The upcoming release of 5e! Here We Go Again has led to a lot of conversations about what might be in the upcoming Dungeon Master's Guide (the DMG). Which is entertaining, because, as we all know, no one reads the DMG.
Ahem. But one of the major issues of contention is that many people believe that the prior 5e DMG did a very bad job of providing advice for new DMs, and there is a hope that the new DMG will be more effective at helping onboard new DMs and giving them the tools and and advice they need to run the game. Given those conversations, I was reminded of some prior thoughts I had on DMing. Specifically, why people crave advice, give advice, and why the topic of good DMing can be so contentious and filled with so much one-true-wayism.
Please note- in this post, I will be using the term "DM" instead of "GM," because (1) I feel like it, (2) I'm mostly discussing D&D, and (3) you can't tell me what to do. Feel free to use your preferred nomenclature.
1. We will always argue about definitions. I love long walks, especially when they are taken by people who annoy me on the internet.
Any one who has spent time on the internet is familiar with the quote from Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass, when Alice and Humpty Dumpty are arguing, and the arrogant egg says, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less." It is unfortunate that this quote has taken on a second life as a meaningless "DERP" in internet debates, akin to Godwin's law, whenever a political argument on the internet goes on long enough, someone will inevitable cite Humpty Dumpty. However, the actual argument between Humpty Dumpty and Alice and what the quote means is more interesting. Lewis Carroll had a background in mathematics and logic, and he was using that argument to explore the idea that terms must be defined to be discussed. Carroll reiterates the point in Symbolic Logic:
In opposition to this view, I maintain that any writer of a book is fully authorised in attaching any meaning he likes to any word or phrase he intends to use. If I find an author saying, at the beginning of his book, “Let it be understood that by the word ‘black’ I shall always mean ‘white’, and that by the word ‘white’ I shall always mean ‘black’,” I meekly accept his ruling, however injudicious I may think it.
And so, with regard to the question whether a Proposition is or is not to be understood as asserting the existence of its Subject, I maintain that every writer may adopt his own rule, provided of course that it is consistent with itself and with the accepted facts of Logic.
Id. p. 166.
What does that mean? Well, just like the people who quote Shakespeare, "The first thing we do is, let's kill all the lawyers," the people who are using the quote don't understand the context and are completely missing the point. But hey, it's the internet! Anyway, I bring this up (using words ... so many words) to illustrate the idea that from one point of view, any meaning can be attached to a word, so long as that meaning is provided. This is in contrast to the more common conception we have, pace Wittgenstein, that language is a social construct, and that there is no private language. More succinctly, words have the meaning that we all agree upon.
Which gets to the main point- if one person is creating a specified and defined use of a term, either in mathematics, logic, or even creating their own terms of art or jargon, then it is incumbent that the defined term be known at the beginning so that others can understand the usage. However injudicious the definition, it is still possible to discuss if it is known! If a person says that they are going to create a jargon term called "white" that means "black" then so be it.
This is looking like homework! Okay, let's bring this back to TTRPGs.
Two people on enworld are arguing about "railroading" because it's enworld, so of course they are arguing. Zeno says railroading is always bad, and Achilles says that railroading is often good. Approximately 500 pages into the argument, Zeno reveals that they define "railroading" as "removing player agency by repeatedly punching players in the face," while Achilles states that, "No, railroading means discussing what AP to do while eating ice cream." Of course, this is the internet, and there will be another 500 pages of arguing about the definition, and then the thread will get shut down because Brick killed someone with a trident while talking about Warlords ....
This example is extreme, but it follows an established pattern; people argue about some piece of D&D / TTRPG jargon (insert "railroading," or "player agency," or "skilled play," or "story now," or "fudging," or any of a number of abstract and jargon-y terms), and only later find out that they don't have the same definition or conception of what the jargon-y term means. And then, instead of coming to a general understanding of why those different definitions matter to the discussion, they instead start to argue about which made-up definition is correct.
2. Why advice to DMs is often sidetracked by debates about jargon. I wouldn't say I was the BEST DM. But I would say that I was in the Top One.
There always seems to be an imbalance between the number of people that want to play and the number of people willing to DM in D&D. It is a truism that in most places, at most times, there is a greater supply of players than DMs. For example, while there are opportunities for people to make money DMing, you never hear about people making money playing D&D. Which means that the issue of DM scarcity, and the related issues of "how best to DM," and "how can we teach more people to DM," often come up. This is especially true with the impending release of a new DMG with 5e: XXL.
There are two ways that the issue of "DMing better" will usually arise; the first is the request for specific advice. A DM has encountered situation X, they don't know how to deal with it, and they reach out to the community to see if anyone else has any ideas. These are usually handled fairly easily because specificity is the soul of good advice- if someone is reaching out for advice on how to make a specific ruling, or how to handle a particular situation (Help! My party killed the BBEG before the adventure really started!!!!), then it's much easier to provide bespoke, individualized advice. Don't get me wrong- ask four enworlders for their opinions, and you'll get five answers and an edition war, but still.
However, it's the second type of issue that drives most of the conversations about DMing better. The abstract questions about how to be a good DM. "Does a good DM railroad?" "How often do you fudge?" "What is most important, player agency or rule 0?" "Is it okay to allow players to metagame?" "Derek wants to play a Bard again, do I kill his character immediately, or kill his character immediately with extreme prejudice?"
By invoking certain terms that are both jargon (terms of art) and laden with connotations, these conversations necessarily invite misunderstanding. Normally, the use of a specialized term, of jargon, is to allow people who are familiar with the term to avoid having to go through the longer explanation for it every time it comes up. For example, in many professions (doctors, lawyers, engineers, scientists) you will see jargon used - if doctors are discussing an M&M or a D&D, they aren't talking about candies or role-playing games. It gets more complicated, however, when these specialized terms don't have a widely understood, and generally accepted, definitions. And the problem with using these terms in D&D is that we don't have a good working baseline definition for a lot of the jargon that is used.
Two examples will illustrate this point:
Fudging- there are many kinds of fudging, but generally people use the term to refer to the specific practice of dice fudging. Even more specifically, "fudging" generally refers to the practice of DMs changing the results of secret die rolls, as opposed to players changing the results of die rolls, which is usually called cheating. Other than some extreme examples, most people can generally agree on what fudging is.
Railroading. I have seen people adopt positions on railroading that seem extreme to me, on both sides- everything from "Choosing an adventure to run is railroading, since it removes player agency," to "Having players act out their parts in the DM's pre-written script isn't railroading, as long as the players don't figure it out." If you search out definitions on the web, you won't get much farther; here are a few that I quickly googled-
Rrailroading is the act of ensuring the players stay on plot by use of game mechanics.
Railroading is the GM forcing the players on a predetermined path through a story.
Railroading is a GMing style in which, no matter what the PCs do, they will experience certain events according to the GM's plan.
Railroading is when the GM takes any measure necessary to ensure there is only one direction the campaign may proceed — his planned direction.
Notice that "railroading" always carries a bad connotation, but it's unclear what it precisely means. Given that the use of almost any prepared material (including APs, which a lot of people use!) would fall within the ambit of "railroading," it seems that most discussions of railroading as a general concept would bog down into pointlessness; which they do. Contrast that with fudging; since most people understand exactly what it means, it is possible to have productive conversations about it (do you do it, when, why, do you roll in the open, what effect does that have, etc.).
3. With all that noise, how do I become a better DM? Start every day with a smile so you can be done with it as quickly as possible.
One of the best things to happen to D&D is the rise of the streaming games; but that is, simultaneously, one of the worst things to happen to DMs. Yes, there are actual games by actual DMs streamed out there- but the truly popular ones? Those aren't D&D games, those are entertainment. You will learn as much about being a good DM for your home game from watching Critical Role as you would learn to be a considerate lover from watching adult film clips off the internet; it's just not in the same ballpark.
Please note that I am not saying that Critical Role is scripted. IT IS NOT.
Instead, I am making the point that home tables do not consist of a bunch of talented entertainers. And that most DMs are not Matt Mercer. And that most of us aren't paid to prep and run games, and can't afford to put in the prep time that Mercer does. Or have the amazing battle maps. And we don't have an audience that we are aware of.
If you have picked up some tips from Critical Role, that's awesome! They do an amazing job. They have brought a lot of people into the hobby. But expecting a home game to be the "Critical Role" experience will lead to disappointment.
Instead, a new DM will need to learn through trial and error, and evolving their own style. Remember that what works for some people, may not work for you, and vice versa. One DM might thrive on being uber-prepared, another might prefer more free-form and improv. One DM might like to run Wizards' APs, and another might prefer a sandbox in their own setting. But, with that said, I have found the following to be helpful:
A. Don't listen to players. Not on the internet. I understand this sounds harsh, so I will make it more explicit- you're a DM. You probably have a table with a number of players! Let's say you have Pete, who likes to write 50 page histories for his characters and demands that you read them and find "hooks" for them in the campaign. And then there's Chad, who rolled up a Barbarian named Kronan, and wrote in the same thing for Traits, Ideals, Flaws, Bonds, and History- "Likes to Kick Butt." Sarah is an optimizing rule lawyer, and is living for the moment when she can pounce on you or not knowing a rule ... so that it will work to the advantage of her uber-optimized Paladin, Lady Smites-A-Lot. Then there's Jane, who just learned to play the game, and is all about having fun and doing fun things with her pet as a Bestmaster. And Derek. Derek is just playing so he can raid your liquor cabinet. Yeah, we all know. DEREK!
Do you think all of those players would give the same advice to a DM on the internet? Do you think they all have the same interests? Do you think the same techniques that some of us obsess over would matter to all of them? Probably not! And if not, why would the opinion of any one of them have more importance to you just because they are on the internet?
B. Don't listen to other DMs. Not on the internet. Look, all of us that give advice, myself included ... we mean well! But we don't know your players. We don't know you. To the extent that we are giving out grand pronouncements ("Don't railroad!" or "Always roll in the open," or "Create a culture of corruption and accept bribes in exchange for favorable rolls") you should feel free to ignore that advice. And you should be especially careful when it comes to those who are telling you about some method or technique or theory that they started using that solves all problems, ever- there is nothing worse than the zeal of the newly converted.
Instead, look for specific examples that you can use to apply to your game. DMs discussing how they handled a particular issue at their table, and how it worked. That's the type of specific and applied advice, applicable to a particular TTRPG, that DMs should seek out.
C. Run a different game. There is no single "best DMing technique" that always works, across all games, and all tables, with all varieties of players. Mix it up a little, if you can. Running different types of games will often give you insight and techniques that you can apply to D&D, if and when you run it again.
D. Keep on, keepin' on. There is no magic solution to this. Only getting in the reps, and learning from your mistakes. No DM was flawless from the beginning. More importantly, the DM you are today is not the same DM you will be 5, 10, or 20 years down the road. You will always be evolving and changing. Things that work today with the game you are running and the players at your table may not work with a different system and different players; it is better to be flexible than dogmatic.
4. Conclusion. There is nothing more discouraging than the sheer number of people that are shocked by honesty and the paucity of people shocked by deceit.
It is fun and comfortable to argue about metagaming, railroads, and player agency; it allows us to retreat into tired positions, well-tread by prior arguments, and reiterate our righteous outrage that others do not play the same way that we do. But in the end, those discussions are less about helping other DMs find their own way than it is to assert our own preferences. Getting bogged down in jargon and definitions is part and parcel of these arguments. It is far better, and more productive, to look at the specific ways in which your own DMing style can improve or evolve, so that Chad's Kronan can have fun kicking butt while Sarah can shine and smite to her heart's content. ... I'm not sure that any advice will keep Derek out of the liquor cabinet.
And all of this is why, in my opinion, the advice for new DMs in the upcoming DMG will be viewed as lacking by people. One of the major issues that we see in D&D is that there is always a tension between WoTC telling people how to run the game and WoTC allowing flexibility for the infinite variety that table might have. If the new DMG is overly prescriptive, telling DMs how to run games, I am sure that people will rebel against that. On the other hand, if the new DMG (like the last DMG) is too "here's a bunch of stuff, do what feels good!" people will complain that it doesn't provide enough specific guidance for new DMs.
But maybe I'm wrong! We will find out soon enough,
I think the reality is what works at a given gaming table, and for a broad spectrum of tables, isn't going to fit into neat schools of thought that exist on the internet, so i tend to agree the advice will likely be regarded as lacking, but that might say more about our online gaming discourse than the advice itself.
Part of this too is GMing does take time to learn to do well. You can have baseline of bad advice, but I think most of us learned through trial and error what really works, versus what sounds good on a page or in a thread. I often talk about liking sandboxes and avoiding railroads, but I also believe those concepts become a hindrance when you are thinking of them as an ideal and aren't reading the table before you (some players don't like sandboxes, many players who like sandboxes, don't like a lot o the stuff recommended about them, etc). The way I see the craft of GMing is it is more like being a standup comedian than anything else. You really have to try things out at the table, sometimes bomb, and figure out what went wrong. And someone can write a book of advice to help you get started, but ultimately it is about learning at the table what works for you
The other side of this every GM is going to be different and bring different strengths to the table. Something that works great in the hands of one GM is going to bomb in the hands of another
What about when someone notices that half+ of people who clamor for "DM empowerment" throw up constant red flags for the worst forms of Viking Hat DMing?
Well, there is such a thing as confirmation bias. If you are looking for problems, you will find them. Put another way, if you truly believe that more than half of the people who run a type of game are doing it in a dysfunctional manner, despite the fact that many people enjoy playing it that way, then maybe you just don't like that style of play.
Because I don't choose to play with such folks, I don't (or very very rarely) have such problems at the table. But I see such toxic, jerkish behavior not only proudly claimed, but actively campaigned for as the best way to play.
If I thought that, inter alia, what people posted on twitter was indicative of the way people acted in real life, I would never leave my home. Luckily, I am able to separate out the way people argue insanely and insistently on the intertubez with how people behave in person.
Well, there is such a thing as confirmation bias. If you are looking for problems, you will find them. Put another way, if you truly believe that more than half of the people who run a type of game are doing it in a dysfunctional manner, despite the fact that many people enjoy playing it that way, then maybe you just don't like that style of play.
Not those who run it. Those who advocate for it. Significant difference. One can practice something in one's own home without whispering a word of it elsewhere. The people loudly and intrusively singing its praises, on the other hand, need not be much at all like those who do not do so.
Not those who run it. Those who advocate for it. Significant difference. One can practice something in one's own home without whispering a word of it elsewhere. The people loudly and intrusively singing its praises, on the other hand, need not be much at all like those who do not do so.
I think it’s a common experience for someone to get exposed to theory (Forge theory for me) and suddenly see the light and want to share those insights with everyone. It makes a person a little hard to be around, and in my case I started telling my dear friends that everything they were doing was wrong. It took me a while to realize that what they were doing was not, in fact, wrong, and that my natural enthusiasm was making me be a dick. Whenever I see people making us versus them distinctions I cringe these days. I’m much more interested in practical tools and applications that theory can point toward than theory itself. If there’s any area where I think deeply, it’s authority and GM-less play, and even that is informed by play and practical observation.
Jason Morningstar.
See, there's a valuable lesson here. Don't be a d***. What you're doing isn't wrong. What other people are doing isn't wrong.
And arguing over it just means that people end up asserting stupid things to each other. But I've already spilled enough words on this, so you do what you need to!
Not those who run it. Those who advocate for it. Significant difference. One can practice something in one's own home without whispering a word of it elsewhere. The people loudly and intrusively singing its praises, on the other hand, need not be much at all like those who do not do so.
I think when you have contested style debates on these threads, let's be honest, most people probably are seeing red flags on the other side. That might just have more to do with the intensity of the argument than anything else. Also people stake out positions in threads and box themselves into corners. Most people probably aren't as rigid as they appear in these conversations, but by the nature of a forum thread, consistency is the main thing people get called out on (i.e. if you say you believe in A once in the thread, you are almost nailed to it, even if you sometimes A but also B and occasionally C).
I think the reality is what works at a given gaming table, and for a broad spectrum of tables, isn't going to fit into neat schools of thought that exist on the internet, so i tend to agree the advice will likely be regarded as lacking, but that might say more about our online gaming discourse than the advice itself.
Part of this too is GMing does take time to learn to do well. You can have baseline of bad advice, but I think most of us learned through trial and error what really works, versus what sounds good on a page or in a thread. I often talk about liking sandboxes and avoiding railroads, but I also believe those concepts become a hindrance when you are thinking of them as an ideal and aren't reading the table before you (some players don't like sandboxes, many players who like sandboxes, don't like a lot o the stuff recommended about them, etc). The way I see the craft of GMing is it is more like being a standup comedian than anything else. You really have to try things out at the table, sometimes bomb, and figure out what went wrong. And someone can write a book of advice to help you get started, but ultimately it is about learning at the table what works for you
The other side of this every GM is going to be different and bring different strengths to the table. Something that works great in the hands of one GM is going to bomb in the hands of another
Absolutely reading the table and adapting to the peculiarities of each group is essential. However, there is a baseline of good practices that I think work for just about every group:
1. Be prepared.
2. Be direct and honest.
3. Don't make it personal.
4. Know when to take it private.
5. Be outcome oriented: it's not about winning.
If I thought that, inter alia, what people posted on twitter was indicative of the way people acted in real life, I would never leave my home. Luckily, I am able to separate out the way people argue insanely and insistently on the intertubez with how people behave in person.
Also tone of voice isn't carried well. I think a lot of what happens in threads is people crossing wires because aren't necessarily sharing a post in our head the way the person meant it to sound (we only have text, and if you already think that guy is an optimizing bozo, then you are probably inclined to read his post with less charity). People often think I am a jerk, but that is because they don't hear the way I speak. If you imagine me posting in the voice of Christopher Walken, I come off much better
