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

[Faolyn]

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.

People are willing to put up with a lot of crap in order to not rock the boat and risk being ostracized by the rest of the group.

Also, it's not just that people don't understand how their behavior affects others; it's that they often don't care.

 

[Cadence]

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.

It feels like there should be a 3-18 rating scale out there somewhere for DMs. How low on the scale would be "bad" as opposed to "mediocre", "so-so", and "average"?

 

[kermit4karate]

People are willing to put up with a lot of crap in order to not rock the boat and risk being ostracized by the rest of the group.

Also, it's not just that people don't understand how their behavior affects others; it's that they often don't care.

Chalk it up to different gaming experiences then because I don't agree with "often don't care."

Some don't care? Absolutely. But are you implying that DMs in general often don't care? If so that hasn't been my experience.

 

[kermit4karate]

It feels like there should be a 3-18 rating scale out there somewhere for DMs. How low on the scale would be "bad" as opposed to "mediocre", "so-so", and "average"?

Naw, I don't like that. It's not like calculating someone's score on a multiple-choice test. I may give the exact same DM a 12 that someone else gives a 3. What'd be the point? I don't see the value in attributing a numerical value to a human's performance in a complex, subjective experience at a gaming table.

Edit: Perhaps if you're referring to a DM rating on roll20 or something like that, some public marketplace where people "shop" for DMs to hire or play with, I could see that.

 

[AlViking]

People are willing to put up with a lot of crap in order to not rock the boat and risk being ostracized by the rest of the group.

Also, it's not just that people don't understand how their behavior affects others; it's that they often don't care.

If it was as high as some people claim (20-25%) then on average every table should have one of those people. I find that hard to believe. One in a hundred, perhaps a bit higher that are high enough on the narcissist scale that it harms the enjoyment of the other people at the table? Maybe. I don't think those people will DM or be welcome at a table for very long and they'll find something else to do.

 

[AlViking]

It feels like there should be a 3-18 rating scale out there somewhere for DMs. How low on the scale would be "bad" as opposed to "mediocre", "so-so", and "average"?

It just comes down to where you put them on the bell curve and what the person making the decisions qualifies as "bad". I may value rules knowledge over encounter variety, someone else may value sheer entertainment value over ability to improvise and react. But those things are all completely subjective. I assume we could all agree on some behavior that is universally considered objectively bad but then people toss a whole lot of other criteria which despite what some people claim is not by any means an objective judgment. Especially when some people include as far as I can tell DM that don't run the game exactly like they would

So this is an endless discussion with no real resolution and I certainly don't see how any rule changes could make much of a difference.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

It feels like there should be a 3-18 rating scale out there somewhere for DMs. How low on the scale would be "bad" as opposed to "mediocre", "so-so", and "average"?

Is it really productive, or morally defensible, to “rate” someone’s skill at DMing when that assessment is entirely subjective? Trying to rank DMs objectively ignores the context in which they operate.

On these very forums, we can't even agree on basic standards for how the game should be played. We can't even agree on the underlying theory behind what makes a good game. A good session.
There is no doubt people will inevitably rate the same DM completely differently based on a differing perspective on what counts as “good." A perspective that varies wildly. One that we've seen play out in this thread and others.

This kind of discussion is not about insight. It's not about improvement. It is an exercise in cruelty masquerading as critique. It is a deliberate reduction of human beings into arbitrary labels decided by strangers based on subjective criteria. Social gatekeeping at its finest.

What purpose does that serve other than to demean and categorize each other in a sick game of social hierarchy? To put people into little boxes so we can talk about them in broad, overarching terms as if they are little trinkets to be sorted. All based on the whims of internet sleuths.

The only responsible approach is to encourage people to find a DM and players who share their vision of the game. And to leave judgment where it belongs: in the hands of those who actually play together. Deciding from afar is simply cruelty dressed up as conversation. And has no real end point, as agreement is largely impossible.

 

[Cadence]

Is it really productive, or morally defensible, to “rate” someone’s skill at DMing when that assessment is entirely subjective? Trying to rank DMs objectively ignores the context in which they operate.

On these very forums, we can't even agree on basic standards for how the game should be played. We can't even agree on the underlying theory behind what makes a good game. A good session.
There is no doubt people will inevitably rate the same DM completely differently based on a differing perspective on what counts as “good." A perspective that varies wildly. One that we've seen play out in this thread and others.

This kind of discussion is not about insight. It's not about improvement. It is an exercise in cruelty masquerading as critique. It is a deliberate reduction of human beings into arbitrary labels decided by strangers based on subjective criteria. Social gatekeeping at its finest.

What purpose does that serve other than to demean and categorize each other in a sick game of social hierarchy? To put people into little boxes so we can talk about them in broad, overarching terms as if they are little trinkets to be sorted. All based on the whims of internet sleuths.

The only responsible approach is to encourage people to find a DM and players who share their vision of the game. And to leave judgment where it belongs: in the hands of those who actually play together. Deciding from afar is simply cruelty dressed up as conversation. And has no real end point, as agreement is largely impossible.

Given that the thread was arguing about what percent of them are "bad" and throwing around things like 20-25%, it didn't seem like that far of a leap.

Further, I didn't call for such a scale, I said it feels like such a scale should be out there. I meant in the sense of our hobby that it is surprising such a thing doesn't exist.. This didn't feel like much of a leap to me given D&D once rated characters physical appearances from 3-18 and still defines them (the in game analogs of people) as having intelligence, wisdom, and charisma on 3-18 scale (something I have posted against before).

I am perfectly accepting of someone implementing such a scale as not being a good idea!!

I did wonder if the thought experiment of what traits would generally be considered as moving someone up and down it might be more useful than a mere binary classification of good and bad - and might hint at skills folks could work on or what people might look for in games.

Finally, I wonder what the line is in terms of rating other things that human beings put their heart, sweat, and tears into like running restaurants and hotels, or making movies and writing books. Does the touchiness about rating subjective things change if it is, say, huge corporate owned pizza chains vs. local restaurant? Does it change based on how personally connected one is to that industry? On how many people are involved? On the age of people doing it (high school football recruits)? On whether it is something mental or appearance wise (gross?) versus athletic prowess (more objective?)? On the plus side, I am glad to be able to guess that many of you would presumably feel the same about how ratings of professors and teachers are currently done online and on campus as I do (not done well at all and leading to some bad repercussions).

 

[kermit4karate]

Is it really productive, or morally defensible, to “rate” someone’s skill at DMing when that assessment is entirely subjective? Trying to rank DMs objectively ignores the context in which they operate.

On these very forums, we can't even agree on basic standards for how the game should be played. We can't even agree on the underlying theory behind what makes a good game. A good session.
There is no doubt people will inevitably rate the same DM completely differently based on a differing perspective on what counts as “good." A perspective that varies wildly. One that we've seen play out in this thread and others.

This kind of discussion is not about insight. It's not about improvement. It is an exercise in cruelty masquerading as critique. It is a deliberate reduction of human beings into arbitrary labels decided by strangers based on subjective criteria. Social gatekeeping at its finest.

What purpose does that serve other than to demean and categorize each other in a sick game of social hierarchy? To put people into little boxes so we can talk about them in broad, overarching terms as if they are little trinkets to be sorted. All based on the whims of internet sleuths.

The only responsible approach is to encourage people to find a DM and players who share their vision of the game. And to leave judgment where it belongs: in the hands of those who actually play together. Deciding from afar is simply cruelty dressed up as conversation. And has no real end point, as agreement is largely impossible.

Brilliant response and solid reasoning.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Is it really productive, or morally defensible, to “rate” someone’s skill at DMing when that assessment is entirely subjective? Trying to rank DMs objectively ignores the context in which they operate.

Probably not, but it’s done with teachers all the time so .