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

[SableWyvern]

Huh? Since when is it impossible to play a different game for a couple of weeks once a year? Talk about strawmen.

That something can be done is not a compelling argument that it should be done.

While I do play a range of games, I am extremely selective about what I play, and there is absolutely no way I'm exchanging nearly 10% of my annually available sessions (~22 to 24 most years) to play a game that hasn't got me actively excited and inspired.

That's an interpretation that you've added that no one else has stated. That's all you.

There are absolutely people in this thread who have been demeaning and insulting people who don't want to play more than one game. I thought this thread on driving skills was a continuation of that, but I may have been mistaken.

 

[soviet]

In the mid-late 1990s I very much suspect most of the people still playing were hard-core nutballers i.e. the opposite of casual. Most casuals had long since drifted off, many of them to M:tG

Complete tangent but I was around in the mid-90s when Magic became big. I initially rejected it as 'not for me; when some of my buddies wanted me to try it, then I did try it, then I took it fairly seriously and travelled to international tournaments including a Pro Tour and some GPs, and even now I still play it semi-casually. Most of the people I have met through Magic either don't ever roleplay or have done it a bit, casually. Most of the people I roleplay with have never played Magic and the one that has only did so casually. Really what Magic and computer games did was provide a different release for people who were loosely interested in roleplaying-type things but not particularly roleplaying itself. Even if Magic (or computer games) never existed, I suspect the roleplayers 'lost' to them would not have stayed roleplaying long anyway. In fact I suspect that pop-cultural acceptance of Magic and computer games has led to the broader acceptance of TTPGs.

 

[soviet]

There are absolutely people in this thread who have been demeaning and insulting people who don't want to play more than one game.

I guess they've blocked me then because I can't see it.

 

[Reynard]

Complete tangent but I was around in the mid-90s when Magic became big. I initially rejected it as 'not for me; when some of my buddies wanted me to try it, then I did try it, then I took it fairly seriously and travelled to international tournaments including a Pro Tour and some GPs, and even now I still play it semi-casually. Most of the people I have met through Magic either don't ever roleplay or have done it a bit, casually. Most of the people I roleplay with have never played Magic and the one that has only did so casually. Really what Magic and computer games did was provide a different release for people who were loosely interested in roleplaying-type things but not particularly roleplaying itself. Even if Magic (or computer games) never existed, I suspect the roleplayers 'lost' to them would not have stayed roleplaying long anyway. In fact I suspect that pop-cultural acceptance of Magic and computer games has led to the broader acceptance of TTPGs.

A great many people would disagree with you. Magic and WoW ate a LOT of game groups back in the day.

 

[Lanefan]

For the basics, sure. But there are still spells and class abilities that I don't know off the top of my head. I'll look things up after the game if I remember to do so.

I'll look things up then and there if I have to, as will the player(s).

You're a lot more iron-clad on the "once a decision is made it's done" than I am. I'll make the best decision I can in the moment but I'm not going to spend a lot of time at it during the session unless it's a critical turning point. If I made a mistake we'll just do it correctly in the future.

Problem there is that the "mistake" has in fact happened in the fiction, and a player has an ironclad can't lose argument to have that same thing work the same way next time.

As the campaign goes on and these things get hammered out, such in-session rules discussions tend IME to become a lot less common. For me now, most of the rules debates are around things that haven't happened yet but that we can see coming e.g. rulings and clarifications for spells of level beyond what the PCs can currently cast, and those discussions tend to happen between sessions by email.

Personally I don't want to play a campaign with an evil PC - and I do mean a PC that is truly evil and acts like one, not just "I was evil in the past and now I'm trying to redeem myself." Different people play for different reasons, but I know that most of the people don't want and evil PC in the party either.

Just like it's not the DM's place to tell me how to play my character, nor is it the place of another player to do so. Not out-of-character, anyway.

In-character, however, anything goes. If your character has a beef with mine in the fiction then fine, let's throw down and settle it. Roll initiative and bring it on.

Your character can still do whatever they want but if you cross the line and I will let you know you are crossing a line your PC becomes an NPC. That may well mean I'm not the DM for you, but when it comes to what the characters do if it's not harmful to another player at the table I don't care.

So a character stealing from random NPCs is fine but the same character stealing from other PCs is not?

Yeah, no; not gonna fly. Why not? Because this runs directly afoul of my position that PCs and NPCs in the setting are - and should be treated as - the same.

 

[billd91]

The real point is, there is no good reason for @AlViking to be put in a position where they need to defend their decision in the first place.

In isolation, this is true. No individual should ever need to defend why they're a one-game gamer.
But... gamers are rarely in isolation (aside from computer/console gaming). They have fellow players. If they are all in agreement, again, no problem. They don't owe anybody an explanation or need to defend themselves.

But are they all in agreement? And this is where the Matt Colville video referred to earlier in the thread comes into relevance. He's not ripping on people who only play one game and are happy about it. He's talking more about the players/DMs (and in his description it's often a "forever DM") who may want to try another game, but can't get their fellow players to try anything else. Whenever the group has someone who wants to try another game, they're no longer all in agreement about being one-game gamers. An THAT'S the point where the one-game gamers need to defend themselves and why they're constantly stymying their fellow's attempts to play something else.

 

[Lanefan]

I've been running adventure path adventures since 3.5. Prep is not something I particularly enjoy. Heck, I run modules far, far more often than I run entirely self made adventures. I might fold, spindle or maul the adventure and change stuff, but, actually self-author an entire campaign? Thinking about it, I don't think I've ever done that.

A good - and IME quite manageable - mix can be using canned standalone modules for the adventures themselves, but self-authoring the backstory/ies that tie those modules together. For example, you could run G1-2-3 stock but have your own in-fiction reasons for why the PCs needed to engage with that series and for where things might go afterwards.

In days when I had less time than now, I often did it this way.

 

[Lanefan]

Honestly is mostly that I detest the scut work of developing adventures - picking monsters, making sure stat blocks are correct, picking maps, picking art, actually writing the adventure, etc. I do not enjoy that for more than a short while. So, adapting AP's and modules has been my go to for playing and running D&D since the 80's.

I love coming up with the concepts and ideas for adventures and the key pieces within them - new items, cool villains, funky traps, etc. - but indeed the scut work (as you call it) required to tie it all together can certainly become tedious. I'm in that position right now, in fact: I have what I think is a hella cool bunch of ideas for an adventure but don't want to face all the mapping and typing it's gonna take to make it run-able.

 

[Lanefan]

Huh? Since when is it impossible to play a different game for a couple of weeks once a year? Talk about strawmen.

For me it wouldn't be a couple of weeks, were such to happen. If I'm going to go through all the headaches of learning a new system to any great depth it would only be because I'm looking to permanently change to that system.

 

[SableWyvern]

In isolation, this is true. No individual should ever need to defend why they're a one-game gamer.
But... gamers are rarely in isolation (aside from computer/console gaming). They have fellow players. If they are all in agreement, again, no problem. They don't owe anybody an explanation or defend themselves.

We're all answerable to the people we game with, absolutely. Just not randos on internet forums.

But are they all in agreement?

@AlViking seems to get plenty of gaming done, and I see no reason to assume he has a dysfunctional group based on the posts I've seen here.

And this is where the Matt Colville video referred to earlier in the thread comes into relevance. He's not ripping on people who only play one game and are happy about it. He's talking more about the players/DMs (and in his description it's often a "forever DM") who may want to try another game, but can't get their fellow players to try anything else. Whenever the group has someone who wants to try another game, they're no longer all in agreement about being one-game gamers. An THAT'S the point where the one-game gamers need to defend themselves and why they're constantly stymying their fellow's attempts to play something else.

Yes and no. The sort of compromises you make will depend on your specific feelings and your group. For myself, I've cultivated a group where I can run whatever game I want. While, on the one hand that has probably involved some luck, there's also the fact that I would never have begun gaming with anyone who thought they had the right to demand I run a particular game for them.

To put it another way: No one I'm gaming with will ever be required to explain why they only want to play one game. But if they do only want one game, and that game isn't one I'm willing to run, they're going to find someone else to run it.