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

[prabe]

I've been running adventure path adventures since 3.5. Prep is not something I particularly enjoy. Heck, I run modules far, far more often than I run entirely self made adventures. I might fold, spindle or maul the adventure and change stuff, but, actually self-author an entire campaign? Thinking about it, I don't think I've ever done that.

I've never been able to make published adventures make the sort of sense I need them to make in my head, for me to feel comfortable running them. Literally everything I've run in 5e has been homebrewed, including the setting. I literally do not think I could run a long published adventure. At this point, my prep for a campaign is a few hours--working out information about where I'm starting things, writing up what I'll give the players about it, figuring out what might be relevant and interesting for the characters the players have made up (based on what they've given me in the way of backstory, and based on what they've told me about when I've asked them questions about their characters' experiences in/of the setting). Oh, the joys of a persistent setting. My prep for most sessions involves a good deal of background processing, then like fifteen or thirty minutes writing up some ideas, then letting things play out for a few sessions. My prep load is not onerous.

 

[Hussar]

Meanwhile I would not be a better driver of a car after driving a semi.

Again, that's just not true. If you learned to drive a semi, you absolutely would be a better driver.

Having broader experience makes people better at anything. That's just true. Doesn't matter what it is. Broader experience is how everyone gets better at anything.

 

[Reynard]

I've been running adventure path adventures since 3.5. Prep is not something I particularly enjoy. Heck, I run modules far, far more often than I run entirely self made adventures. I might fold, spindle or maul the adventure and change stuff, but, actually self-author an entire campaign? Thinking about it, I don't think I've ever done that.

This is just an example of differences, not a judgement on your preferences: I find running modules, especially APs, to be significantly more work that running games I develop myself.

 

[Hussar]

In your opinion, in what way playing different games make someone better player or DM? I'm asking cause we might have different definitions of what makes someone good/bad player or DM

Playing different systems illustrates why various systems do the things that they do. I mentioned above about the difference between a trad and a story game where the idea of the DM as leader vs DM as facilitator becomes clear. If you only play trad games, it's easy to fall into the rut of expecting the DM to always roll up the plot wagon and spoon feed you everything because the DM leads the game.

Not that it has to happen, but, that's a thing I've noticed rather strongly among gamers I've played with or run for. The DM as Leader model can (again, not always, just a trend I notice) demotivate players and disincentivize being proactive. Demonstrating how being very proactive through story games can be an eye-opening experience that I do strongly recommend.

 

[Reynard]

In your opinion, in what way playing different games make someone better player or DM? I'm asking cause we might have different definitions of what makes someone good/bad player or DM:
Playing different systems illustrates why various systems do the things that they do. I mentioned above about the difference between a trad and a story game where the idea of the DM as leader vs DM as facilitator becomes clear. If you only play trad games, it's easy to fall into the rut of expecting the DM to always roll up the plot wagon and spoon feed you everything because the DM leads the game.

Not that it has to happen, but, that's a thing I've noticed rather strongly among gamers I've played with or run for. The DM as Leader model can (again, not always, just a trend I notice) demotivate players and disincentivize being proactive. Demonstrating how being very proactive through story games can be an eye-opening experience that I do strongly recommend.

The benefit of running different games gives a primarily one game GM is the ability to see different ways of resolving play situations. You may not even use them, but by seeing how other designers have decided how to resolve the situation, you get a broader pallett with which to paint your own game. Exposure to different tools broadens your own toolbox, and having a broader toolbox means that you can make your game better at the margins.

Similarly, this is why "forever GMs" should play on occasion, even if it is just at cons or game stores or whatever. Seeing what other GMs do to deal with stuff that comes up in play can really improve your GMing, even if you already feel proficient.

 

[Hussar]

This is just an example of differences, not a judgement on your preferences: I find running modules, especially APs, to be significantly more work that running games I develop myself.

Honestly is mostly that I detest the scut work of developing adventures - picking monsters, making sure stat blocks are correct, picking maps, picking art, actually writing the adventure, etc. I do not enjoy that for more than a short while. So, adapting AP's and modules has been my go to for playing and running D&D since the 80's.

 

[Reynard]

Honestly is mostly that I detest the scut work of developing adventures - picking monsters, making sure stat blocks are correct, picking maps, picking art, actually writing the adventure, etc. I do not enjoy that for more than a short while. So, adapting AP's and modules has been my go to for playing and running D&D since the 80's.

I don't try and make fully developed modules. I prep situations, so I need less than what a typical published module would provide. The whole idea for me is to have an interesting situation, with interesting NPCs and monsters, and see what the PCs do with it.

 

[SableWyvern]

I agree that the second quote is not objectionable. But I see things like the first quote a lot more. Here's an example in this very thread:

To an extent. But I don't believe that @AlViking is making some absolute statement that they know everything about how every game will play. They're making a conversational statement that they've got a reasonable idea what they like and, on the balance of probabilities, the cost of not playing the game they know they will enjoy outweighs the chance that some other game that doesn't sound like it's their type of thing actually turns out to be amazing.

If people do start digging in and making more absolute statements, it's most likely because they are being forced to defend a simple choice by people who are accusing them of ignorance, stupidity, lack of culture, self-sabotage and like.

All the arguments being made in thread for trying more games could just as easily be used to argue that, instead of playing an RPG, people should go take a cooking class, go to the gym or watch a movie. All those things have just as much chance to be life changing, can increase your range of experiences, have inherent benefits and can even assist you in getting more enjoyment out of RPGs. Yet, if someone tried to argue that someone who refuses to replace an RPG session with a cooking class is equivalent to someone who hates all non-Beatles music so much they can't even stand listing to soundtracks during a movie, they would be rightly ridiculed.

 

[Hussar]

Similarly, this is why "forever GMs" should play on occasion, even if it is just at cons or game stores or whatever. Seeing what other GMs do to deal with stuff that comes

And I truly believe the reverse is equally true. Forever players really, really need to step behind the screen at least once to see how the sausage is made.

 

[Hussar]

All the arguments being made in thread for trying more games could just as easily be used to argue that, instead of playing an RPG, people should go take a cooking class, go to the gym or watch a movie. All those things have just as much chance to be life changing, can increase your range of experiences, have inherent benefits and can even assist you in getting more enjoyment out of RPGs. Yet, if someone tried to argue that someone who refuses to replace an RPG session with a cooking class is equivalent to someone who hates all non-Beatles music so much they can't even stand listing to soundtracks during a movie, they would be rightly ridiculed.

You absolutely SHOULD do any or all of these things. But, why are you claiming that it's an "instead" and not "and". It's not like it's impossible to do more than one thing. I highly recommend that everyone does at least a couple of those things every year.

No one is making any sort of claim that it's a either/or situation. What's being said is that it's best to have broad experiences. If you ONLY listen to Beetles music and absolutely refuse to listen to any other music, you are not a fan of music and any opinion you have about music is woefully ignorant and their opinions should be ridiculed.

I mean, good grief, we've seen claims that learning to drive a different vehicle in no way would make you a better driver, which is patently false. Gaining broader experience always makes you better at things.