D&D General The DM Shortage

[Warpiglet-7]

Neither. Both. It depends.

I think all those answers are true.

Well I think you are right.

3.e and such were pretty spelled out but I felt hassles and did not like DMing it.

Now I dm freely as I play. When everything is codified, there is more code (hello squad leader).

For me it has been about rubrics and close enough. However!

They could have done a better job explaining how fuzzy boundaries, stealth and skills can be handled. Some space but more examples would have suited me…

 

[overgeeked]

You don't have to have encyclopedic knowledge of the rules to run the game. If you have someone who knows the rules better you may choose to defer to them. Or you just screw up. Hardly the end of the world. No DM, no matter how experienced is perfect.

You know that and I know that. The players however, don't seem to know that. All of the players I've dealt with in 5E games expect nothing less than perfect rendition of the rules.

There are a ton of resource out there that I never had when I first started.

Yes, and there's also a ton of professional examples that people watch religiously and expect every rando DM to match right out of the gate.

Is it harder? Easier? I don't know. All I do know is that it's different.

It's definitely harder now because there are thousands of hours of game play run by professional DMs out there to compare every new DM to. Players have expectations now that they didn't back in the early days. Back then having a laugh, making Monty Python references, and bashing a few monsters was enough. Now if you're not a professional storyteller you might as well not bother. Every player comes into every game with a dozen or so page backstory for their character and they expect you to read it and incorporate it fully into your game. The game system itself is also wildly bloated and complex in comparison to what it was back then.

 

[pointofyou]

Well I think you are right.

3.e and such were pretty spelled out but I felt hassles and did not like DMing it.

Now I dm freely as I play. When everything is codified, there is more code (hello squad leader).

For me it has been about rubrics and close enough. However!

They could have done a better job explaining how fuzzy boundaries, stealth and skills can be handled. Some space but more examples would have suited me…

Some GMs will feel more comfortable with things spelled out. Some will feel comfortable with more space in the rules. Some GMs will want something things codified and other things not.

I never found 3e or its descendants all that hard to run because it was over-codified. That doesn't mean I never had problems of course.

 

[overgeeked]

Basic was probably easier.

Definitively easier. The whole of B/X Basic was 64-pages complete with specific procedures to follow in most cases. Whereas 5E is in excess of 988 pages without much guidance at all on how to run the game...which is kinda what this thread is about. The lack of guidance on how to DM and onboarding new DMs. If 5E were that easy to learn to run for a newb DM, this thread wouldn't exist.

I don't think AD&D was. 1e and 2e were just as poorly organized, but a hell of a lot more complicated, and gave the DM much less help with designing campaigns, settings, etc.

Compared to 5E? Running AD&D is a breeze. The organization of the books is terrible. That's absolutely true. But the books are also filled to the brim with info, guidance, charts, tables, procedures, etc. And 2E? Even easier because the books were better written and better organized...plus there was an entire line of books specifically about various DM-focused campaign needs. Some notable books include: Campaign Sourcebook and Catacomb Guide, Castle Guide, Castle Sites, City Sites, Complete Book of Villains, Country Sites, Creative Campaigning, Dungeon Builder's Guidebook, Monster Mythology, Of Ships and the Sea, Rogue's Gallery, Sages & Specialists, and the World Builder's Guidebook. Not to mention all the great settings and the historical-period books. Chances are if you wanted to run any kind of game in 2E there was a book for that.

I'd put the order of ease at Basic, 5e, 2e, 1e, and then 3e(the most fun, but also by far the most complicated). I don't know enough about 4e to rank it.

Mine would be, in order: OD&D, B/X, BECMI, RC, 2E, AD&D, 4E, and 5E. This is basically in order of publication because as time goes on the rules become more complicated and bloated. The only reason AD&D is "out of order" is because 2E is a cleanup of AD&D with wildly more support. I never touched 3E. Whatever people may think of 4E, it was a focused game that did what it was designed to do well.

4e is really easy to dm (compared to other editions) if you want tot run the type of game 4e is built for. Which is generally true of 4e overall: it does what it does really well, but people expect DnD to be a multi-tool.

Exactly.

4e's DMG is generally seen as one of the best at teaching you to dm. The way it teaches you to runn Skill Challenges is less praised, even by people who think the Skill Challenge system is the bee's knees.

Both 4E DMGs are fantastic. They're miles ahead of the 5E DMG. It's not even close.

 

[EpicureanDM]

Yes of course. WoTC can do a MUCH better job of helping new DMs. That is a current stated goal of 1D&D.

Sure, but are the guys in charge of 1D&D capable of designing products to help new DMs? Not from where I'm sitting.

 

[Mort]

You know that and I know that. The players however, don't seem to know that. All of the players I've dealt with in 5E games expect nothing less than perfect rendition of the rules.

All? really?

I've DMd and played 5e since it's inception. I've DMd and played with complete beginners to seasoned veterans of many editions. I've rarely encountered players who expected some kind of perfect fidelity to the rules - and when I have it was more of the typical "I want the rule interpreted this way because it benefits me..." that was quickly dealt with.

Yes, and there's also a ton of professional examples that people watch religiously and expect every rando DM to match right out of the gate.

Again, haven't seen that at all. People come to sessions and expect the same thing, I've always seen - a fun time throwing dice and having fun with each other and the world.

It's definitely harder now because there are thousands of hours of game play run by professional DMs out there to compare every new DM to. Players have expectations now that they didn't back in the early days. Back then having a laugh, making Monty Python references, and bashing a few monsters was enough. Now if you're not a professional storyteller you might as well not bother. Every player comes into every game with a dozen or so page backstory for their character and they expect you to read it and incorporate it fully into your game. The game system itself is also wildly bloated and complex in comparison to what it was back then.

Most of the players I play with can't even sit through a session of OTHERS playing D&D. They want to play not watch mediocre improv!

It is (or it should be) a completely different experience interacting with a table of players and PLAYING than watching a stream or whatever! Even the ones that do watch streams -they have a totally different experience playing and I just haven't seen any complaints!

 

[Bayushi_seikuro]

On the subject of AD&D being easier - and I hope I don't verge towards sounding like a system attack - but I think the organization is an issue, but I love my 1e DMG.

I think AD&D had an issue when it got into things like THAC0 primarily. A lot of us learned it at the hands of someone who already Knew, but I don't feel it was 'easier' for everyone. Positive-math against a target number seems infinitely easier, but I believe that that mechanic also has the advantage of being a newer game 'technology'. YMMV

 

[Malmuria]

Compared to 5E? Running AD&D is a breeze. The organization of the books is terrible. That's absolutely true. But the books are also filled to the brim with info, guidance, charts, tables, procedures, etc. And 2E? Even easier because the books were better written and better organized...plus there was an entire line of books specifically about various DM-focused campaign needs. Some notable books include: Campaign Sourcebook and Catacomb Guide, Castle Guide, Castle Sites, City Sites, Complete Book of Villains, Country Sites, Creative Campaigning, Dungeon Builder's Guidebook, Monster Mythology, Of Ships and the Sea, Rogue's Gallery, Sages & Specialists, and the World Builder's Guidebook. Not to mention all the great settings and the historical-period books. Chances are if you wanted to run any kind of game in 2E there was a book for that.

I agree that running b/x or rules cyclopedia is easier than 5e, but not sure about ad&d. The best thing I can say there is that the rules are so baroque that you end up forgetting them anyway. Like, what is the % chance that a dwarf wearing chainmail will be able to climb a slippery wall with a moderate amount of ledges and handholds? There's an actual answer to that, but it's more difficult than saying "disadvantage" and then rolling some dice. The secondary material for AD&D is indeed extensive, though if you consider all the 3pp stuff now for 5e plus stuff that's just online there's probably more. The blue and green book series for 2e are great though, some of my favorites

 

[overgeeked]

I agree that running b/x or rules cyclopedia is easier than 5e, but not sure about ad&d. The best thing I can say there is that the rules are so baroque that you end up forgetting them anyway.

Exactly. And that's definitely part of it. The players also don't want to deal with wading through all that old high Gygaxian either, so just go with whatever the DM says, which, more often than not, was a kitbash of AD&D and B/X anyway. Whereas now, the rules are readable and the players expect them to be followed...but they are still many and complex in places. So AD&D, as actually played, wins.

Like, what is the % chance that a dwarf wearing chainmail will be able to climb a slippery wall with a moderate amount of ledges and handholds? There's an actual answer to that, but it's more difficult than saying "disadvantage" and then rolling some dice.

Needing to know exactly what the books say about a particular edge case is a modern thing. It barely existed back in the day. Yes, we had rules lawyers, but they were nowhere near as ubiquitous as today. And they were mostly concerned with spells. We always did some version of +/-2 through +/-5 for d20 rolls and some version of +/-10 through +/-25 for d100 rolls. Keeps is simple and no rules look ups required.

The secondary material for AD&D is indeed extensive, though if you consider all the 3pp stuff now for 5e plus stuff that's just online there's probably more. The blue and green book series for 2e are great though, some of my favorites

The difference of course is one's official and one's not. If that matters. And it really, really does for some.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Exactly. And that's definitely part of it. The players also don't want to deal with wading through all that old high Gygaxian either, so just go with whatever the DM says, which, more often than not, was a kitbash of AD&D and B/X anyway. Whereas now, the rules are readable and the players expect them to be followed...but they are still many and complex in places. So AD&D, as actually played, wins.

Being so exhausting that people give up is a strat for boxing, not game design.