D&D General The DM Shortage

[Velderan]

"And you know what: we had an amazing time. We played that game for years. The reason I say you can do this is coz I want you to know that roleplaying is great fun to do it badly. That's how good this hobby is."

Exactly. Calm down. Stop sweating the rules, they don't matter. Just play. It's a blast. Get out of your own way, stop pretending that everything has to be perfect or by the book and just throw some dice.

Session 0 rule I put out for my table before I DM: I 100% will mess up a rule and I'm completely cool with giving you a quick "well actually..." to correct me. Anything beyond a quick correction risks derailing the game and we're going to just go with what I said and we'll circle back after the game to debate the rule for future sessions. Only exception is if my ruling more or less immediately leads to your death, then we can make sure we got it right.

Never had a player say that's not fair.

 

[Oofta]

This. 5E is only easier that everything follows a simple add things together and compare.

All the different sub classes and spell sets and special abilities and feats etc etc etc is so much MORE than AD&D.

The most bloat and crunch is still 3rd Ed though IMO. The reason I’d probably never DM it again.

See, I found 4E to be the hardest to DM. There wasn't necessarily a pattern to powers for PCs or monsters, each power was unique and special. I had players in LFR (public game) that just outright cheated and lied about what their powers did and then when called out on it just claim they "misread". Trying to run monsters could be just as bad since many of them could do just about anything. You really had to study the powers in order to understand them.

So, while 5E has more than AD&D, you don't need to know all of it. Especially at lower levels there isn't that much variance. If someone doesn't know how their PC works, it's not the DM's job to tell them. It's annoying if someone shows up completely unprepared, but it's the player, not the DM's or the game's, fault. If I had brand new players I'd run through a session 0 and go step by step, even if that meant cracking open the PHB and reading it together.

 

[Oofta]

Session 0 rule I put out for my table before I DM: I 100% will mess up a rule and I'm completely cool with giving you a quick "well actually..." to correct me. Anything beyond a quick correction risks derailing the game and we're going to just go with what I said and we'll circle back after the game to debate the rule for future sessions. Only exception is if my ruling more or less immediately leads to your death, then we can make sure we got it right.

Never had a player say that's not fair.

Same here. If it's quick, we'll talk. If it takes more than a moment or two we can chat after the game. Same as every DM, shutting down rules lawyers is sadly part of the gig.

 

[overgeeked]

Right. So the old games were "better" because people didn't bother wading through the rules because they were a nightmare and just ignored stuff that didn't work. Basically it was easier because groups kind of made it up as they went along. I'm not disagreeing, I'm saying that I don't see how it's better.

Because it's easier. That's what makes it better. The entire game is a protracted version of "make it up" and "what sounds fun." All the stuff people sweat about getting right in the books just gets in the way of that.

But after you get a bit of experience I would assume most DMs learn the value of "no", I know I did.

Right. Despite the books and the bulk of online advice being to always say yes. You have to ignore the books to run a successful game. Isn't that wild?

If the DM makes up the game as they go along (either because they can't understand the rules or don't have a firm grasp but probably get 80% of it right), I don't see how it makes a difference.

Because it's faster, has fewer steps, and there's less second guessing.

I guess you never had people in older editions that argued with you how things should work. You were lucky.

I've had players question calls I make. Of course I have. I've never had players argue about a call I've made...until 5E.

 

[overgeeked]

Session 0 rule I put out for my table before I DM: I 100% will mess up a rule and I'm completely cool with giving you a quick "well actually..." to correct me. Anything beyond a quick correction risks derailing the game and we're going to just go with what I said and we'll circle back after the game to debate the rule for future sessions. Only exception is if my ruling more or less immediately leads to your death, then we can make sure we got it right.

Never had a player say that's not fair.

I have. The bulk of 5E players I've run for seem to think the RAW is some kind of holy computer code that must be run precisely and perfectly or else they blow a gasket. I've had players rage quit over less. Legit never saw that until 5E.

 

[Velderan]

I have. The bulk of 5E players I've run for seem to think the RAW is some kind of holy computer code that must be run precisely and perfectly or else they blow a gasket. I've had players rage quit over less. Legit never saw that until 5E.

I'd guess those are the types of players who spend a lot of time analyzing character builds to figure out what puts out the most damage per round?

 

[pointofyou]

I'd guess those are the types of players who spend a lot of time analyzing character builds to figure out what puts out the most damage per round?

I'd expect the greater problem was that they were players who dared to learn the rules and expect the game to be played by them.

 

[Velderan]

I'd expect the greater problem was that they were players who dared to learn the rules and expect the game to be played by them.

Either you're not following the conversation or you're making a bad faith comment to pick an argument because it was clearly pointed out a clarification would be no problem..

 

[pointofyou]

Either you're not following the conversation or you're making a bad faith comment to pick an argument because it was clearly pointed out a clarification would be no problem..

I'm commenting on your interlocutor's attitudes toward players and rules.

 

[Oofta]

Because it's easier. That's what makes it better. The entire game is a protracted version of "make it up" and "what sounds fun." All the stuff people sweat about getting right in the books just gets in the way of that.

Right. Despite the books and the bulk of online advice being to always say yes. You have to ignore the books to run a successful game. Isn't that wild?

Because it's faster, has fewer steps, and there's less second guessing.

I've had players question calls I make. Of course I have. I've never had players argue about a call I've made...until 5E.

It's funny how some people are saying that 5E is harder to run than old editions because there are more rules - or at least rules that people use. Meanwhile on other threads we hear constant complaints about there not being enough rules. There's no way to make everyone happy, there will always be compromise.

If people want to play OSR games, good for them. I'll keep my consistent reasonable rules that, while overly verbose at times, actually make sense for the most part. If I have people argue with me about rulings (which has happened in every edition) I just let them ramble for a few moments, ask them if they're done and then make a decision. If they can't handle the DM making a call they can find the door. The game moves along just fine for me.

I've never seen a difference between editions in any private or public game. The DM makes the call and the game moves on. If someone argues they can either accept the ruling or find a different DM. Your experience is far from universal.