D&D General The DM Shortage

[Maxperson]

I opened a game this Christmas, I don't remember which one*, and it said "reading the directions is the worst way to learn how to play a game follow this link to a video explaining the game."

I prefer the written word, but I know that I am in the minority. I coach high school American football and track & field. I have a large collection of coaching books, but most are over ten years old. Why? Because everything is on video these days, and reps tell me the books just do not sell very well.

Did it at least also come with a rulebook?

 

[Mort]

I don't normally see any class particularly dominate the game, especially at low levels which is where the vast majority of games happen and where DMs start out. I haven't observed young DMs particularly favouring magic over other options. In looking at their campaign rosters, there is a very good balance of character classes. In a nutshell, I don't think magic (or wizards) contributes to any "DM shortage" (alleged; it's also something that I haven't observed nor is supported by what demographics we do have for the game).

According to WotC, about 1 in 5 players is also a DM. That seems about right, and I suspect that number is a little baked into the game. You can certainly find ways to make DMing more accessible, but ultimately I think the percentage of DMs to players is very similar to the ratio of really passionate D&D fans to more casual fans. To be a DM, you have to be really into this game, and if you are that into the game, you are likely start wanting to build your own stories in it. Over almost a lifetime of playing D&D, I would say that 1 in 5 seems like about the right number for the truly hardcore.

Edit: As I posted earlier, I think that we are starting to experience a contraction in the game (inevitable, after its incredible expansion in recent years) and the first to go will be the more casual...i.e. not DMs. So I worry a lot more about a shortage of players, not a shortage of DMs.

Judging by the HUGE interest of D&D clubs in this area (school, library, etc.) I suspect there will be no shortage of players.

On the other hand, Its happened TWICE now (with my son) where he joined the game as a player but had to step in as DM when the DM quite less than halfway through (one time mid session, they're teenagers). DMing is a different passion and a different skill set from playing.

 

[James Gasik]

Apparently you don't, given your response.

It literally does just that. And just in case you didn't play 4E or have forgotten, it had both encounter and daily resources.

Only if you refuse to increase the difficulty of the combat.

Most campaigns don't last long enough for higher level spells to matter. You could make the same pointless argument about wish.

I'm saying that less combats, even if harder, still need to afford a caster an opportunity to use all their spells. More Difficult does not necessarily mean "significantly longer".

If I have two setpiece battles in a given day, then they have to last 9 rounds for a 5th level full caster to have the opportunity to use all their spell slots in combat. And even then, if they use spells that require concentration, they might not be able to cast a leveled spell each turn. For example, if the Wizard drops Sleet Storm in round one, they can only use spells that lack concentration for the rest of the combat, unless they lose that concentration.

And we're not even getting into circumstances of combat that prevent someone from casting, like being unconscious or affected by a debuff.

And the higher level the caster, the longer these fights need to be.

EDIT: and this is without taking 1 hour long rests into account, when some spellcasters, like the Wizard, also have Arcane Recovery to work with.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't think there are enough skills for either. My average table tends to be in the 4-6 player range with each player getting about 4 skills or more. 5e has a total of

Spoiler: 18 skills

Strength

• Athletics

Dexterity

• Acrobatics
• Sleight of Hand
• Stealth

Intelligence

• Arcana
• History
• Investigation
• Nature
• Religion

Wisdom

• Animal Handling
• Insight
• Medicine
• Perception
• Survival

Charisma

• Deception
• Intimidation
• Performance
• Persuasion

Right off the bat almost any given PC & probably the group can dump athletics acrobatics or both with no cost bringing that down to 16. Then You've got the C tier skills like sleight of hand animal handling nature & possibly history nature and/or religion . All the group really needs is perception arcana stealth a social skill & maybe stealth/insight but that's a small enough pool where almost any one player can have all of it making it a thing that all but the smallest groups are going to have even without trying to coordinate.

With so much leeway there's no loss if bob is forced to do without due to duplication, but even that doesn't happen.
Take this example:

• Bob's class gives him an option to pick two from A B C D & E (he picks A &B because C D & E is pointless to him for whatever reason*)
• Bob's race gives a choice of 2 between D E& Q
  • Bob would never pick any of those and has no interest in them so they were never actually in conflict simply by being offered by two sources
• Under the current rules Bob picks the S tier skills of α & Σ from race even though none of those were options & he was never out of choices he could choose instead. Bob can still pick from C D &Q despite already haven chosen A & B

The rule as it exists has no reason to exist because there is no conflict. All but the smallest group is almost certain to have every skill they might need from a too small pool of possible choices & the smallest groups should be given a rule of their own rather than overly condensing the entire skill system for all groups. To answer the question though, it depends on what is done with the skill system & DC ladder. If the skill system is reinflated to something like the old 50+skill array then it wouldn't matter as much if the current rule remained but the DC ladder still keeps it problematic even with expertise to split experts from dabblers. With2-6 prof bonus & proficient skills getting 5+prof+d20 expertise is simply too much for a system still wed to bounded accuracy with "very easy" dc5 to "impossible" dc30 to have anyone getting 5+prof+prof+d20 on one or more skills unless the GM is given back something like the old DC-10 to DCforty three DC ladder to accommodate PC's getting d20+13 d20+15 or d20+17. If something like both of those changes are made it might not matter if players are given a choice between wide & shallow or narrow & skilled as long as choosing the expertise consumes the second choice so bob could pick A &C from class & expertise in C+mere proficient in Q or α while Alice might choose A&B+Σ & α.

*F tier skills, linked to dumpstat, clash with build, whatever
α that's an "alpha" symbol
Σ That's a "sigma" symbol

I added a few skills. Engineering/Technology, Culture and Science (from the upcoming Voidrunner's Handbook) from Level Up, and Data (a computer skill).

 

[overgeeked]

I'm saying that less combats, even if harder, still need to afford a caster an opportunity to use all their spells. More Difficult does not necessarily mean "significantly longer".

The game is designed around 6-8 medium encounters per adventuring day. That's the equivalent to 3-4 deadly encounters per day. The difference between a medium and deadly encounter is almost exactly 2x the hit points and 2x the enemies...which directly correlates to a longer fight. One deadly encounter will last roughly 2x as long as a medium encounter specifically because the doubled hp and opponents. It will take about 2x the number of rounds to grind through those hp and 2x as many resources to do so...because the PCs resources are static compared to the monsters' now higher stats. That's literally what those numbers represent.

And the higher level the caster, the longer these fights need to be.

Yes, which is why monster stats scale up with PCs' levels, in the case of hit points sometimes astronomically, and this is also why there are legendary actions and legendary resistances, to burn through more PC resources. Using harder fights, deadly instead of medium, etc accomplishes that. As I said above.

EDIT: and this is without taking 1 hour long rests into account, when some spellcasters, like the Wizard, also have Arcane Recovery to work with.

Yes, this tangent is about Epic Heroism, so a one-hour long rest is key. That's literally the point of the optional rule you said didn't exist. The adventuring day is a pacing mechanic. Long rests are a pacing mechanic. So when you condense the long rest to one hour...you also have to condense the adventuring day to fit between those long rests. Instead of fighting against the players desire for constant long rests that wreck game balance, you lean into that and adjust the game mechanics to match. So, one-hour long rests...but instead of pure steamrolling every encounter like you suggest...you compensate by making the fights bigger. Say double deadly as the baseline and adjust from there.

 

[Maxperson]

The game is designed around 6-8 medium encounters per adventuring day. That's the equivalent to 3-4 deadly encounters per day. The difference between a medium and deadly encounter is almost exactly 2x the hit points and 2x the enemies...which directly correlates to a longer fight. One deadly encounter will last roughly 2x as long as a medium encounter specifically because the doubled hp and opponents. It will take about 2x the number of rounds to grind through those hp and 2x as many resources to do so...because the PCs resources are static compared to the monsters' now higher stats. That's literally what those numbers represent.

Not necessarily. Area spells can blanket the extra opponents, hurting them with the same spell you would have used on the easier encounter. It won't be twice as long, but it will be longer.

 

[tetrasodium]

I REALLY doubt most DMs are thinking about the encounter in this high level manner. I don't think they are thinking, this person expended a resource so I can justify the bypass.

Easy example. The warlock gets mask of many faces, disguise self as an unlimited use resource. I have seen, more than once, the DM give the warlock a pass (getting past a guard or whatever) vs. just the disguise self skill being used - because "it's magic."

changeling can basically at will disguise self, it's not a caster thing. Beyond that the 5e Warlock is basically a munchkin's wet dream to the point where I'd almost expect Lonely Island to be referencing it in the supermarket checkout counter if they were still around. Personally I tend to require more than just appearance & my players know it. The problems you are citing with disguise self are the reason why countersigns & challenge phrases would be far more common in the day to day life of people in most d&d worlds

---

---

Apparently you don't, given your response.

It literally does just that. And just in case you didn't play 4E or have forgotten, it had both encounter and daily resources.

Only if you refuse to increase the difficulty of the combat.

Most campaigns don't last long enough for higher level spells to matter. You could make the same pointless argument about wish.

The game is designed around 6-8 medium encounters per adventuring day. That's the equivalent to 3-4 deadly encounters per day. The difference between a medium and deadly encounter is almost exactly 2x the hit points and 2x the enemies...which directly correlates to a longer fight. One deadly encounter will last roughly 2x as long as a medium encounter specifically because the doubled hp and opponents. It will take about 2x the number of rounds to grind through those hp and 2x as many resources to do so...because the PCs resources are static compared to the monsters' now higher stats. That's literally what those numbers represent.

Yes, which is why monster stats scale up with PCs' levels, in the case of hit points sometimes astronomically, and this is also why there are legendary actions and legendary resistances, to burn through more PC resources. Using harder fights, deadly instead of medium, etc accomplishes that. As I said above.

Yes, this tangent is about Epic Heroism, so a one-hour long rest is key. That's literally the point of the optional rule you said didn't exist. The adventuring day is a pacing mechanic. Long rests are a pacing mechanic. So when you condense the long rest to one hour...you also have to condense the adventuring day to fit between those long rests. Instead of fighting against the players desire for constant long rests that wreck game balance, you lean into that and adjust the game mechanics to match. So, one-hour long rests...but instead of pure steamrolling every encounter like you suggest...you compensate by making the fights bigger. Say double deadly as the baseline and adjust from there.

No I think that@James Gasik nailed it & it's worth expanding on his answer to cover a bit more. Cantrips, concentration, the safety of wackamole healing, & trivialized safe resource recovery all combine to ensure that "increased difficulty encounters" alone do not generally use up notably more resources. The design of 5e is one where GMs are presented with an unreasonable expectation of a grindfest that few find fun& the obvious solutions to work around it like "increase the difficulty of the combat" tend to be catch 22 stylesolutions that the system has too many layers designing against them functioning as a solution right up until the GM starts looking adversarial & hostile.

 

[pogre]

Did it at least also come with a rulebook?

It did, yes.

 

[Faolyn]

A perfectly valid opinion. Which is why you need to present a range of different opinions to trainee DMs. But, since many players treat anything in a core rulebook as Word of God, it's very difficult to make it clear that an opinion is just an opinion.

That is specific to whichever example you are citing. So, once you have analysed The Last Airbender, which example are you going to go onto next? Are you going to go through the whole of Appendix N (plus TV, movies and comics) and analyse each entry individually, or are you going to make an (unavoidably controversial) small selection?

In cases of specific stories, though, I think it might be better to hear from the original writer as to what their method is. Just saying "this media did X, that one did Y" isn't necessarily helpful. It's more important to know how X and Y were achieved and what made them good examples of storytelling. (Personally, the admittedly few authors from Appendix N that I've read, I have found boring, unpleasant, and/or misogynistic; quite probably that list should be completely revised.)

Indeed, everything is already out there. It just needs collating and refencing to make it easy for the trainee DM to find what they need.

An infinitely large, video enabled DMG?

I think that's called the internet.

Except that, as I said before, a newbie isn't going to know where to go to find decent info, and many of those sites have such huge backlogs of info (which may or may not be well-organized) that it's intimidating to get through or even know where to start. That's why it's good to have the useful info all in one place.

Honestly, I think that D&D could afford to actually contract some or even all of the better advice gurus out there to write a chapter about a specific assigned topic, then package it as an official DMG or a DM advice book.

 

[overgeeked]

Not necessarily. Area spells can blanket the extra opponents, hurting them with the same spell you would have used on the easier encounter. It won't be twice as long, but it will be longer.

The exception that proves the rule. Yes, if the referee is an idiot and drops all the monsters into fireball formation, you happen to hit a lot of monsters with a perfectly placed AoE and you happen to roll well enough to kill off most or all of them with one hit, then and only then will it matter. Short of that, not so much. Twice as many monsters means twice as many hit points, attacks, etc. Which means a longer fight and more resources used. You can include a heap of easy monsters (aka minions) to account for that.

No I think that@James Gasik nailed it & it's worth expanding on his answer to cover a bit more. Cantrips, concentration, the safety of wackamole healing, & trivialized safe resource recovery all combine to ensure that "increased difficulty encounters" alone do not generally use up notably more resources. The design of 5e is one where GMs are presented with an unreasonable expectation of a grindfest that few find fun& the obvious solutions to work around it like "increase the difficulty of the combat" tend to be catch 22 stylesolutions that the system has too many layers designing against them functioning as a solution right up until the GM starts looking adversarial & hostile.

Right. So instead of pointlessly fighting against that, you lean into it. That's the point. Instead of trying to force some AD&D style day-long attrition fest that's ultimately meaningless, you go the other way. The players want to be epic and badass fantasy superheroes...lean into that. They want to nova every fight...let them. The players are going to naturally want to long rest after every single fight...let them. Now dial up the difficulty to match. You crank up the difficulty of the fight to 2-3x deadly as a baseline...probably closer to 3-4x deadly per encounter...this replaces the medium encounter as the default.

That's what epic heroism is all about. You have one giant set-piece combat that is designed to drain more of their resources and stop worrying about balancing by the day. Balance by the set-piece encounter. The point is not to drain resources with lots of small, ultimately pointless encounters and make the players worry about having spells left over for the rest of the day...the point is to lean into the superhero fantasy that 5E has in place, only crank that up to 11.