Community

Feb 15, 2013 -- 2:00AM, Baalbamoth wrote:

The Role of the DM

I was watching a debate about old school vs new school gaming, one thing that came up I wasn’t aware of, was that in 4e there were two areas where it mentioned that having a DM was not necessary. First in the DMG there was a section about using random encounters and rewards to dungeon crawl, another was in the last section of the PH 3 (?) where it said that if you just get a module you don’t really need a DM (can anyone confirm?) but the bottom line for me is, (assuming this is true) they created a game where if you have the right supplements a DM is completely unnecessary.  (this is not meant as a slight to 4e, just an observation)

I hope this IS NOT a design goal for 5^th ed. To me most of the fun of being a DM is creating the world, the NPCs, the story and plots, and all of that is central on having me as a DM run the players through those plots, or act those NPC roles with the players. IMHO To have a real TTRPG you MUST have a DM. If you create a game where a DM is completely unnecessary in essence you’ve changed a role-playing game into a boardgame.  

If you see your job as a DM as doing nothing but reading what it says out of the pre-written module, move and roll for the monsters, and play your NPC as a character in the party, to me your not really DM-ing, your half playing the game and sort of half DM-ing.

Your not doing work creating anything, your responses to the characters as an NPC are already written down (except for a tiny bit of improv when the characters say or ask something unexpected) your not having to balance or create encounters, or plan out what rewards will be available and really think about how the players will utilize them. The rules are so well written, there is never a need to interpret them. This isn’t DM-ing to me, its wargaming.

Sure I’ve heard the other arguments, we don’t have time to do that, we have lives and facebook and jobs kids cars blah.. we cant possibly prepare for two hours to run a four hour game… aint nobody got time for that… in my mind then you really don’t have time to run an RPG, and shouldn’t be DM-ing.

I’ve also heard the argument “we have fun doing this, shut up and let us have our fun you damn one true wayist” fair enough, but that’s also going to be my first rule of finding a game, asking a DM “are you really a player just running a pre-scripted game from an AP or are you actually going to DM?”

To me this is the essence of the difference between old school and new school gaming.   

I don't know what the rol of the DM is anymore man, there was a time when people gathered around the table characters in hand and awaited the DM's word with anticipation, eager to find out what adventure would be laid before them this week, what part they would play, what plot or secret would be uncovered.

Now the DM is treated like a referee for combat to divvy up the turns and count the rounds, the power is in the book. Even 3rd edition seemed to hint at this by suggesting that the DM should whever possible use the guidelines.

As for me the DM is the software behind the game, the final adjudication, a weaver.

I sat down with a 3E group in Wyoming once, they had figurines and dice and cool maps but when I start my action with "My character says..." they gave me a long, strange look. They were not role-players....but war gamers. Every character was designed around the highest damage output, Savings throws, armor classes and feats to harden areas of weakness. Not my cup o' tea.

Once when I was playing AD&D 2nd Edition, I earned a Intelligent +2 Vorpal Long Sword. May have been the single best item I've ever earned in AD&D. Jim Peterson or Shawn Webb(Disherllagh)....if your out there, you know who you are. Send me a PM will ya!

the real difference between new and old-school gaming seems to be this self-imagined sense of elitism that pervades nearly every post i've seen you make.
- trebor_rjf

What is Elitism precisely? Exclusiveness? Limited Inclusion? Or perhaps those that REALLY no what they are talking about?
I am an old-school DM (20 years) but I do not consider myself Elite. Gary Gygax, Dave Arneson, Zeb Cook, Chris Perkins. THOSE are elite.

By classifying ANYONE as Elite...or not, you are by your own actions participating in a form of Elitsm. "This group or person is not as good as me because I so (do not) participate in [insert behavior here]"

So let's not go throwing names, classifications and archetypes. Classifications are for core books....not Forums.

Did the OP just tell me I'm not a good DM because I like to run modules?

I...I don't know what to say to that. 

The DM is all that players and rules don't cover, that is what the DM is, and that is going to vary wildly by group. This means anything the DM can do that can be replaced by a module should have a module for it as much as is reasonably possible. That doesn't change the tradtitional DM job in any way unless the DM chooses to use that module. Hell if all you want to do is have a random dungeon crawl with friends the only thing not traditionally covered by rules or players is the monsters actions, but that can easily be done to a basic level either by the players simply playing them themselves and thus choosing the challenge level, or using simple creatures with simple decision trees. This is a perfectly legitimate way to play and in no way inteferes with traditional play and DM roles.

Dm-less play should be an option, but we all know it will never be the norm. The designers know these tradtitional dm roles well, and so do the players, but to say f-you to any other option is just being stuborn. DDN is a module driven design, and that makes it perhaps the best edition to add dm-less play into, the more dm-less a game can be run, the easier it will be for a dm to pick and choose what he leaves to rules, and what he arbitrates himself. Optional modules that can add up to or close to DM-Less play is a great goal as it means picking and choosing which if any of these modules to use allows anybodies idea of what the DM's role is to be realized.

I really hope the DMG is filled to the brim with modules and dm tools to allow varying degrees of improvization/structure, varying degrees of gaming versus roleplay importance, and verying degrees of dm responsibility. If the DMG contains enough module to replace a DM for certain playstyles then I'll be very happy even though I'll probably never play dm-less.

Let the DM choose their focus, let them choose what aspects of arbitration they want to be rules based and what they want to do manually as that allows for the best range of play styles.

Feb 15, 2013 -- 9:45AM, Baalbamoth wrote:

Souldoubt- ok but lets add on there, "no one should... and besides this is a completely unecessary option that can only harm the game and a designer's time would be better spent working on anything else and most reasonable people would agree with this."

Responding to the bolded text...  Totally subjective opinion, and pretty off-base.  Expanding the number of ways the game can potentially be played helps the game.  It does not harm it.  The idea that the possibility of running a dungeon without a dedicated DM is somehow "wrong," that's just silly.

Firstly, there's no way that DM-less play going to take over as the prime method of playing, so stop feeling like your playstyle is threatened, you're knee-jerking.  It's just an option for a little fun, it can't sustain the hobby as a whole, and won't.

Secondly, what DM-less play can do is offer a "lite" altenative for certain occasions and situations.  Running a combat-heavy dungeon-hack is a great thing to do for a oneshot over drinks, or at a party where you could introduce new players to the basic mechanics of the game, thereby expanding the fanbase and giving novices an avenue into the more "serious" side of D&D.  (I am speaking from personal experience, as my fiancee was convinced to try what you would call "real" D&D after seeing my friends and I run a few informal, just-for-fun encounters at parties.  Admittedly, we had a DM most of the time, but only loosely speaking, as he was running a character as well, and was really just the one rolling for the monsters and tracking their stats; in other instances we divided monster-control up amongst the various players to share the burden.)

Again, expanding the number of ways the game can be played almost always helps; it does not harm.

Feb 15, 2013 -- 9:45AM, Baalbamoth wrote:

so are you really telling me you'd rather have the designers time spent building options for the game to be ran without a DM than to have those designers spending more time on say optional rules for ritual magic? 

I never said or even implied that in the vaguest way.  I'm merely pointing out that you're trying to force your preferences on the game as a whole, which is not how this works.   You use the game according to your preferences, and others use it according to theirs; you don't force the game and others to conform to your views of how the game "should" be played.