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

[GrimCo]

Can we move away from driving?

I get why people say that playing other games is necessary. Back in the old days of internet and pre internet, only way you could learn stuff from other games was actually picking up game, learning it and then running it. There weren't in depth videos about design of game mechanics and how they impact games. Lot less information and less communication channels.

These days, with youtube, you can spend hour watching/listening about various systems, mechanics, how they interact, what is desired outcome from using them etc, while also doing something else in process (like house chores, commuting to school/work).

I think i can in single post explain to someone who never touched 7th sea, what are brute squads, what is their purpose in game, how they work mechanically and how one can implement them in D&D, some tricks with them, some specific situations when they are great (outside of what they are intended to do originally). So, sum up years of using particular mechanic in a digestible bite size piece that's easy to understand, absorb and then use in game of D&D.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Is it too soon to propose name change for the thread A Rant: Driving is not hard

The most fascinating aspect of this is that people who have been on this site for years and have engaged in many similar disagreements, still persist, thinking that enough arguing and presentation of facts will actually change entrenched opinions.

 

[lynnfredricks]

When anyone can have their own unique, internal lists of opinions on what makes a session good or bad, I don't think the answer is a simple no.

The DM sets the tone for a session through the several roles they play as judge of the rules and 'player of the world,' but the rest of the players have an impact on it.

I think DMing definitely is hard if you set your bar high on management of specific kinds of play. Anyone can read up, play some games and give it a shot, much like someone who hasn't taught a class before can give it a shot.

 

[AlViking]

When anyone can have their own unique, internal lists of opinions on what makes a session good or bad, I don't think the answer is a simple no.

The DM sets the tone for a session through the several roles they play as judge of the rules and 'player of the world,' but the rest of the players have an impact on it.

I think DMing definitely is hard if you set your bar high on management of specific kinds of play. Anyone can read up, play some games and give it a shot, much like someone who hasn't taught a class before can give it a shot.

The important thing to me is to remember that everyone has to start somewhere and unless you go out of your way to make the game less enjoyable most people are okay with it and will still have fun. Beyond that there's a ton of advice out there for new DMs, what will work for one individual may not for another and the most important thing is to keep at it and seek feedback.

 

[Seramus]

The most fascinating aspect of this is that people who have been on this site for years and have engaged in many similar disagreements, still persist, thinking that enough arguing and presentation of facts will actually change entrenched opinions.

Some people definitely do, but it's mostly theatre to me. That is to say, all parties are presenting their arguments to the greater whole (that being whoever is reading). You state your cases, try to refute other points, but it's all for the audience.

The audience / future readers stumble across this thread now, in weeks, maybe in years. Hopefully they take away something useful.

 

[definiteFreakyFishGuy]

The most fascinating aspect of this is that people who have been on this site for years and have engaged in many similar disagreements, still persist, thinking that enough arguing and presentation of facts will actually change entrenched opinions.

I actually don't think there is an actual disagreement. It seems like both agree with the following statement:

"Playing other TTRPGs may OR may not improve your DMing."

The difference seems to be that one is putting a bit more weight on one side of the "OR," which at times gets interpreted as a more absolutist stance.

I am also assuming that the debate is fun for them, and it may or may not improve their DMing.

 

[AlViking]

I actually don't think there is an actual disagreement. It seems like both agree with the following statement:

"Playing other TTRPGs may OR may not improve your DMing."

The difference seems to be that one is putting a bit more weight on one side of the "OR," which at times gets interpreted as a more absolutist stance.

I am also assuming that the debate is fun for them, and it may or may not improve their DMing.

Have we been reading the same thread? Because there's been a lot of statements about how you can be a competent GM while playing only one system but multiple systems is required to be the best. If you stick with one system you become rigid and stale and so on.

If it was just "playing multiple games helped me", that's fine. I can also list off things that helped me become a better DM they just don't happen to have anything to do with playing multiple TTRPGs. But I will never tell anyone that the only way to achieve your goal is some specific one true way.

 

[Hussar]

I'm really sorry, I know I've been banging this drum for far too long, but, I've been noodling around a bit and I think I may have a really clear way of explaining myself. When talking about @Maxperson's driving, he said this:

About the only thing you mention that I don't have skill with is black ice training, but it won't help me drive better because Southern California doesn't have black ice. Or any ice for that matter.

Which, to me, perfectly encapsulates the point I've been making. @Maxperson may very well be a fantastic driver. But, he's only a fantastic driver in Southern California. He admits that he doesn't deal with ice or snow. He drives in Southern California, a pothole is a mythical beast he's never seen. He has never really seen any inclement weather - it rains like what, twice a year in Southern California. (that's meant as a joke btw) He has never driven in an ice storm. Or a monsoon. Or serious fog. He's always driving on very well maintained, paved roads in virtually always perfect weather.

Pick him up and plonk him down in northern Michigan in February and he's got a problem. Because he has no experience with this kind of driving. Which means that he cannot actually drive outside of the southern part of his state for several months of the year. Driving to Nevada for Christmas is difficult because you get snow and ice in the mountains at that time, which he doesn't drive in.

So, @Maxperson is a fantastic driver so long as he stays (ahem) in his lane. Stays in his comfort zone. Driving a car he is very familiar with in conditions that he is very familiar with that are very rarely more challenging than a light rain. I mean, as a perfect example, I ask my Japanese students, and I live in the south of Japan where it never snow, how to open a car if the locks are frozen. They'd never even heard of locks freezing, let alone know what to do. Two centimeters of snow and they close the highways. :wow:

The same goes for a single system DM. They might be great so long as they stay in their comfort zone. They've done really well within this specific kind of game and kind of campaign. But, because they have no experience outside of that comfort zone, they would start to struggle. They don't have the experience or tools because they've always stayed in their comfort zone.

This is why I argue that single system DM's aren't very good DM's. It's too self limiting to stay with one single system and never get outside of that comfort zone. You get better at something by challenging yourself. By constantly trying new and different things. It's easy to be a good at something when you never step outside of that comfort zone. If you want to be great at something, you have to challenge yourself. Constantly try to learn new things.

That's how you get better.

 

[SableWyvern]

I'm really sorry, I know I've been banging this drum for far too long, but, I've been noodling around a bit and I think I may have a really clear way of explaining myself. When talking about @Maxperson's driving, he said this:



Which, to me, perfectly encapsulates the point I've been making. @Maxperson may very well be a fantastic driver. But, he's only a fantastic driver in Southern California. He admits that he doesn't deal with ice or snow. He drives in Southern California, a pothole is a mythical beast he's never seen. He has never really seen any inclement weather - it rains like what, twice a year in Southern California. (that's meant as a joke btw) He has never driven in an ice storm. Or a monsoon. Or serious fog. He's always driving on very well maintained, paved roads in virtually always perfect weather.

Pick him up and plonk him down in northern Michigan in February and he's got a problem. Because he has no experience with this kind of driving. Which means that he cannot actually drive outside of the southern part of his state for several months of the year. Driving to Nevada for Christmas is difficult because you get snow and ice in the mountains at that time, which he doesn't drive in.

So, @Maxperson is a fantastic driver so long as he stays (ahem) in his lane. Stays in his comfort zone. Driving a car he is very familiar with in conditions that he is very familiar with that are very rarely more challenging than a light rain. I mean, as a perfect example, I ask my Japanese students, and I live in the south of Japan where it never snow, how to open a car if the locks are frozen. They'd never even heard of locks freezing, let alone know what to do. Two centimeters of snow and they close the highways. :wow:

The same goes for a single system DM. They might be great so long as they stay in their comfort zone. They've done really well within this specific kind of game and kind of campaign. But, because they have no experience outside of that comfort zone, they would start to struggle. They don't have the experience or tools because they've always stayed in their comfort zone.

This is why I argue that single system DM's aren't very good DM's. It's too self limiting to stay with one single system and never get outside of that comfort zone. You get better at something by challenging yourself. By constantly trying new and different things. It's easy to be a good at something when you never step outside of that comfort zone. If you want to be great at something, you have to challenge yourself. Constantly try to learn new things.

That's how you get better.

You've now defined a circular argument.

If being a good GM definitionally means being good at playing a range of different games and styles, of course it requires you to play a range of games and styles.

Generally speaking, I think most people will rate their GMs based on the games they actually play with them, and not on hypothetical ones they don't play.

 

[Audiomancer]

I went to go see a discussion about DMing, and a car fight broke out…