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

[AlViking]

I guess this leads to the question of: Is a person a better DM if they also have experience as a player?

I think for some people it might help but everyone is different. There is no one size fits all.

 

[Zardnaar]

According to you the best I can be is mediocre. After all you clearly stated that a person cannot be a good player or DM if they don't play multiple games. Are you taking back what you said?

The idea that playing multiple games is the only way to be a good player or DM, that it's the only way to get "better" at either (whatever "better" means) is BS. Repeating the assertion doesn't make it so.

Its just gate keeping and not so veiled system warring at this point.

Hey look im sorry your pet favorite RPG isnt as popular as D&D. I've been hearing about how terrible D&D is since about 1996. I started playing 1993.

I'm sorry your flavor of the month RPG no one cares about it or you cant find a GM.

In a few years even less will care. And it will die.

No I'm not interested in your RPG. I dont care what in it. I dont care what its doing. I don't care if it's innovative. Sorry.

I'm not even going to insult your pet RPG. I'm just going to ignore it. I wish you luck in your future endeavors.

I like D&D for what it is. That's it. One day D&D might die for good. So be it Jedi it happens.

 

[billd91]

I guess this leads to the question of: Is a person a better DM if they also have experience as a player?

I think it's highly likely to be the case. Sometimes you just need to have experience with the perspective on the other side of the GM's screen. Similarly, having some GM experience is going to enable someone to be a better player.

 

[loverdrive]

It is only 23 pages if you set your preferences to 20 post per page.

View attachment 424495

This is actually great, I always wondered why the hell only so few posts are displayed per page!

 

[Hussar]

I was noodling over this thread and something occured to me. Imagine a thought experiment. You have two potential DM's that you are possibly going to play with and you have to choose one. Both have about 10 years of experience running games.

DM 1 proudly proclaims that they have only ever run D&D. Not only that, but, they think there is zero value in learning any other system. That everything you can possibly learn about running a game can be learned from running D&D. That learning any other system is a complete waste of time and effort. Playing one and only one system leads to being the best DM one can possibly be.

DM 2 proudly proclaims that they have run D&D as well as dabbled in half a dozen other systems over the years. They mostly run D&D, but, they've done some one shots and some other stuff in other systems. They claim that learning other systems helps them create a better D&D game and makes them the best DM one can possibly be.

I dunno about anyone else, but, I'm choosing DM 2. Looking back at my own experience, the best DM's I've ever had have had experience running other systems. And the worst DM's have all been single system DM's. Not that this is a 100% predictor. I've had good single system DM's and good multi-system DM's over the years. But, the ones that stand out for being either really good or really bad, all have the same things in common. So, for me, yeah, a single system DM? Yup, I'm going to straight up say that that's a mediocre DM who will never be a good DM.

I've never seen such a strident defense of refusal to learn. The idea that you can be the best DM you can ever be by NEVER experiencing another system? Nope. Don't buy it. You look at all the famous DM's out there - the Mike Mearls, the Matt Mercers the Erik Mona's, the Gary Gygax's, the Monte Cooks. What do they all have in common?

They all played and ran different systems.

 

[GrimCo]

Best DM i had was DM who only ever ran or played D&D if we don't count LARP. Ok, it helped he finished School of applied arts, then Academy of dramatic arts (film/theater directing) and he is naturally artistic, creative and communicative extrovert.

I was lucky in a way that i never played with bad DM. I played with DM's who ran style of games i didn't particularly like, but were pretty good, if you liked those kind of games.

One problem with how good/bad/mediocre DM is, is that there are no universal metric to judge it. It's highly subjective and depends on what one wants from games and what one values from DM.

Learning new systems can take time. Depending where in life you are, what are your interests and hobbies, that time to learn and try new systems can eat away from time you could spend playing game you love and have fun with.

 

[SableWyvern]

I was noodling over this thread and something occured to me. Imagine a thought experiment. You have two potential DM's that you are possibly going to play with and you have to choose one. Both have about 10 years of experience running games.

DM 1 proudly proclaims that they have only ever run D&D. Not only that, but, they think there is zero value in learning any other system. That everything you can possibly learn about running a game can be learned from running D&D. That learning any other system is a complete waste of time and effort. Playing one and only one system leads to being the best DM one can possibly be.

DM 2 proudly proclaims that they have run D&D as well as dabbled in half a dozen other systems over the years. They mostly run D&D, but, they've done some one shots and some other stuff in other systems. They claim that learning other systems helps them create a better D&D game and makes them the best DM one can possibly be.

I dunno about anyone else, but, I'm choosing DM 2. Looking back at my own experience, the best DM's I've ever had have had experience running other systems. And the worst DM's have all been single system DM's. Not that this is a 100% predictor. I've had good single system DM's and good multi-system DM's over the years. But, the ones that stand out for being either really good or really bad, all have the same things in common. So, for me, yeah, a single system DM? Yup, I'm going to straight up say that that's a mediocre DM who will never be a good DM.

I've never seen such a strident defense of refusal to learn. The idea that you can be the best DM you can ever be by NEVER experiencing another system? Nope. Don't buy it. You look at all the famous DM's out there - the Mike Mearls, the Matt Mercers the Erik Mona's, the Gary Gygax's, the Monte Cooks. What do they all have in common?

They all played and ran different systems.

I choose the one I'd enjoy having a beer with, who I know from experience is someone I get along with and isn't likely to cause drama. All the information above is mostly irrelevant to my decision-making process.

"Being the best you can be" isn't something I strive for as an important goal at the table, nor is it something I look for in my players. Getting better is fine, but it's not a major consideration in its own right. I'm a competent beer leaguer looking to have fun with my friends. I have no interest in making the pros.

 

[GrimCo]

I choose the one I'd enjoy having a beer with, who I know from experience is someone I get along with and isn't likely to cause drama. All the information above is mostly irrelevant to my decision-making process.

Same. My primary decision making point is - do i want to spend 3-4 hours, week after week, hanging around with that person. He/she might be better DM than Mat Mercer, but if we don't vibe well on personal level, i won't play.

"Being the best you can be" isn't something I strive for as an important goal at the table, nor is it something I look for in my players. Getting better is fine, but it's not a major consideration in its own right. I'm a competent beer leaguer looking to have fun with my friends. I have no interest in making the pros.

Pretty much. I'm no pro dm, nor do i play with pro dms. I'm playing cause it's fun way to spend time with my friends.

 

[BrokenTwin]

I think it's self evident in most activities with multiple roles that dipping your toes into other roles can and usually will make you better at your primary role. Now, I confess I'm more thinking of kink when I say this, but really most of it is just adult roleplay anyway, so the venn diagram overlap is larger than I think a lot of people realize.

I also agree with the idea that experiencing multiple game systems is likely to improve your skills (and I would argue overall enjoyment) in the hobby. But, I would add the caveat that I'd include most "editions" of D&D as separate games for this purpose, since, for example, a game of D&D 1e is built and runs on very different assumptions than D&D 4e. Not a complete paradigm shift in so far as playing something like Golden Sky Stories would be, but still different enough to require how you engage with it to change.

A lot of footballers take ballet classes to improve their football game. Are there great football players who have never taken a ballet class? Presumably yes, I honestly know next to nothing about football. But in general, it improves their game. But if you just want to play football for fun, there's nothing wrong with not wanting to take ballet classes.

 

[aco175]

I was noodling over this thread and something occured to me. Imagine a thought experiment. You have two potential DM's that you are possibly going to play with and you have to choose one. Both have about 10 years of experience running games.

DM 1 proudly proclaims that they have only ever run D&D. Not only that, but, they think there is zero value in learning any other system. That everything you can possibly learn about running a game can be learned from running D&D. That learning any other system is a complete waste of time and effort. Playing one and only one system leads to being the best DM one can possibly be.

DM 2 proudly proclaims that they have run D&D as well as dabbled in half a dozen other systems over the years. They mostly run D&D, but, they've done some one shots and some other stuff in other systems. They claim that learning other systems helps them create a better D&D game and makes them the best DM one can possibly be.

I dunno about anyone else, but, I'm choosing DM 2. Looking back at my own experience, the best DM's I've ever had have had experience running other systems. And the worst DM's have all been single system DM's. Not that this is a 100% predictor. I've had good single system DM's and good multi-system DM's over the years. But, the ones that stand out for being either really good or really bad, all have the same things in common. So, for me, yeah, a single system DM? Yup, I'm going to straight up say that that's a mediocre DM who will never be a good DM.

I've never seen such a strident defense of refusal to learn. The idea that you can be the best DM you can ever be by NEVER experiencing another system? Nope. Don't buy it. You look at all the famous DM's out there - the Mike Mearls, the Matt Mercers the Erik Mona's, the Gary Gygax's, the Monte Cooks. What do they all have in common?

They all played and ran different systems.

Is this the same if there are two doctors and one only works on brains and the other is a general surgeon? And your loved one need brain surgery. I guess examples can be twisted like statistics, because I can also ask the question the other way and not want the brain surgeon to perform a whatever if all they do is brains.

I can see playing other games as helpful but not mandatory to being a good DM or whatever.