D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[kermit4karate]

No. What makes conversation very difficult is the endless quibbling and waffling over every single definition out there without any actual attempt to engage in discussion. FFS, is "Bad DM" really that hard to define? Good grief.

I notice that you did manage to completely ignore the whole "1 in 5" thing I posted about virtually every other amateur hobby out there. You really believe that somehow DM's are batting better than average than pretty much any other hobby?

I know! The nerve of some people, interpreting words differently. It's as if sentences and paragraphs can mean different things to different people, which is preposterous....

 

[kermit4karate]

Roy Sullivan, a park ranger in Virginia, claims to have been struck by lightning 7 times. Does that mean that being struck by lightning happens to 25% of the population? Of course not. He was just extremely unlucky.

So yes, some people may have well have had a string of bad DMs. But in that poll we have no idea how many DMs the respondents have had or why they considered them bad. For some people "bad" may mean they were not allowed to play an evil character. For others the DMs were bad because the DM was an abusive a-hole who couldn't retain a group and only ran a few games and the person answering the survey happened to be unlucky enough to play with that DM for the brief period of time they were DMing.

But a bad DM to me means, among other things, that you don't enjoy playing the game. So no, I don't think the game would be as popular as it is if 25% of people were not having fun playing. I have no idea where you get the number "people only play for a year" from. A fair number of people try it out, many don't have time to play because they have other time constraints or simply find that the game isn't for them.

But unlike Lake Woebegon where all the kids are above average of course most DMs will be average, and many will be starting out and make mistakes, I just don't think that makes them bad DMs even if they aren't running a game I want to play.

Unscientific polls don't account for anything either. They don't adjust for errors, time of day, time of year, manipulation or literally anything else that can skew the results. Their results mean next to nothing. Fun for discussion though.

My hot take is that some folks are simply harder to please, more serious or more critical than others. It's a spectrum and everyone's on it somewhere, so this isn't a dig at anyone here. I know people who are generally happier and less critical than I am too. We all know people who have a good time almost everywhere, whatever they do, and we all know people who are the opposite and seem to be disappointed no matter what they do.

A hypercritical player is often manageable at the table. A GM though? I don't think GMs with those traits generally last long in the hobby, but hypercritical players can often keep chugging along for years, bringing tables down along their merry way.

 

[Maxperson]

But a bad DM to me means, among other things, that you don't enjoy playing the game. So no, I don't think the game would be as popular as it is if 25% of people were not having fun playing. I have no idea where you get the number "people only play for a year" from. A fair number of people try it out, many don't have time to play because they have other time constraints or simply find that the game isn't for them.

You can have a bad(boring) time without the DM being bad. Not everyone is into the same things.

 

[Hussar]

For a long time the game didn't grow much but correlation doesn't mean causation. I can associate any number of things, it's meaningless. On the other hand the game grew by double digits every year for a decade with 5e (we don't have good numbers any more so we don't know). Maybe, just maybe, it had more to do with the rule system and other cultural influences than bad DMs.

That's not what I said. I said that people leave the hobby at about the same rate as people join the hobby. That's why the gaming population didn't grow for thirty years. Yet, the average age of gamers stayed pretty much the same - late teens, early 20's. So, unless a lot of us have somehow discovered a fountain of youth, doesn't that mean that there's a fairly constant turnover?

At no point did I even hint that the reason for the turnover would be bad DM's. How could it be if only about 1 in 5 are actually bad?

 

[Umbran]

It's not exactly a controversial stance I'm taking.

There are a number of entertainments that folks (in the US, at least) take up in their adolescent/teen years, carry on for a couple/few years, and then drop. Reading comic books is (or at least was) one. Playing collectible card games, doing armature theater, and weekly beer pong are others.

That there are some things we typically only do for a while, and then stop, suggest that it isn't about some detail of the activity, and is more likely some things about out life-patters, that causes those trends.

 

[Hussar]

I know! The nerve of some people, interpreting words differently. It's as if sentences and paragraphs can mean different things to different people, which is preposterous....

Again, if all people were looking for was clarification, that would be different. But, EVERY SINGLE THING has to be endlessly dissected, chased down mutiple rabbit holes and then flog the expired equine endlessly.

Again, seriously? 1 in 5 DM's is bad is a contentious take? Really?

 

[Maxperson]

I believe the Supreme Court's definition of indecency applies: "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it"

Except that I can define it, and have. Many times.

The problem with "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it" with DMs is that it applies to DMs where you just aren't a good fit, rather than just to bad DMs. If you prefer a narrative style and sit down to a sim game, you are not going to enjoy it. Bad DM! No biscuit for you!

That non-definition definition of the Supreme Court's doesn't work for D&D.

 

[Hussar]

There are a number of entertainments that folks (in the US, at least) take up in their adolescent/teen years, carry on for a couple/few years, and then drop. Reading comic books is (or at least was) one. Playing collectible card games, doing armature theater, and weekly beer pong are others.

That there are some things we typically only do for a while, and then stop, suggest that it isn't about some detail of the activity, and is more likely some things about out life-patters, that causes those trends.

Oh, absolutely. I agree. Again, at no point did I suggest that it was the quality of DM's that had anything to do with that. That's the bizarre spin that people seem intent on putting into my mouth.

 

[Micah Sweet]

"They" are "game designers and writers".

If they want to include hard rules to govern GM or player behavior in their games, they get to do that.

Never said they didn't. That has nothing to do with my ability to express myself regarding the practice however.

 

[kermit4karate]

Again, if all people were looking for was clarification, that would be different. But, EVERY SINGLE THING has to be endlessly dissected, chased down mutiple rabbit holes and then flog the expired equine endlessly.

Again, seriously? 1 in 5 DM's is bad is a contentious take? Really?

Well clearly yes, I think it's safe to conclude that for some of us on this thread, 1 in 5 DMs are bad is a contentious take. Next question please.