Where Are All the Dungeon Masters?

In light of the Labor Day celebrations happening in the U.S., now's a good time to look at the amount of effort tabletop role-playing takes. Is it holding the hobby back from a bigger audience?

View attachment 100911​

[h=3]Why Oh Why Won't They DM?[/h]Dungeons & Dragons and many tabletop role-playing games that debuted after its release have struggled with an inherent part of its structure: one of its participants has a disproportionate share of the game's work. This isn't to say that players can't help, but the structure of the referee role as envision by co-creators Gary Gygax and Dave Arenson created a very different form of play for one "player." What this means is that there are always more players than Dungeon Masters (DMs) and Game Masters (DMs) -- by necessity, the game is built this way -- and as tabletop RPGs grow in popularity, a GM shortage is a real possibility.

The GM challenge stems from a variety of factors, not the least of which being the level of organizational skills necessary to pull off playing not just one character, but several. In Master of the Game, Gygax outlined the seven principal functions of a DM:

These functions are as Moving Force, Creator, Designer, Arbiter, Overseer, Director, and Umpire/Referee/Judge (a single function with various shades of meaning). The secondary functions of the Game Master are Narrator, Interpreter, Force of Nature, Personification of Non-Participant Characters, All Other Personifications, and Supernatural Power.
​

With a list like that, it's no wonder that potential DMs find the role intimidating! Spencer Crittenden, the DM for HarmonQuest, summarizes why it's so challenging to be a Dungeon Master:

Being a DM, like being a ref, means acknowledging you will make mistakes while still demanding respect for the authority you have over the game. It means taking charge and reducing distractions, it means observing everyone to get a sense of their feelings and levels of engagement, and keeping people engaged and interested. This is not easy, especially for beginners. There's a billion things to keep track of on your side of the DM Screen: maps, monsters, rules, dialogue, etc.
​

It's a lot, but there's hope.
[h=3]The Best Way to Learn[/h]D&D's style of play was unique: part improvisation, part strategic simulation, with no end game. But the game's popularity has increasingly made the idea of playing D&D less foreign to new players as other forms of gaming have picked up the basic elements of play, from board games to card games to video games. The idea of playing an elf who goes on adventure with her companions is no longer quite so novel.

That familiarity certainly made it easier for the game to be accepted by the general public, but learning to play the game is best experienced first-hand, something not many future DMs have a chance to do. Enter video.

Thanks to the rise of live streaming like Twitch and video channels like YouTube, prospective DMs can watch how the game is actually played. In fact, the sheer volume of video viewers has begun to influence Kickstarters on the topic and even merited mention by the CEO of Hasbro. If the best way to learn is by watching a game, we now have enough instructional videos in spades to satisfy the demand.

And yet, if this thread is any indication, there still aren't enough DMs -- and it's likely there never will be. After all, knowing how to play and having the time, resources, and confidence to do so are two different things, and not everyone wants to put in the effort. That's why there's an International GMs Day, conceived on this very site.

But you don't have to wait until March 4 to say thanks. If you ended up playing a game this weekend, it's worth thanking the people who help make our games possible. To all the GMs and DMs out there, thank you for everything you do!

Mike "Talien" Tresca is a freelance game columnist, author, communicator, and a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to http://amazon.com. You can follow him at Patreon.

 

[Nagol]

If the game is low or no prep, then discovering information that is useful for extrapolation isn't really part of the game. (I don't think.)

I tend to agree. It still happens a bit in the sense someone can extrapolate from the current fiction and outcome to add new stuff, but it avoids the whole "you should have seen this coming, but didn't so gotcha!" that can happen in prepared scenarios.

To elaborate: in the fiction, the PCs might discover stuff from which they can extrapolate; but at the table, if the game is low or no prep, then "discovering stuff" is just more fiction that shape the direction of the unfolding story.

For instance, in the no prep Cthulhu Dark game I GMed on the weekend, at one point the players (as their PCs) learned that the sailors on board a ship were all being ordered to stay down below decks. Having this information provided the PCs with a basis for extrapolating that something interesting was happening about the loading of the boat (which the captain didn't want the sailors to see). And at the table it was one part of the shaping of the way the session ended up. But had it not come up - eg because the players never had their PCs go to a waterside bar where they were able to talk to some sailors - then something else would have happened at the table, and a different series of events would have unfolded.

There are obvious solutions to this: (i) take suggestions - that's part of the function of some of those game features that the Burning THACO author points to; (ii) if, as GM, you say "OK, now it's XYZ" and a player says "Oi, what about ABC that I hadn't done yet" then resolve ABC before moving onto XYZ.

Yeah that's one viable technique. I'm also a fan of the "skip montage". You're here and heading there. Now you're this much closer want to do something?, now this much and you notice X, and now you're there.

(ii) has to be used with some caution, because if a player is trying to use ABC to turtle or to generate insurance against anything happening to his/her PC then the game will lose its pacing. This is another respect in which system comes into it, because turtling and generating insurance against consequences can't even happen in some systems (eg Cortex+ Heroic) while they're the very essence of some other systems (eg classic D&D).

Yep. Some games have stronger tools and expectations for pacing and narrative arcs than others. Which is why I always to to map my game play expectations to the system I pick.

But if players are prepared to send signals and make suggestions, and the system facilitates this (both by whatever affirmative means, and perhaps more importantly by an absence of burdens on this), then I think a lot of worries about pacing and interest go away.

I agree though another strong facilitator is table understanding. If I skip to a new hard frame, my players can trust there was nothing more they could glean from the current situation (which can be valuable information in itself) and that any information gains along the way between where they were and where they are now are either part of my exposition or immaterial.

Even so, it can be hard for the players to let go when they have a mystery to solve. In my Conspiracy-X campaign (which has an awful lot of exploratory play elements), the players were assigned the task of solving a crime. They were called in early; there simply isn't enough clues currently, but the perpetrator will continue to strike giving the PCs more opportunities. The players spent what seemed to be an inordinate amount of table time simply because they wanted to solve it then / didn't want time to pass though they did come up with models and tactics that did alter my expected next scene.

 

[pemerton]

it can be hard for the players to let go when they have a mystery to solve. In my Conspiracy-X campaign (which has an awful lot of exploratory play elements), the players were assigned the task of solving a crime. They were called in early; there simply isn't enough clues currently, but the perpetrator will continue to strike giving the PCs more opportunities. The players spent what seemed to be an inordinate amount of table time simply because they wanted to solve it then / didn't want time to pass though they did come up with models and tactics that did alter my expected next scene.

If I'm understanding this right, the set up is that the players can't solve the mystery (via action declarations for their PCs) until, in the fiction, the perpetrator does more bad stuff?

I can see how that would have to be managed with care. I don't run many mystery games: the Cthulhu Dark session I ran a few days ago is the first for a long time, and because it was stereotypical CoC the resolution of the mystery and the full emergence of the threat more-or-less tracked one another in the fiction. So the issue you mentioned (if I've got it right) didn't come up.

I would add - I don't generally think of CoC as being very gritty, and the feature I described in the previous paragraph is one reason for that.

 

[pemerton]

Some games have stronger tools and expectations for pacing and narrative arcs than others. Which is why I always to to map my game play expectations to the system I pick.

I think on this point, in this thread, we're 100% on the same page.

 

[jasper]

I Need a DM
Where have all the good game masters gone
And where are all the gawds?
Where's the streetwise gamer
To change the rising odds?
Isn't there a wright guy rolling a fiery dice?
Late at night I toss and I turn
And I dream of what I need
I need a DM
I'm holding out for a DM till the end of the night
He's gotta be prepared, and he's gotta be witty
And he's gotta be fresh from the bath
I need a DM
I'm holding out for a DM till the morning light
He's gotta be sure, and it's gotta be soon
And he's gotta be larger than life
Larger than life
Somewhere after midnight
In my wildest fantasy
Somewhere just beyond my reach
There's someone asking to DM for me
Racing on his Prius and rising to the challenge rating
It's gonna take a fit one to sweep me off my feet
I need a DM
I'm holding out for a DM till the end of the night
He's gotta be prepared, and he's gotta be witty
And he's gotta be fresh from the bath
I need a DM
I'm holding out for a DM till the morning light
He's gotta be sure, and it's gotta be soon
And he's gotta be larger than life
I need a DM
I'm holding out for a DM till the end of the night
Up where the mountains meet the heavens above
Out where the game store meets the sea
I could swear there is someone somewhere watching me
Through the wind and the chill and the rain
And the Con Crud and the Mountain Dew spills
I can feel his approach like a fire in my blood
I need a DM
I'm holding out for a DM till the end of the night
He's gotta be prepared, and he's gotta be witty
And he's gotta be fresh from the bath
I need a DM
I'm holding out for a DM till the morning light
He's gotta be sure, and it's gotta be soon
And he's gotta be larger than life
I need a DM
I'm holding out for a DM till the end of the night
He's gotta be prepared, and he's gotta be witty
And he's gotta be fresh from the bath
I need a DM
I'm holding out for a DM till the morning light
He's gotta be sure, and it's gotta be soon
And he's gotta be larger than life
I need a DM
I'm holding out for a DM till the end of the night

 

[Nagol]

If I'm understanding this right, the set up is that the players can't solve the mystery (via action declarations for their PCs) until, in the fiction, the perpetrator does more bad stuff?

Barring any unexpected resource usage or massive leaps of logic on the part of the players, yes -- at least I couldn't solve it with the information at their disposal to start.

I can see how that would have to be managed with care. I don't run many mystery games: the Cthulhu Dark session I ran a few days ago is the first for a long time, and because it was stereotypical CoC the resolution of the mystery and the full emergence of the threat more-or-less tracked one another in the fiction. So the issue you mentioned (if I've got it right) didn't come up.

There is a British TV series Midsomer Murders which revolves around solving murders in Midsomer County. The Detective Inspector starts his investigation upon discovery of the first murder. Commonly, there are several more murders before the Detective Inspector manages to solve the case. Often it appears to cynics such as myself that one of his tactics is to let the suspects kill each other until only one is left to make his job simpler.

The PCs were told going in this a rare opportunity to get involved in a developing situation. As investigators, they typically get called in after the situation has entered some form of equilibrium. There are tactics they can employ to affect the situation and adjust its outcome. Gaining complete control and coming to resolution will require more information than is available to start.

I would add - I don't generally think of CoC as being very gritty, and the feature I described in the previous paragraph is one reason for that.

BRP at its heart is a pretty gritty system. Other Cthulhu game engines specifically tone down that grittiness. It depends on how the keeper is working with CoC. In some campaigns I've played, the primary antagonists were people: cultists, weird researchers, etc. and the truly mind-shattering stuff was the consequence of investigative failure. These can get pretty gritty. Other keepers have gone more the horror movie route where the mind-shattering stuff is more centre stage and the game more typically has the feel of a one-shot adventure than a campaign.

 

[Umbran]

I think it's easy to exaggerate this as an issue.

Yes, well, I think it is easy to exaggerate preparing material is an issue, especially considering the volumes of pre-written material that is available. A great many modules require basic reading comprehension and retention, and that's about it. Not what I'd call a high bar for a game that is already reading-dependent.

I think it is even easier for us to exaggerate how likely it is our thoughts match reality. The OP supposes that the lack of GM is because of difficulty, perceived or actual, rather neglecting the idea that, just as the hobby in general is not for all people, perhaps the role within the hobby is not for all people. It isn't like we have data as to why there aren't more GMs. Maybe we shouldn't talk like we *know*.

The GM needs to be able to come up with ideas for opposition, for developments, etc, but I think most RPGers have got enough familiarity with various genre fiction that they can think of stuff - castles with ogres or witches; cultists with strange writings; merchants with cunningly concealed strongboxes; etc. At least in my own case, the stories that emerge from RPGing are not particularly great literary creations: the pleasure isn't in the reading/viewing of them - it's in the playing of them.

Yes, but if you tell a new GM, "Your stories aren't actually going to be good," you are probably not sending them a particularly motivating message.

And you've been improvising stories for a long time. I have, too. I don't know about you, but I started with prepped materials, and built out a skillset of improvising around those materials. I was already highly proficient at running the game before I improvised full scenarios on my own at runtime. This part of the thread seems to be saying that a barrier to entry is prepared work, as if improvising material was not also work. Much of the point of prepping (either authoring your own or prepping someone else's scenario) is to front load a lot of the effort, so that at runtime, you can concentrate more on adjudication and the players. You're saying "do it *all* at runtime", as if that is fundamentally easier. But the overall cognitive load is greater. I don't think you are lessening the runtime workload that we are positing is a barrier.

How many people here have seen improv comedy - "Whose Line is it Anyway" for example. You all realize that improve comedy is rehearsed, right? It is not rehearsed in the details of the exact words said, but is rehearsed in terms of the style and approaches. Wayne Brady may not know the exact line he's going to use when he steps on stage, but he knows the overall form before he begins - he's worked over each of the games played with his fellow cast members dozens of times.

The new GM does not have that rehearsal and skillset, or knowledge of the overall form. They haven't run the scenario dozens of times. Reading novels and watching movies does not prep up a library of game elements that will roll of the tongue, any more than watching comedies makes you Wayne Brady.

 

[Blackmoor_Film]

From the other side of the coin. I always end up D.M.'ing. It's been that way for decades.

And with Hasbro claiming 11 million D&D players in the world, that's just D&D, there must still be a lot of D.M.'s out there.

 

[Queer Venger]

good article, really good discussion.

I am a DM, have been soon after I started playing D&D 2e; once I sat behind the screen I knew I would always be a DM. The few times that I play, (most organized play events) I find myself mentally doing things 'better' than the guy trying to run the game; that said, WotC and organized play should create more tangible incentives to teach and mentor players who want to DM; kind of like a DM-Big brother.

 

[Nagol]

I haven't seen mention of one of the disincentives I see with GMing: namely the loss of the alter ego.

One of the appeals of RPGing the assumption of a separate persona who acts upon and reacts to the world it inhabits.

That is lost in the main by GMs. Anyone strongly drawn by this appeal won't want to GM. This hypothesis is borne out by the DMPC anti-pattern which if not prevalent is still common enough to be a noted warning sign of a problematic GM.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

I just finished running a year-long, every-week campaign. I'm done for a while.