisine pretty well. Not like, infinitely well, but if someone tells me they're making an Italian dish, I kinda know what to expect--even though two Italian dishes can contain almost no ingredients in common, I know the shape of it. If I'm told an Italian recipe, I can generally cook it if it doesn't require special equipment or rare goods.

I don't know French cuisine hardly at all. I've heard of herbes de Provence, for example, but I don't know what's in it. Even though French cuisine and Italian cuisine are related (after all, France borders Italy), I'd have to learn all the ins and outs, the ingredient substitutions, the intuitions for the right ratios of ingredients. But given the similarity, I might be able to wing it. Conversely, I know literally nothing about traditional, say, Senegalese cuisine, other than that it includes jollof rice, which I heard of for the first time a few days ago. I would not be able to wing it with cooking Senegalese dishes, as I know nothing about the flavors or ingredients.

I do think it is silly and excessively self-limiting to choose to never prepare any dish that doesn't come from the one country you grew up in, or the one cuisine you first practiced cooking, or whatever. I would understand why someone might choose to do that...but I would also think they are self-sabotaging, and would not feel all that much sympathy if they then complain about the limitations arising from that choice. And...if they opined things about cooking in general, I would not give those opinions much credence.