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
Design Philosophy of 5e
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="jrowland" data-source="post: 6320917" data-attributes="member: 94389"><p>What seems to be missing here is the fact that a highly codified game, one that is empirical with objective truths allows for Bad DMS. Bad DMs do not LEARN what works well for a great table experience for the people they have played around. They do not become good DMs as the rules do all the work for them. That is compensating for the flaws in the DM.</p><p></p><p>See what I did there?</p><p></p><p>It comes down to a difference of opinion, really. I want more good DMs. IMHO, I think the game <em>needs</em> more good DMs to grow and be successful. I don't see how overly codified rule sets create more good DMs. You could argue that to master the rule set as a DM you have to be Good, but that seems more a barrier to entry. I think the 5E is doing the right thing. Yes, there will be MORE bad DMs, but the rule set is flexible, forgiving, and those DMs will get better. They must, or they simply won't be DMs anymore when nobody shows up for their game. The difference in opinion is where you put the onus: On the DM (improve <em>your</em> game to maximize <em>your</em> table-fun) or the developers (improve <em>the</em> game to maximize <em>every</em> table-fun). </p><p></p><p>I think Monte Cooks comment goes to the the heart of it: Developers just aren't interested in creating the mythical one-game-to-rule-them-all where everyone is satisfied. Here's the bare bones, here are some options we think are popular, here are some guidelines to tweak the game to suit certain popular playstyles. Have Fun! That seems a great approach.</p><p></p><p>So count me on the side of the flexible, less rules is more side of the opinion. ie "human-centric"</p><p></p><p>IMO</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="jrowland, post: 6320917, member: 94389"] What seems to be missing here is the fact that a highly codified game, one that is empirical with objective truths allows for Bad DMS. Bad DMs do not LEARN what works well for a great table experience for the people they have played around. They do not become good DMs as the rules do all the work for them. That is compensating for the flaws in the DM. See what I did there? It comes down to a difference of opinion, really. I want more good DMs. IMHO, I think the game [I]needs[/I] more good DMs to grow and be successful. I don't see how overly codified rule sets create more good DMs. You could argue that to master the rule set as a DM you have to be Good, but that seems more a barrier to entry. I think the 5E is doing the right thing. Yes, there will be MORE bad DMs, but the rule set is flexible, forgiving, and those DMs will get better. They must, or they simply won't be DMs anymore when nobody shows up for their game. The difference in opinion is where you put the onus: On the DM (improve [I]your[/I] game to maximize [I]your[/I] table-fun) or the developers (improve [I]the[/I] game to maximize [I]every[/I] table-fun). I think Monte Cooks comment goes to the the heart of it: Developers just aren't interested in creating the mythical one-game-to-rule-them-all where everyone is satisfied. Here's the bare bones, here are some options we think are popular, here are some guidelines to tweak the game to suit certain popular playstyles. Have Fun! That seems a great approach. So count me on the side of the flexible, less rules is more side of the opinion. ie "human-centric" IMO [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Design Philosophy of 5e
Top