D&D General The DM Shortage

[Clint_L]

What evidence is there that there is a DM shortage? I haven't seen it. WotC cites about 1 DM for every 5 players, which is what you would want. Has the underlying premise of this thread been established?

I imagine that, if anything, what we will see as D&D slows down (which appears to be happening) is a player shortage, since DMs have the most invested and will be last off the ship, by and large.

 

[tetrasodium]

The "RAW is holy writ" thing did start in 3e, in my experience. The factors that led to it's inception are quite interesting, and I wish I had the patience to do some detailed research- it seems like the kind of information that would be important for posterity.

Simply put, as near as I can tell, it resulted from a combination of factors, the most notably being the internet and WotC forums. Previously, one player's contact with others was limited to chance encounters or going to a convention- most gaming groups in a given geographical area seemed to have very similar views of the rules and how they worked (or didn't).

DM fiat was a huge deal in the AD&D era, especially, where you had to do some deep diving to find some rules buried in the text, and even once you knew about them, you might balk at applying them.

I used to play a fun game with other AD&D players where I would bring up a rule that totally exists and have them argue with me that no such rule ever existed. Then, once I proved it to them, they would just mutter something about how "we didn't play it that way".

(My personal favorite was found in the saving throws section of the 2e PHB, where it allowed you to add your armor's magical bonus to saving throws, which I'll put here).

View attachment 269529
But suddenly, many players and DM's were on forums, talking about the new edition. When discussing the game, it was quickly realized that having a discussion where everyone is using their house rules was usually a non-starter, so it became convenient to discuss the rules as written. But even more, this is where people really started to compare notes about the (ab)uses of DM fiat in the AD&D era. Nightmare DM stories proved quite popular, and many players started to realize that their DM's would often substitute the rules of the game for their own whims, and in the hands of some DM's, this created a miserable experience.

And so players started to demand that the DM play by the rules, so that things would be "fair" (whether or not this led to actual fairness I can't say- as was eventually determined, WotC's rules could lead to some very broken situations). Players could point towards encounter design guidelines, encounters per day, xp guidelines, and wealth guidelines, as well as the fact that some kind of magic items were assumed by the game, and would pressure their DM's to not deny them things the game itself was telling them they should have.

The fact that even monsters now generally had to follow the same rules as characters was the start of a "transparency era", where players felt entitled to knowing how things in the game worked, especially given the descriptions for knowledge checks.

Some old school DMing strategies became reviled, such as low magic campaigns, denying players information about things in the game world, and the "plot railroad".

A general sense of "if the DM follows the guidelines, the game will function just fine" came about, to the point that if you, as a DM, went to an online forum looking for advice, the very first response you'd get would very likely be "are you following the wealth by level guidelines?"

When 4e was created, the developers doubled down on this transparency, making sure to tell DM's that it was better to not keep players in the dark about how things worked, as it let them make more meaningful decisions.

Now, at no point did the DM ever lose their power of fiat; in fact, every game usually had a fairly extensive list of houserules. But some DM's did, in fact, balk at the idea that a Fighter would be expected to have a +1 sword by level 2 or 3 (and that the game's math was built around this assumption). Or that players could make their own magic items. Or that players could make a DC 20 Knowledge check and know pertinent information about a monster they were fighting.

I'm not going to weigh in on which approach is better, though I have my preference. While the new approach tended to avoid "gotcha" moments, which I've never cared for as a player or DM, many DM's did, in fact, feel like they had lost control of the game. It used to be that you accepted the DM's rulings or you didn't play D&D.

Suddenly, it felt like that was inverted- that unless the DM had the players' trust, they would revolt.

I basically or strongly agree with pretty much all of this but that bold bit at the end is why the GM requires areas within the rules that favor them deeply & areas that provide things that the gm can offer in exchange for control. 3.x still had some but they went away by 5e

 

[Maxperson]

Ah. Another mark in the “good thing I skipped 3X” column then. Sounds like it would have made me rage quit. Coming from AD&D to 4E to 5E, things look a bit different. 4E had more rules and minutiae, for sure, but not so much with the rules nitpicky lawyering.

Yeah. It really wasn't for some people. It's my favorite edition only because of how you could achieve virtually any character concept you could come up with exactly or nearly exactly. The sheer number of skills, feats, classes and prestige classes made that possible. It also allowed power gaming to get excessive, but if your group didn't play that way it was very much a boon.

 

[pointofyou]

Well there's a difference between players who know the rules and players who optimize by finding every niche rules interaction (coffeelock, etc). The former are great to have at the table: they make dming easier because they can step in if a DM doesn't know a rule. The latter making dming (and playing) a bit of a chore, IMO.

I think there is perhaps less willingness to abuse the rules as a player if you're going to be a GM soon. Obviously having a long-standing group isn't a universal experience but it might go some way toward explaining why I've never seen the bad behaviors I see attributed to players so often here.

 

[Reynard]

What evidence is there that there is a DM shortage? I haven't seen it.

Some people are definitely seeing it. O think someone uptrend pointed out that it isn't likely a evenly distributed thing. Some areas and communities will have different GM to player ratios, and if those ratios get higher than 5:1 I think you'll see GMs start to curate their players and keep their groups of reasonable size.

I would actually love to see some GM and player demographics by region (including internationally). It would be super interesting. I doubt even WotC has that kind of data except maybe in Beyond users, which won't be representative.

 

[Cadence]

In all my years of playing I've had 1 killer DM. They ran exactly 1 game, it just wasn't fun for any of the players.

One of my favorite games of all time was 1e and had between 6 and 16 people show up each night, and about half the first level characters would die. It was amazing when my elven cleric was set to retire after that nights adventure... and then the vampire touched him and the lich teleported behind us and let off the lightning bolt. :-( <- I had to go home for bed-time and a friend related the info to me the next day.

That was less insta-death than when my gourmand cleric found a copy of the Necronomicon and stopped reading. I might have actually made my first saving throw before eventually having my soul eaten.

Shared expectations and a good group to play with seem really important.

 

[James Gasik]

I basically or strongly agree with pretty much all of this but that bold bit at the end is why the GM requires areas within the rules that favor them deeply & areas that provide things that the gm can offer in exchange for control. 3.x still had some but they went away by 5e

I don't know. I don't believe that building DM controls into the rules is the way to go. Even if it's part of the game's rules, if the players feel like the DM is abusing their power, they're going to go find another game. And it's not like there's a shortage of options.

I work very hard to let my players understand I'm not "out to get them". I roll dice openly- no crits behind the screen here. I give them every last xp and gp they are entitled to, based on the challenges faced (though I don't even use xp anymore preferring to use regular milestone leveling).

I don't use "gotcha" monsters or traps; there was always a chance to know what they were dealing with, or to avoid it entirely. I don't create encounters tailored to exploit a weakness of one character, and I try to design encounters so that everyone can contribute equally.

If a player wants to do something thematic and cool, like be a "frost wizard", I'll let them have cold-based versions of spells like fireball, and I won't ever force them on an adventure with cold immune enemies.

I use a lot of consumables in treasure, including ones I know will come in handy in future sessions. This doesn't always work out, but at least I know the players had the right tools at hand for the challenge.

Given the vast narrative power over the game a DM has without ever stepping outside of it's guidelines, I've never felt that I wasn't empowered. If anything, I sometimes felt I had too much power. To paraphrase Uncle Ben,

With great power comes even greater responsibility.

As to whether or not there is a DM shortage...no, I don't think there is. There are certainly far more DM's now than in the AD&D era. What I do think, however, is the following:

*There are far many more distractions now for players and DM's. Computer games and media are readily available to scratch an itch, and so games have to be a great deal of fun to lure people into playing them over games like League of Legends or Elden Ring.

*Older gamers have learned the price of adulting- getting together a group of people to game regularly can seem nigh-impossible with the pressures of work, kids, school, and other obligations.

*Face to face gaming has suffered because of this, the "global situation" of the past few years, and the rise of many ways to play online, which are getting better all the time. My friends have talked me into purchasing TaleSpire for my PC, but I still would rather game in person, and I especially don't want to DM online (it just doesn't feel the same to me). Which has greatly affected my gaming.

*As a corollary to the first point, there's a plethora of gaming content online that looks amazing to players, and if they're going to play D&D, they want that kind of experience. I can't blame them, but it's unrealistic for a lot of reasons. But that's the kind of thing some of us have to compete with.

*All of these things are daunting experienced DM's- now imagine all that for a newbie who wants to tell the kinds of stories Matt Mercer does. Having set an impossible goal for themselves, it's no wonder they are easily discouraged.

Bottom line, the game can't exist without Dungeonmasters. If the game is to survive, if you are unwilling to print DM-facing content to help them run various kinds of games because it doesn't sell, then how about putting a playlist of content in the DMG for new DM's to help them?

Not Critical Role, or whatever is popular, but actual DM advice- either produced by your staff, or at least vetted by them. There's a lot of DM advice online right now, but the quality can vary immensely, and what's popular seems to have more to do with entertainment value or the popularity of the content creator, than the content itself.

 

[Velderan]

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

My comment was more about the type of player who seems to think D&D is a game you're playing to win. If the player knows the rule and can quickly point out what the DM is getting wrong, there's no problem. It's when they're so focused on "I must win" that they're going to drag a rules debate into a complete session derail that I'd have a problem. I've never personally experienced it at my table, I've observed players like that a few times at other tables when I've gone to my FLGS for AL night and 100% of the time it's been a player like I've described.

 

[James Gasik]

My comment was more about the type of player who seems to think D&D is a game you're playing to win. If the player knows the rule and can quickly point out what the DM is getting wrong, there's no problem. It's when they're so focused on "I must win" that they're going to drag a rules debate into a complete session derail that I'd have a problem. I've never personally experienced it at my table, I've observed players like that a few times at other tables when I've gone to my FLGS for AL night and 100% of the time it's been a player like I've described.

Ugh, it's part of the reason I stopped playing AL. The players would get so competitive that every ruling I made, they'd be scouring the intrawebs, trying to find a tweet or something to put me in my place. Some DM empowerment- why not make the rules rock solid in the first place, rather than make them subject to interpretation, then plaster your interpretation on Twitter?

Though when they started reading the adventure and complaining when I'd change something (despite being specifically allowed to do that in AL), I drew the line. No more public play for me!

 

[tetrasodium]

I don't know. I don't believe that building DM controls into the rules is the way to go. Even if it's part of the game's rules, if the players feel like the DM is abusing their power, they're going to go find another game. And it's not like there's a shortage of options.

I work very hard to let my players understand I'm not "out to get them". I roll dice openly- no crits behind the screen here. I give them every last xp and gp they are entitled to, based on the challenges faced (though I don't even use xp anymore preferring to use regular milestone leveling).

I don't use "gotcha" monsters or traps; there was always a chance to know what they were dealing with, or to avoid it entirely. I don't create encounters tailored to exploit a weakness of one character, and I try to design encounters so that everyone can contribute equally.

If a player wants to do something thematic and cool, like be a "frost wizard", I'll let them have cold-based versions of spells like fireball, and I won't ever force them on an adventure with cold immune enemies.

I use a lot of consumables in treasure, including ones I know will come in handy in future sessions. This doesn't always work out, but at least I know the players had the right tools at hand for the challenge.

Given the vast narrative power over the game a DM has without ever stepping outside of it's guidelines, I've never felt that I wasn't empowered. If anything, I sometimes felt I had too much power. To paraphrase Uncle Ben,

With great power comes even greater responsibility.

As to whether or not there is a DM shortage...no, I don't think there is. There are certainly far more DM's now than in the AD&D era. What I do think, however, is the following:

*There are far many more distractions now for players and DM's. Computer games and media are readily available to scratch an itch, and so games have to be a great deal of fun to lure people into playing them over games like League of Legends or Elden Ring.

*Older gamers have learned the price of adulting- getting together a group of people to game regularly can seem nigh-impossible with the pressures of work, kids, school, and other obligations.

*Face to face gaming has suffered because of this, the "global situation" of the past few years, and the rise of many ways to play online, which are getting better all the time. My friends have talked me into purchasing TaleSpire for my PC, but I still would rather game in person, and I especially don't want to DM online (it just doesn't feel the same to me). Which has greatly affected my gaming.

*As a corollary to the first point, there's a plethora of gaming content online that looks amazing to players, and if they're going to play D&D, they want that kind of experience. I can't blame them, but it's unrealistic for a lot of reasons. But that's the kind of thing some of us have to compete with.

*All of these things are daunting experienced DM's- now imagine all that for a newbie who wants to tell the kinds of stories Matt Mercer does. Having set an impossible goal for themselves, it's no wonder they are easily discouraged.

Bottom line, the game can't exist without Dungeonmasters. If the game is to survive, if you are unwilling to print DM-facing content to help them run various kinds of games because it doesn't sell, then how about putting a playlist of content in the DMG for new DM's to help them?

Not Critical Role, or whatever is popular, but actual DM advice- either produced by your staff, or at least vetted by them. There's a lot of DM advice online right now, but the quality can vary immensely, and what's popular seems to have more to do with entertainment value or the popularity of the content creator, than the content itself.

Having areas that the players don't feel guaranteed to win/succeed without cost or risk is a pretty important factor in providing challenges & creating stories that don't make the players feel like the gm is abusing their power though. Take the dc neg10 to 43 chart in the 3.x DMG as an example... the fact that the DCs went up to such an extreme laser focused situation that came with notable opportunity costs along the way to reaching such peak was both pretty unlikely outside of a level20 oneshot is pretty dramatic.

Now today it goes up to 30 & it's possible to hit that with a much lower cost at a much lower level with much better odds making a level 9 who rolls a 23 on a10 or 12 feel like they were cheated rather than just not ready to ace that very hard/nearly impossible with ease. It's the difference between "I thought about putting a few more ranks in basketweaving but I'm glad to have them in x&y" vrs "deciding they've been cheated & losing trust or thinking to drag a rules debate towards a complete session derail"... The GM can't say "well it's raining & the surface was mossy & the hailstones are crunching under your feet and the guards are already on alert because of xyz plus this is the high lord lich's first commander's inner sanctum crawling with $dangerousMonsters" or whatever because advantage & disadvantage don't stack + simply cancel with no monsters being dangerous.


I'm all for being champion for my players to be awesome & love to do it, but awesome just burns out if it's the only setting possible without becoming adversarial & losing trust like you phrased it.