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

[kermit4karate]

I would happily play in a game run under my principles of GMing. There is nothing I want in an RPG that I would see as an issue personally on either side of the screen.

Here here! Huzzah! Me too 100%. The care I know I put into it and the genuine desire I have for everyone at the table to have fun and really get jazzed and get into it -- I love finding GMs who put that kind of care into their own games, and there are definitely tons of other DMs who do that. Sometimes from the comments here I'm literally blown away by the number of bad experiences people have because that does not mirror my experience. I go into it wanting to have a good time, and that's almost always what I get out.

I'm fine with DMs that aren't perfect because I'm imperfect too. I couldn't care less about it really. Do they care about creating something special? Are they trying to bring everyone along? Am I losing myself in the moment from time to time? Do I laugh? Am I having a good time? If so that's awesome! Every game is different. Every session is different. Every table is different. Lightning doesn't have to strike the same way twice. If it strikes at all that's perfect.

 

[kermit4karate]

I cannot fathom hard locking most D&D worlds. Part of the enjoyment of the game is discovering new species and monsters. I would hate to shackle my world to "Only the stuff in the core rulebooks exist. Nothing else" for example.

I'd even go further and suggest that it's essential to introduce new species and monsters. I mean seriously, what kind of sense does it make for a group of 1st-level characters to have every feature and tendency of every rare and uncommon creature in their world memorized??

Makes no sense to me at all. One of the MAIN reasons I introduce homebrew magic items, monsters, races, places and everything else is because THAT's more like real life. If you dropped one of us at 20 years old into the Forgotten Realms without Google and YouTube, no email, internet, radio or cell phones (heck, or the printing press), how the hell would we know everything there is to know about trolls and dragons??

 

[Lanefan]

My rule of thumb when I DM is to ask myself "would I want to play under me if I was a player?"

Well, yes, because I (and, I suspect, many DMs) tend to run the game I'd like someone else to run so I could play in it.

I find that focus guides me out of a lot of pitfalls and it steels my spine when it needs it. To me, a DM should always keep their players in mind when designing. To many DMs are married to the concept in their heads rather than the joy to the players. Kinda like throwing a party and only ordering the food you like regardless of your guests preferences and restrictions. Most of the time, you're probably going find enough common ground that people will be able to eat, but if one of your friends is vegan and your not offering anything they can eat (and then telling them if they don't like the food, don't come to the party) I seriously question how much of a friend you really are.

There's a bit of a difference between a one-off party (or a one-off game, for all that) and an open-ended potentially long-term campaign. For a one-off, far fewer restrictions and open to all. For a long-term campaign, more restrictions and a much more curated invite list.

 

[Lanefan]

I'd even go further and suggest that it's essential to introduce new species and monsters.

Oh, absolutely. Just not as PC-playables, which is where the original point began.

 

[Hussar]

I don't really trust polls on here, but there is a difference between "I don't like the campaign the DM is running" or something like "the DM's game was boring" and "the DM was abusively using their power".

I agree there are bad GMs. Changing the text in the books is never going to significantly impact on the personality of the GM that is going to abuse the ability to make the final call.

That wasn't the question I asked of the poll though. It wasn't "I don't like the campaign" but rather, "I consider the DM's I've had to be good/bad".

And there is a very strong current of opinion that problems at the table are rarely the DM's fault. That somehow becoming a DM means that you stop being a jerk at the table. If 30% of players (or whatever percentage) are bad, then so are DM's. It's just math. The idea that DM's are, as a group, good, and that most table problems are because of players is a pervasive bias that you see all the time. Heck, it's in this thread repeatedly.

 

[Hussar]

was it this one?

Thread 'In Your Experience: How Good are GM's?'

Sep 7, 2010

I'm always very interested in the different experiences that gamers have. I find it very eye opening that we all have such very varied experiences and I think it shines light on why people hold the opinions that they do. I honestly think that a lot of the points of view that people hold have much more to do with how they've interacted with a given game (the people they've played with, age, etc.) than with the game itself.

So, with that in mind, what has been your experience with GM's? Mine has been, up until very lately, almost always bad. Thinking back over the past fifteen years or...

• Hussar
• Replies: 124
• Forum: *TTRPGs General

Thank you very much. I'd been hunting for that damn thread for years and I could never find it.

 

[Hussar]

all it took was one search, Search for: GM (thread titles only: on), From: Hussar, and it was the only result

Sigh. It never occured to me to use the Search Forums feature. I tried using Google. Well, I learned something today. Thanks.

 

[kermit4karate]

That wasn't the question I asked of the poll though. It wasn't "I don't like the campaign" but rather, "I consider the DM's I've had to be good/bad".

And there is a very strong current of opinion that problems at the table are rarely the DM's fault. That somehow becoming a DM means that you stop being a jerk at the table. If 30% of players (or whatever percentage) are bad, then so are DM's. It's just math. The idea that DM's are, as a group, good, and that most table problems are because of players is a pervasive bias that you see all the time. Heck, it's in this thread repeatedly.

Well...I mentioned elsewhere on this thread, but I personally do feel that players are more often "the problem" than DMs. I know that's the reverse take that some folks on this thread have, but I think it's true.

Reason is because as I previously stated, DMs generally have more experience at the game and certainly have a different role, different responsibilities, more info about the campaign. Sometimes new players have almost no idea what they're doing. I don't hold it against them but it's true. At best, the really new ones bog things down. At worst, they're unteachable.

As a guess I'd say I've seen 10 times as many disruptive players in my time than I've seen bad DMs. No comparison really.

 

[AlViking]

That wasn't the question I asked of the poll though. It wasn't "I don't like the campaign" but rather, "I consider the DM's I've had to be good/bad".

And there is a very strong current of opinion that problems at the table are rarely the DM's fault. That somehow becoming a DM means that you stop being a jerk at the table. If 30% of players (or whatever percentage) are bad, then so are DM's. It's just math. The idea that DM's are, as a group, good, and that most table problems are because of players is a pervasive bias that you see all the time. Heck, it's in this thread repeatedly.

As I said, I wouldn't rate all but a couple of DMs I've gad over decades of play as truly bad. I find it hard to believe that when out of dozens (likely a hundred or more) DMs I've had over the years I would only rank literally 2 DMs as truly bad that my experience is some kind of an anomaly. The logical conclusion is that different people have different criteria.

I've been told I'm a bad DM because I don’t run a collaborative game, because I limit races, just to mention a few. Yet I've also been told by my players that I'm a good DM and I have no problem retaining players. Based on what I've been told and the reactions of the people at my table I'm confident I'm a good DM.

But there will always be those handful of players where I wasn't the right DM for them. Would the guy who wanted to "explore his dark side" when I don't allow evil characters call me a bad DM? Maybe.

So I disagree in the sense that based on a reasonably large sample size I do not believe very many DMs are objectively bad. I think a significant portion of players define "bad" differently than I do and some have just been incredibly unlucky and are not representative of the majority of people that play the game. If 25% of DMs were truly bad I see no way the game would be as popular as it is today.

 

[Umbran]

Sure, but I'm replying to someone who wants to apply this idea of hard rules for GMs to D&D and similar games. I disagree.

As previously noted, I can see the point for D&D, but only because that game holds an absolutely unique position in the market that makes some forms of experimentation or innovation difficult to do well.

But, that doesn't hold for any other game, and similarity to D&D should not be considered an obstacle. If they have inspiration to try something, I say they should go for it!