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


log in or register to remove this ad

Sounds similar to S&P (Skills & Powers) traits and disadvantages from 2e. Seems like the flaws would have to come into play fairly often in order for it to justify a feat though - in S&P people could take disadvantages that didn't come into play very often or ever. I took stupid (for a character) disadvantage like compulsive honesty which meant I hated lying and deception. I had fun with things like that but others would take "lazy" which for the most part was just an inconsequential RP thing.

Care to share some flaws?
Ambitious
You crave power. Money is nice, but being in charge of other people is your favorite thing. You are likely to be brought down by attempting a risky grab for power and failing.
Effect: The GM can activate your Hubris in order to get you to chase after power, even if the deal you're getting is risky.

Arrogant
You firmly believe that you are better than anyone else. Your ideas are the best, your clothes are the most stylish, and you have to let everyone else know how much better you are.
Effect: The GM can activate your Hubris in order to get you to show contempt or disdain for someone else.

There are 7th Sea specific rules for these, but we used them as the DM or another player can activate it, but only once per session. If you picked a flaw, you could get a free feat. These effects came up fairly often.
Interesting, is the list of cards available online somewhere? I've never seen a critical failure system I cared for but there are exceptions to every rule.
There's no list as this was a personal house rule. I just went to a card shop and looked through the 5 cent/10 cent or whatever boxes and picked out cards. And then went though my old cards to do the same thing. The D&D set of MtG was pretty good also. I bought a few boxes of that when it was released.
 

Yeah, I can see why some people wouldn't like those. Too much metagame for me as well, we all have our preferences.
Right, but if you have a group that likes it, it can be a real improvement to the game. If not, it's a detriment. Just learning these techniques doesn't automatically make you a better DM, but it does give you more tools to potentially draw upon. They WILL change the feel of a D&D game, though, as they are generally not D&D rules/techniques.
 

Playing other games is cool. If you have time and will, go for it. It can be fun.

My posts are from perspective of someone who has very limited time to play or learn new systems, unless they are really just few pages long. I ran couple and learned that my group doesn't particularly like them. They are more guys for medium to high crunch trad games. Too bad none of us have time to sit down and properly read, let alone actually learn rules for new system. With average of 20 3-3.5h sessions (so closer to 2-2.5h of game play) per year, every one shot of new untested system eats significant portion of our game time budget. So we much rather spend that little time on game we know and love. It's just about being efficient with fun.
 


Ambitious
You crave power. Money is nice, but being in charge of other people is your favorite thing. You are likely to be brought down by attempting a risky grab for power and failing.
Effect: The GM can activate your Hubris in order to get you to chase after power, even if the deal you're getting is risky.

Arrogant
You firmly believe that you are better than anyone else. Your ideas are the best, your clothes are the most stylish, and you have to let everyone else know how much better you are.
Effect: The GM can activate your Hubris in order to get you to show contempt or disdain for someone else.

There are 7th Sea specific rules for these, but we used them as the DM or another player can activate it, but only once per session. If you picked a flaw, you could get a free feat. These effects came up fairly often.
...

If you want more ideas you might want to check out Traits & Disadvantages (POSP). Like I said though, the biggest issue I had with their list was that some were pretty inconsequential in play.
 

More effort doesn't equate to hard.
Yes it does.

Easy means little effort is required. Hard means the opposite.

Doesn't matter if that effort is mental (i.e. learning, problem-solving, etc.), or physical, or a combination of both: the principle is the same.

Edit to add: I too am starting to wonder if this is a regional thing. I'm Canadian and I believe @Hussar got his start here, maybe we use the word differently than you do in California. :)
 
Last edited:

Yes it does.

Easy means little effort is required. Hard means the opposite.

Doesn't matter if that effort is mental (i.e. learning, problem-solving, etc.), or physical, or a combination of both: the principle is the same.

Edit to add: I too am starting to wonder if this is a regional thing. I'm Canadian and I believe @Hussar got his start here, maybe we use the word differently than you do in California. :)
Yes I’m also Canadian and find the Hard often has to do with effort. Maybe it’s a Canadian thing 😂
 

To declare that something is "hard" is just another vague term used to create division.
Is DMing hard for you? Ask for help or look for tools that will make it "easier".
Is DMing easy for you? Offer to help others. There is no real reason to argue over what is or isn't hard.
The discussion shouldn't be about what hard means. The discussion should be....how can we make the thing that someone finds "hard" easier for you to engage with.
 

Yes it does.

Easy means little effort is required. Hard means the opposite.

Doesn't matter if that effort is mental (i.e. learning, problem-solving, etc.), or physical, or a combination of both: the principle is the same.

Edit to add: I too am starting to wonder if this is a regional thing. I'm Canadian and I believe @Hussar got his start here, maybe we use the word differently than you do in California. :)
Possibly. As I said, though, we use it the way you do as well, but I just see it used to mean difficult a lot more often.
 

Remove ads

Top