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

[kermit4karate]

That's my point. The book can't force you to run the game in a specific manner. It can't force you to, say, use Legendary Resistance the first three times the monster needs to make a save*. You can choose to have the monster hold onto them for when it needs them. There's nothing that forces you to let the monster have any legendary saves, if you don't like the idea in the first place.

And that's true of GM agenda and principles in a narrative game. Even if the game actually says "you must do this" ...no, you don't have to. And very few games actually say "you must do this." If you want an example of a game that does, apparently Synnibar said that GM's must run exactly by the adventure, the players may see the adventure afterwards, and if the GM deviated, the players got extra XP or something like that. That's a limitation on GM behavior.

==

* Which is something I've seen people claim, saying it means that parties use three low-level spells right away to get rid of those saves, thus legendary resistances are a bad rule.

OK, I think I follow.

I think part of the subtext for me is...why even bother writing a lot of this GM boundary stuff down though? I ignore a solid half to 2/3 of the material in the 2024 DMG already. I don't need it. A lot is overkill and mostly just slows the game down for me.

I also don't believe most DMs benefit from most of the pages in the core books (and the books from previous D&D versions after 1E, when the bloat really kicked into high gear) either, but I recognize that many don't see it the way I do.

I know anyone can choose to ignore or add whatever they want to, but at some point a book is long enough. Adding more spells, new magic items, new monsters or more detailed ancestries, maps, adventures, etc. -- I'll take more of that stuff all day long. That's the creative gold that gives me ideas, but I don't need more rules.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

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.

I know for a fact there are multiple regulars here that GM with the attitude of "My game is EXACTLY how I want it to be and if you don't like it you can leave". I think that many GMs still work with that train of thought.

And while I would t say they are bad GMs in any sort of factual sense...I would say that FOR ME, that experience would get a "bad" score.

And to be fair, I know quite a few regulars here would give ME the lowest marks for my games that only use the rules as a flimsy malleable framework on which to base a narrative experience.

There is no agreeing on what "bad" means from one individual to the next.

 

[Faolyn]

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 would need to be multiple scales. You can't have "really boring," "throws OP foes and traps and then laughs when the party dies," and "has the orcs gang-rape PCs" on the same chart.

 

[Faolyn]

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.

No, I meant some players (or GMs) that are horribly obnoxious or abusive at the table don't care.

Like, there's a difference between a spotlight hog who's just so eager to play their character that they don't realize they're not giving the others a chance, and one who literally doesn't care that the others don't get a chance because they, the spotlight hog, want the game to be all about them and their character. The former will probably be a bit embarrassed when they learn what they've been doing and will at least try to tone it down. The latter won't, at least not for any length of time, because they don't care about the players.

 

[kermit4karate]

No, I meant some players (or GMs) that are horribly obnoxious or abusive at the table don't care.

Like, there's a difference between a spotlight hog who's just so eager to play their character that they don't realize they're not giving the others a chance, and one who literally doesn't care that the others don't get a chance because they, the spotlight hog, want the game to be all about them and their character. The former will probably be a bit embarrassed when they learn what they've been doing and will at least try to tone it down. The latter won't, at least not for any length of time, because they don't care about the players.

For sure, some people are just tone deaf. I can usually forgive tone deafness when it comes from well-intentioned naivete, but when it's someone who simply doesn't give a crap about others, I won't deal with someone like that unless I have to.

 

[gban007]

OK, I think I follow.

I think part of the subtext for me is...why even bother writing a lot of this GM boundary stuff down though? I ignore a solid half to 2/3 of the material in the 2024 DMG already. I don't need it. A lot is overkill and mostly just slows the game down for me.

I also don't believe most DMs benefit from most of the pages in the core books (and the books from previous D&D versions after 1E, when the bloat really kicked into high gear) either, but I recognize that many don't see it the way I do.

I know anyone can choose to ignore or add whatever they want to, but at some point a book is long enough. Adding more spells, new magic items, new monsters or more detailed ancestries, maps, adventures, etc. -- I'll take more of that stuff all day long. That's the creative gold that gives me ideas, but I don't need more rules.

I think this highlights issue with DMG in general, that it sort of serves two purposes: 1. a guide to DMing which by its nature is best suited for people new to the system or even role playing in general ( and here i feel that even moving from 1e to 5e is basically still same system for an experienced DM).
2. Tools / info a DM needs to run the system, such as magic items, NPCs , encounter building etc.

To an experienced DM, the first part is pretty irrelevant, but for a new DM I think it is important.
Ultimately while I don't think likely to happen, I think the first part should be separated out into a shorter book almost like a DMing for dummies type book, leaving the DMG to be a DM toolkit with more magic items, optional rules etc.

As an example for me, trying to understand GURPs better as is one I struggle to understand but wqnt to potentially run one day (though new discworld rpg has lessened that a bit), I got GURPs for dummies to help break down the rules better for me, and I think better suited to be separate rather than expanding their rulebooks to try and do that detailed explanation.