Has the 3.x Era Helped or Hurt the Development of Good DM's?

[Nymrohd]

As a system I think it hurt. New DMs would be fast overwhelmed by the system's complexity, especially considering monster and NPC creation and gameplay, entry level play was still wonky with players easily getting oneshotted (even by their housecats) and high level play was as often has been said and repeated a mere few posts above a logistical nightmare.
As a gaming reality it more helped than hintered. Early 3E had some issues, mainly several horrible third-party products, a few badly written core rules and the 3.5 revision. But after a while third-party support averaged above WotC products, there were enough adventures and adventure paths for DMs to have to do less to run a decent campaign and the community certainly expanded, giving DMs more chances to play. And I think everyone can agree that if one thing can improve any DM it is experience.
As for the game being better accepted, I posit it has nothing at all to do with D&D and rather more with young people embracing internet culture and geeks becoming cool. D&D just reaped the benefits but did not much help itself (ofc I don't recall any of the horrible TSR era adds either so it did not stab itself repeatedly with a blunt knife either).

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Lazy, gelded DMs aren't good for the hobby, and 3e apparently created its share of those.

 

[meomwt]

I DM'ed both 2e and 3e games. So, looking from that perspective:

The CR/ EL system worked out quite well as a yardstick for pitching encounters. In 2e, I was always worried about overpowering the PC's, or providing a set of easy kills. Whilst not perfect, at least the CR system provided a yardstick with which to build interesting and varied encounters. This improves DM-ing, in my mind at least.

Another 3e boon was the maths behind the game. Getting a consistent core mechanic meant that some spreadsheets could be easily built for character generation and management - and this helps the busy DM create interesting opponents. Monsters, too, can be managed in this way, and I'm finding using HeroForge or MonsterForge a big plus when writing stuff.

Negatives? Well, the complexity of the RAW, complete with detailed rules for everything bar picking one's nose can stifle creativity. But it makes for consistant rulings. And good DM's, whatever the system, will always use the rules, not have the rules use them.

Given the huge amount of OGL material (sourcebooks, campaign settings, adventures), good DM's will always find something to mould into an exciting evening's play, and Bad DM's will find an adventure to run.

 

[BryonD]

I think both.

I think really good DMs we given the tools to do, literally, anything they wanted.

I think marginal or poor DMs were overwhelmed.

So if you measure by the best of the best, then it was outstanding.
If you measure by the average then it was ok.

 

[Nymrohd]

I think the thread is a bit unclear to be honest. Do you mean whether 3E helped new DM to develop into good DMs, dit it help older edition DMs to get better or worse or maybe both? Cause I think they are somewhat different discussions.

 

[Mallus]

I think really good DMs we given the tools to do, literally, anything they wanted.

Wait, when did we start talking about M&M, GURPS and the HERO system?

I think marginal or poor DMs were overwhelmed.

Some were, sure. But other experienced and imaginative DM's found 3e to be the wrong tool for the job. I could point you several ENWorld posters who DM'ed 3e campaigns that ran successfully for years, which were turned into popular Story Hours here, who eventually gave up 3e.

The notion that 3e is some kind of litmus test for good DM's is silly.

As for the original question: I think the 3e era, which is characterized not only by the game but be the rise of communities like ENWorld has been terrific for the development of good DM's.

I don't think 3e itself had any impact at all. The skills required to be a good DM don't come from or get nullified by a particular set of rules.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The internet resources available during the 3E and beyond rules have been a great benefit to DM's.

The game rules themselves I don't think did much actual harm but I do think that old (especially OD&D & Basic) rules helped DM's become better at making judgement calls and rulings simply because there wasn't official rules content for a variety of things.

On the other hand, there was not a lot of instruction or advice on being a good DM either. Skills were learned and developed mostly through trial and error. This method has it's pros and cons too. The newer rules have more material for a novice DM to lean on which might help games run more smoothly out of the box. That very same feature may deny the new DM the number of opportunities to make key rulings and improve improvisational judgement calls. The benefit or harm provided with a more complex set of rules is largely dependent on the individual.

 

[Remathilis]

The game rules themselves I don't think did much actual harm but I do think that old (especially OD&D & Basic) rules helped DM's become better at making judgment calls and rulings simply because there wasn't official rules content for a variety of things.

See, I'm not sure that this is entirely true. It created an opportunity to employ judgment calls, but there is no imputes that the calls were good. A DM was just as likely to make poor ones (thinking he was making a "good" one). I specifically recall a DM who took the idea of "called shots" to the extreme of calling shots on a body part rendered it inert for 1 round. After a few cautious attempts succeeded, the game degenerated into the PCs (and the monsters) calling shots on the arms of fighters, the throats of spellcasters, the eyes of bugbears, and the legs of fleeing goblins. Every attack. Every round. The rule was abandoned, but the mound of dead was staggering from PCs (and monsters) killed because every round they couldn't attack, see, cast, or move thanks to 4-5 called shots used repeatedly.

Moral of the story: A blank canvas gives more creative freedom than a paint by numbers, but the quality of the art in the latter is more consistent; a blank canvas might yield an amateur Picasso or a group of stick figures and rude graffiti.

 

[Runestar]

Moral of the story: A blank canvas gives more creative freedom than a paint by numbers, but the quality of the art in the latter is more consistent; a blank canvas might yield an amateur Picasso or a group of stick figures and rude graffiti.

Took the very words out of my mouth...

 

[BryonD]

Wait, when did we start talking about M&M, GURPS and the HERO system?

Those are also great systems that also do the same job. How does that contradict me?

Some were, sure. But other experienced and imaginative DM's found 3e to be the wrong tool for the job. I could point you several ENWorld posters who DM'ed 3e campaigns that ran successfully for years, which were turned into popular Story Hours here, who eventually gave up 3e.

You call "DM'ed 3e campaigns that ran successfully for years, which were turned into popular Story Hours here" evidence of it being "the wrong tool for the job""? boggle

Moving on after nearly a decade is completely different than finding the product inadequate.

My observation is that of the "great DMs" I know, many have moved on to something else, quite a few have stayed with 3E or some very close cousin, and a handful of 4E converts.

4E is great in that it offers easy to DM. But if you don't need "easy" then that isn't a sales point. And if "easy" is not a bonus, then the trade-offs required are a net loss. By definition, really good DMs are going to get the least bang for their buck. And my personal conversations and meat space experiences match that exactly.

The notion that 3e is some kind of litmus test for good DM's is silly.

I agree. Why are you bringing up such a dumb idea?