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

[Eric V]

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.

Maybe you can have one chart. The examples given are all examples of being bad at DMing; they might each have a different value (the last would have a greater negative value than the first...maybe), but they would all contribute to a negative experience.

 

[Eric V]

Being a bad DM =/= being a bad person. You have somehow added this idea that being a bad DM somehow only applies to people who are bad people.

Yeah, the level of semantic gymnastics going on here is absolutely astonishing. But again, given this thread, I suppose I should not be surprised. I just have to wonder just how self-serving these definitional gymnastics are. See, I have zero problem saying I was a bad DM. I was. I look back at the games I ran in high school and university and I can see just how bad I was. I am not ashamed of that.

I then took the time to read things like Dragon, and En World, and managed to have the very good luck to play under some really great DM's and learned a bunch. Heck, I learned a TON from the bad ones too - what not to do, usually. I can honestly say that I am a better DM now than I was twenty years ago. Twenty, thirty years ago, I was a terrible DM. That doesn't bother me. I was a terrible DM because I didn't know any better.

Why is being a bad DM a mark of shame? I will bet dollars to donuts that every single DM who is reading this was a terrible DM at some time in the past. It's no different than I used to be a terrible pool player. Or a terrible golfer. ((Ok, I'm STILL a terrible golfer)) Or any other hobby. Why is it somehow a bad thing to say that DM's are bad?

One needs a certain amount of self-reflective ability and modesty to look back and see one's faults...whether looking back 20 years or just last week. Like you, I was a bad DM back in high school, no doubts. Was fun still had? Most times, but that was in spite of my bad DMing.

Of course many DMs reading this were bad in the past; some probably still are but they're the only game in town so they still have a campaign going. There's absolutely no reason it should be a mark of shame, as you mention.

(BTW, I am also still a terrible golfer, but worse...I am not really sure how to proceed to get better; I practice a lot).

 

[Umbran]

Oh, I'm sorry for not using academically accurate language. Good grief.

It isn't about academically accurate language. It is about using language that suggests a point is backed with greater weight or authority than it deserves.

So, again, I will ask everyone reading this: Have you ever considered yourself a bad DM at any point in your career as a DM?

The first time I tried to run a game was, I admit, a complete and utter failure. As in, I could not get the group through the first combat. I couldn't find the freakin' To-Hit tables in the DMG, got flustered, and stormed away from the dining room table in frustration and humiliation leaving my friends there in stunned silence.

I was 12. My friends were counting on me, and I botched it. It was horrible.

Would calling me a "Bad DM" at that moment have been helpful? No. Nobody who had my best interests at heart would have called me a "Bad DM" at the time. Someone who cared about me would have talked to me about ways to handle my youthful frustration and embarrassment, and maybe told me about GM screens, rather than bother me with that label.

And it occurs to me that, as adults, calling people "bad DMs" won't hurt as much, but it is still exactly the wrong thing to do if you want to foster improvement - you don't insult people who you hope to help improve, even if that person is yourself.

So, why are we asking that question?

 

[Faolyn]

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?

It's not boundaries. Nor is it any sort of restriction. It's guidelines on how to GM that particular style of game.

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.

In Daggerheart, the GM Principles, Best Practices, and Pitfalls To Avoid take up a total of five pages, six if you include the chapter's intro page and the art. That's barely anything in a 400~ page book that also includes all the PC creation rules, gameplay rules, monsters, treasure, environments, and five different campaign frames. In D&D, which is divided into three different books (and doesn't even include environments or campaign frames), those few pages are nothing.

I ran my Level Up game last night and with it, use that game's standard of "to do something, make a roll for it," because that's how D&D-style games are played. What's the safest way to get back to the surface, away from prying eyes? Roll Int. Do I recognize what this type of magic would be? Roll Arcana. Are they telling the truth? Roll Insight. And that's fine. But that's not how Daggerheart is supposed to be played. You don't need to have the players roll for everything. Some things they can just know or do. It's important for Daggerheart GMs to know that. And at the same time, if I started gaming with Daggerheart or a PbtA game and went into D&D, it would be nice to know that I should have the players roll for things they wouldn't have to in those other games.

 

[Eric V]

So, why are we asking that question?

I guess because some people here think fewer than 3 out of every 100 DMs are bad...if one can't see they might be bad, they are less likely to try to improve.

 

[Hussar]

On the chef aspect, if you were to eat there first and then give a rating, that is one thing. But if you were to just give the rating without first eating the food, that'd be absurd. As I said in my post, rating a DM you've played with is fine, rating them as a community when you haven't, gets weird fast.

Maybe I missed it, but, who in this thread ever suggested that?

 

[Maxperson]

Being a bad DM =/= being a bad person. You have somehow added this idea that being a bad DM somehow only applies to people who are bad people.

Yeah, the level of semantic gymnastics going on here is absolutely astonishing. But again, given this thread, I suppose I should not be surprised. I just have to wonder just how self-serving these definitional gymnastics are. See, I have zero problem saying I was a bad DM. I was. I look back at the games I ran in high school and university and I can see just how bad I was. I am not ashamed of that.

I then took the time to read things like Dragon, and En World, and managed to have the very good luck to play under some really great DM's and learned a bunch. Heck, I learned a TON from the bad ones too - what not to do, usually. I can honestly say that I am a better DM now than I was twenty years ago. Twenty, thirty years ago, I was a terrible DM. That doesn't bother me. I was a terrible DM because I didn't know any better.

Why is being a bad DM a mark of shame? I will bet dollars to donuts that every single DM who is reading this was a terrible DM at some time in the past. It's no different than I used to be a terrible pool player. Or a terrible golfer. ((Ok, I'm STILL a terrible golfer)) Or any other hobby. Why is it somehow a bad thing to say that DM's are bad?

I made mistakes aplenty when I was starting out, but I've never been a bad DM. When I made a mistake, I learned from it and tried not to repeat it. In my opinion, someone who tries to improve their DMing in order to give the best play experience he can, will never be a bad DM.

 

[Hussar]

And it occurs to me that, as adults, calling people "bad DMs" won't hurt as much, but it is still exactly the wrong thing to do if you want to foster improvement - you don't insult people who you hope to help improve, even if that person is yourself.

Being called bad, when you yourself recognize that you are bad, is insulting?

Heck, being called bad at something is insulting? As in something that would seriously bother people? I'll admit that it's hardly complimentary, but, insulting? Seriously? I wonder if this isn't a cultural thing. Being bad at something is pretty standard for anyone starting out in a hobby - regardless of hobby. Since when is "bad" insulting? Then again, if you're taking the interpretation that bad="malicious jerk", then, I suppose I can see why that might be insulting.

So, why are we asking that question?

Well, the counter argument is that there are almost no bad DM's out there. That it's a TINY fraction of the hobby. That over 95% of DM's are average or better. Which I find a ridiculous assertion.

 

[Hussar]

I made mistakes aplenty when I was starting out,

Then you were, at the time, a bad DM. Just like me. We learned. We got better. We improved. But, if we were GOOD DM's, then we wouldn't need to improve and wouldn't make mistakes aplenty. Thus, we were bad. But, again, if your definition of bad is "malicious jerk" then sure, I imagine neither of us were bad by that definition. But, then again, I look at "mistakes aplenty" and say, "Yup, that's a bad DM."

That you got better is irrelevant.

 

[Cadence]

Then you were, at the time, a bad DM. Just like me. We learned. We got better. We improved. But, if we were GOOD DM's, then we wouldn't need to improve and wouldn't make mistakes aplenty. Thus, we were bad. But, again, if your definition of bad is "malicious jerk" then sure, I imagine neither of us were bad by that definition. But, then again, I look at "mistakes aplenty" and say, "Yup, that's a bad DM."

That you got better is irrelevant.

People who are good at things don't need to improve still !?!?!? Does your scale not include an amazing, fantastic, or even just very good too?