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.

 

[3catcircus]

So, being a GM/DM, is, for me, a love/hate relationship.

I love to DM - I'm a big picture kind of thinker, so I like being able to set multiple things in motion. The math of multiple NPCs is no problem for me. I love this sort of stuff. What makes it a drag for me is the following:

1. Players who want the game to be all about them rather than about their place in the campaign world. Especially when they have set up a backstory for their PC totally different from everyone else's PCs or they want to use material totally out of synch with the campaign world. God love 'em, but I had a campaign set in the Forgotten Realms in the Moonsea region using the Mysteries of the Moonsea book for much of the core adventures and my players wanted to play were-creatures who were part of the Fangshields. Now, I have to do a bunch of extra work to fit that into the campaign and *invent* a reason for Fanghshields to (1) set foot into human cities in the area and (2) even care to begin with...

2. Players who don't want to give new/different games a try. My group are pretty much D&D/Pathfinder snobs. I've tried to get them to try some old games - Paranoia, WEG Star Wars, TORG, Twilight:2000/2013. DMing the same genre over and over again can make you get burned out.

3. Companies that produce supplements that result in a PC/NPC arms race. How often have you had players get overly-creative to the point that their PCs are totally overpowered for either the campaign world, or the NPCs in an encounter of the "appropriate level?" As a DM, you don't have the luxury to min-max every named NPC - your players have only one PC to worry about...

4. Player engagement. How often have you set out a trail of breadcrumbs that the players never figure out, or never even pursue? I've in the past taken to mind mapping relationships of people, places and things to try and make it easier, but come on, you have to think things out as a player... Additionally, how many times have DMs spent hours working in adventure crumbs and the players go and do something completely different (sometimes just to be contrary). I generally try to have one main plot path with 2 or 3 different branches that can split off to pursue. Even so, players oftentimes want to try and force DMs to step outside the confines of their campaign. While I understand wanting to pursue PC goals, it needs to be within the confines of the campaign. In that same Moonsea campaign, I added plot hooks that would allow them to travel far to the south with the intent of using Red Hand of Doom if they did so. "Let's pay no mind to the threat of a potential invading army that could slip through this portal into the Moonsea, we're more interested and upset about why xxx." That, and they oftentimes refuse to play within the confines of the campaign because metaplot. "Why should we even bother trying to sneak into Hillsfar because we are nonhuman and they are racist, even though the trail of breadcrumbs leads us there."

5. Players being upset that you play the NPCs intelligently and/or have them do not-nice-things to the PCs because that is part of their character. Yeah, why should the captain of the guard who is intended to be a thorn in your side *not* be a thorn in your side until you deal with him (whether bribing, killing, framing, or bringing to justice due to his corruption)? That, and not just rolling with DM fiat when it is called for.

6. The inability for publishers to really make their supplements (especially adventures) mesh together. Yes, I realize you may have multiple authors, but as a publisher you ought to set up a "bible" in the very beginning. In order for DMs (especially as you get older and have work and family commitments) to want to DM, it needs to be easier to pick up a product and make it work. There are some notable exceptions, but for the most part, it is difficult to "drop in" an adventure into a campaign without some work. Many DMs (like me) will use a published adventure path and then have branches into other plots using other adventures. It needs to be easier to do this without having to invent contrived reasons or having to change information.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think that when it comes to prep v improv, setting aside system design favoring one or the other, what is going to be easier will vary from person to person.

Some folks will appreciate a lot of info ahead of time so that they can use that info to make decisions in the game. Others will prefer the freedom to do what they’d like. Many will probably like a bit of both.

If we’re talking about new GMs, then I think some level of prep is likely best. Not so much that they’re overwhelmed, but enough to give them a good foundation to get started.

Again, it really depends on the system and what it’s designed to do, but since the article was discussing D&D and DMs specifically, I think the best approach is something like the Starter Set. But above all, let a new DM know that it’s a skill you learn by doing, and that it’s okay to make mistakes, and that it’s really not as hard as it may seem.

 

[dragoner]

I think it's prep, improv, and experience; will make for the best at running a game. Experience is very important to knowing what and how much to prep, usually a rough outline is good for the world and adventure, but if say running sf, having some aliens and spaceships, things players expect to see, are also good.

 

[pemerton]

I think that when it comes to prep v improv, setting aside system design favoring one or the other, what is going to be easier will vary from person to person.

While this is true, the caveat is so large that it comes close to overwhelming that truth.

it really depends on the system and what it’s designed to do

Agreed.

D&D needs maps. D&D tends to invovle combat, and D&D combat needs monsters/NPCs with reasonably intricate stats. These all create pressure for prep. (Or for the use of someone else's prep, like the Starter Set that you mention.)

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think it's prep, improv, and experience; will make for the best at running a game. Experience is very important to knowing what and how much to prep, usually a rough outline is good for the world and adventure, but if say running sf, having some aliens and spaceships, things players expect to see, are also good.

Experience for sure. That’s why people should just get out there and try, and why they should be encouraged to do so.

 

[hawkeyefan]

While this is true, the caveat is so large that it comes close to overwhelming that truth.

Agreed.

D&D needs maps. D&D tends to invovle combat, and D&D combat needs monsters/NPCs with reasonably intricate stats. These all create pressure for prep. (Or for the use of someone else's prep, like the Starter Set that you mention.)

I don’t know if I agree with the pressure for prep point. Some folks may be put off by such prep. Others will appreciate it. Some will even feel it necessary.

That’s what I meant by it varying from person to person.

However, I would say that generally speaking, a system that had a bit of that prep structure in place would likely benefit someone new to the hobby. I would think that the level of prep we’re talking about (reading through 20 pages or so of material, learning to read monster stat blocks) is more beneficial at the learning stage.

Preparing one’s own material or going with a more narrative style game might work for some folks just learning, but probably not as often.

 

[dragoner]

Experience for sure. That’s why people should just get out there and try, and why they should be encouraged to do so.

Exactly, with the certain knowledge that one learns more from their mistakes than successes; the only thing is how to communicate this. Some people will always be too risk adverse to step up and GM.

 

[MichaelSomething]

The problem with games that don't require prep is that to be successful, they need the GM to have a skillset of running a game without prep! Improvisation is a skill, and if you are new at it, your games are probably going to be poorly paced, and questionably interesting. I don't know if I'd advise this as a way to make it easier for people who don't normally run games to pick up GMing.

Yet when I bring up the possibility of learning improv to improve DMs, some people got up in arms!
Well there'll soon be a book to help you out with learning to improv.

 

[hawknsparrow]

Great article! Thanks for taking the time to do this! Another great resource for those who are thinking about GMing is the Fantasy Grounds College or FGC. The FGC is a free and welcoming community of gamers founded and widely supported by a those with a heart for teaching players and GMs alike. Come take the Player and or GM 101 series courses. Or, just wander the halls... I mean chat rooms [emoji6] in the Commons or Library Stacks. There, one and all can enjoy the content or join in the constant discussions and banter. Once again, it's free. I hope to see you there. Cheers!

Permanent FGC Discord Invite Link: FGChttps://discord.gg/Ew6nYyw FGC

 

[pemerton]

I don’t know if I agree with the pressure for prep point. Some folks may be put off by such prep. Others will appreciate it. Some will even feel it necessary.

That’s what I meant by it varying from person to person.

However, I would say that generally speaking, a system that had a bit of that prep structure in place would likely benefit someone new to the hobby. I would think that the level of prep we’re talking about (reading through 20 pages or so of material, learning to read monster stat blocks) is more beneficial at the learning stage.

Preparing one’s own material or going with a more narrative style game might work for some folks just learning, but probably not as often.

I think I've conveyed something different by my phrase "pressure to prep" than I meant to.

But moving on from that! - I think it's hard to come into a session of D&D and run it cold. Even if one takes advantage of all the material in the Monster Manual (which is someone else doing prep on our behalf), there is still the need for maps. Combat maps can of course be drawn up reasonably quickly in "real time"; but D&D as typically played also relies fairly heavily on maps (of dungeons, buildings, towns, wildernesses, etc) to support the exploration aspect of play. Drawing all those up in "real time" is not easy; but doing without them is also - in D&D - not easy. Just to give one reason as to why: in D&D it is meant to matter how long it takes to get from A to B (otherwise the rules for buying rations, etc make no sense; and the rules for random encounters can't be applied) but the system has no way of answering this question other than by looking at a map, taking a measure of the distance, and then dividing by the movement rate (which is the only character-sheet measure of ability to journey effectively from A to B).

A system that uses a different mechanic to determine travel wouldn't need prep in the same way: eg suppose that each character had a "Safe Travel" bonus comparable to the to hit number in D&D, and this was rolled to determine what happens when that character goes on a journey (success: you get there unscathed; fail by a bit: you have an encounter on the way but, if you survive that, you get there; fail by a lot: you find yourself somehwere else and have an encounter you didn't want to have, and after that you check again). That system would still need the Monster Manual-type prep (to handle the encounters), but wouldn't need the maps to resolve travel from A to B.

The point can be generalised across other aspects of play: how is it worked out what stuff is in/at what place? how is it worked out whether or not a PC beats a non-player opponent in a fight? etc. This is what I mean when I say that some systems generate pressure to prep (or rely on someone else's prep) whereas others generate less such pressure, or even none at all.

But another theme about prep I'm seeing in this thread is about prepping to give the players a good experience not from the point of view of organisation (have I read the module?) but from the point of view of "curated experience" (am I telling them a fun story?). This is where I think that other aspects of system - less to do with action resolution and more around framing, how content gets introduced, how signals are sent between various participants about what content they want to see in the game, etc - make a difference.

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.

Sure, there are plenty of modules out there. But the idea of "GMing as work" was mentioned in the OP, which also cited (with approval) Gygax saying that refereeing includes being "Moving Force, Creator, Designer" and Spencer Crittenden talked about managing maps, which are an aspect of prep.

My post was saying that, if this is part of the perceived obstacle to GMing, there are systems out there which overcome it. (Those other systems have consequences for play, obviously. If most RPGers only enjoy high-prep play then that is what it is; but I haven't seen that position advocated yet in the thread.)

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*.

Well, I'll let you take that up with the OP. I was (and am) making a different point.

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.

I think this is key. What are people RPGing for? If they're playing RPGs to be told good stories, then it seems to me that they're going to the wrong place - in our society (given how it works) the best stories are being told in books, in cinema and perhaps on TV (and similar serial televisual media).

The comparison to me is playing an instrument. I play a little bit of guitar. If I auditioned for rhythm guitar in a very ordinary garage band there is a small chance that no one else better would turn up and so I'd get the gig. But I'm never going to be talent-scouted by a serious band (eg that is playing in pubs) let alone by a record label: I'm not a good enough player and have never put enough effort into it. But that doesn't mean I don't enjoy playing my guitar, enjoy playing songs for my family and (sometimes) friends, enjoy pulling out the guitar at parties where others want to sing along, etc. The pleasure that I (and sometimes others) get isn't because my music is good - it's because it's my music.

RPGing, in my view, is the same. It's fun because it's us - me and my friends - sitting around making up this stuff together and finding out what happens. The fact that the stories are rather trite and perhaps occasionally silly doesn't stop it being fun.

I don't think GMs - new or otherwise - or players, for that matter, need false assurances that their RPGing will create literary masterpieces. But I think that they might benefit from systems, and advice on how to use those systems, that facilitate creative interplay, keeping things moving, having a good ratio of exciting bits to bookkeeping bits, etc.

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?

<snip>

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.

I don't think that improvised comedy performed at a professional level - or even a serious amateur level - is a useful comparison. Who has that sort of time and effort available to devote to a leisuretime hobby? I certainly don't. Which goes back to my comparison to musical performance above.

I also don't think that prep is going to improve anyone's stories. Most people are no better at writing than they are at improv.

This is why my focus is on how prep relates to system and technique, rather than how it relates to quality of the story. And as far as that issue, of running with prep vs without, is concerned in my own case: when I started refereeing D&D I built dungeons something like what Moldvay Basic told me to, and I ran the PCs through them, and I used the occasional module (U3, G1-3 and WG5 are the ones I remember). Those were essentially wargames. To the extent that they had any sort of story element, that arose spontaneously out of the play. What I learned, in something of an epiphany in 1986, after two years of what I've just described, was that the wargame element could largely be dropped and the spontaneous story element brought front and central. No doubt there were many elements to that ephiphany, but perhaps the biggest single one was learning to ignore Gygax's advice to not let the monkeys take over the circus - I discovered that following the players' leads can make for a better game with more of those spontaneous story elements.

Because, back in those days, I was still running D&D and then Rolemaster, prep in the form of maps and NPC/creature stats continued to matter. But I think that was an artefact of system, not of my development as a GM. If I'd had systems back then that adopted different approaches to action resolution I don't think I would have suffered from a lack of prep. (Traveller was such a system that was available to me, but I had not understood it when I first read it and had never come back to it in a serious way until fairly recently.)

There are all sorts of reasons why millions of people don't play Princ Valiant. Maybe they wnat mechanical complexity and a wargaming sytle - and Prince Valiant doesn't deliver that. And maybe, therefore, the demand on GMs to prep (or draw on others' prep) is inevitable. But I think that if Prince Valiant was the dominant RPG system then, whatever we saw by way of posts about the demands of GMing, prep wouldn't be something that figured very prominently.