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

[AlViking]

But, if that were true, and there was nothing unique about what others had learned from other games, then why don't you understand and recognize how the dozen or so specific examples you asked for work? You asked for specific examples of how things learned in other systems could improve a DND game. You were given about a dozen concrete examples. Yet, you didn't understand how a single one of them worked.

If you could learn all of these things from other sources, and there is zero value to be gained from learning other systems, then why don't you understand how these things work?

I've never said you can't learn things from other games. Learning those things is not limited to playing other games and doing so does not make you a superior gamer.

Amazing how y'all have to twist my words on this.

 

[AlViking]

Are you then going to say that it is not "arrogance to the point of being deluded" to claim that someone can learn literally everything--absolutely ALL things--about GMing solely from playing one single system? That there is never anything, at all, ever, which can be gained from playing even one different system?

Because that, to me, is arrogance to the point of delusion.

Are you saying that the only way people can learn something is from playing a game? That they must follow the rules and only the rules never varying from the path laid down by the authors of the rules? That we have no life outside of gaming, no access to conversations, blogs, videos or - wait for it - independent thought? Talk about delusional.

 

[GrimCo]

Like I don't understand what your objection is here.

My objection is to statement that you can't be good D&D DM if you haven't tried other systems. And in general, that one can't be bad D&D DM even if one tried to run other systems.

In more than one post, i clearly stated that there are benefits of playing other games. But also, i think that you can be good DM with only ever playing and running one system, in this case D&D.

I agree with all your points from the rest of that post. Playing other games can help you be better. But also, you can improve and get rid of those bad DM traits trough other hobbies, trough talks with fellow players and DMs, playing with other players, or just lessons learned from everyday life that you incorporate into how you run games.

 

[KYRON45]

The trick to being a good GM in any system is not letting your players know there are better ones than you.

 

[Seramus]

"I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times."
Bruce Lee

I fear the man who has performed 10 different kicks 10,000 times more than the man who has performed one kick 100,000 times. Especially if I know what that one kick is!

 

[Umbran]

Mod Note:
Folks, I'll speak broadly, as there's several of you who seem to be on this track:

Butting heads isn't constructive. Posting questions to force the other person to admit they were wrongity-wrong with wrong sauce isn't going to get them to admit anything, and more importantly, these boards don't exist to get people to tell you you are correct.

So, chill out. Take a breather. De-escalate. Figure out what you want from the interaction. Make sure that's a worthy, constructive goal. Double check that they way you are addressing others is actually apt to move toward that goal. Be polite, kind, and respectful, please and thanks.

 

[Maxperson]

The same reason walking 10 miles is harder than walking 100 yards: success is guaranteed, but it takes more effort.

More effort doesn't equate to hard. Hard is synonymous with difficult, problematic, complicated, complex, etc. If there's no chance of failure, it wasn't hard to do, even if effort was involved. At least the way I see the word hard most commonly used. I can't remember the last time I saw someone use it to mean exhausting.

In my experience people tend to use words like exhausting, tiring, strenuous, etc. to describe tasks like moving those rocks across the road, not the word hard.

 

[Maxperson]

For me, it tends to come across as very strongly implying that a metric crapton of experience in one area (say, D&D) doesn't count for anything unless there's a certain level of corollary experiences in other adjacent areas (here, other RPGs) to back it up.

And sorry, but I ain't buying that.

Spreading out your knowledge helps you become a better generalist. You'll have skills that fall outside of the specialty to use, and that can be good. However, your skill at any one specific thing isn't going to be nearly as good as a specialist.

If you are just going in for a check-up, you want to see a generalist who can figure out if anything is going wrong somewhere with your body based on what you tell the doctor you've been feeling like since the last visit. Or if you're going in because you've been having some kind of pain. If you do something and are having bad knee pain, you don't want a generalist or brain surgeon, you want someone who has dedicated their life to fixing knees. The specialist will be far better at it than any general doctor will ever be.

RPGs are like that. Broadening your knowledge will give you skills outside of D&D that you can bring into the game, and if you prefer your game experience to be D&D with extras that is great. I've played with DMs like that and while those extras can be enjoyable, they do alter the way the game of D&D feels.

If you just want a pure D&D experience, though, you're going to want someone who is a D&D specialist, who has been DMing it consistently for years, and gotten really, really good at running D&D.


Both ways to play are good. Neither way is objectively better than the other. It's just a matter of taste.

 

[Maxperson]

Are you then going to say that it is not "arrogance to the point of being deluded" to claim that someone can learn literally everything--absolutely ALL things--about GMing solely from playing one single system? That there is never anything, at all, ever, which can be gained from playing even one different system?

Because that, to me, is arrogance to the point of delusion.

You can learn all things about running that one system and master those things better than someone who spreads out his learning over multiple systems. There will be techniques used in other systems that can be brought over to D&D and used, even if they weren't intended for use with D&D.

For some people those different techniques will improve their D&D experience. For others those different techniques will detract from their D&D experience. Which a person prefers is just a matter of taste, which is why saying or implying that being a generalist is the best way to do it is getting so much pushback. It's not objectively the best way, nor objectively the worst way. It's just a way and people can decide for themselves which they like better.

 

[Maxperson]

2E woukd be a bad example. Its the one D&D you might run for 25 years without getting bored. 5 years Darksun. 5 years Ravrnloft etc.

With the sandbox nature of the edition you probably would have a very very good DM. 2E is very very DM friendly in terms of options and advice.

3e is way better for not being bored than 2e ever could be. You could play a different class/prestige class combo every year and you'd die of old age before getting close to playing them all. Same with feats, spells, monsters, and more.

And, you can play 5 years Dark Sun, 5 years Ravenloft, etc. with 3e as well.