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

[Faolyn]

Not necessarily, but I've read a lot of games and many, many of the non-D&D-based ones take themselves pretty seriously.

So? A book has to be written in a light-hearted tone for you to be willing to change things?

 

[Faolyn]

This was a forge thing. "System matters", "protect players against GM abuse" and all that jazz. I never heard anything about strict rules as written because of design in connection with any rpgs before the 2000s. D&D 3ed manage to come out just before this was a thing and hence wasn't affected too badly by this perception. Look at how 4ed is perceived, and I guess it is easy to recognice that this has nothing to do with the D&D brand as such.

I'm guessing because, with more people online and able to talk about gaming, people couldn't as easily talk about their games anymore when they were using houserules. You had to talk about the RAW in order to have common ground, and that led to people thinking you had to play by RAW.

 

[Micah Sweet]

They all govern GM behavior. They govern how you address players who want their characters to act outside the rules and how you worldbuild. The books expect you to follow the rules, or houserule them away--which is pretty much what most narrative games say as well.

But honestly, I just can't understand why having the books write down what most GMs already do is so anathema to you.

@Enrahim basically covered it. And furthermore, as I've said above a lot of games seem to take their rules pretty seriously, and don't look to leave a lot of explicit space for houseruling or even playing with a different style. By including rules that govern GM behavior you are telling your readers not to run the game in a way other than that prescribed, even if you could.

What I'm reading from you is that you happen to agree with a lot of these rules, and don't see a problem because you think they should be generally followed.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So? A book has to be written in a light-hearted tone for you to be willing to change things?

I change things all the time. But frankly I'm going to resent a system that insists I play a certain way. Give advice on what you as a designer consider best practices for your game, be clear about your intentions when designing it (something D&D has admittedly often failed to do). That IMO is all that is needed and wanted, by me anyway.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's anathema to me too, BTW.

I will say, however, that anathema is a very cool word.

My favorite yuan-ti.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Ding ding ding!! Winner, winner, chicken dinner!

I homebrew and house rule a ton, but none of the changes I make fundamentally change the way D&D has been meant to be played. That said, the game has always endorsed and encouraged homebrew, so the freedom is there to change anything about it if one wants.

I'm just not gonna say that changes to what the DM can/cannot do, or to what the expectations of them are as referees of the game, are changes that I think enhance gameplay.

If someone thinks a DM is bad in a game for which good DMs already exist all over the place and have for years, that isn't because there aren't already rules and a good framework in place in the game. Good DMs are following the current rules and framework just fine. New rules aren't going to fix bad DMs.

I would say that 4e didn't particularly encourage house rules or homebrew (although I respect the heck out of its intentionality), but otherwise I agree.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm guessing because, with more people online and able to talk about gaming, people couldn't as easily talk about their games anymore when they were using houserules. You had to talk about the RAW in order to have common ground, and that led to people thinking you had to play by RAW.

Yeah, the internet not all puppies and rainbows.

 

[Faolyn]

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.

Yeah, a poll like this will need to be redone to determine why a player found a particular GM to be bad. I've had a GM who forced everyone into a dreadful railroad, and a GM who OKed one PC putting a camera in my PC's shower. Both are bad, but they're different types of bad, and they're also different from "won't let me play an evil character."

That being said, I'm willing to bet a lot of people put up with bad GMs because they really want to play a game and they're the only one who will GM, or don't want to leave the group because they're friends or are afraid of being ostracized, or because they don't realize that what the GM is doing is wrong and that they don't have to take it. So the number may not be 25%, but it's probably a lot higher than you think it is.

 

[kermit4karate]

That being said, I'm willing to bet a lot of people put up with bad GMs because they really want to play a game and they're the only one who will GM, or don't want to leave the group because they're friends or are afraid of being ostracized, or because they don't realize that what the GM is doing is wrong and that they don't have to take it. So the number may not be 25%, but it's probably a lot higher than you think it is.

Maybe. I guessed 2.5% are "bad" GMs, even though I don't think we even agree on what defines a bad GM. But I'm willing to accept that the actual number of certifiably "bad" GMs might be considerably higher than 2.5%. It's kind of a going nowhere thing to debate, though, because of the subjectivity of it all.

Are you willing to accept that our definitions of "bad" GMs probably also differs by a great deal? Because that's been a sticking point in this thread too. If someone says, "That GM is bad because x, y, z..." I'm thinking, "I would have just schmoozed 'em better and come to a more beneficial agreement."

GMs and players are all people. I know you've played at tables where some of the players are getting along swimmingly with the GM and loving the game while other players are feeling bad or left out. Not everyone at that table would define that same GM as "bad." Same person is probably being rated as "good" in other polls elsewhere.

 

[AlViking]

Maybe. I guessed 2.5% are "bad" GMs, even though I don't think we even agree on what defines a bad GM. But I'm willing to accept that the actual number of certifiably "bad" GMs might be considerably higher than 2.5%. It's kind of a going nowhere thing to debate, though, because of the subjectivity of it all.

Are you willing to accept that our definitions of "bad" GMs probably also differs by a great deal? Because that's been a sticking point in this thread too. If someone says, "That GM is bad because x, y, z..." I'm thinking, "I would have just schmoozed 'em better and come to a more beneficial agreement."

GMs and players are all people. I know you've played at tables where some of the players are getting along swimmingly with the GM and loving the game while other players are feeling bad or left out. Not everyone at that table would define that same GM as "bad." Same person is probably being rated as "good" in other polls elsewhere.

@Faolyn's example of the camera in the shower - it's not something I would ever allow (especially not without checking with the player who's character is being peeped on and there should be a discussion of red lines) - but perhaps the DM simply didn't think it was their job to police the actions of the characters. I'm not sure we know enough context for that one.

But people's opinions of good and bad are largely subjective and I doubt we could come up with an objective definition even if we tried. I just know that I've had a ton of DMs over the years and while I've played with DMs that were bad for me that didn't make them bad DMs for some other players. I think your 2.5% estimate is far closer to reality than 20% but even if it were 1% there are some people who will just be unlucky.