I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
I'm saying I don't think that a more comprehensive ruleset can take a bad DM and make him into a good one. By definition, a bad DM doesn't have strengths to play to. You're looking at it as a problem of resource management (i.e. the DM is bad because he doesn't have enough attentional resources to distribute to fixing all of his problems). I don't think that's an accurate model. IMO bad DMs are bad not because they don't have adequate resources to be better, but because they specifically make wrong choices. If that's the case, he won't "pay more attention to his weaknesses" because he doesn't recognize them as weaknesses in the first place.
If you re-define a bad DM to be someone who simply can't play a D&D game effectively at all, then you've basically made the term meaningless. Just like if you re-define a good DM to be someone who creates such a rich, evocative world that people would pay him money just to let him run a game. It's far too extreme of a definition to be useful.
I've been using the more realistic version of "A Bad DM is a DM with flaws that get in the way of the group having a good time in their games." Perhaps a mediocre DM is one that this happens to every once in a while. If a system eliminates or minimizes these flaws, they've made the DM better.
It's not about the extreme outliers and making game quality a straight line, it's about moving the whole bell curve a little more toward a quality game. Most DMs have flaws that they struggle with, and if a game system can address these flaws (while enhancing what a DM already does well), it'll make the DM better.
That's what I take issue with. I've never seen a more comprehensive ruleset take a DM weakness and fix it. As far as my experience goes, bad DMs are bad no matter what system they are using.
And I'm telling you from firsthand experience that 3.5's comprehensive ruleset takes at least MY flaws (in awarding ever-increasing power complexity) and addresses them (for instance, by giving an expected treasure award per encounter). When a game does the work for you, you are free to concentrate your energies on making other parts of the game as enjoyable as possible. I don't think I'm unique in this position, though I certainly could be. Either way, it's at least ONE direct counter-point: D&D has taken me, and made me better at running a game, than any rules-light system ever could, because no rules-light system I've seen addresses ever-increasing power complexity as well as D&D does. Its an area that I want to include in my games (because it's fun to get new cool abilities) but that I don't balance well on the fly (leading to hogging the spotlight-time), so D&D's comprehensive and effective method of doing that (with character wealth guidelines) makes me a better DM (not having to worry about paying attention to the powers they get, I can pay attention to the growing threat of the Evil Overlord or whatever).
Is it really so hard to accept?