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

[Maxperson]

No, because they are kids and are supposed to be bad while they practice and learn. If your in college or pro and your fumbling catches more than completing them, you're a bad player.

No. You are potentially a good player who is bad at the game. Some of them, the ones who remain in gangs, abuse women, etc. are bad players.

Bad DMs are not bad because they are bad at the game. They are bad because they ignore the social contract and punish players, railroad them, etc. They're jerks.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Not really no sorry. Maybe for burning wheel it is quite explicit, and hss no rooms for house rules, and so the system is very much take it as is or leave it ( which i dont necessarily see as a problem, to me is a bit like some video games are customisable and moddable, others arent ).
But for dnd where it is quite clear that can be house ruled and people can make it their own, and apparently outside of convention/ tournament games no two tables are the same due to differing house rules, I dont see how another rule being put in that can be house ruled away is an issue.
It seems to rely on an assumption that as long as the house rules are placed on player side options, it is okay, and players can take or leave it, but if it is DM facing suddenly players have more right to enforce said rules at the table, when the others they can't.

I don't recall any hard rules governing player behavior. Where have you seen those?

 

[Hussar]

No. You are potentially a good player who is bad at the game. Some of them, the ones who remain in gangs, abuse women, etc. are bad players.

Bad DMs are bad because they are bad at the game. They are bad because they ignore the social contract and punish players, railroad them, etc. They're jerks.

No. That's just... no.

There are tons of DM's out there that are bad at the game. Not because they are abusing women or remaining in gangs. Not every bad DM is a jerk. Most are just inexperienced or just haven't learned how to be good DM's yet.

Or do you believe that good DM's come out of the forehead of a player, fully formed, complete with all knowledge of how to run a good game?

I dunno about you, but, I used to be a very, very bad DM. All that raidroady crap? DMPC's? Overbearing story lines, etc? Yup, I've done it. That's what pretty much every DM does on the way to learning how to run a game. Which means that there is a long line of players out behind me that probably would call me a bad DM.

On the flipside, I've taken in so many gaming refugees from other tables who have just unbelievable horror stories. Or, even worse, they actually BOUGHT the crap that their DM was selling and presumed that that's the way the game should be.

I do agree with one point though. Bad DM's are bad because they are bad at the game. But, unless you figure that almost all DM's are good at the game when they first start out, then there has to be a pretty significant number of DM's out there that aren't very good. They might get good, if they stay in the hobby long enough AND they spend the time and have enough self-reflection to learn. But right now? Yeah, they're bad.

 

[Enrahim]

Not really no sorry. Maybe for burning wheel it is quite explicit, and hss no rooms for house rules, and so the system is very much take it as is or leave it ( which i dont necessarily see as a problem, to me is a bit like some video games are customisable and moddable, others arent ).
But for dnd where it is quite clear that can be house ruled and people can make it their own, and apparently outside of convention/ tournament games no two tables are the same due to differing house rules, I dont see how another rule being put in that can be house ruled away is an issue.
It seems to rely on an assumption that as long as the house rules are placed on player side options, it is okay, and players can take or leave it, but if it is DM facing suddenly players have more right to enforce said rules at the table, when the others they can't.

The issue I wanted to show was that GM facing rules and the home brew powers of D&D are in direct contradiction with each other. You cannot meaningfully introduce DM facing rules in D&D without compromising their ability to house rule.

In other words it is your premise "that can be house ruled away", that isn't capturing the neuance of the situation. Meaningful DM facing rules cannot be house ruled away in the same manner as player facing rules can.

 

[kermit4karate]

No. You are potentially a good player who is bad at the game. Some of them, the ones who remain in gangs, abuse women, etc. are bad players.

Bad DMs are bad because they are bad at the game. They are bad because they ignore the social contract and punish players, railroad them, etc. They're jerks.

Well said!!!

 

[kermit4karate]

The issue I wanted to show was that GM facing rules and the home brew powers of D&D are in direct contradiction with each other. You cannot meaningfully introduce DM facing rules in D&D without compromising their ability to house rule.

In other words it is your premise "that can be house ruled away", that isn't capturing the neuance of the situation. Meaningful DM facing rules cannot be house ruled away in the same manner as player facing rules can.

Agreed! Then the takeaway? It breaks the very spirit of the game to introduce DM-facing rules in D&D that compromise the DM's ability to house rule. Thank you for helping me see it so clearly.

 

[AlViking]

The road to greatness is littered with people who aren't as good as they think they are but nonetheless manage to keep doing what they do despite.

So anyone who is not great, or at least good, is bad. We can't just have decent, average GMs or GMs who make the occasional mistake, GMs who are learning so we give them advice and feedback. Kind of sounds like if you aren't a Matt Mercer or Brendan Lee Mulligan level of expertise you get tossed into the "bad" category.

 

[AlViking]

No, I'm saying I dont see the problem with rulesets putting more guidance in, or even explicit rules binding on the DM.
I already said in my post (albeit not the most well formatted) that I dont expect it to address the problem with bad DMs, as you say, they will ignore it anyway.
But if may help new DMs of a system have a clearer idea of how to run the system in question.

There's a significant amount of guidance throughout the DMG, I will say that the 2024 DMG does a better job of it than the 2014 one did. But how much is enough? You can talk all you want about how the goal of the game is to ensure everyone is having fun, listening to your players, finding your own style. But none of that will ever really change the person running the game. They're already going to inherently understand that basic advice and just need a bit of help making it happen or they don't.

 

[kermit4karate]

No. That's just... no.

There are tons of DM's out there that are bad at the game. Not because they are abusing women or remaining in gangs. Not every bad DM is a jerk. Most are just inexperienced or just haven't learned how to be good DM's yet.

Or do you believe that good DM's come out of the forehead of a player, fully formed, complete with all knowledge of how to run a good game?

I dunno about you, but, I used to be a very, very bad DM. All that raidroady crap? DMPC's? Overbearing story lines, etc? Yup, I've done it. That's what pretty much every DM does on the way to learning how to run a game. Which means that there is a long line of players out behind me that probably would call me a bad DM.

On the flipside, I've taken in so many gaming refugees from other tables who have just unbelievable horror stories. Or, even worse, they actually BOUGHT the crap that their DM was selling and presumed that that's the way the game should be.

I do agree with one point though. Bad DM's are bad because they are bad at the game. But, unless you figure that almost all DM's are good at the game when they first start out, then there has to be a pretty significant number of DM's out there that aren't very good. They might get good, if they stay in the hobby long enough AND they spend the time and have enough self-reflection to learn. But right now? Yeah, they're bad.

Trying to think of a different way to come at this, some new way to illustrate what I think it takes to be a good player or DM....

First, take your most well-worn D&D rulebook and grip it firmly by the spine (important).

Next, throw it in the trash....

After that, be a good person. Be friendly, fair, respectful and optimistic. Listen. Read the room. Help when and however you can (bake brownies or bring drinks or pizza perhaps?). Look for widespread signs of joy (tip: are there smiles??). Listen for clues (do you hear laughter?). If the people around you seem genuinely happy, you might be on the right track.

Tada! Done. There's my new house rule governing DM behavior. I recommend tattooing it on your butt.

 

[AlViking]

But, the same is for DM's. Which means that there is a signficant number of gamers who run games who are not very good at it. Not out of malice or being bad people but, just inexperience. While you as 13 year old player might not be able to accurately identify the reasons for discontent, how many 13 year old DM's were fantastic right from the get go?


Ok, please, please stop putting words in my mouth. I never said "most" people. I said lots. Now, those lots of people ALSO include DM's. Or, are you trying to claim that no one EVER DM's without playing for more than a year first? That no one ever DM's without extensive player experience first?

So, there is a significant portion of the fandom that comes in, stays around for a fairly short time (say 6 months - 2 years), maybe runs a game or two and then leaves. And, we get the endless cycle of new players coming in which mostly match the number of older players leaving.

And, again, seriously? 20% is too high? What about DMing makes them magical? Pretty much 20% of ANY group of people is not good at whatever it is they are doing. Certainly that's true in any amateur hobby. But, ok. Fair enough. Let's say it's 10%. I'm flexible. That still means that a significant portion of gamers out there run into lots of bad DM's. Why is this hard to believe?

We have very different definitions of what a bad DM is. To me a truly bad DM doesn't care what their players want, perhaps abuses the authority given to them by the game, is an all-around jerk. Being slightly below average? That doesn't make them bad. There may also be DMs that aren't right for me but are right up someone else's alley which, again, doesn't make them bad DMs.

So no, I don't buy your "20% of DMs are bad" because we have different criteria. The game is largely what we make out of it and I can still have fun at a table where the DM is not spectacular because we, the players, made an effort to make the game fun because it goes both ways. You can be a great DM and if the players are sodden lumps who provide no feedback on what they want, are constantly on their phone browsing something else, chatting with their fellow players about the big game last night, no one at the table is having fun playing the game. So if I have a DM that isn't great I do my best to help them out, to make the game fun for the players and them. It's pretty much always worked for me.