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

[prabe]

It seems worth pointing out that a lot of things that kinda fall on GMs to do are more social/hosting things, and GMs end up doing them for the same reason/s bands usually end up practicing at the drummer's house--they're the ones with the most stuff to schlep. Yes, managing the schedules of five or eight adults with families and jobs and lives is (or can be) difficult; that's more a social thing than a game thing, though.

(On scheduling, I've been fortunate. One group's been meeting every other Saturday for seven or eight years now, first at a FLGS and then online (with an in-person finale when we wrapped a campaign); the other's been meeting for just over five years, similarly started at a (different) FLGS and then online, started as every other Wednesday and moved to every other Friday.)

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Yep. The mantra of “no gaming is better than bad gaming” utterly kneecaps new referees. A lot of players expect Mulligan, Mercer, and Colville from the first session.

Do players expect that, or are DMs psyching themselves out worrying that's what players expect?

 

[overgeeked]

Do players expect that, or are DMs psyching themselves out worrying that's what players expect?

Depends on the player. Thankfully most don’t, but quite a few clearly want something like the “CR experience.” PCs as main characters, the story centered on them and their backstory, etc. Aka a lot more work than standard from referees.

I have had 2-3 players flat-out say, “Matt Mercer wouldn’t do that.” I counter with, “Well, Laura Bailey wouldn’t do that.” It takes a few seconds for the gears to catch and when the smoke cleared it was obvious we were not compatible at the table.

 

[Hussar]

I think the Pay DM thing also ties into the situation these days with people having, or feeling like they need to have, a side hustle in some form, with a side of the promotion of the mindset that any creative work worth doing well should be financially compensated for (which, perhaps wrongly, I've seen traced back to Harlan Ellison's statements on writing - that if you're writing you should be getting paid for it, and if you're not getting paid or doing it for pay you shouldn't write), and that going to Fan Art and also to GMing as well.

It's a frustrating mindset for a lot of reasons beyond what have been discussed here, not least of which that people need to have the space to develop their skills, and if you (or the people you're GMing for) operate from the perspective that if you're not able to practice a skill at a level where you gan get paid for it you shouldn't do it at all, then (as has been mentioned repeatedly in this thread), it doesn't provide room for people to develop skills.

There's a flipside of this as well though. Gamers are cheap. They are. Think about it, your DM (if you have a DM) spends 3-4 hours running a game for you. On top of that the GM probably wrangles scheduling and make sure everyone shows up. Add to that actually preparing for the session, which is probably another 2-3 hours.

And I've seen players who won't even buy a PHB, show up for the session, and expect everything to be ready for them.

Is it really too much to think that kicking 10 bucks into a kitty after a session is a huge ask? That the group should be buying books for the DM/GM. If you want to play that nifty new race/class/whatever from that new book, buy the book for your DM.

We've cultivated this idea that the GM should be on the hook for everything. I mean, there is a rather significant economic and time cost to running a game that is almost always shunted onto the GM. And it's extremely rare that any player will ever pony up the cost of a couple of cups of coffee for the DM.

Show your DM some appreciation. Buy him or her a book for Christmas.

 

[Hussar]

Over the years, I've been told I was a bad GM on several occasions online.

But have any of your players told you that? Have you ever had players revolt en masse from your table? If no, then, you're probably okay. "You are a bad GM" online is more "I would never do it that way and I wouldn't enjoy it, but, I'm not at your table, so, my opinion probably doesn't matter".

I mean, I've been at tables more than once where the group up and walked away. And no, I wasn't the instigator. So, there are some truly, truly bad DM's out there. If four (ish) people want to sit at your table week after week and keep coming back? You're probably fine. That, of you have some rather incriminating photographs or something. Let those people people out of your basement for more than just a gaming session will ya? Sheesh!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Do players expect that, or are DMs psyching themselves out worrying that's what players expect?

I do, a bit, think "not gaming is better than bad gaming" kicks in. But I also think that only experienced players know enough to think about that. I've helped enough newbie gamers to know...they don't know what really good gaming looks like yet, so they don't know when to duck.

For this to sting, you need ultra-green GMs running for...I guess "experienced but not wise" gamers. I find most long-timers have learned patience, 'cause they've seen every mistake under the sun. They can see well-meaning bumbling. If they're short on time, maybe their patience is lower, but not much. So they enjoy the road to good gaming. It's the ones that know what they want, but still hunger for it, where patience starts thin.

And...that's kinda where we are now? Ten years on, most 5e gamers know good gaming, but haven't had more than a few years' experience with it. They don't want to wait, 'cause they know some GMs can do it.

The GM honeymoon is over. That's just a fact of life for a big boom like this. Another ephemeral time, just like the "magic enjoyment box" I talked about earlier. Here on, the stakes are upped...and 5e put almost all the weight on GMs' shoulders.

Maybe that's the thing that'll eventually do 5.5e in. It's not that people will think the rules are icky. It's that they'll know what they want, and demand more from the rules than what the rules currently give them. A whole different group--with different goals, and loves, and squicks--decided what shape 5e should have. But the new 5e blood...they're learning, or already learned, what they want, love, and hate. I have no idea what that might be, but I don't think it's gonna be 5.0 or 5.5e.

 

[Zardnaar]

I do, a bit, think "not gaming is better than bad gaming" kicks in. But I also think that only experienced players know enough to think about that. I've helped enough newbie gamers to know...they don't know what really good gaming looks like yet, so they don't know when to duck.

For this to sting, you need ultra-green GMs running for...I guess "experienced but not wise" gamers. I find most long-timers have learned patience, 'cause they've seen every mistake under the sun. They can see well-meaning bumbling. If they're short on time, maybe their patience is lower, but not much. So they enjoy the road to good gaming. It's the ones that know what they want, but still hunger for it, where patience starts thin.

And...that's kinda where we are now? Ten years on, most 5e gamers know good gaming, but haven't had more than a few years' experience with it. They don't want to wait, 'cause they know some GMs can do it.

The GM honeymoon is over. That's just a fact of life for a big boom like this. Another ephemeral time, just like the "magic enjoyment box" I talked about earlier. Here on, the stakes are upped...and 5e put almost all the weight on GMs' shoulders.

Maybe that's the thing that'll eventually do 5.5e in. It's not that people will think the rules are icky. It's that they'll know what they want, and demand more from the rules than what the rules currently give them. A whole different group--with different goals, and loves, and squicks--decided what shape 5e should have. But the new 5e blood...they're learning, or already learned, what they want, love, and hate. I have no idea what that might be, but I don't think it's gonna be 5.0 or 5.5e.

I learnt to DM with BECMI and the red box. Read the module.

Starter sets modern equivalent but its still more complicated. 7 choices level 1 vs 12×38 minimum iirc in 5.0 phb. 1st starter set was 16 options iirc.

Basic wouldn't fly these days. See previous comments about modern D&D modern problems (3E onwards). And D&D as a 10 level game.

Adding ability scores to monsters kinda broke D&D

 

[Distracted DM]

I'm quite curious about what the ad was that set @Reynard off in the first place

But I think that this thread has been pleasantly civil! I imagine it's partially because most folk agree that GMing might not be hard to get into, but it's worth acknowledging those choose to do so. Or something like that

 

[Distracted DM]

I learnt to DM with BECMI and the red box. Read the module.

Starter sets modern equivalent but its still more complicated. 7 choices level 1 vs 12×38 minimum iirc in 5.0 phb. 1st starter set was 16 options iirc.

Basic wouldn't fly these days. See previous comments about modern D&D modern problems (3E onwards). And D&D as a 10 level game.

Adding ability scores to monsters kinda broke D&D

Lots of things here that'd be, or have been, their own topics
You do make me think of something Mike Mearls said, that treating monsters the same as PCs with regards to their stay lock calculations was a mistake.. something about proficiency bonus-CR shouldn't have been used with their maths.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I learnt to DM with BECMI and the red box. Read the module.

Starter sets modern equivalent but its still more complicated. 7 choices level 1 vs 12×38 minimum iirc in 5.0 phb. 1st starter set was 16 options iirc.

Basic wouldn't fly these days. See previous comments about modern D&D modern problems (3E onwards). And D&D as a 10 level game.

Well, as I said--folks expect more of their rules now.

Rules that tell you almost nothing about what a character is or what they can achieve aren't super appealing now. This is the beginning of the other side of the seesaw. Too-simple rules with too much dependence on vague loosey-goosey GM interpretation. The floor has risen; one of 5e's effects was to make the ceiling fall. Oscillation. 5e treated complexity as a dirty word, even though it is more complex than old-school, and that has a cost.

I'm not saying complexity is an unalloyed good. It sure as hell ain't. But simplicity also isn't an unalloyed good. There is such a thing as too simple. There is also such a thing as too complex. Purposeful, productive simplicity, and purposeful, productive complexity, are what the game actually needs.

Adding ability scores to monsters kinda broke D&D

On this front, though, you have my full agreement. Monsters are not characters. They do not serve the function characters serve. Trying to pretend that all rules will always work exactly the same for both players and non-players is one of the greatest siren's songs of design, and it has trapped many a designer. Realism is important. Trying to enforce realism in that way is, in my experience consistently, destructive to the long-term health of tabletop roleplaying games, unless you choose to go all the way to pure point-buy the way World of Darkness etc. do.