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

[Cadence]

It isn't hard to learn how to do in theory.

The very fact that it requires a lot of effort makes it hard to actually do in practice. Moving one rock across the road is easy. Moving 10,000 of them is hard.

At one extreme there is the kind of hard where I could probably do it if after getting brief instructions if the alternative was starving or being killed if I didn't successfully do it, but otherwise nah I can't imagine marshalling the motivation.

At the other end there is the kind of hard where I'm almost certainly just dead if that's how it works - possibly even with 1,000s of hours of practice if was forced to - because even many people with natural talent in that direction who work diligently towards it don't pull it off a decent percent of the time. (And there might be that rare unicorn who can do it with much less practice).

 

[Scott Christian]

So a simple ask. What do people feel they learn from running other games? Actual concrete examples, not vague "different ways of doing things".

Here are a few examples of how running other games helped me improve my DMing:

1. Early on in my gaming career, I fell in love with Rolemaster, and all its complex tables and crit charts. But some of my friends were not so enamored, no matter how much I poured into GMing the game. What I realized was that crit/fumble charts are more fun to read than actually play with. And most importantly - it dragged the game to a halt. Meaning, combat slowed and that made the players unhappy. When we moved back to D&D (2e), I did everything I could to streamline the combat - and the players loved it. So I learned a lesson for my table at the time, streamlined combat that doesn't take 2 hours is the way to go. If we would have only played D&D, I doubt very seriously I would have ever tinkered with the system to make it more streamlined, and in turn, bettr for my players.
2. When I was younger, I had a preference - Middle Earth style play. I couldn't stand when players were suddenly cats or orcs or lizard men. Then I bought Gamma World and Earthdawn, learned the rules, and we played those for awhile. Earthdawn had windlings (pixies) and some reptilian creature. Gamma World had mutated animals. As a player in Earthdawn , I grew to really like the pixie and my reptilian friend. As a GM in Gamma World, I didn't mind the mutated animals running around with humans. Then we shifted back to D&D. I truly saw the game in a different light, and that allowed my players to express who they wanted to play more freely. Hence, I became a better DM for my table because of it. (It also allowed me to accept settings like Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, as I was opposed to sci-fi mixing with my fantasy back then.)
3. Rules, rules, rules. To be a good DM, you need to know the rules. It allows for fair calls, and even more important, consistent calls. Some games are unplayable if you do not adhere to the rules. The ones that come to my mind are Pathfinder (1st edition), Vampire the Masquerade, and Warhammer. Learning these allowed me to see the breaking point in games much more easily, and therefore, avoid them during play. It allowed me to see bending points I never would have noticed had I not been exposed to those other rulesets. And that in turn allowed me to apply the rules in a more fair and consistent manner.
4. Creativity. This one may not be as true today as it was 20 years ago, but it was definitely a learning experience for me. I remember thinking I was being creative and then picking up Numenera. It opened up a whole new world of magic items for me, and many of those magic items my players loved. We were playing 4th edition at the time, and I never would have thought of some of those magic items. It made our game more enjoyable.

Sorry for the rant, and I am almost done. But please allow me to counter before the obvious rebuttal comes. I know anyone can say: "I already let all races play, and already have short combats, and know the D&D rules and apply then fairly, and am already super-creative." But the point of those examples isn't that you would learn the exact same things as me. The point of the examples is that exposure to alternate systems expanded my repertories. It enabled me to learn DMing skills I would not have been able to had I just stuck with D&D. The point is, you don't know what you will learn until you try.

 

[AlViking]

Here are a few examples of how running other games helped me improve my DMing:

1. Early on in my gaming career, I fell in love with Rolemaster, and all its complex tables and crit charts. But some of my friends were not so enamored, no matter how much I poured into GMing the game. What I realized was that crit/fumble charts are more fun to read than actually play with. And most importantly - it dragged the game to a halt. Meaning, combat slowed and that made the players unhappy. When we moved back to D&D (2e), I did everything I could to streamline the combat - and the players loved it. So I learned a lesson for my table at the time, streamlined combat that doesn't take 2 hours is the way to go. If we would have only played D&D, I doubt very seriously I would have ever tinkered with the system to make it more streamlined, and in turn, bettr for my players.
2. When I was younger, I had a preference - Middle Earth style play. I couldn't stand when players were suddenly cats or orcs or lizard men. Then I bought Gamma World and Earthdawn, learned the rules, and we played those for awhile. Earthdawn had windlings (pixies) and some reptilian creature. Gamma World had mutated animals. As a player in Earthdawn , I grew to really like the pixie and my reptilian friend. As a GM in Gamma World, I didn't mind the mutated animals running around with humans. Then we shifted back to D&D. I truly saw the game in a different light, and that allowed my players to express who they wanted to play more freely. Hence, I became a better DM for my table because of it. (It also allowed me to accept settings like Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, as I was opposed to sci-fi mixing with my fantasy back then.)
3. Rules, rules, rules. To be a good DM, you need to know the rules. It allows for fair calls, and even more important, consistent calls. Some games are unplayable if you do not adhere to the rules. The ones that come to my mind are Pathfinder (1st edition), Vampire the Masquerade, and Warhammer. Learning these allowed me to see the breaking point in games much more easily, and therefore, avoid them during play. It allowed me to see bending points I never would have noticed had I not been exposed to those other rulesets. And that in turn allowed me to apply the rules in a more fair and consistent manner.
4. Creativity. This one may not be as true today as it was 20 years ago, but it was definitely a learning experience for me. I remember thinking I was being creative and then picking up Numenera. It opened up a whole new world of magic items for me, and many of those magic items my players loved. We were playing 4th edition at the time, and I never would have thought of some of those magic items. It made our game more enjoyable.

Sorry for the rant, and I am almost done. But please allow me to counter before the obvious rebuttal comes. I know anyone can say: "I already let all races play, and already have short combats, and know the D&D rules and apply then fairly, and am already super-creative." But the point of those examples isn't that you would learn the exact same things as me. The point of the examples is that exposure to alternate systems expanded my repertories. It enabled me to learn DMing skills I would not have been able to had I just stuck with D&D. The point is, you don't know what you will learn until you try.

It sounds like you learned things from these games, that's great. All I'm saying is that those games are not required to learn any of these things. I learned to hate crits a long time ago and so on. My issue has never been that other games aren't worth playing or that people can't learn things from them. Just that it's not required nor the best way for many people.

 

[Lanefan]

I think I said earlier that there is a diminishing returns angle to this.

If DM 1 has run 100 sessions of D&D and DM 2 has run 10 sessions each of 10 different games (including D&D) - then sure DM 1 will probably run a better game of D&D.

But if DM 1 has run 1,000 sessions of D&D, and DM 2 has run 100 sessions each of 10 different games (including D&D)? Or if DM 2 has run 910 sessions of D&D and 10 sessions each of 9 other games?

Is the millionth session you run of D&D really more of a learning experience than the first session you run of something different?

Learning experience, after a certain point, is no longer the point.

Familiarity and comfort is.

A DM who has run 1000 sessions of D&D (let's get specific here and say it was all 5e 2014, run stock) might not have learned much more than the DM who has run but 100 sessions but is for sure going to be more familiar and comfortable with the system. Further, the 1000-session DM will almost certainly have memorized some of the obscure rules, rulings, and interactions that the 100-session DM still has to look up, thus making the game run just that little bit smoother.

There's also the question of frequency of repetition leading to better retention. If both DMs have been running for 10 years, the 100-session guy is only rocking 10 sessions a year on average while the 1000-session gal is on 100 sessions a year; meaning she's getting more frequent reinforcement of the knowledge she already has.

 

[Maxperson]

It isn't hard to learn how to do in theory.

The very fact that it requires a lot of effort makes it hard to actually do in practice. Moving one rock across the road is easy. Moving 10,000 of them is hard.

Why is it hard? Success is guaranteed since there's no time limit.

 

[Scott Christian]

It sounds like you learned things from these games, that's great. All I'm saying is that those games are not required to learn any of these things. I learned to hate crits a long time ago and so on. My issue has never been that other games aren't worth playing or that people can't learn things from them. Just that it's not required nor the best way for many people.

No offense, but that is kind of the response I expected from you. You asked for specific examples, supposedly out of an open-mindedness. You asked:

So a simple ask. What do people feel they learn from running other games? Actual concrete examples, not vague "different ways of doing things".

I predicted your reply, because I didn't really believe you were being open-minded. You just wanted something to try and pick apart. That is why in my response I specifically stated:

But please allow me to counter before the obvious rebuttal comes. I know anyone can say: "I already let all races play, and already have short combats, and know the D&D rules and apply then fairly, and am already super-creative." But the point of those examples isn't that you would learn the exact same things as me. The point of the examples is that exposure to alternate systems expanded my repertories. It enabled me to learn DMing skills I would not have been able to had I just stuck with D&D. The point is, you don't know what you will learn until you try.

Notice that is what you just did with your response:

I learned to hate crits a long time ago and so on.

You see, you making a claim that "it's not required" is a no brainer. No one in this forum said it is required. You saying "nor is it the best way for many people" is just not true. Experience is experience. I can state many analogies but all you will do is poke holes or disregard them. Because you want to be right.

But DMing is like education - the more you know... Talk to someone that just learned Algebra and then another that learned Algebra and Geometry. See which one understands how to apply the math better. Talk to someone that only reads fantasy books versus others that read fantasy, horror, romance, mystery, travel, etc. See which one of them has a better grasp of story structure and literary elements. Talk to someone that understands biology. Then talk to someone that understands biology, chemistry, environmental science, and geology. See which one can apply the science to everyday activities more often.

Go ahead, poke holes. That's what you want to do. But, the more open-minded thing to do would be to consider the claims and logic of those claims, and then re-evaluate your claim.

 

[Hussar]

So how does that work?



I've seen that suggested for D&D over the years. It's not something I incorporated, if someone wants to add to their backstory or if it matters for the ongoing campaign we do that fill-in-the-blank offline because there are some people who would have a deer in the headlights reaction to having to some up with something on the spot.



Not sure how that makes much of a difference or how it would work. I have seen issues with someone with a noble background who just wanted to run to daddy and use their political influence to solve an issue but that doesn't sound like what it is. Depending on the campaign and players, we do talk quite a bit about background and the mechanical benefits are only a small part of it.



Again, how does that actually work? Complex skill challenges that can take a variable amount of time and/or have timed events isn't new.

/snip

The fact that you have no idea how any of these things work is precisely the problem. I have neither the time, patience or energy to yet again try to batter down the walls of your self-imposed ignorance of other systems only to have you endlessly challenge everything I say.

It's simply not worth the effort. You asked for concrete examples. I provided concrete examples. If you want to learn how to do these things, you need to actually try and experience other games. Without that context, we simply cannot have a common language to discuss these things.

/edit to add - or what @Scott Christian said much more politely than I did.

 

[Hussar]

As Bruce Lee said, fear not a man who practiced 1000 punches once. Fear the man who practiced one punch 1000 times.

And yet, virtually every MMA fighter, and certainly the best ones, incorporate moves and ideas from a wide variety of different styles and traditions. Heck, Bruce Lee did EXACTLY that when he created Jeet Kun Do. It's not like he only practiced exactly one form of martial art and never bothered to learn anything from any other styles.

 

[MichaelSomething]

And yet, virtually every MMA fighter, and certainly the best ones, incorporate moves and ideas from a wide variety of different styles and traditions. Heck, Bruce Lee did EXACTLY that when he created Jeet Kun Do. It's not like he only practiced exactly one form of martial art and never bothered to learn anything from any other styles.

"I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times."
Bruce Lee

 

[BrokenTwin]

Did someone mention Scooby-Doo.

View attachment 424616 View attachment 424617

I was thinking this would be cool and someone had already made it. There are no original thoughts.

It always bothers me that I never see Daphne as a monk in these, when the live action movie (the good one) CLEARLY shows her as a trained, capable open-hand combatant.

Fred I'd see more as a rogue with his trap obsession, but to balance the party you need a sword & board, and he is the most viable candidate there.