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

[kermit4karate]

To actually be constructive, advice should be more along the lines of:

“With any social activity, there’s a chance that you’ll be paired up with one or more people who deliberately or inadvertently create an unpleasant environment for you or someone else. It’s best to try to be aware of your surroundings and read the room. If you find yourself not having fun, you have two options: if you feel comfortable, speak up to someone and try to find a solution. If not, leave the game. You’re always allowed to leave. You are not a punching bag, test subject or therapist for other people in a game session. Acknowledge that and to hell with people who try to guilt trip you for considering leaving a group.”

There ya go.

Thank you. I'll accept that.

 

[AlViking]

No question, that happens sometimes. Inflated egos are EVERYWHERE, all around us, all the way around the table, outside the store and down the sidewalk. Ego is, I would contend, a problem here too. Self-importance is a problem all over the place.

The number that was bandied about for quite some time (already dozens of pages in this thread) was 25%, then 20%. That was what kinda started this particular tangent, that 25% of all DMs were objectively (how it was presented) bad. That was the main sticking point for me. I wasn't, and I don't think anyone else here was, suggesting that there aren't ANY bad DMs, but quite a few of us have said that we don't think you can legislate that badness away with more rules specifically restricting DM behavior.

I've also taken issue in this thread with what seems to be the sentiment that DMs are a bigger problem than players generally are. I disagree with that based on simple math. It isn't calculus. There are dramatically more players, many are dramatically less experienced than the average DM. Those "bad" players have a far more negative effect on games than the less common bad DMs do.

Take any table with 1 DM and 5 players. Statistically, using the (made up) 20% are bad figure, that means that there's 1 bad DM at every 5 tables; however, it also means there's 1 bad player at every table. That's far more detrimental to the future of the game than the bad DMs are.

I agree and that's been one of my main sticking points. If every table had that guy there's no way so many people would play the game. We are all flawed individuals but that doesn't mean 20% of the people playing D&D are so narcissistic that they don't understand the way their behavior is affecting the rest of the people at the table.

 

[bloodtide]

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.

DMing a RPG is hard. Being a player in an RPG is hard.

Unless you play an RPG like a board game/war game where you'd say "my character moves three squares forward and takes the attack action!", an RPG has these parts:

*RPGs are complex. Even the rules lite ones have a lot of rules. And a lot of the rules are vague.

*The basic idea of "role playing" is extremely hard for many people. Just the "Okay, imagine your in a castle and a dragon flies overhead", is already hard for a lot of people to grasp. And going the step further to say "and imagine your Darg the Dwarf Warlock in that castle" is even harder.

*Basic imagination is hard, people struggle with just "imagine a dragon by a tree".

*Any small group social activity is hard. To say a great many people don't know how to socialize and be social is an understatement.

*Playing in a group is hard. Teamwork is hard. Far too many players are the abrasive Lone Wolf type...

The DM gets all the above, plus:

*The DM is in charge by an odd default. As the DM is running the game, they can ask players to leave. This gives the DM the 'in charge' part where they can tell players what to do during the game. If a player is disruptive or worse, the DM can ask them to leave. Players can't do that...and most won't anyway.

*As the DM controls game reality, they control the pacing. If the game slows down to near nothing happening, it's all because the DM is not taking any action.

*DMs have to create and make up everything for the game, as the vast majority of players just sit back and ask to be entertained.

-----

Lots of hard stuff.....not everyone can just pick up a D20 and be Amazing.

Some people to grow and change with experience.....but a lot do not. For example, a player might have played RPGs for years, but all their characters have forever had the personality of that player, as they refuse to role play and only play characters as 'themselves'. Some Improv DMs will claim to remember everything they randomly make, and get upset if you point out their often mistakes.

 

[kermit4karate]

To actually be constructive, advice should be more along the lines of:

“With any social activity, there’s a chance that you’ll be paired up with one or more people who deliberately or inadvertently create an unpleasant environment for you or someone else. It’s best to try to be aware of your surroundings and read the room. If you find yourself not having fun, you have two options: if you feel comfortable, speak up to someone and try to find a solution. If not, leave the game. You’re always allowed to leave. You are not a punching bag, test subject or therapist for other people in a game session. Acknowledge that and to hell with people who try to guilt trip you for considering leaving a group.”

There ya go.

I like it, but I would say that "being constructive" hasn't been the vibe of this tangent for quite some time now, and I think most of us know it. We're firmly in the "protecting fragile egos" stage.

 

[AlViking]

DMing a RPG is hard. Being a player in an RPG is hard.

Unless you play an RPG like a board game/war game where you'd say "my character moves three squares forward and takes the attack action!", an RPG has these parts:

*RPGs are complex. Even the rules lite ones have a lot of rules. And a lot of the rules are vague.

*The basic idea of "role playing" is extremely hard for many people. Just the "Okay, imagine your in a castle and a dragon flies overhead", is already hard for a lot of people to grasp. And going the step further to say "and imagine your Darg the Dwarf Warlock in that castle" is even harder.

*Basic imagination is hard, people struggle with just "imagine a dragon by a tree".

*Any small group social activity is hard. To say a great many people don't know how to socialize and be social is an understatement.

*Playing in a group is hard. Teamwork is hard. Far too many players are the abrasive Lone Wolf type...

The DM gets all the above, plus:

*The DM is in charge by an odd default. As the DM is running the game, they can ask players to leave. This gives the DM the 'in charge' part where they can tell players what to do during the game. If a player is disruptive or worse, the DM can ask them to leave. Players can't do that...and most won't anyway.

*As the DM controls game reality, they control the pacing. If the game slows down to near nothing happening, it's all because the DM is not taking any action.

*DMs have to create and make up everything for the game, as the vast majority of players just sit back and ask to be entertained.

-----

Lots of hard stuff.....not everyone can just pick up a D20 and be Amazing.

Some people to grow and change with experience.....but a lot do not. For example, a player might have played RPGs for years, but all their characters have forever had the personality of that player, as they refuse to role play and only play characters as 'themselves'. Some Improv DMs will claim to remember everything they randomly make, and get upset if you point out their often mistakes.

Most DMs are average. Which should be expected, there's going to be a bell curve of DM aptitude, that doesn't mean everyone on the downslope side of the bell curve is a bad DM in my opinion. There is no objective measurement of good and bad here. The closest that we can get is a DM that is abusive, ignores their players, doesn't care at all whether or not people are enjoying their game? That DM is bad by most measurements, but those DMs are a tiny minority and most do not continue to DM.

DMs that are average or even a ways down on the scale? I don't consider them bad so we will never agree on your subjective judgements.

 

[AlViking]

Not at all. I'm saying a LOT of DMs overvalue their own greatness. Convinced they DON'T make mistakes, don't have anything new to learn, and are never the cause of problems in their own games. Frankly, the Dunning–Kruger effect is overrepresented amongst DMs. It's not the fact that they are just average, it's the fact they are just average and convinced they are equal to or better than Mercer or Mulligan and it's the players who do not understand their "genius".

One more thought on this. Well, two actually. First even if someone thinks they are better at DMing I don't see why that necessarily makes them a bad DM. They may think they're far above average and they are just average like most people. But second? How the heck would you know? Unless they are literally stating that they are a top tier DM which is something I have never encountered or even heard of in real life you have no clue unless you can literally read their minds. A lot of DMs are insecure and will hide behind a certain amount of bravado. I think many people do that in situations they're not truly comfortable with.

So what's your point? In your subjective judgement you think a lot of DMs aren't as good as you think they think they are. That could just as easily be a "you" issue as a DM issue.

 

[bloodtide]

Most DMs are average. Which should be expected, there's going to be a bell curve of DM aptitude, that doesn't mean everyone on the downslope side of the bell curve is a bad DM in my opinion. There is no objective measurement of good and bad here. The closest that we can get is a DM that is abusive, ignores their players, doesn't care at all whether or not people are enjoying their game? That DM is bad by most measurements, but those DMs are a tiny minority and most do not continue to DM.

DMs that are average or even a ways down on the scale? I don't consider them bad so we will never agree on your subjective judgements.

Is it just as you don't like the word "bad"?

As with most things, you have to have 'ranks'. To say "everyone is average" is not every helpful.

If you have to pick between two "average DMs", and one does not know the rules well, does not care to learn them and spends large amounts of game time looking up the rules, and the other DM knows all the basic rules by heart and only looks up a rule once in a while. One of those DMs is better then the other.

If you say "everyone is the same", then you might find yourself in a game where you watch a DM "look up a rule" for thirty minutes. Now, if your fine with that.....

 

[AlViking]

Is it just as you don't like the word "bad"?

As with most things, you have to have 'ranks'. To say "everyone is average" is not every helpful.

If you have to pick between two "average DMs", and one does not know the rules well, does not care to learn them and spends large amounts of game time looking up the rules, and the other DM knows all the basic rules by heart and only looks up a rule once in a while. One of those DMs is better then the other.

If you say "everyone is the same", then you might find yourself in a game where you watch a DM "look up a rule" for thirty minutes. Now, if your fine with that.....

This started with the declaration that 25% of all DMs are objectively bad. Unfortunately a small percentage that are truly bad but most of those do not DM for long.

I think some DMs are better than others but just because I'd prefer Sue over Chuck it doesn't mean that Chuck is a bad DM.

 

[kermit4karate]

This started with the declaration that 25% of all DMs are objectively bad. Unfortunately a small percentage that are truly bad but most of those do not DM for long.

I think some DMs are better than others but just because I'd prefer Sue over Chuck it doesn't mean that Chuck is a bad DM.

Key point! "...just because I'd prefer Sue over Chuck it doesn't mean that Chuck is a bad DM."

There's so much mischaracterization and willful denial of other points of view in this thread. I'm getting the feeling this is far more about personal trauma than bad DMs.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I have lurked and read a lot of this thread. And going back to the initial rant:

If people trying to keep the ground connected to its roots is exhausting, I think it’s not less exhausting listening to tirades about how the game sucks and must change.

If someone wants radical change, why not look at other games?

I have stuck around since 1e, and had fun with 3e and 5e. I think those are pretty big departures.

But at a certain point, too much is too much. I think 4e with its own flavor and lore could stand as its own game. As D&D…for many, not all! It was a bridge to oo far. It was too far for me.

The constant push to excise mechanics and lore gets old to me. No shade just another perspective.

And while I say if you hate all tradition, “play another game,” an analogous thing might be said to someone who demands only tradition: “you have the old books, use them.”

Agreed. We used 1e right up to 3e. We are using 5e now…at least until “6e.”

I think it’s about that hard to hit sweet spot. Stagnant? Annoying. Baby and bath water? No thanks.

So choose your rant but they can come from either side of the fence.