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

[DinoInDisguise]

That comes from the strange way that PCs do WAY more damage, while monsters have WAY more HP when compared to each other. PCs would slaughter each other in PvP. Monsters would slog away at each other.

This is an example of asymmetric design. The DM and the players play by fundamentally different rules. It doesn't actually matter if you scale HP on the monsters or scale damage. Monster design isn't bound by player character creation rules, and shouldn't be. WotC choosing the scale HP on monsters is a large part of why the monsters feel underpowered for their CR.

A monster can have 4 action surges, unlearn-able spells, impossible ability scores, and so on. The only limit is the self imposed encounter balance and, theoretically, complexity. Something too powerful will result in an unwinnable encounter, and something too complex will be functionally unusable. No other limits are on the DM.

This stems from the idea of balance between the players and the DM being impossible. The DM's power is infinite, the player's power is not. Any attempt at balance on this axis is futile by definition. And I would theorize that if achieved such balance would fundamentally change the game.

 

[Ry]

I love DMing. In fact I'd rather. But it isn't easier than playing.

Gotta find those DMs, not try and make them. Though I'd guess the process would look similar.

Rather than making new DMs I’m just trying to suggest there are ways WotC’s world-class game designers might lighten the load. So the DMs that we have don’t feel like workaholics to run the game “right” and therefore run more games.

Although these responses are giving me an idea for an experiment in zero prep.

 

[overgeeked]

That comes from the strange way that PCs do WAY more damage, while monsters have WAY more HP when compared to each other. PCs would slaughter each other in PvP. Monsters would slog away at each other.

As mentioned, it’s asymettrical design. A party of four PCs vs one monster with a CR equal to the party’s average level. CR is level. It’s just level x4. The disparity exists to let the monster live long enough to do something with their measly 1-2 actions before inevitably being overwhelmed by action economy.

You can tweak monster HP, damage, and number of actions to bring things more in line with PCs. That’s basically what I did. It worked well enough. But then I also designed my setup to bring back 4E monster and encounter design.

 

[overgeeked]

Rather than making new DMs I’m just trying to suggest there are ways WotC’s world-class game designers might lighten the load. So the DMs that we have don’t feel like workaholics to run the game “right” and therefore run more games.

Although these responses are giving me an idea for an experiment in zero prep.

Check out Forge of Foes for no-prep monsters.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

As mentioned, it’s asymettrical design. A party of four PCs vs one monster with a CR equal to the party’s average level. CR is level. It’s just level x4. The disparity exists to let the monster live long enough to do something with their measly 1-2 actions before inevitably being overwhelmed by action economy.

Yes, I didn't mean to imply (by the use of the term "strange") that I didn't understand how it worked or why.

You can tweak monster HP, damage, and number of actions to bring things more in line with PCs. That’s basically what I did. It worked well enough. But then I also designed my setup to bring back 4E monster and encounter design.

That sounds awesome. Really, the main thing that I miss from 4e is the monster design (not the early math, not the jacked HP, but the rest of it).

Check out Forge of Foes for no-prep monsters.

Yeah, it's good. I recommend it too.

 

[TheSword]

DMs need to be inspired first and foremost. We have to create some that they want to read and that makes them want to run. The reason my players are so good is that they invariably say ‘run whatever you want to run most’. I then give them a few choices or suggestions and usually say ‘that sounds cool, or I’d be really interested in that, but run what you want.’

A published product can be really inspirational. I see a lot of adventures simply stick a simple dungeon crawl in. Which if dungeons are your thing is great but if it isn’t potential DMs hit a brick wall. The balance has to be struck between enough information that makes them feel supported but not so little information that the adventure looks sparse or uninspiring.

The best way to learn, is to try and fail. Then reflect on what didn’t work and what did. Use what you experienced come up with its changes and then get to try again. In my opinion this should be talked about more. Firstly that it is ok to get things wrong and make mistakes. Secondly that it is ok to change things if you or the players think it will be better.

Last point. It is really important that DMs also be players in other campaigns. You need to experience a game from the other side of the DM screen from time to time in order see what it feels like to be on the receiving end. Doesn’t have to be all the time or for a long time. Seeing what other DMs do that you like or don’t is great and live stream helps but there is no substitute for being in the player seat. Not least because it’s better to learn from other peoples mistakes than your own.