D&D General Matt Colville on the “Forever DM”

[Bacon Bits]

im a forever GM, no interest, no desire to play (except that one time in 93)

I do think it's important to note that Matt goes out of his way to say that what you describe here is not what he means by a "forever DM". DMing is a lot more intense than playing, and if that's your jam that's great.

To Matt, the "forever DM" he's talking about is someone who is, specifically, very unhappy.

Like you're not using the term wrong (it's always been used both ways) but your meaning doesn't match his. He's specifically talking about either (a) people who want to be a player but nobody at the table will agree to GM, and (b) people who want to GM games other than D&D but nobody at their table will play anything but D&D.

 

[HappyHubris]

To caveat, I'm not yet a DM and am currently playing two different rulesets (5E and PF2E).

That said, my guess is that the demographic here are generally players who are adept at learning rules and excited to try new things. But there are also people who struggle to stay on top of one ruleset and will really struggle to keep a second one in their head. I'm at the age where most people have kids and demanding jobs, and one of the tables I play at would definitely just die if it switched to a materially different system with a similar or greater level of rule complexity.

This isn't to say that DM fatigue should be ignored, but rather I'm trying to add context beyond "they won't try new things, because they're ungrateful."

 

[TiQuinn]

This is entirely alien to me. While it does read that he's strongly opinionated to me... it's a video where he's going to explain his opinion. It's entirely what I'd expect. Speaking directly and assertively is, well, just basic rhetoric. If he doesn't articulate himself that way, well, he's going to sound like he's just whining and complaining, or has vague and incomplete ideas. "Tell me what you think... but don't be straightforward about it."

It reminds me of when people say, "Well, it sounds like you're speaking in absolutes and not giving me room for disagreement." A speaker isn't supposed to do that in a persuasive essay! It undermines your rhetoric and sabotages the persuasive elements of your writing. You're not supposed to carve exceptions into every statement where other opinions can live. That puts you in a passive voice, which is not as persuasive. You speak assertively with confidence because that's more persuasive and less ambiguous. That doesn't mean listeners can't have a different opinion; it just means the listener's confidence in their existing opinions is not the speaker's responsibility. Listeners should be expected to be able to manage their own minds in the face of differing opinions.

On the other hand, this is not debate club.

 

[Cordwainer Fish]

On the other hand, this is not debate club.

The first rule of Debate Club is you never stop talking about Debate Club.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

On the other hand, this is not debate club.

I always preferred the franklin forum model: "all debate seeks the truth" thats what I did in High School, discussion forum of the day's issues.

 

[Shardstone]

I like being the forever DM because I get to control the pace of the game, and I don't feel the pressure to come up with plans for game obstacles.

 

[Mannahnin]

On the other hand, this is not debate club.

I always preferred the franklin forum model: "all debate seeks the truth" thats what I did in High School, discussion forum of the day's issues.

Let's bear in mind that Matt's not debating, either. That was a comparison.

He IS (in this particular video) making an argument. Stating a case. He's trying to alleviate the unhappiness of Forever DMs (in the sense that he was careful to define them), and taking a stab at diagnosing part of the issue and making a pitch to their players why they should care and should do something about that unhappiness. And how they can help. As well as just generally selling the idea of trying other games or GMs and not simply staying in the rut of one game and one GM.

I don't think most of his videos are debating. They're expressing opinions and sharing ideas, pitched in a way to generate enthusiasm about them and "sell" them as worth trying. Again, like that original Running the Game video. "DMing is fun, easier than you think, and I can help you do it!" is a thing worth selling people on, IMO.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I used to play with a group where, while we had 3 GMs (including me), they absolutely refused to play anything else except D&D (3.X at that time) during my game days and no one else wanted to GM games for us during my game days. The group didn't last long after the point where I suggested we play a Star Wars one-shot that night because I'd had a busy week and never finished prepping for D&D and I needed a break from D&D, even for one night. Half the group picked up their things and were about to walk out of the door rather than give me a one-night break from D&D*.

The hard part of finding videos on how to play a different game, though, is wading through bad presentation to find the good videos, and even then, you're not guaranteed to find someone who is going to present the information in a way that actually works for you (because despite what the decision makers in society believe, not every person learns the same way).

At least my group now will try just about any game as long as one of us has a copy of it. The biggest hurdle we have is that it's hard for me to learn most games by reading it and/or by trying to run it. And then, if we have a run of Real Life™ interfering, it makes learning a game and getting into it even MORE difficult. I've been trying to run a Star Trek Adventures game since October-ish and we've managed a whole 4 sessions in that time. Not only am I not retaining the system with all those gaps in playtime, I lost interest in the story I was trying to tell at the table, despite having had the bones of the campaign planned out since the first edition of STA was new. I guess that's the problem with running a group with just the bare minimum number of players we're comfortable having. Scheduling really is the Final Boss of TTRPGs.

* And before people dogpile me for not giving notice for not wanting to run D&D until after everyone showed up (as happened on a different thread here), I will point out this was in the late-1990s/early-2000s (pre-9/11), so instant mass communication wasn't as ubiquitous as it is now. I'm pretty sure some of us didn't even have cell phones.

You've got nothing to apologize for.

I will go further than Matt Colville did in his video: I question whether those folks were really your friends.

 

[JediSoth]

You've got nothing to apologize for.

I will go further than Matt Colville did in his video: I question whether those folks were really your friends.

I'm no longer in contact with any of them, so as it turns out, they really weren't. My actual play group has become like family though, and I daresay, I'm even closer to them than my current home group. So, it's all good.

 

[kayakingpoodle]

On the other hand, this is not debate club.

Far to many logical fallacies fllung about for anyone to mistake this for a debate club.