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

[Mallus]

Brevity is the soul of sarcasm.

 

[Desdichado]

Mainly because I don't think D&D 3e offers DM's 'the tools to do, literally, anything they wanted'. It's nowhere near that flexible. Unlike more full-fledged toolkit systems like GURPS, Hero and even the d20-based M&M.

D&D may not have... but D&D was always about being D&D, not about allowing things that weren't kosher for D&D. d20, on the other hand, I've found to be nearly infinitely modular, and I haven't yet found a concept, theme, tone, or game that I couldn't find rules to replicate to my satisfaction.

That said, I'm with you; just not for the same reason. I'm not really about the D&Disms anymore, but I just prefer to take a variant take on the mechanics. Rather than play D&D, I'll play Conan, or d20 Modern, Black Company or ... I dunno. Tons of choices there.

I'm not really down with the implication (I don't think you made it, but it was earlier in the thread) either that the fact that d20 material out there gave you options, GMs were worse because they didn't have to make them up anymore. How does forcing me to be a game designer make me a better GM? The two skillsets are, at best, only tangentially related.

 

[Doug McCrae]

How does forcing me to be a game designer make me a better GM? The two skillsets are, at best, only tangentially related.

I remember one of the WotC 4e designer/developers saying recently that good game designers tended not to be good GMs and, likewise, good GMs tended not to be good designers. I agree with you, it's a totally different skill set.

 

[avin]

Good reading and creative minds create good DMs, not systems.

 

[S'mon]

3e brought about all of these D&D forums where people do nothing but whine about stuff.

Oh, so true.

 

[Runestar]

This experience is called learning. Learning by doing, making mistakes, and improving is a good way to develop skill. If a person keeps making the same bad calls over and over, then the process isn't working. Some people who DM cannot admit that they make mistakes and thus are unable to learn from them. If a paint by numbers set is required to keep the DM from being a dork then the game only has so much potential anyway.

I think you miss the point.

Anytime you feel you are capable of DMing better than the material provided by any book, you use your own consummate DM skills. But if you are a beginner who does not feel up to scratch, or maybe can't come up with enough prep material for whatever reason, you fall back on established dnd material, which is assured of at least that much quality.

You are still expected to learn and improve your own mastery of the game in the process. Established rules simply help to ensure that your enjoyment of the game should never dip below a certain threshold due to ineptness. We all have to start somewhere, and sometimes, we just can't spare the time to waste precious hours of gaming time while the DM tries to get his act together.

To use an analogy, if you used your own skills, your performance might be a straight line starting from point 0 at time=0, sloping upwards to point 100 at time=10 (say). But using dnd material, anything below a certain point (say 50), it would be a horizontal line instead (because ytou have the option of using dnd material if it proves superior to whatever you can come up with), then slanting upwards when your performance index would exceed 50.

 

[Dyson Logos]

There are some qualities that cross over to running any game, but each game also has qualities that could hinder one in running another game.

I don't agree on the hindering part, but either way, I feel that the transferable skills learned GMing ANY game far outweigh any skills that don't transfer between games.

 

[Desdichado]

I don't agree on the hindering part, but either way, I feel that the transferable skills learned GMing ANY game far outweigh any skills that don't transfer between games.

In addition, I think the benefits of expanded horizons about play paradigms, etc. greatly outweigh any incremental system mastery, or whatever other benefit you'd get from only ever running one game.

 

[Doug McCrae]

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

I think marginal or poor DMs were overwhelmed.

I think it was the opposite way round, 3e made the bad DMs better but the best DMs felt restricted.

With the much maligned wealth-by-level guidelines and CR system, 3e curbed the excesses of Monty Haul-ism and killer DMs. In the 70s people used to complain about those things a lot. The 1e DMG is full of warnings about the former (and a bit about the latter), indicating it was a major problem at the time. You just don't see either of those mistakes as much these days and I think it's partly down to 3e.

However the very best DMs chafe against these restrictions. The posters on ENWorld tend to be better than average DMs which is why we saw so much criticism of wealth-by-level in particular and complaints about players who had misinterpreted the CR system.

The perfect DM doesn't need rules, he makes the right calls unerringly. Of course the perfect DM doesn't exist, but it follows that a better DM requires fewer rules. He's more likely to make the right decision by instinct or experience. He can set aside the CR system, his own judgement will be better regarding what constitutes a challenging, exciting fight.

 

[Desdichado]

I think it was the opposite way round, 3e made the bad DMs better but the best DMs felt restricted.

Well, if they were so good, they should have been able to ignore stuff that they didn't think was better than what they already had going.

I don't claim to be one of the best DMs, but I always looked at all the rules of the 3e era as a robust toolkit of stuff I could use... if I needed it. I never felt constrained to do everything exactly by the book just because it was printed there.