D&D (2024) Not enough DMs / new edition

[FitzTheRuke]

Call me a cynic, but I honestly do not believe it is the ease or difficulty of DMing that makes someone choose to do it. People DM mainly for other reasons-- they like creating stories and outlines and plots, their personality is such that being the one "in charge" comes naturally to them, they want to play bad enough that they will run a game just so there is a game to be played, they are a multitasker at heart and enjoy the challenge of juggling many balls at once (or as @overgeeked mentioned they have ADHD and are just wired to perform better doing many tasks rather than just one), or they have played enough that they've developed a very specific or idiosyncratic preference towards gaming and running games is the only way to assure themselves they can get the type of game they want.

I mean, yeah, that's all WHY people WANT to DM, but their success or failure at it can come about because of its relative difficulty. I think we can all agree (as much as we can agree upon anything at all) that there are tools for the job that can make it easier, and those tools are not always presented well, when they are presented at all.

What those tools ARE, of course, would be up for debate, as usual.

 

[tetrasodium]

You know, that's something the GM could write down so they didn't have to tip their hand every time...

5 players for one gm every single skill has a passive. I have done the start of session handout table with the big ones and it's just far more work than it gives benefits... Even blind checks in 2e were less work and had better returns. When I eventually started using arkenforge at the table and could store literally anything in PC token it still felt hollow using passive.

THey feel hollow because they try to quantify "who do I want to tell" and assume that the awful static DC ladder is not a jarring mess the gm needs to fix

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I would love to see a new version (same underlying mechanics, but new everything else) with a series of smaller PHBs that covered 4-5 levels at a time.

In the very least, I would like to see the game split in (roughly) half. With Levels 1-12 built around relatively gritty grounded fantasy and a follow-up book with Levels 13-20 built around Herculean (what people call "Super-Hero" these days) Epic fantasy.

I'd be happy with both having a side-bar of how to introduce elements of either "style" into the other's levels, for those that like that sort of thing.

 

[Cadence]

5 players for one gm every single skill has a passive. I have done the start of session handout table with the big ones and it's just far more work than it gives benefits... Even blind checks in 2e were less work and had better returns. When I eventually started using arkenforge at the table and could store literally anything in PC token it still felt hollow using passive.

Which passive skill check do you regularly use besides perception?

I mean, there is lots on a character sheet, but as DM I only keep track of a few on my crib sheet: ac, hp, passive perception, and number of healing surges used - and number of spells used if I have doubts.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

Why would the person totally focusing on their sword polishing even get a passive perception check to notice something? I thought that would be what the people actually on lookout for a long period of time would get?

This is an interesting thought. When do passive scores attach?

I think this has to be DM discretion. I would assume they attach only if the PC is not actively distracted. So maybe my hypothetical is odd, as its not a case where you should use a passive - but instead shouldn't involve that player at all.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

As long as players don't insist on OC play, running D&D is dead simple.

"OC play"? I'm unfamiliar with this term.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

"OC play"? I'm unfamiliar with this term.

My understanding is that OC play prioritizes the storytelling, but de-prioritizes the DM's authority. Instead the DM becomes a facilitator who primarily works with material derived from the players and/or a publisher.

 

[Reynard]

This is an interesting thought. When do passive scores attach?

By the rules, Passive checks are explicitly intentional and are there simply to reduce rolling. "Passive" is actually a poor term fr what's going on and inspires folks to apply the common definition of "passive" and assume it meaning "noticing." It's not. It is staying intentionally alert, usually while moving through dangerous terrain.

 

[tetrasodium]

Which passive skill check do you regularly use besides perception?

I mean, there is lots on a character sheet, but as DM I only keep track of a few on my crib sheet: ac, hp, passive perception, and number of healing surges used - and number of spells used if I have doubts.

It depends on the game. Investigation arcana insight and nature have been used passive occasionally. I mentioned the presence of others though because I found the disruption that came with changing the sheet/table I passed around by adding "passive x"for a session where I figured that I felt I could expect to make use of it made 'bob what's your passive perception/give me a perception check" look like a minor hiccup

 

[Blue]

I think one of the big reasons that there aren't more DMs are because in D&D, the DM and their prep is seen as so important to a good experience, so it's a daunting step to many people.

But that's an artifact of the DMing style that games like D&D engender. If people's first taste of RPGs were games with a lot less GM prep plus hard and fast rules for GMs to follow just like there are for players, that would open up to more GMs.

That range of DMing styles is a sacred cow for D&D, and likely for good reason. An RPG where that DMing style wasn't the preferred wouldn't feel like D&D to the majority of people who play. So it's a real sacred cow - one that needs to be kept around as a default to keep D&D feeling like D&D.

But the amount of responsibility put on the DM's shoulders, combined with the cultural expectation that they are a master of the rules, makes DMing legitimately harder than playing, seen as another level beyond playing.

This isn't nearly as true in GMing some other styles of RPGs. This isn't saying those styles are superior. It is saying that there is both a true and a percieved lower barrier to entry of GMing them then what is expected of a D&D DM. A good example of the barrier to D&D DMing was the "Mercer effect" from a few years back, when if you couldn't run a game like Matt Mercer you had no business being a DM. Which is bull in terms of reality, but the perception was there. And perception holds back potential DMs.

We've had some DMGs (and DMG 2s) with great DMing advice in them - I don't think that ever made it such that the number of DMs running reached the number of DMs wanted by players, potential players, and those forever DMs who want to be players. So while good advice in the core books is obviously helpful, we know it isn't a whole solution.