Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
D&D Next: Deal with it, DM?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 5836416" data-attributes="member: 1465"><p>Not really...</p><p></p><p>I am not worried about the 5e idea of having different style of character builds at the same table. Whether a player wants a low-complexity fighter or a high-complexity fighter does not affect my DMing much, maybe not at all.</p><p></p><p>The DM must essentially be good at two things: (a) running the story (designing the adventure/campaign or learning it from a sourcebook, let the plot unfold dynamically depending on player's choices, bring good descriptions to improve feeling and immersion...) and (b) running the rules.</p><p></p><p>What really depends on the edition and which modules you are using is (b). It's possible to have a DM so good that she becomes familiar enough with all the rules and can easily use any module that the players are intersted to have in the game, but at least I know that I might have some difficulties. So rather than running a game poorly because I don't understand a specific module enough, I would really want to retain my rights to say NO, if I think it would be to everyone's benefit. The premise of 5e is to make this kind of DM's choices easier than in previous editions, and this is good.</p><p></p><p>So eventually the only problem I see with player's choices is if the player really wants to build a character around a module that I cannot run properly. Let's say that the player wants to play a fighter specialized in tactical movements around the battlefield and I don't feel able to run the game smoothly yet with such module, what do you think would really result in a better game? The DM backing off and running a mess of a tactical battles, or the player backing off and playing a different fighter? What is the greater good?</p><p></p><p>I don't think I'm particularly picky on what rules to have in the game, I'm rather more picky with fantasy elements that don't fit with the setting (I would like each of my campaign to have some difference, not be all kitchen sink).</p><p></p><p>But my bottom line is always to say, if you can't have this character in this campaign, you'll have it in the next. As a DM I can't always run what I want now, I have to make a choice for a certain campaign type to run and stick with it until the end, and leave other ideas for the next campaign, so why would a players absolutely need to play one and only one character concept right now?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Li Shenron, post: 5836416, member: 1465"] Not really... I am not worried about the 5e idea of having different style of character builds at the same table. Whether a player wants a low-complexity fighter or a high-complexity fighter does not affect my DMing much, maybe not at all. The DM must essentially be good at two things: (a) running the story (designing the adventure/campaign or learning it from a sourcebook, let the plot unfold dynamically depending on player's choices, bring good descriptions to improve feeling and immersion...) and (b) running the rules. What really depends on the edition and which modules you are using is (b). It's possible to have a DM so good that she becomes familiar enough with all the rules and can easily use any module that the players are intersted to have in the game, but at least I know that I might have some difficulties. So rather than running a game poorly because I don't understand a specific module enough, I would really want to retain my rights to say NO, if I think it would be to everyone's benefit. The premise of 5e is to make this kind of DM's choices easier than in previous editions, and this is good. So eventually the only problem I see with player's choices is if the player really wants to build a character around a module that I cannot run properly. Let's say that the player wants to play a fighter specialized in tactical movements around the battlefield and I don't feel able to run the game smoothly yet with such module, what do you think would really result in a better game? The DM backing off and running a mess of a tactical battles, or the player backing off and playing a different fighter? What is the greater good? I don't think I'm particularly picky on what rules to have in the game, I'm rather more picky with fantasy elements that don't fit with the setting (I would like each of my campaign to have some difference, not be all kitchen sink). But my bottom line is always to say, if you can't have this character in this campaign, you'll have it in the next. As a DM I can't always run what I want now, I have to make a choice for a certain campaign type to run and stick with it until the end, and leave other ideas for the next campaign, so why would a players absolutely need to play one and only one character concept right now? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
D&D Next: Deal with it, DM?
Top