Haven taught a 7 year old (now 10) to DM 4E, I guess we will have to agree to disagree about whether there is a "DM spark".
A DM by any other name
- Thread starter Scylla
- Start date
Haven taught a 7 year old (now 10) to DM 4E, I guess we will have to agree to disagree about whether there is a "DM spark".
Steely_Dan
First Post
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️⚧️
That doesn't really address Steely_Dan's position, I don't think. Suppose your 10 year old has the DM spark?
The 10 year old (my cousin) DMs using the techniques I taught him and practically nothing else. He isn't a particularly great DM but he is serviceable. Practically a Minigiant lite with less complex themes, simpler adjectives and adverbs, and a lot more references to bodily functions, ninja, dual wielding, and hot damsels in distress. Nothing about him is "special" when it comes to DMing.
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️⚧️
Maybe the fact that he's taken up the extra challenge of being a DM is the evidence that he has something "special"?
I'm not saying that there is or isn't anything special about a player that makes them a DM or not. I can say that I see people out there are in games who never seem willing to take on that identity and others who try but never seem to have a flair for it compared to others, no matter how hard they try. Whether that's based on having some inherent quality like Steely_Dan suggests, I don't know. There are times that it seems DMs are born, not made.
Anyone can be taught (or learn) to DM. But whether they will be truly good at it is another matter entirely. I know the rules of chess, but I'm a terrible opponent. I play the RISK variations with a group of guys, but one or two of us nearly always win, even though we all know the rules well—clearly, random dice factors aside there is strategic thinking and such going on there that is innate.
Being a good DM (and I'll let my players decide how good I am) requires not just rules knowledge but imagination, ability to think on your feet, some knowledge of real world history, a sense of pacing, some acting ability, and knowledge of what entertains your players, among other things. Some of these things are innate (I've always enjoyed telling stories from a young age) and other are honed (I started DMing around 12 but improved from years of practice and exposure to many players and other DMs).
Being a good DM (and I'll let my players decide how good I am) requires not just rules knowledge but imagination, ability to think on your feet, some knowledge of real world history, a sense of pacing, some acting ability, and knowledge of what entertains your players, among other things. Some of these things are innate (I've always enjoyed telling stories from a young age) and other are honed (I started DMing around 12 but improved from years of practice and exposure to many players and other DMs).
Emerikol
Legend
I have to disagree with Steely on this one despite mostly agreeing with him on other things.
I do believe that in most things raw talent plays a factor. But just ask Gary Kasparov, in all likelihood the greatest Chess player of all time, if his raw talent was enough for him to become world champion. He would never have become world champion without his raw talent no doubt. But he also wouldn't have become champion without a ton of work and skill development.
DMing is similar, though easier of course than becoming chess world champion. Even someone with limited talent can become decent with a lot of effort. And there are those with a natural gift for it that still get better and better as time goes on. DM's usually get a lot better with experience so I think skill has to play an important factor.
I do believe that in most things raw talent plays a factor. But just ask Gary Kasparov, in all likelihood the greatest Chess player of all time, if his raw talent was enough for him to become world champion. He would never have become world champion without his raw talent no doubt. But he also wouldn't have become champion without a ton of work and skill development.
DMing is similar, though easier of course than becoming chess world champion. Even someone with limited talent can become decent with a lot of effort. And there are those with a natural gift for it that still get better and better as time goes on. DM's usually get a lot better with experience so I think skill has to play an important factor.
Last edited:
RAW talent, in lots of things, means that you don't "have" to work as hard at something as someone else does. I know people who are better than people with RAW talent because of sheer practice and dedication.
Talent helps but it isn't necessary.
Talent helps but it isn't necessary.
Incenjucar
Legend
Agreed.
The talented have it easier to start, and may have a greater potential capacity, but effort is worth more most of the time, especially since the talented often get used to not putting effort into things, and end up less capable.
He only became a DM because he said my world didn't "have enough ninjas, supermodels, and werewolves in it" and he "could do better". Now there is a Church of Vegeta and a Church of Ninja Shaq, an army of female vampire slayers, The Joker is a demon prince (of gnolls), and every named goblin has their powers and personality stolen for Naruto. His plots may suck but the campaign world is funny.
While raw talent does help with being a DM, the majority of DM skill is learned through guidance or experience. In my experience, the only real difference between a DM and a player is the DM really wants to play out their world. Because DMing used to be so hard, only the truly dedicated became DMs. Almost every player has a campaign they'd love to see and some even want to run them. The major barriers were the workload and the desire to play in that world.
As for the need for rules, it is DM to Player synchronization and trust. De-synchronization comes from the fact that there are a lot more sources of fantasy now. And I don't know where the erosion of DM trust came from.
Similar Threads
