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

[EzekielRaiden]

In principle, it's possible to have enough grounding in TRPGs that you can comment on a game that you've read but not played (general "you" all around) but in practice almost no one has that much grounding in TRPGs, most will have some element of play that will turn out to work differently at the table than you (again, general, sorry) thought it would from reading it. Obviously someone commenting on a game they've read but not played would probably be best served to clear about that in their comments.

Sure. And if one is making simply very high-level, abstracted responses, I can see there being warrant. For example, I haven't played Numenera or any of its sister systems, but I do have a very negative perception of three of its mechanics, namely, GM Intrusions, the express intent that XP should be split between temporary and permanent rewards, and the extreme punitive effects of holding too many consumables. That doesn't mean I know how it actually plays out at the table, and it's certainly possible that a very deft GM could use these tools productively...but I do think they come from incorrect understandings of general game design principles. (E.g. if you have to be punitive in order to stop a perverse incentive...you should really just change the incentives so that people don't have a perverse one in the first place.)

The Intrusions present a pretty good opportunity to talk about the analysis of game design stuff, because right in the very text, we get the immediate mention of the mechanic being trivial to abuse if the GM isn't cautious (emphasis added in both quotes):

---

There are two ways for the GM to handle this kind of intrusion. You could say "You're standing in the wrong place, so make a roll." (It's a Speed defense roll, of course.) Alternatively, you could say "You're standing in the wrong place. The floor opens under your feet, and you fall down into the darkness." In the first example, the PC has a chance to save themselves. In the second example, they don't. Both are viable options. The distinction is based on any number of factors, including the situation, the characters involved, and the needs of the story. This might seem arbitrary or even capricious, but you're the master of what the intrusion can and can't do. RPG mechanics need consistency so players can make intelligent decisions based on how they understand the world to work. But they'll never base their decisions on GM intrusions. They don't know when intrusions will happen or what form they will take. GM intrusions are the unpredictable and strange twists of fate that affect a person's life every day.

---

Using (and Not Abusing) GM Intrusion
(Cypher System Rulebook, page 410)

Too much of a good thing will make the game seem utterly unpredictable—even capricious. The ideal is to use about four GM intrusions per game session, depending on the length of the session, or about one intrusion per hour of game play. This is in addition to any intrusions that are triggered by players rolling a 1.

---

Note the repeated reference to "capricious" usage. That's a serious problem, which the text basically wishes away with "well, just don't do that, 4head." GM Intrusions are beyond merely a powerful tool, they're one of the most powerful possible tools, which is given with the tiniest fig-leaf of "don't abuse it!" and zero context for how you would...y'know...not actually DO the abusive usage. Given the authors themselves felt the need to repeatedly talk about abusive usage, but spent no time actually...y'know...showing you how to avoid abusive usage, it seems pretty fair to criticize the system for including an easily-abused power with little to no guidance on how to avoid being abusive. I don't think you need to have played Numenera to criticize that.

I do, however, think that my opinion about the "casting-from-HP"-type rules in Numenera (where you are expected to sometimes "spend" your stats for the day out of your three attributes--burning them for the day, not forever, more or less) require actual in-play experience to criticize, because the issue is all about the actual rate at which you spend this stuff vs the risk that you get caught in a death spiral. I have been told by multiple other people that the "death spiral" thing just doesn't happen in play, even though I struggle mightily to understand how it wouldn't be a constant issue. Their actual play experience trumps my theoretical worries, at least in the field of discussion--I certainly still consider it a huge risk, which is part of why I have no interest in playing the Cypher system.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Where for me "It's what my character would do" is the whole of the law.

And that law definitely doesn't give players carte blanche to be the most horrible dicks to one another, or to the GM?

Coming from you, I'm genuinely shocked. This phrase is, perhaps more than any other, the one most likely to be abused by players--because it gives them unfettered freedom to do any action, no matter how disruptive to the group, no matter how disruptive to your campaign, no limits.

Thing is, because you let it pay off once the player now has a very justifiable argument that their clever idea or rules interaction should pay off every time they can pull it off. You've set a precedent, and going back on that is likely to produce resentful players.

Not at all. "That depended on the specifics of the situation at the time...which is what I said, at the time."

Narrowly-tailored rulings are a dime a dozen in common law.

 

[Bae'zel]

No one is advocating that we stop giving GMs advice.

What? The entire premise of this thread is "GMing isn't intrinsically hard, people who tell you otherwise and/or are selling 'how to GM books' are grifters who are misleading the community".

Followed by multiple posts peppered throughout that are basically "GMing isn't hard, people just don't want to make an effort".

I get it though; this whole "get gud" mentality in gaming has been prevalent forever, which is a bit ironic to me considering high number of neurotypical people I've met in this hobby.

 

[loverdrive]

I'm not gonna read 45 pages of this thread, but:

I think the hardest part of GMing is that GM is assumed to also take on all the managerial duties and play mommy to players. You are the only one who read the book, you are the one to help players create characters, you are the one having to confirm that people will show up, you are the one who has to worry about finding a place to play, you are the one who has to intervene when players start beefing with each other.

That is hard. GMing itself is trivial and a literal monkey could do it.

 

[Seramus]

Thing is, because you let it pay off once the player now has a very justifiable argument that their clever idea or rules interaction should pay off every time they can pull it off. You've set a precedent, and going back on that is likely to produce resentful players.

A player is free to disagree or feel discontent with a final ruling - I'm far from perfect. But "You ruled in my favor in the heat of the moment, but decided not to allow it going forward" is a very reasonable approach most players should be able to understand, especially if it's discussed during Session 0.

If the player actually feels resentful after a reasonable ruling, then they consult the flowchart.

 

[AlViking]

If nothing else, driving a semi would mean that you could back up and park a car a LOT better. If you can parallel park a semi or back a trailer into a small space with minimal clearance, it gets a LOT easier to back up and park a car. As someone who had to learn to park a tank, I can honestly say that the many, many hours of training driving a slew of vehicles for the army made me a much, much better driver than anyone who has only driven a car.

You took training and spent, I assume, a significant amount of time practicing in order to be a better driver. Had the same amount of time and practice been spent learning how to drive a car, you likely would have learned even more that was applicable to driving a car instead of a tank. Professional race car drivers are far better than I, and presumably you, will ever be. I sincerely doubt that driving tanks, semis and Humvees is on their training agenda.

Could I learn new techniques playing other games? I suppose so. Would that make me "better"? That's what I doubt, different is not necessarily better. Some techniques would not be better for my players. I know I wouldn't like playing a game as much if I had to add lore to the world on the fly because I prefer staying in character when I play. Others would find it incredibly stressful coming up with narrative details external to their characters on the fly.

 

[AlViking]

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.


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.

I'm running more than one campaign at the moment, but each one only happens once a month. I'm in another and it's supposed to be every other week but between scheduling conflicts and last minute cancellations it also averages once a month. Once a month game seems to be pretty common for people so playing "a couple of sessions of another game" with prep time and learning the rules ... I just don't see the point. Either it ends up taking half a year (see below) away from a campaign with a game I really enjoy or we don't play the other game enough for it to really get much in-depth play experience. Why would I bother when I can watch a stream or, if a free "basic" version is available and I can just read through those?

It's great if you get together more often and everybody enjoys a variety of games, that's just not the reality for many of us.

As far as saying it would take half a year, I'm assuming a session 0 intro game day where we review all the rules and create characters and then 4-5 sessions to really play enough to understand the game. Even that doesn't seem like enough time playing the game to justify the cost of time and money. All assuming of course that my players want to do this, everyone is pretty happy playing D&D.

 

[AlViking]

It's pretty obvious we play under different assumptions, which is fine.

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

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.

I don't view rules as ironclad, if we find a rule we don't like we change it. That may even include house rules modifying a rule like trying out the new rules for knocking someone prone and deciding we prefer the old method.

As the campaign goes on and these things get hammered out, such in-session rules discussions tend IME to become a lotless 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.


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.

A character can do anything the player wants. The character is just not going to be part of the party if they ignore the warnings.

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.

That would be up to the players, something we discuss in session 0. Same way I wouldn't let another player spout misogynistic crap or other insulting language if it's going to bother someone else at the table.

 

[AlViking]

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.

I've had exactly 1 person quit my game because they wanted to play another system and I've been running games for decades. But other people? Occasionally some will mention some other game they're playing, it's not like I make people sign an exclusive contract.

I can't believe I have to repeat once again that I am not forcing anyone to be a player in my game. If I'm not running the game they want for any reason whatsoever they are free to go elsewhere.

 

[AlViking]

The person that wants to try that other game should run it. And the rest of the group should let them.

If someone wants to try another game they should run it. The rest of the group should decide if they want to participate.