Vaalingrade
Legend
I don't know if it's been on this thread, but there is definitely a culture present in D&D in certain corners of having to 'earn' fun games, be it from a player or DM perspective.
I posted one example that was published in Classic Traveller in 1977. A contemporary mechanical system that resembles this is the Circles check found in Burning Wheel and spin-off games.So the guy didn't have the tools in 2E. Would he have them now? What would it look like?
I cut my teeth on the Metzer Basic, then went straight into 1e core. That and the 2e lore have formed the basis of what D&D is to me.Trifle not with 1e, lest ye play 1e, and if you gaze at the purplish High Gygaxian Verbiage, the purplish High Gygaxian Verbiage gazes also into you.
I posted one example that was published in Classic Traveller in 1977. A contemporary mechanical system that resembles this is the Circles check found in Burning Wheel and spin-off games.
Another, different, sort of tool would be skill challenge, or similar, resolution.
Yet a different sort of tool would be the way Apocalypse World handles "I look for an <X>"-type actions: Read a Situation, Barter-moves, and GM soft moves when those don't apply.
There are lots and lots of tools for GMing relatively open-ended scenarios like defending a city against infiltration other than railroading through a GM's (or module author's) preconception of how things must happen.
I posted one example that was published in Classic Traveller in 1977. A contemporary mechanical system that resembles this is the Circles check found in Burning Wheel and spin-off games.
Another, different, sort of tool would be skill challenge, or similar, resolution.
Yet a different sort of tool would be the way Apocalypse World handles "I look for an <X>"-type actions: Read a Situation, Barter-moves, and GM soft moves when those don't apply.
There are lots and lots of tools for GMing relatively open-ended scenarios like defending a city against infiltration other than railroading through a GM's (or module author's) preconception of how things must happen.
I think decades is a bit of hyperbole, but I also think 'there is no greater teacher than experience' is just as true in RPGs as it is for most of life.There also seems to be a strong sentiment that the decades of trial and error are “the way” and any attempt to bypass that is therefore looked down upon.
Ditto. Really only played one BECMI character (a cleric), then went into 1E. First characters rolled was a paladin. Switched to 2E when it came out.I cut my teeth on the Metzer Basic, then went straight into 1e core. That and the 2e lore have formed the basis of what D&D is to me.
I genuinely believe it is, yes. D&D is the face of TTRPGs, for good and for ill. Having a bad experience with D&D is a great way to ensure that a person never interacts with TTRPGs again. It would be like being served bad sushi the first time you eat it--you've given it a shot and hated it, why would you ever try it again?I gotta ask. Is this whole "D&D is hard to pick up" really a significant issue? We all goof, especially when we first start to play. I'm sure I've gotten rules wrong many a time. But it never stopped us from playing.
Doesn't it? A "truly bad, horrendous" DM can only happen one of three ways:I've had truly bad, horrendous, DMs but it had nothing to do with them or their players not understanding how to play the game.
The dreaded option 4!Doesn't it? A "truly bad, horrendous" DM can only happen one of three ways:
- the DM knows exactly what they're doing and how upsetting it is, and doesn't care (aka, they're a jerk or acting in bad faith).
- the DM believes certain things actually are good behavior, but is incorrect in that belief.
- the DM makes serious mistakes in their attempt to pursue what they correctly believe to be good DMing.
That isn't relevant to the example given by Oofta. Oofta was explicitly granting that the DM was, in fact, actually bad, horrendously so, not that they were a perfectly 100% fine and just a bad fit for this player/group. I was working within the example given, where it is a given that the DM is in fact horrendously bad, not just contextually inappropriate.The dreaded option 4!
4. the DM's style is 'good' but just doesn't match the style that particular player(s) prefers.
And yet, at the same time, most of us do not want engineers, doctors, lawyers, nurses, pharmacists, architects, veterinarians, and educators who have no pre-training and instead learn everything they do purely through experience, right? At this point in the thread, I honestly can't be sure anymore. Do you want your lawyer to have attended law school and passed their bar exam? Do you want your child's pediatrician to have attended med school and gotten a medical license? Do you want to know that the architect who designed the office building you worked in actually got a decent degree and a licensed to practice? Do you want the civil engineers who work on replacing a major bridge to have a solid educational background in civil engineering, rather than just picking up anyone who can answer physics questions?I think decades is a bit of hyperbole, but I also think 'there is no greater teacher than experience' is just as true in RPGs as it is for most of life.
I think a lot of young DMs/GMs get a bit over their skis because they think they have build a whole world (or be actively interested in world building) when you just need a solid backdrop to start. I also think we are taught to focus way too much on what will happen in the future. Games often point beginners towards these massive adventure tomes that are really intimidating. I know I would have been better served by something like Matt Colville's 4 room dungeons or the Worlds Without Number approach of asking players what they want to do next session and just prepping material around that. Prep what you need for the next game and whatever else is fun. No more than that.
I think you are wrong about what Oofta said. I mean Oofta even liked my response. But I think it’s best to just let @Oofta speak for herself.That isn't relevant to the example given by Oofta. Oofta was explicitly granting that the DM was, in fact, actually bad, horrendously so, not that they were a perfectly 100% fine and just a bad fit for this player/group. I was working within the example given, where it is a given that the DM is in fact horrendously bad, not just contextually inappropriate.
…because playing d&d is soo much like lawyering, doctoring, engineering etc. I’m rather in Disbelief at this comparison.And yet, at the same time, most of us do not want engineers, doctors, lawyers, nurses, pharmacists, architects, veterinarians, and educators who have no pre-training and instead learn everything they do purely through experience, right? At this point in the thread, I honestly can't be sure anymore. Do you want your lawyer to have attended law school and passed their bar exam? Do you want your child's pediatrician to have attended med school and gotten a medical license? Do you want to know that the architect who designed the office building you worked in actually got a decent degree and a licensed to practice? Do you want the civil engineers who work on replacing a major bridge to have a solid educational background in civil engineering, rather than just picking up anyone who can answer physics questions?
Perhaps it would be useful to read two paragraphs down where I literally said that, instead of quipping at individual sections.…because playing d&d is soo much like lawyering, doctoring, engineering etc. I’m rather in Disbelief at this comparison.
Their literal, actual words were:I think you are wrong about what Oofta said. I mean Oofta even liked my response. But I think it’s best to just let @Oofta speak for herself.
How else was I supposed to interpret that other than that the DMs in question were, in fact, "truly bad, horrendous"? If Oofta did not mean that these DMs were "truly bad," why use the word "truly"?I've had truly bad, horrendous, DMs but it had nothing to do with them or their players not understanding how to play the game.
IMO if you can dismiss your first 2 paragraphs with your third then surely my 2 sentences doing the same shouldn’t be a problem.Perhaps it would be useful to read two paragraphs down where I literally said that, instead of quipping at individual sections.
I think you are looking past some key words in Oofta’s reply. But again. I’ll let Oofta speak for themselves.Their literal, actual words were:
How else was I supposed to interpret that other than that the DMs in question were, in fact, "truly bad, horrendous"? If Oofta did not mean that these DMs were "truly bad," why use the word "truly"?
Alright. Players temper their expectations. Sounds like a useful thing.If someone is a new DM I give them a lot of slack. I assume most people do.
We're all just playing a game, I don't expect perfection from anyone. As long as they're trying and listening to feedback it's all good.
...this. Because you are conflating player expectations and responses with designer guidance. The two are completely unrelated things. The game can give useful, productive, focused advice that can quite easily forewarn prospective DMs against common problems. Problems like "having a mistaken idea of what good DMing is," or "having a mistaken idea of how to pursue good DMing goals," or even "having a mismatch between what you want as DM and what some or all of your group wants as players."No amount of text is going to make a first time DM a pro, Mercer effect aside.
Genuine question: Why is it, whenever people ask for things to get better, their critics project a desire for perfection and miracles onto them? That's clearly not a charitable reading. There is no world where treating "why can't the DMG actually have guidance and teaching elements?" as asking for miracles is a useful contribution to the discussion. You have to know that no one will do that. Why even say it?I think improvements can be made, just don't expect miracles.
To distill our concern down to it's base form. Whose playstyle are they going to categorize as 'bad' DMing?...this. Because you are conflating player expectations and responses with designer guidance. The two are completely unrelated things. The game can give useful, productive, focused advice that can quite easily forewarn prospective DMs against common problems. Problems like "having a mistaken idea of what good DMing is," or "having a mistaken idea of how to pursue good DMing goals," or even "having a mismatch between what you want as DM and what some or all of your group wants as players."
I brought this same point up earlier in the thread. While the discussion is being framed as guidance for running and playing D&D... there is an undertone of... because I believe that playstyle X is the right way to do it.To distill our concern down to it's base form. Whose playstyle are they going to categorize as 'bad' DMing?