D&D 5E Are DMs getting lazy?

[pickin_grinnin]

In the end, I would rather put my effort into building something unique from scratch, rather than spending that time making someone else's creation playable. I can usually come up with better, more unusual, less predictable, and less stereotypical content than most adventure path and module writers, anyway.

 

[Reynard]

I disagree, or at least I disagree that it should be the goal. Because restricting yourself to adventures that you can run as you read necessarily limits the complexity of what can be presented - it becomes much harder to set things up to payoff later, for example.

So I don't think it's unreasonable for companies to provide more complex adventures that do require the DM do some additional work up-front. It would be good, though, if they could give an indication of how much work the DM needs to do before use (the equivalent of "some assembly required").

You're right, of course. There should never be just one style of adventure. Variety is good. But I do think that there should be more "quick play" adventures, where the DM can crack the thing open and run it out of the box or with minimal prep (including reading ahead). I don't think such a thing would have to be completely without complexity or even be geared necessarily toward just new DMs. Plot webs and NPC influence diagrams can convey a lot of information in a very short amount of time.

Part of the problem is that we pay designed and writers by the word (I know because I do it). So there is a tendency to use walls of prose to convey information you could better and more easily convey with simply, short bullet points and visual aids.

 

[JoeyQueerAF]

It seems that in a number of threads, a certain subset of folks are very upset at the lack of adventures and such for 5E, to the point of suggesting they will "run out" of things to do with 5E in a year or so. While I would certainly like to see a more robust release schedule with both standalone modules and setting books (not to mention Dungeon and a Dragon back in publication) the idea that you would "run out" of stuff to do with D&D is just plain weird. It's D&D. One of the core conceits is that you, the DM, will be creating most of the game content (usually in conjunction with your players). Need a new and interesting magic item? Create it. Need a monster that the PCs have not faced before? Create it. Need to know what it costs and how long it takes to create a magic item? Decide. These aren't the burden of the DM, they are the joys!

For fear of of sounding like an in-my-day curmudgeon, are DMs these days just too lazy to make the game their own?

Great post, and good topic of discussion. Im mostly a DM and I remember the time when I had to come up with adventures from scratch. Im a big fan of modules, but when you run for the same group you have to get creative. I think this is one of the elegant strategies of D&D5, its given us the tools we need to create adventures, to let old and new DM's flex their DMing muscles, to let us take the 3 core books and turn them inside out before loading us with modules and options that may intimidate. D&D is one of those games that has a library of 40 years, many of them modules, many of these modules that new players have not played. For this reason Im anxiously awaiting the 5e conversion rules to introduce new players to these great adventures.

 

[Neonchameleon]

For fear of of sounding like an in-my-day curmudgeon, are DMs these days just too lazy to make the game their own?

You're coming off as Old Economy Steven here.

In the 1970s, most games of D&D were focussed round the dungeon as somewhere to explore, loot, and conquer. Writing a dungeon is almost certainly the easiest form of adventure writing - it's a self-contained environment that has to have ideas in it, but doesn't need to make much sense. And there should be plots but they can be cooked rare as the PCs are going to go through them with all the subtlety of a chainsaw through balsa. There wasn't much in the way of mechanics because a statblock normally took up a single line, and by your second adventure you could fake it easily. And still prefab dungeons were pretty popular. (Hexcrawls are possibly even easier to write than dungeons).

In 2015 dungeons are considered a charming diversion rather than the unit of gameplay. I'm not expecting My First Dungeon to keep the party busy for a dozen sessions.

To make my point about statblocks, I'm comparing the Owlbear from the 1E MM with the Owlbear in the basic rules below. And how many numbers each of them has that relate directly to game mechanics. Yes, leaving off the stats is fine - but a newbie DM doesn't know that. (And even a newbie DM can quickly realise that they need Hit Dice, Move, AC, Attacks, Damage, and size - with the rest being about the environment other than the hug and size)

Owlbear
Large monstrosity, unaligned
Armor Class 13 (natural armor)
Hit Points 59 (7d10 + 21)
Speed 40 ft.
STR 20 (+5)
DEX 12 (+1)
CON 17 (+3)
INT 3 (−4)
WIS 12 (+1)
CHA 7 (−2)

Skills
Perception +3
Senses
darkvision 60 ft., passive Perception 13
Languages —
Challenge
3 (700 XP)

Keen Sight and Smell.
The owlbear has advantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight or smell.
Actions
Multiattack.
The owlbear makes two attacks: one with its beak and one with its claws.

Beak.
Melee Weapon Attack: +7 to hit, reach 5 ft., one creature.
Hit: 10 (1d10 + 5) piercing damage.
Claws.
Melee Weapon Attack: +7 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target.
Hit: 14 (2d8 + 5) slashing damage.

A monstrous cross between giant owl and bear, an owlbear’s reputation for ferocity and aggression makes it one of the most feared predators of the wild.

So first we have the fact that it's far far simpler to make "My first dungeoncrawl adventure" that mirrors the default style of play than it is to make something that resembles Tyranny of Dragons - and a dungeon crawl is less likely to go off the rails. Second, if running by the book it's far easier to make an old school monster. Third, the AD&D owlbear, despite hit points in the 20s, will last longer than the AC13 5e one so there's more play time for the prep time that way. Fourth, oD&D relied a lot on wandering monsters - which provided content for almost no prep.

Overall I'd estimate that it would take a newbie DM starting from the Red Box somewhere around a fifth of the time to come up with a four session adventure than it would a newbie DM starting from either the basic set or the PHB/DMG/MM - the environment's simpler, the monsters are simpler, they take longer to deal with, and you don't need to fret about the players doing weirdness to upend the plot as much. The gap narrows a lot for experienced DMs - but we aren't talking about experienced DMs here.

 

[Emirikol]

Im not lazy. Im just not a sixteen year old with no life,job,kids,wife,etc with all the freetime in the world anymore. Regarding on the fly made up garbage, its just that and leads directly to player and gm burnout.

 

[Sacrosanct]

In 2015 dungeons are considered a charming diversion rather than the unit of gameplay..

Maybe for you, but this is hardly a universal truth of gamers in 2015. I was running a straight dungeon crawl at my FLGS for encounters for 3 weeks (right before Adventure league kicked off) and it was by far the most popular 5e game being played there with the most interest from players.

It also strikes me as an odd thing to say since in 4e, most players spent the vast majority of real life time in combat in a dungeon/castle.

Speaking of which, that makes me think of another reason to the OP. Back in the 70s/80s, anyone could create their own maps with ease. All you needed was a graph paper and pencil and you could do a map pretty much exactly like one of the published ones. In recent years, it's much harder for Joe Schmo to replicate a battlemap like they would see in a published adventure. A lot more tools are needed since modern gaming seems to be more dependent on minis and battlemaps than what were used back in the day (mostly for general marching order and location--not needing a battlemap).

 

[BryonD]

Maybe for you, but this is hardly a universal truth of gamers in 2015. I was running a straight dungeon crawl at my FLGS for encounters for 3 weeks (right before Adventure league kicked off) and it was by far the most popular 5e game being played there with the most interest from players.

This is a fair point. But I think he still has a point because "back in the day" they were vastly more common. The expectation of a more rich experience is common now, even if pure dungeon crawls are still perfection to some.

 

[Reynard]

Regarding on the fly made up garbage, its just that and leads directly to player and gm burnout.

That seems to be quite a broad assessment and hardly universal.

 

[DM_Jeff]

>>>For fear of sounding like an in-my-day curmudgeon, are DMs these days just too lazy to make the game their own?<<<

Yeppers.

 

[Rygar]

It seems that in a number of threads, a certain subset of folks are very upset at the lack of adventures and such for 5E, to the point of suggesting they will "run out" of things to do with 5E in a year or so. While I would certainly like to see a more robust release schedule with both standalone modules and setting books (not to mention Dungeon and a Dragon back in publication) the idea that you would "run out" of stuff to do with D&D is just plain weird. It's D&D. One of the core conceits is that you, the DM, will be creating most of the game content (usually in conjunction with your players). Need a new and interesting magic item? Create it. Need a monster that the PCs have not faced before? Create it. Need to know what it costs and how long it takes to create a magic item? Decide. These aren't the burden of the DM, they are the joys!

For fear of of sounding like an in-my-day curmudgeon, are DMs these days just too lazy to make the game their own?

Nothing has changed between 1st edition and 5th edition in terms of DMs. You didn't hear any of this before because in 1st through 3rd edition Dungeon and Dragon existed to give time-limited and imagination-limited players regular content to play. You're hearing it now because Dungeon and Dragon do not exist, and the Ebook penetration is reportedly at about 20% at the end of 2014, so it's likely 80% of WOTC's market counts digital Dungeon and Dragon as no Dungeon and Dragon.

As I said previously, doing digital only Dungeon and Dragon was the worst possible decision WOTC could make and stood a very real chance of handing Paizo the market permanently. This is why.

(As far as 4th edition content goes, given what I've read about 4th edition adventures, it's likely they'd long since driven out people who wanted pre-written adventures very early on with the quality that I understand was really bad from 4th edition player's posts here)

 

[Zardnaar]

Nothing has changed between 1st edition and 5th edition in terms of DMs. You didn't hear any of this before because in 1st through 3rd edition Dungeon and Dragon existed to give time-limited and imagination-limited players regular content to play. You're hearing it now because Dungeon and Dragon do not exist, and the Ebook penetration is reportedly at about 20% at the end of 2014, so it's likely 80% of WOTC's market counts digital Dungeon and Dragon as no Dungeon and Dragon.

As I said previously, doing digital only Dungeon and Dragon was the worst possible decision WOTC could make and stood a very real chance of handing Paizo the market permanently. This is why.

(As far as 4th edition content goes, given what I've read about 4th edition adventures, it's likely they'd long since driven out people who wanted pre-written adventures very early on with the quality that I understand was really bad from 4th edition player's posts here)

4E dungeon was also abyssmal. Dungeon reached a peak not reached since the early 1E Dungeon under Paizo and the early 4E adventures were really really bad in Dungeon. I have them on PDF through to Dec 2011 and they are even all but useless to mine for ideas and maps. The maps as such are like some kid stapled together dungeon tiles or something.

 

[SirAntoine]

Part of the problem is a heightened impression of official content. As many as 9 out of 10 of the adventures you could buy over the years could easily be exceeded by most of what your own DM could do if they wrote their own.

Another part of the problem is too fast level advancement. It should take something like 100 good fights to advance in level, and we haven't seen that.

 

[pogre]

Interesting question!

Many posters have made a number of great posts. I agree with a lot of what is being said.

To use a personal example - I put a lot more time in creating adventures than I did years ago when I played OD&D. I'm not sure if I would enjoy the game as much if I didn't. Making maps, preparing props, sketching out adventure hooks, etc. are all things I enjoy. When I do those things I don't feel like I have "wasted" time, like I do when I watch TV or play a video game. BTW - I have nothing against those type of entertainments - that's just my personal feelings. What takes real effort for me these days is not the prep, but getting times when I can get friends together to play. I'm fortunate to have a great group right now, but that's the tough part for me.

I have four children. My third child really likes to run D&D. The version he runs most often is Labyrinth Lord and for an 11-year-old kid, he does an awesome job. He really wants to just run the game though. He wants modules. He really is not all that interested in creating adventures - I think in part because he is concerned about game balance issues.

My fourth child likes to run D&D too. He is 9 and nominally runs under the Labyrinth Lord system too. He is the opposite of child three. He loves creating new races, new monsters, new adventures, new magic items, etc. He ran a couple of weeks ago and for the first time ever we ran into a "stock" monster in one of his adventures. His adventures are outrageous, zany, and full of surprises and completely unbalanced. He frequently runs adventures off the cuff just to get the party to face a monster he has recently created. The creation process is by far his favorite part of the hobby. He has ZERO interest is pre-made modules.

My oldest plays only. He is 15 and if there is new video game in the house it is tough to get him to play. He loves to read fantasy fiction and watch fantasy-themed shows and movies, but he hates to write. He tried to run some D&D, but gave up on it very quickly. Interestingly, he has far less patience for pen and paper rpgs than the two younger boys. He likes board games and usually will play, particularly is I am running, but he bores easily.

Child three is my daughter who is 13. She decided last year she did not like D&D. She loves drama, she loves writing, she loves to read fantasy and science fiction, and she is very creative. My sense is that she decided that teenage girls just do not play D&D. It's a little sad, but she is crazy busy with other stuff and the game will always be there when she gets older.

For me, since the adventure making process takes a long time, I appreciate having modules to fill in times when my stuff is not ready. I can run sandbox style or even completely off the cuff. My players seem to enjoy it, but it is a less satisfying experience for me.

 

[Manchu]

I don't know if modules really save time. IME, a module is just a springboard for a session seeing as how no DM's plan survives contact with the PCs. Not to say that dishing out a module's content strictly by the numbers is badwrongfun but it's hardly an exercise in what remains the unique province of table top roleplaying, i.e., actual player freedom. For me, a module is mostly a setting. It provides me with locations and a sense of what kind of threats and resources characterize them; i.e., campaign- (as opposed to session- or even encounter-) level information. Everything else would surely take as much or little prep time as one needs without a module.

Having said that, I do recognize there is more than a little utility in preping for a published encounter ... if the published encounter is actually characterful. Thinking up a good set-piece fight is not super easy, which is why script writers and even game designers get paid to do it. The problem is, just like there is a lot of schlock in movies I can't say many published encounters are super memorable. Published encounters had far more utility in 4E (for example), where "balance" was a much more precise thing.

 

[Neonchameleon]

This is a fair point. But I think he still has a point because "back in the day" they were vastly more common. The expectation of a more rich experience is common now, even if pure dungeon crawls are still perfection to some.

Yup. There are far fewer people now who want dungeon crawls with a bit of framing story.

That seems to be quite a broad assessment and hardly universal.

Agreed. If made up on the fly is garbage then the problem exists round the table. On the other hand most of the RPGs I know that really facilitate improv also run to short (half a dozen session) campaigns because remembering more than that is ... challenging.

Nothing has changed between 1st edition and 5th edition in terms of DMs. You didn't hear any of this before because in 1st through 3rd edition Dungeon and Dragon existed to give time-limited and imagination-limited players regular content to play. You're hearing it now because Dungeon and Dragon do not exist, and the Ebook penetration is reportedly at about 20% at the end of 2014, so it's likely 80% of WOTC's market counts digital Dungeon and Dragon as no Dungeon and Dragon.

Yup. I don't think any version of D&D has had this little in the way of published adventures since about 1977 (with five issues of The Strategic Review and a few of Dragon behind it).

(As far as 4th edition content goes, given what I've read about 4th edition adventures, it's likely they'd long since driven out people who wanted pre-written adventures very early on with the quality that I understand was really bad from 4th edition player's posts here)

Definitely! There are a couple of gems in early 4e Dragon, but they are few and far between. HS1: The Slaying Stone has an excellent reputation among 4e fans not because it is good, but because it, unlike most adventures, reaches the level of adequate.

On the other hand, 4e is probably the easiest version of D&D to improv with at the table, and a little preparation goes a long way. Ridiculous PC Plans? Play them through as a skill challenge - used properly (and yes the guidance is bad) they are an amazing improv tool. If the PCs start a fight you didn't expect? Pull something out of the MM. There won't be any cross-referencing needed (there's none of this "Casts like a third level sorcerer - check another book for the spells" nonsense, let alone them expecting you to remember subtypes or the trample rules and giving the monster six different feats for you to have to know). And the monsters themselves will take about half an hour to put down so the few seconds you spent finding the right pages in the MM are trivial by comparison.

I don't know if modules really save time. IME, a module is just a springboard for a session seeing as how no DM's plan survives contact with the PCs. Not to say that dishing out a module's content strictly by the numbers is badwrongfun but it's hardly an exercise in what remains the unique province of table top roleplaying, i.e., actual player freedom. For me, a module is mostly a setting. It provides me with locations and a sense of what kind of threats and resources characterize them; i.e., campaign- (as opposed to session- or even encounter-) level information. Everything else would surely take as much or little prep time as one needs without a module.

This works until you hit the adventure path - at which point you need to stay roughly in line with the story.

Having said that, I do recognize there is more than a little utility in preping for a published encounter ... if the published encounter is actually characterful. Thinking up a good set-piece fight is not super easy, which is why script writers and even game designers get paid to do it. The problem is, just like there is a lot of schlock in movies I can't say many published encounters are super memorable. Published encounters had far more utility in 4E (for example), where "balance" was a much more precise thing.

Actually balance being more of a thing means that published encounters had less utility because it was so much easier to get right rather than being a cake walk or crushing the PCs. Where published encounters helped (but nothing like as much as they should have) is that with all the forced movement in (pre-Essentials) 4e terrain was a much bigger thing than it was in other editions. Pushing monsters into their own pit traps or back through their own portals was SOP - and flat featureless rooms were singularly boring areas to fight in. A pit trap wasn't a no go square on the battlefield so much as it was a focus for the combat.

 

[Rhenny]

I'm a high school teacher so I'm going to make a teaching analogy. Before I have a plan for the week, I feel nervous and uneasy. Then, I make my plans and I feel less uneasy and nervous. During the week, I modify plans as I teach depending on student performance. To me, the most difficult part is the planning. Sometimes I borrow ideas and pull from existing material to get my plan ready. That's usually easier than inventing everything. Sometimes I do invent everything. That usually takes longer and is sometimes less certain to work because it is untested. This is pretty much how I prep for d&d too. The professional adventures ground me and give me a foundation an often just using one relieves the anxiety of planning.

 

[TarionzCousin]

It should take something like 100 good fights to advance in level, and we haven't seen that.

Um, what?

 

[Sunseeker]

Um, what?

I get the impression that SirAntoine wants to play a game that D&D has never been.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I get the impression that SirAntoine wants to play a game that D&D has never been.

Actually there's more history to it than you'd think. A goblin was worth 15XP in oD&D and AD&D IIRC, and the XP to reach second level was around 2000 (depending on your class). Killing, in early editions, especially at low level was not a good source of XP.

That said, this is based on a misunderstanding of XP. The rule in D&D was originally 1GP = 1XP. Killing was secondary to looting, and in practice, you levelled about as fast in published AD&D as you did in 3.X. (The 1GP for 1XP rule was to encourage smart play and looting rather than killing - stealing the treasure while leaving the orcs looking like suckers is more fun than just killing them). Once you take away the 1GP = 1XP rule in AD&D then levelling does indeed become painfully slow and the pace [MENTION=6731904]SirAntoine[/MENTION] is proposing. This was, however, neither the default for any edition nor intended by any designer.

 

[Sunseeker]

Actually there's more history to it than you'd think. A goblin was worth 15XP in oD&D and AD&D IIRC, and the XP to reach second level was around 2000 (depending on your class). Killing, in early editions, especially at low level was not a good source of XP.

That said, this is based on a misunderstanding of XP. The rule in D&D was originally 1GP = 1XP. Killing was secondary to looting, and in practice, you levelled about as fast in published AD&D as you did in 3.X. (The 1GP for 1XP rule was to encourage smart play and looting rather than killing - stealing the treasure while leaving the orcs looking like suckers is more fun than just killing them). Once you take away the 1GP = 1XP rule in AD&D then levelling does indeed become painfully slow and the pace [MENTION=6731904]SirAntoine[/MENTION] is proposing. This was, however, neither the default for any edition nor intended by any designer.

I get that, but I don't even understand the desire to make leveling painfully slow anyway. But I do understand that too many people focus on "the next level" instead of furthering story or the adventure or all the other stuff that goes into the game. But painfully slow leveling doesn't make people not focus on the next level, it just makes people who like to focus on it uninterested in playing. I suppose there's some desire to purge the hobby of people who play in a way you don't like but that's just a disreputable attitude.