New DM, I choose you! DM Trainer Edition

[CuRoi]

Forgive the juvenile title

Also, I'm new here and haven't been hashing out these issues like you guys on the forums with thousands of posts, so forgive me if this is ancient history.

So we were discussing skill challenges in a separate thread. I remarked how it seemed to me that the 4e DMG was more of a training manual than previous books. It felt written mostly for a novice DM IMO. Which isn't a bad thing as it is a great way to grow the hobby. Well, I just read Ryan Dancey's blog about the demographcis of RPG players. The market survey he references has this to say:

"And if they can be induced to become a DM/GM, expenditures skyrocket.
Will DM/GM: $2,048
Will not DM/GM: $401"

I'm probably behind on the curve as this has been floating around for years on the net and this is the first I have seen it. However, it puts my thoughts in a new perspective. 4e is the DM creator edition It also perhaps explains why I never took a liking to it. I'm an old set in his ways sort of DM. *Manual? I don't need no stinking manual!* said in a horrible southwestern bandito voice...

So my questions to those of you with a better connection to the 4e scene:

Is this way off base or not? Has 4e actually inspired more people to DM games?

Is DMing 4e "easier" (my read through and limited experience says so and I've heard others with more experience say the same. I know my edition of choice, 3.5, is a real bugger to DM at times)?

And a thought - If this is true, did the move to a new edition targetted at cultivating new players alienate the experienced base of the hobby too much and instead of incorporating new players into it, fracture it?

As always, not looking to slam editions here - just observations and objective discussion.

 

[ffy]

i got started with playing (and DMing from the start) with 4e, and i love how easy they have made the DMing. i have read stories of how long it takes to make monsters and how much rules knowledge it takes to adjucate higher level 3.5 games, and that kind of threw me off from starting earlier.

and yes, i have spent more money on it than my players (also new to the hobby). so i guess everything you said is true

 

[TheAuldGrump]

In my experience, no, it has not. But... I am not at all certain that it really matters.

The one that seemed the very biggest in my experience was AD&D first edition, then 3e, then 3.5, though The Dummies Guide seemed to help and some of that has been incorporated into 4e.

I just spent a few weeks showing a couple of new GMs the ropes of Pathfinder, and I know of another that has been dragged into GMing by the Gamemastery Guide. (I thought the GMG was okay, but I'm not sure that it would have dragged me into GMing.) I was recruited to run a game to show them how it worked, and that was probably more effective than the best book could have been.

I think that playing in any game, then wanting to do it yourself, is what makes a new DM, regardless of game or edition. Folks that have had a good time losing their marbles in Call of Cthulhu want to become Keepers and folks who have had fun being the chief rival of James Bond want to run Spycraft (or Top Secret, all those years ago).

So run the game you like, and if you do a good job of it you will start some future DM on his path. Edition or game, I don't think that it matters, not at all.

The Auld Grump

 

[Jhaelen]

Has 4e actually inspired more people to DM games?

Among the fellow roleplayers I know that is definitely the case.

Is DMing 4e "easier" (my read through and limited experience says so and I've heard others with more experience say the same. I know my edition of choice, 3.5, is a real bugger to DM at times)?

I think no one can can refute that DMing 4e is a lot easier than DMing 3e. In my personal opinion it's never been as easy DMing D&D (with the possible exception of OD&D).

And a thought - If this is true, did the move to a new edition targetted at cultivating new players alienate the experienced base of the hobby too much and instead of incorporating new players into it, fracture it?

This I cannot really comment on. If I was to judge from the reactions on this board, I'd have to say that, yes, it probably did. I haven't noticed the same thing in my circle of friends. There has been criticism of some aspects of 4e but I don't think they were aspects that had anything to do with the aim of making the game attractive to new players.

 

[CuRoi]

i got started with playing (and DMing from the start) with 4e, and i love how easy they have made the DMing. i have read stories of how long it takes to make monsters and how much rules knowledge it takes to adjucate higher level 3.5 games, and that kind of threw me off from starting earlier.

and yes, i have spent more money on it than my players (also new to the hobby). so i guess everything you said is true

I really dislike wading through rules to tell a good story, but my last campaign spanned many years real time and was entirely in 3.0/3.5. But yep, what you heard regarding 3.5 is pretty true IMO, so I'm glad you found an alternative that sparked your interest. However, vow to never again let mountains of rules dissuade you from DMing!

My solution for 3.0 / 3.5 was to tightly control the addiitonal material that enters the game. I run mostly SRD focused campaigns with custom campaign-specific prestige classes and some campaign specific feats and spells (though I will consider player requests fro material from other sources, I've never had anyone back out of the game because they needed more rules to enjoy it...). Too much more and IMO the rules become the star and not the story, but that's just me.

 

[Piratecat]

There are things I don't care for in 4e, but my DM prep time is literally a quarter -- or less -- of the time it once took me to prep 3.5 games. That's an amazing improvement. The Compendium makes finding treasure and monsters a breeze, and the monster builder makes leveling monsters up or down to be trivial.

I'm of the opinion that 4e is much harder to play than it is to DM. My players have far more card-shuffling and power-wrangling than I do, even with a full slate of monsters. As a result, I think (unsupported by any actual data) that it's been easier for new DMs to take the reins. They just need to make sure their players are on board.

 

[CuRoi]

In my experience, no, it has not. But... I am not at all certain that it really matters.

It's banter on a message board, OF COURSE it REALLY MATTERS .

Ive seen several of your posts and it looks like you get to game with and seek out a pretty diverse group of folks which must be great. I think experienced players such as yourself showing people the ropes is an excellent idea, though I've had trouble implementing things like that in the past. My last attempt, was a bit of a disaster. The DM-to-be just didn't communicate well, really had no grasp of the rules, nor even tried to improve on that. He was developing a certain creative vision, but not one he could share well with the group and it only really alienated them. Several weeks of "Co-Dming" and the players essentialy mutineed.

I agree with that sentiment about wanting to do it, but the experience I just described, and the previous poster, seem to indicate rules complexity turned at least some people off to the idea of DMing. In ffy's case, he flat out says the rules were a barrier and in my case, the DM really had no interest in understanding the rules, just relating some bizarre fantasy (a rules light system, something like FUDGE might have served him better but thats not what everyone was signe dup to play.)

So I'm still thinking the DMing for Dummies approach with some of the 4e stuff you mentioned, may have been done specifically to correct those problems? But it sounds like you feel the rules presentation doesn't matter so much as just motivation I take it? I'd agree - but only for really good DMs

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I remarked how it seemed to me that the 4e DMG was more of a training manual than previous books. It felt written mostly for a novice DM IMO. Which isn't a bad thing as it is a great way to grow the hobby.

Yes and no. Designing and writing a game that would enable the novice was one goal. Bringing in new players, whether new to roleplaying, lapsed, or from other media--was another goal. Expanding the power range that existing players found fun to play, yet another. And then on top of that, was the all important "sell stuff."

These goals sometimes conflict with each other. Plus, that is not even accounting for each member of the design and development team wanting to put their own stamp on the game. You couldn't possibly put that much work into a new edtion of D&D and totally subsume your ego the entire time.

 

[CuRoi]

There has been criticism of some aspects of 4e but I don't think they were aspects that had anything to do with the aim of making the game attractive to new players.

Interesting - I think most of my issues with the system are precisely things I think might have been changed with goal of attracting new players. I won't air a laundry list (cause I think that will derail this thread instantly and I'm sure it has been discussed ad nauseam) but I'm willing to bet many people that never really made the transition to 4e might share my sentiments.

Having started with the AD&D DMG, I still really love the contents of that book (that and the ADnD Monstrous Manual are always at hand even in 3e games). Some of the stuff in there is down right absurd and if people thought THACO was wierd, they should just checkout the ecletic collection of tables and information. It's dense, sometimes impenetrable. And though I hate rules, it is exhaustive in a sense that not even 3e tried to be. However, it isn't just jammed with rules but interpretations and odd facts and more strange tables and percentages. Its a bit disjointed, but it sort of sets the tone that "hey, I just made this stuff up so you should too." Its a bit more inspirational than instructional IMO. As I mentioned previously, the 4e DMG, I picked it up and found myself skimming it rather quickly - neither really engaging or inspirational IMO.

 

[CuRoi]

These goals sometimes conflict with each other. ...

Alright, so yeah, I know I'm oversimplifying more than a a bit here! But it seems to me that this schism did occur (from my limited perspective anyway) and that brainstorming about an answer might be helpful...cause I don't think WotC is doing much to lure back "old timers" that never made the leap. If they are even thinking about the issue they aren't sharing.

My own solution has been to start working on my own ruleset that keeps some of the structure and customization of recent editions but brings back the feel of older ediitons, which is a fairly extreme reaction (and generally not helpful to Wizards retaining customers...)