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

[Umbran]

And yet youre incapable of figuring out ...

Mod Note:
Hey.

Next time you want to insult someone's intelligence, please don't.

Because publicly forgetting such a basic rule as "Keep it civil" isn't gonna make you look all that smart yourself.

 

[Umbran]

Siiiigh.

Yet again I have to point out that the survey you're quoting threw out all data received from any respondent aged 35 or over, which just happens to be the cohort most likely to be involved in longer-running games.

Sigh yourself, oh Condescending One.

I am, at the moment, mostly discussing gamers who were new in the hobby, under one year.

How many of those do you figure were over 35 in 1999, before 3e was published?

 

[AlViking]

Had my own rant here about people telling fellow gamers that we are somehow not worthy because we don't play multiple games but it's just not worth it. All it really comes down to is that if you play 3 different games a week, I'm happy for you. Everyone should be free to spend their free time playing what they want. But you are not special. You are not superior. You don't have some special insight that the rest of us are purposely ignorant of.

We know there are other options out there, we just don't feel the need to play them. I like playing 5e, I know how it works, and personally I don't get tired of using the same ruleset because the stories that emerge from play, the characters that we bring to life, the scenes I bring to life for the players, the bad jokes that we tell, all of that matters most.

 

[AlViking]

Sigh yourself, oh Condescending One.

I am, at the moment, mostly discussing gamers who were new in the hobby, under one year.

How many of those do you figure were over 35 in 1999, before 3e was published?

"oh Condescending One"? Really?

 

[Willie the Duck]

RE: Things from a few posts above...

There are bridge players and there are card players. Getting a group of the former to try spades and hearts and canasta feels non-trivial (although some might also play a few other card games). Similar for chess players vs. board gamers; MtG players vs CCG players; etc...

I'm never quite sure why D&D players vs. ttRPGers would be different.

Is it something about the nature of the class of games? The people who play them? The history of the discussion boards for them? etc... that makes it come up a lot for D&D vs. other ttRPGs?

Is there something similar going on with D&D players (only player players) and D&D players (both player and DM)? What makes a bridge between the two sides small enough to get a lot of people to jump. (How many soccer/football players play everything but goalie vs. everything? Everything in baseball except pitcher vs. everything?)

At least historically, there was perhaps a notion that people that hadn't tried anything except D&D might be in that position because they had never heard of the other options out there (either any at all, or the one that would appeal to them). When the game was brand-spanking new, and then when it was the only thing at Walden books or the like and anything else was in a FLGS three towns over, this might have been realistic. Nowadays, it seems pretty far-fetched, although with the modern D&D boom, there perhaps are players that haven't run across anyone else who has actually played (for instance) Shadowrun, so they may have heard of such and such other game, but not had an easy way to experience it.

That, of course, is the 'try it, you might like it' level. Which is a far stretch from 'try it, you do like it, and continue to partake.' And, as mentioned, mostly the historic reason. Still, I think it explains at least part of the attitude.

Sure, sure.

I've just seen far too many people whose stance is "I've never played anything but D&D, D&D is the best and only game for me, I won't even look at other games" when, y'know, that's a pretty strident stance with zero experiential reference for comparison.

...
That's the attitude I see. Over and over and over.
It's people who have eaten pizza, declaring it the best and only worthwhile Italian dish...when it's literally the ONLY Italian dish they've ever eaten. It's people who have listened to the Beatles, the only music they've ever heard, and declared that they never need to listen to any other music--ever, nothing, they won't even listen to movie soundtracks, they just plug their ears and read the subtitles.

I can't speak to prevalence or whose example is more representative, but I wanted to point out that others had been discussing a slightly different beast. Others above (at least the ones I noticed) were discussing people who don't play other ttRPGs (/don't cook other culture's cuisines, etc.). What you are discussing are people who have literally never tried such things, and vehemently refuse to do so. Some people in the former group will be the later group, but not all, and likely not most. I think it's reasonable to have different opinions about someone who won't try something new and someone who has tried, but doesn't want to do so again (although with a completely opt-in recreational activity that mostly only benefits oneself if they enjoy it, maybe it shouldn't be).

 

[Hussar]

All it really comes down to is that if you play 3 different games a week,

Absolutely no one is saying this. This is a huge straw many that you are creating.

What is being said is that if you absolutely refuse to try other games, despite gaming for years on end, that you have a limited band of experience compared to someone who has at least tried other systems from time to time over the same span of years. And that it shows in these discussions quite clearly because you see people pontificating about other systems that they've obviously never played, trying to "prove" how those other systems are inferior.

Good grief, mention a story game in a thread and it's like chumming the water. Suggest using a technique from a more narrative based game than D&D and people lose their poop, despite having never actually had any direct experience and those same people will argue until the cows come home that the experience of people who do have direct experience with those systems is wrong and they just don't understand the games that they play.

The problem is, we ALL play D&D. Some version thereof anyway. We're on En World because we play D&D. Most of us have been gaming D&D for years. We all have considerable experience with the systems of D&D. The difference is, there is a rather loud cohort of D&D players who absolutely refuse to entertain any notion that there might be other ways of doing things that might actually work better.

And it's because there is a rather loud cohort of players for whom D&D is the be all and end all of TTRPG's and no one could possibly have an idea that isn't done better in D&D.

 

[prabe]

Agreed. What that means to the thread topic, however, is that so-called DM advice that conflicts with what a DM is good at or comfortable with - or worse, that outright tells her what she's doing is bad even though her players keep enthusiatically coming back for more - is going to fall on deaf ears; and telling those DMs to "watch it, you'll like it" is pointless.

I think someone really new to GMing--especially someone without much experience as a player, or without much variance in that experience--might latch onto the first mostly reasonable advice they find, and then other advice might need to make sense to them before they apply it. I don't think that's inherently bad, if the first advice is reasonable. I think it'd be better if the game they were playing was more explicit about what it was doing, or what it could do, and how to get more out of it--I think it would be better if there weren't so much need (or "need") for GM advice.

Really? The prep work is the best part of DMing for you? For me it's running at the table. Prep is what I have to endure, not what I enjoy.

I enjoy sessions where I have basically nothing pre-written, I enjoy sessions where I've written up more or less the entire situation the PCs are addressing, I enjoy sessions that go at right angles to what I expected. I've made up my own setting, and I've started four campaigns in it (two have run to level 20+). I do not think I'd remain as engaged with doing the hobby if there were a part of it I felt I had to endure.

Some skills are system-agnostic. Some are not.

D&D 3e, for example, outright requires the GM to constantly re-balance its structure because it doesn't work outside of a narrow level range (roughly level 7-8 is when the breakdown becomes apparent, and roughly 11-13 is where it goes fully off the rails). That's a non-system-agnostic skill, because you have to understand 3e rules extremely well in order to know even a majority of the places where its rules go pear-shaped. (I would argue 5e also requires this skill, but the required amount of that skill is much lower than it was in 3e.)

Not disagreeing or arguing at all about 3e. I'd say 5e A) has a larger range where it works and B) needs less adjustment if you get outside that. And as someone who (as I just said) runs 1-20 campaigns, I've at least seen the level range; it's possible my players are pushing the system as hard as at some other tables, I can't claim my experiences with the game are everyone's.

(We're way off topic, but this was a rant thread anyway, so who cares)
No, BG3 is a video game. it is a cool video game, but like all video games, any sense of agency is an illusion. What makes a TTRPG a TTRPG is player agency, what someone on these boards (IIRC) has called "tactical infinity" or similar. I think you could get some of the chat bots to allow for that (even if it wasn't very good at it) and that would be a AI GM. Again, I don't think it would be a great GM, but for some groups of casual players, it would be fine.

I think the failure to recognize that different narrative media work differently and need different things is a persistent problem. I agree that a video game isn't a TRPG, doesn't provide the same experience or make for the same sorts of narratives; neither is a book or a movie or a TV series or a manga a TRPG. People looking to get a TRPG experience from some other medium, or expecting a TRPG to deliver the experience of some other medium, are committing a category error.

 

[prabe]

Agreed. What that means to the thread topic, however, is that so-called DM advice that conflicts with what a DM is good at or comfortable with - or worse, that outright tells her what she's doing is bad even though her players keep enthusiatically coming back for more - is going to fall on deaf ears; and telling those DMs to "watch it, you'll like it" is pointless.

I think someone really new to GMing--especially someone without much experience as a player, or without much variance in that experience--might latch onto the first mostly reasonable advice they find, and then other advice might need to make sense to them before they apply it. I don't think that's inherently bad, if the first advice is reasonable. I think it'd be better if the game they were playing was more explicit about what it was doing, or what it could do, and how to get more out of it--I think it would be better if there weren't so much need (or "need") for GM advice.

Really? The prep work is the best part of DMing for you? For me it's running at the table. Prep is what I have to endure, not what I enjoy.

I enjoy sessions where I have basically nothing pre-written, I enjoy sessions where I've written up more or less the entire situation the PCs are addressing, I enjoy sessions that go at right angles to what I expected. I've made up my own setting, and I've started four campaigns in it (two have run to level 20+). I do not think I'd remain as engaged with doing the hobby if there were a part of it I felt I had to endure.

Some skills are system-agnostic. Some are not.

D&D 3e, for example, outright requires the GM to constantly re-balance its structure because it doesn't work outside of a narrow level range (roughly level 7-8 is when the breakdown becomes apparent, and roughly 11-13 is where it goes fully off the rails). That's a non-system-agnostic skill, because you have to understand 3e rules extremely well in order to know even a majority of the places where its rules go pear-shaped. (I would argue 5e also requires this skill, but the required amount of that skill is much lower than it was in 3e.)

Not disagreeing or arguing at all about 3e. I'd say 5e A) has a larger range where it works and B) needs less adjustment if you get outside that. And as someone who (as I just said) runs 1-20 campaigns, I've at least seen the level range; it's possible my players are pushing the system as hard as at some other tables, I can't claim my experiences with the game are everyone's.

(We're way off topic, but this was a rant thread anyway, so who cares)
No, BG3 is a video game. it is a cool video game, but like all video games, any sense of agency is an illusion. What makes a TTRPG a TTRPG is player agency, what someone on these boards (IIRC) has called "tactical infinity" or similar. I think you could get some of the chat bots to allow for that (even if it wasn't very good at it) and that would be a AI GM. Again, I don't think it would be a great GM, but for some groups of casual players, it would be fine.

I think the failure to recognize that different narrative media work differently and need different things is a persistent problem. I agree that a video game isn't a TRPG, doesn't provide the same experience or make for the same sorts of narratives; neither is a book or a movie or a TV series or a manga a TRPG. People looking to get a TRPG experience from some other medium, or expecting a TRPG to deliver the experience of some other medium, are committing a category error.