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

[soviet]

Counter argument using your own logic. I know more about D&D than you.

That doesn't follow.

And youre posting on a D&D forum.

So?

 

[SableWyvern]

Sure? Happy to oblige. NOt really sure how you got "now" considering that I had clarified the point repeatedly, even within the post that was quoted out of context. But, hey, whatever floats your boat. We are finally communicating clearly and that's all that matters.

It is highly likely I missed additional clarifications as I skimmed through this fast moving thread.

Also, I feel I should acknowledge my previous post was a bit passive aggressive, so I have to give you credit for not really rising to the bait.

 

[billd91]

And now your rulings are inconsistent - it worked that way the first time and this way the second time - which is widely seen as very poor DM form.

Oh, good god, no. People make mistakes and learn from them. There's no point in reconning if you're long past that moment.
Even Advanced Squad Leader incorporates this rule - once you've moved on, the mistake stands.

 

[Hussar]

It is highly likely I missed additional clarifications as I skimmed through this fast moving thread.

Also, I feel I should acknowledge my previous post was a bit passive aggressive, so I have to give you credit for not really rising to the bait.

Heh. I probably rose a bit. I'm very very bad at not taking the bait.

 

[Zardnaar]

That doesn't follow.



So?

It means I know more about D&D by you so im an expert and you're not

 

[cbwjm]

And now your rulings are inconsistent - it worked that way the first time and this way the second time - which is widely seen as very poor DM form.

No it isn't, mistakes happen, you just correct and move on. I have never played with someone where, when I've told everyone the error and corrected it going forward, they've come back and tried to argue for the original ruling at the table. Everyone tends to accept it and move on using the correct ruling.

If I'm the player of the thief and you asked me that out of character, I'd tell you to deal with it in character. And if I'm the DM in that situation I'd pull out the (gentle, to start with) smackdown hammer and tell you to keep character disagreements and issues in character; you'd have already been told up front that in-character issues are not to spill over to the table, so this should come as no surprise.

If it was all told up front that players have their characters steal from each other or otherwise act against other party members, then that's a table I'd have never joined in the first place. Which is fine, I'll happily bow out if I know a table isn't going to be what I'm into.

 

[Mecheon]

Correcting it later means one of two things has to happen:

1 - The erroneous action needs to be retconned to its correct version, which potentially invalidates every second of play that happened after it due to the one-thing-leads-to-another effect; or
2 - The erroneous action is allowed to stand in isolation, meaning that your rulings are now inconsistent with themselves (which I think we all agree is bad bad bad).

And so, getting it right the first time becomes important.

This is kind of... Not a good way to look at it? Obsessive perfectionalism doesn't a fun D&D experience make

Mistakes happen and its fine to say "Yeah that spell you used should have been 2d8 rather than 2d6, sorry, we'll fix it going forward". That's just, normal gameplay and doesn't make some "rulings are now inconsistent with one another!" problem. Going back and retconning to the first fight the spell was used to re-play all of the fights is absolutely overkill and I'd actually just laugh in your face if you suggested it.

I genuinely cannot see a world where anyone cares about the inconsistent rule thing, or if they do, is a player I want to keep around

If I'm the player of the thief and you asked me that out of character, I'd tell you to deal with it in character. And if I'm the DM in that situation I'd pull out the (gentle, to start with) smackdown hammer and tell you to keep character disagreements and issues in character; you'd have already been told up front that in-character issues are not to spill over to the table, so this should come as no surprise.

If something's a bad enough situation I'm talking to you out of character about it and you tell me to deal with it in character, we're not going to be friends for much longer and someone isn't being invited back to next week, be it the player or the DM.

"Its what my character would do" is a one way road to a terrible story on creative writing sub r/rpghorrorstories, not something I should be putting up with.

 

[Maxperson]

Both enword’s data and WOTC’s shared earlier in this thread indicate most players are under 35 though.

So this seems like a reasonable decision.

I guess since e the survey you mention was 1999 and the other data was 2020 you could ask if that focus is driving off older players but I doubt it.

And I'll point out how WotC never taught the younguns how to run high level, so there's a good chance they had a bad experience and stopped, or never started in the first place. High level has to be handled differently. Basically they sabotaged high level, saw not many people playing high level, then announced that they were right not to focus on high level. It was a self-fulfilling prophecy.

They can't know how many younger players would be playing high level unless they give good advice and teach them how to play and run high level games. Their data is flawed.

 

[Seramus]

I will often err on the side of the player with my initial ruling, then give it a proper investigation after the game for an actual ruling. My players get to have their clever idea or rules interaction pay off right now, and I get time to think it over after.

Win/win.

 

[GrimCo]

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.

Thanks for reply. Sure, playing various systems gives you more insight into how different systems do things differently and by extension, why some systems do some types of games better than other. But it wont make you inherently better player or dm. More versatile for sure. If you consider that trait that makes someone better, i'm happy to concede that. To clarify, when i'm talking about good DM, core skills that make one, in my opinion, is imagination, ability to improvise (quick thinking and on the spot decision making), reading the room, good and clear communication, setting up expectations, active listening. For good players - cooperation (with fellow players and DM), spotlight sharing, active listening, clear communication, respecting table boundaries, creativity and flexibility.

But you will almost certainly be a better GM if you try different games, or the same game with different GMs and groups. That is a thing that is true in nearly all walks of life.

You will be more versatile, have more systems in your knowledge library to draw from. Personally, i think greater benefit is playing same system with different groups than playing different systems with same group. With different groups, you deal with more people, more personalities, different sytles of play. It's navigating social dynamics with more diverse groups.

But if I may be so bold: go to a con or two and try games you haven't, or games you have with different people. Small regional cons are everywhere, all the time. I would be very surprised if you couldn't find one within a reasonable day trip distance.

Cons are very much USA thing. You have more cons on one coast than whole EU combined. Now, enworld does skew USA-centric, but not everyone here lives in USA. From, although limited, experience of EU cons, most games there are D&D and maybe few of other big names (like CoC or WoD), but it's very D&D / PF dominant.

The person that wants to try that other game should run it. And the rest of the group should let them.

In theory yes. In practice, not always possible. Specially when you are time constrained. From personal experience playing with close group of friends for 17 years now. Way back, when we played at least once a week for 5-6 hours, sometimes even twice a week, if someone wanted to try something new, cool. We would try it. Find a day to squeeze time for session of something new and our regular campaign on same week, or alternate them (one week new, one week regular). Having 2 concurrent campaigns wasn't that rare. Reading 150-200 pages rulebook and learning new ruleset? No problem. Fast forward to 2020 and onward, we average around 20 3h sessions per year. Occasionally, we do try something new for session or two, but those are very rules light systems ( i'm talking Cairn, Knave, Mork Borg level rules light). Trying anything medium crunch and more, it needs group consensus. For almost a year now, friend has scifi campaign in mind and we are pondering using Cyberpunk 2020 or RED for it. But not one of us has time to really dive into rulebooks and learn system. So we stick with D&D since we know rules. In general, someone proposes system, we all take a quick read of it, and then decide, as a group, do we invest time in learning it or not.