Based on a thread I was in, it came to my attention what the reason for our arguing past each other (myself and AaronOfBarbaria): it was the idea of being exclusive vs. inclusive.
Being a DM is a very intimidating thing, especially for D&D and 5E. I know many players that are simply too afraid to do it. When we have forums named "Dungeon Master's Only", that nomenclature helps cement that divide. It would be great if we could soften that to something more friendly and inviting like:
Dungeon Master's Corner
Dungeon Master's Lounge
All things Dungeon Mastering
Something that removes notion that, "if you're not a DM, you're not welcome here."
Anecdote: I just went to my local game shop and they have a big sign that says, "NO FOOD OR DRINK". So, even though I'm a 35 year old adult, I was treated like a child and asked to put my covered coffee beverage on the counter while I looked around their shop. The shop in which all of the books were encased in plastic sleeves anyway. The entire time I was there was not enjoyable, so I just left sooner than I normally would have.
Same thing here, we can do little things to help out with the inclusivity.
Meh... Cement the devide? We need to build a wall... :D with a big sign that says players "KEEP OUT! Awesome stuff in here and you can't see it because you are just a lowly player."
Now, if that offends, blame your parents.
We need to replace the "You are not welcome here vibe with something more clear, like "Get out, now. This forum is only sustainable if it is DMs only."
Anything that can be done to remove obstacles from becoming a DM, whether they are real obstacles or merely perceptions of obstacles, is something I think should be done. As is anything which can reduce players vs. the DM to being just a playstyle choice rather than a common perception of how the game is "supposed to be". Same with anything that might make it more likely that when I come across a new person to game with out in the world, I would be equally able to be well-received as both a player while they DM and a DM with which they can play, rather than the person believing that a gamer must be one or the other, never both.
But but but... DMs are gods.. not mere mortals like the peasant players :D
Our knowledge is far too vast for them to possibly understand...
Seriously though.. something like "DMs Only" makes me want to know more about being a DM... to be part of that group.. Elitist jerks that we are :D
I see the divide as an invitation and challenge to players to rise up to be a DM.. and being to timid and getting scared off by such things is a good thing.. there are some pretty bad DMs out there who thought it would be easy...
A good DM needs to be a bit narcissistic I think... also a bit schizophrenic... but that's another topic. :D
Super agree. Glad to see other people who want to make DMing a less daunting thing. This is usually how some of us who are able to DM end up being the ONLY ones who DM in some of our groups. When I worked at a public library as a teen librarian, I worked incredibly hard to show a group of teens that DMing was not really as overwhelming as it seemed. Not only that, but that as a player, you can't expect the DM to do everything for you and that altogether, everyone is really just telling a story together. That seemed to get a few of them up for it.
There is a lot of support for being a player, but being a DM still seems like an exclusive club. I really wish there was more official support on how to be a DM outside of the Starter Kit. Other than just 'doing it,' it can be hard for players to take the step into DMing at all.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM: Adventures in Phandalin [Khessa], The Dread of Strahd[Darya], Dragons of Stormwreck Isle [Rook], Baldur's Gate Mysteries [4-Player] Player: Oona in MO's Icewind Dale Ru's Current Status
But but but... DMs are gods.. not mere mortals like the peasant players :D
Our knowledge is far too vast for them to possibly understand...
Seriously though.. something like "DMs Only" makes me want to know more about being a DM... to be part of that group.. Elitist jerks that we are :D
I see the divide as an invitation and challenge to players to rise up to be a DM.. and being to timid and getting scared off by such things is a good thing.. there are some pretty bad DMs out there who thought it would be easy...
A good DM needs to be a bit narcissistic I think... also a bit schizophrenic... but that's another topic. :D
You know how many reasons I can think of the make DMing appear to be a "challenge"?
For a bad DM to deceive their players into sticking with their bad DMing rather than thinking it is entirely possible that one of them could be a better DM, or that they could all go find another DM that they'd prefer playing with.
End of list. There are, as far as I am aware, zero good reasons to give people any more reasons than they will already have (such as not liking it, or ending up with a DMing style that they like but that doesn't mesh with their available players) to not try out being a DM. Whereas if we were to make DMing appear as easy to get into, and then learn how to do it well, as it truly is (by which I am referring to how a not-particularly exceptional tween could just pick up the game and be DMing it mere hours later) we might actually end up with some things that the community at large believes to be true - that players who won't DM outnumber players who will DM to a ridiculous degree, and that DMing takes some special trait that most people just don't have - being false, and as a result the community would thrive because there would be more DMs out there, which would mean more campaigns and thus more opportunities for people to sit down and play (and as a result, get hooked on the hobby).
As for being narcissistic - you think a DM needs that? I think it makes a DM less likely to be awesome in the eyes of their players. I've never even heard of a player thanking their DM for being narcissistic, but I have been personally thanked for my attitude that the players at my table are just as important as I am. "My way is right, and you can leave if you don't like it" results in a player choosing between two options that they don't like either of - but "Let's work out how to do this together, what are your thoughts?" can result in the player having an option that they actually do like, and that is, unquestionably, a better situation to be in.
IMO, A good m gives players the illusion of control to a point, but must still always main in control. A good DM must also, not worry about what anyone thinks and not let other's opinion sway them from the story and objectives of the world they are DMing.
A small does of narcissism is health.. thick sin, can take an insult and not let it bother them, if they screw up, take it in stride and move on without it affecting the flow of the game or the relationships with the DM and players..
Also, a DM must be able to multitask many different things, while appearing to only be focused on one thing: the player's experience in the story...
That is arare thing to be able to do, and an even more rare thing to be able to do well.
I agree a bad DM deceiving their players into accepting their bad Dm, is part of what makes a good DM.
I also think a Good Dm hiding the abd so ti does not detract from the story and pulling that off through deception for the betterment of the group is a needed and rare thing to be able to do well and often.
You have to keep a TON of secrets from the players.. and you have to lie and decieve tham all; the time... that is how a good DM can player 100+ characters vs just 1 and give he appearance that it is all good and easy...
Whereas if we were to make DMing appear as easy to get into,
Another side of the same deception coin...
A DM should not ever be on a power trip, but a DM should always be in charge... a DM should not let a player with a more dominant personality have free reign and run amuck on the DM's story. The work a good DM puts into his sessions needs to be respected.
Sure, find a way to make it more inviting.. but make sure it is done with the clear understanding of how hard it is benig a DM...
Whoever says being a DM is easy is not doing it right.
I see DMing as more of a collaborative effort. I totally let player characters sway the way the world works. I incorporate their ideas when they sound great, make sense, and seem cool. I think of myself as someone who is just keeping track of the NPCs/Baddies, lore, and events. Otherwise, I do let my players mostly do what they want. The most railroading that happens is mostly at the beginning and end of a campaign. I just try to be flexible in my thinking.
DM: Adventures in Phandalin [Khessa], The Dread of Strahd[Darya], Dragons of Stormwreck Isle [Rook], Baldur's Gate Mysteries [4-Player] Player: Oona in MO's Icewind Dale Ru's Current Status
Whoever says being a DM is easy is not doing it right.
Being a DM is easy. What makes it appear to some to be difficult is that it takes time - whether that is time spent pinning down huge amounts of details in your campaign plans, working on the various sorts of props many DMs use for the game, or just time spent learning how to more efficiently squeeze fun out of the fruit which is a gaming session.
I say this as a person that has basically never not been a DM, but that learned to take feedback from my players and ideas from people I'd only chatted with about their own gaming experiences and try them out to see which would enhance my game - both in the sense of my own enjoyment of it, and in the sense of how excited my players were about playing at my table - and as a result has seen more than a few DMs that said things like you say and had the attitude about DMing you appear to have find their players choosing my table over theirs.
The only players I've ever seen choose to believe the illusions you believe make for "good" DMing are those which have never been offered another way to play.
Edit to Add: I just realized that I forgot to point out another thought I had upon reading your post. Choose only one of the following to be true, because they are mutually exclusive:
A) "A DM should not ever be on a power trip"
B) "A good DM must also, not worry about what anyone thinks and not let other's opinion sway them from the story and objectives of the world they are DMing"
If you flat-out refuse to let anyone other opinion of a participant in your game affect what you have planned to have happen in the game, you are the very definition of the phrase 'on a power trip'.
Given the nature of DDB I can see one really good reason to have a "DMs Only" forum: I have players here, players who know my screen name thanks to the campaign invites. It's quite possible those same players might frequent other rpg forums that I do, but in those places the only way we'd ever know is if I or they happen to mention it in conversation.
"DMs Only" provides at least a warning to players that here there be spoilers. And dragons. Not all conversations are about rulings or music playlists, some are people asking for help with their current campaigns.
Given the nature of DDB I can see one really good reason to have a "DMs Only" forum: I have players here, players who know my screen name thanks to the campaign invites. It's quite possible those same players might frequent other rpg forums that I do, but in those places the only way we'd ever know is if I or they happen to mention it in conversation.
"DMs Only" provides at least a warning to players that here there be spoilers. And dragons. Not all conversations are about rulings or music playlists, some are people asking for help with their current campaigns.
Entirely irrelevant to the name of the forum being made more inviting - what you are asking for, players to know when opening thread might spoil something for them, can be accomplished with something as simple as a tag (whether built into the forum, or applied by typing out [Spoilers for -blank-] as part of the thread title.
Also, it seems your concern is backwards; since your players know your screen name here, and that screen name is attached to the threads you start and the posts you make, they would already be aware that if the topic is stuff that can be spoiled that your posts are spoilers/spoiler risks - but on other forums where you have a different name so they don't know which posts are yours, they could easily read something in one of your posts that spoils what is coming up in your campaign. It seems to me the goal would be to do something to help your players avoid spoilers on whatever other forums you use, rather than to keep a sub-forum here named something unhelpful.
Given the nature of DDB I can see one really good reason to have a "DMs Only" forum: I have players here, players who know my screen name thanks to the campaign invites. It's quite possible those same players might frequent other rpg forums that I do, but in those places the only way we'd ever know is if I or they happen to mention it in conversation.
"DMs Only" provides at least a warning to players that here there be spoilers. And dragons. Not all conversations are about rulings or music playlists, some are people asking for help with their current campaigns.
Entirely irrelevant to the name of the forum being made more inviting - what you are asking for, players to know when opening thread might spoil something for them, can be accomplished with something as simple as a tag (whether built into the forum, or applied by typing out [Spoilers for -blank-] as part of the thread title.
Also, it seems your concern is backwards; since your players know your screen name here, and that screen name is attached to the threads you start and the posts you make, they would already be aware that if the topic is stuff that can be spoiled that your posts are spoilers/spoiler risks - but on other forums where you have a different name so they don't know which posts are yours, they could easily read something in one of your posts that spoils what is coming up in your campaign. It seems to me the goal would be to do something to help your players avoid spoilers on whatever other forums you use, rather than to keep a sub-forum here named something unhelpful.
Yeah. That was mostly tongue-in-cheek. If I don't want to spoil something, I just don't post about it. There was actually a recent thread in the DM Only forum where I could have contributed, but doing so would have been to post a spoiler for my current campaign, so I refrained. It's not like there's a bouncer at the door checking to ensure that only DMs are posting - and if there were, I'd be in serious trouble, as I let my DM id card expire (the fees on that thing are ridiculous).
Yeah. That was mostly tongue-in-cheek. If I don't want to spoil something, I just don't post about it. There was actually a recent thread in the DM Only forum where I could have contributed, but doing so would have been to post a spoiler for my current campaign, so I refrained.[/quote]
That seems like a good time to use a spoiler block... though I realize I'm not sure if this forum has the ability to code them into a post. Guess I'll test it.
Edit: Looks like no... or at least they aren't using the coding I'm familiar with for them. That's something to add to the list of desired features; spoiler blocks are helpful.
Edit some more: Nevermind the above edit, I just didn't see it because I don't associate ! with spoilers - so yeah, spoiler block, just click the ! found to the left of the insert link chain graphic on the toolbar at the top of the post making window.
It's not like there's a bouncer at the door checking to ensure that only DMs are posting
The title of the forum is itself the "bouncer". Think of a door with a sign on it that reads "Staff Only", and ask yourself how many people that know they aren't staff are going to open that door. But yes, it is good that the situation is not made even worse by someone actively checking credentials of some kind.
"affect what you have planned to have happen in the game," is not the same as "not let other's opinion sway them from the story and objectives"
But whatever...
Maybe I'm the only one not seeing the difference. Maybe someone could try to explain the difference, rather than retort with nothing substantially different from a "nuh uh," that doesn't permit further conversation. I would certainly like that, if it were to happen.
I see the story and objectives are stone... but the path to get there is fluid...
A ........ DM will either not allow for fluidity or allow the players to control the story...
but a Good DM alows apparent chaos to happen... allows the players to do what they want, but that is the lie.. a Good DM will let them believe this while reigning them back into the set in stone story... allowing the players to flow around the stone and not erode it away... and do so without making the player realize one simple truth: they are not and never were in control.
That's the difference... not everyone can do this, and a lot of people are scared to when told this... and most cant be taught how to.
It is the special trait you do not believe exists... DMs are there own breed.
Then we DM differently. The story can change just as much based on actions of the players. Some DMs create words that are vastly more dynamic.
Sure, there is a heartbeat of the storyline that might not change, but only might. If the players circumvent the way it's "supposed" to happen, let the story be dynamic.
What you describe is simply playing out a story from a book or a video game - those mediums are the ones that can't really have dynamic sotrylines.
It is the special trait you do not believe exists... DMs are there own breed.
How do you reconcile that not only do I exist as a DM, but I do so without any "lie" to my players, and without any shortage of players wanting to fill the seats at my table, with your philosophy?
It is the special trait you do not believe exists... DMs are there own breed.
How do you reconcile that not only do I exist as a DM, but I do so without any "lie" to my players, and without any shortage of players wanting to fill the seats at my table, with your philosophy?
I don't know if it is worth arguing with this person. They think they alone know what a good DM is despite how subjective that really is. So many things about storytelling is pretty subjective. I used to have a group of players who ABSOLUTELY wanted to be railroaded (they just wanted to be epic heroes following the beats of a story) and then I had another group that was so far off the map that the campaign book was just used for maps alone and the enemy changed to some NPC that they really hated.
DM: Adventures in Phandalin [Khessa], The Dread of Strahd[Darya], Dragons of Stormwreck Isle [Rook], Baldur's Gate Mysteries [4-Player] Player: Oona in MO's Icewind Dale Ru's Current Status
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Based on a thread I was in, it came to my attention what the reason for our arguing past each other (myself and AaronOfBarbaria): it was the idea of being exclusive vs. inclusive.
Being a DM is a very intimidating thing, especially for D&D and 5E. I know many players that are simply too afraid to do it. When we have forums named "Dungeon Master's Only", that nomenclature helps cement that divide. It would be great if we could soften that to something more friendly and inviting like:
Something that removes notion that, "if you're not a DM, you're not welcome here."
Anecdote: I just went to my local game shop and they have a big sign that says, "NO FOOD OR DRINK". So, even though I'm a 35 year old adult, I was treated like a child and asked to put my covered coffee beverage on the counter while I looked around their shop. The shop in which all of the books were encased in plastic sleeves anyway. The entire time I was there was not enjoyable, so I just left sooner than I normally would have.
Same thing here, we can do little things to help out with the inclusivity.
Meh... Cement the devide? We need to build a wall... :D with a big sign that says players "KEEP OUT! Awesome stuff in here and you can't see it because you are just a lowly player."
Now, if that offends, blame your parents.
We need to replace the "You are not welcome here vibe with something more clear, like "Get out, now. This forum is only sustainable if it is DMs only."
Yes, please, and thank you.
Anything that can be done to remove obstacles from becoming a DM, whether they are real obstacles or merely perceptions of obstacles, is something I think should be done. As is anything which can reduce players vs. the DM to being just a playstyle choice rather than a common perception of how the game is "supposed to be". Same with anything that might make it more likely that when I come across a new person to game with out in the world, I would be equally able to be well-received as both a player while they DM and a DM with which they can play, rather than the person believing that a gamer must be one or the other, never both.
But but but... DMs are gods.. not mere mortals like the peasant players :D
Our knowledge is far too vast for them to possibly understand...
Seriously though.. something like "DMs Only" makes me want to know more about being a DM... to be part of that group.. Elitist jerks that we are :D
I see the divide as an invitation and challenge to players to rise up to be a DM.. and being to timid and getting scared off by such things is a good thing.. there are some pretty bad DMs out there who thought it would be easy...
A good DM needs to be a bit narcissistic I think... also a bit schizophrenic... but that's another topic. :D
Super agree. Glad to see other people who want to make DMing a less daunting thing. This is usually how some of us who are able to DM end up being the ONLY ones who DM in some of our groups. When I worked at a public library as a teen librarian, I worked incredibly hard to show a group of teens that DMing was not really as overwhelming as it seemed. Not only that, but that as a player, you can't expect the DM to do everything for you and that altogether, everyone is really just telling a story together. That seemed to get a few of them up for it.
There is a lot of support for being a player, but being a DM still seems like an exclusive club. I really wish there was more official support on how to be a DM outside of the Starter Kit. Other than just 'doing it,' it can be hard for players to take the step into DMing at all.
DM: Adventures in Phandalin [Khessa], The Dread of Strahd [Darya], Dragons of Stormwreck Isle [Rook], Baldur's Gate Mysteries [4-Player]
Player: Oona in MO's Icewind Dale
Ru's Current Status
IMO, A good m gives players the illusion of control to a point, but must still always main in control. A good DM must also, not worry about what anyone thinks and not let other's opinion sway them from the story and objectives of the world they are DMing.
A small does of narcissism is health.. thick sin, can take an insult and not let it bother them, if they screw up, take it in stride and move on without it affecting the flow of the game or the relationships with the DM and players..
Also, a DM must be able to multitask many different things, while appearing to only be focused on one thing: the player's experience in the story...
That is arare thing to be able to do, and an even more rare thing to be able to do well.
I agree a bad DM deceiving their players into accepting their bad Dm, is part of what makes a good DM.
I also think a Good Dm hiding the abd so ti does not detract from the story and pulling that off through deception for the betterment of the group is a needed and rare thing to be able to do well and often.
You have to keep a TON of secrets from the players.. and you have to lie and decieve tham all; the time... that is how a good DM can player 100+ characters vs just 1 and give he appearance that it is all good and easy...
Another side of the same deception coin...
A DM should not ever be on a power trip, but a DM should always be in charge... a DM should not let a player with a more dominant personality have free reign and run amuck on the DM's story. The work a good DM puts into his sessions needs to be respected.
Sure, find a way to make it more inviting.. but make sure it is done with the clear understanding of how hard it is benig a DM...
Whoever says being a DM is easy is not doing it right.
I see DMing as more of a collaborative effort. I totally let player characters sway the way the world works. I incorporate their ideas when they sound great, make sense, and seem cool. I think of myself as someone who is just keeping track of the NPCs/Baddies, lore, and events. Otherwise, I do let my players mostly do what they want. The most railroading that happens is mostly at the beginning and end of a campaign. I just try to be flexible in my thinking.
DM: Adventures in Phandalin [Khessa], The Dread of Strahd [Darya], Dragons of Stormwreck Isle [Rook], Baldur's Gate Mysteries [4-Player]
Player: Oona in MO's Icewind Dale
Ru's Current Status
Given the nature of DDB I can see one really good reason to have a "DMs Only" forum: I have players here, players who know my screen name thanks to the campaign invites. It's quite possible those same players might frequent other rpg forums that I do, but in those places the only way we'd ever know is if I or they happen to mention it in conversation.
"DMs Only" provides at least a warning to players that here there be spoilers. And dragons. Not all conversations are about rulings or music playlists, some are people asking for help with their current campaigns.
That seems like a good time to use a spoiler block... though I realize I'm not sure if this forum has the ability to code them into a post. Guess I'll test it.
Edit: Looks like no... or at least they aren't using the coding I'm familiar with for them. That's something to add to the list of desired features; spoiler blocks are helpful.
Edit some more: Nevermind the above edit, I just didn't see it because I don't associate ! with spoilers - so yeah, spoiler block, just click the ! found to the left of the insert link chain graphic on the toolbar at the top of the post making window.
The title of the forum is itself the "bouncer". Think of a door with a sign on it that reads "Staff Only", and ask yourself how many people that know they aren't staff are going to open that door. But yes, it is good that the situation is not made even worse by someone actively checking credentials of some kind."affect what you have planned to have happen in the game," is not the same as "not let other's opinion sway them from the story and objectives"
But whatever...
and I never said this... not as you wrote it to try and alter the meaning of my point anyway... nice try though
Anyway, think we hijacked this thread enough.. I just don;t care enough to continue defending my opinion LOL
Maybe I'm the only one not seeing the difference. Maybe someone could try to explain the difference, rather than retort with nothing substantially different from a "nuh uh," that doesn't permit further conversation. I would certainly like that, if it were to happen.
I see the story and objectives are stone... but the path to get there is fluid...
A ........ DM will either not allow for fluidity or allow the players to control the story...
but a Good DM alows apparent chaos to happen... allows the players to do what they want, but that is the lie.. a Good DM will let them believe this while reigning them back into the set in stone story... allowing the players to flow around the stone and not erode it away... and do so without making the player realize one simple truth: they are not and never were in control.
That's the difference... not everyone can do this, and a lot of people are scared to when told this... and most cant be taught how to.
It is the special trait you do not believe exists... DMs are there own breed.
Then we DM differently. The story can change just as much based on actions of the players. Some DMs create words that are vastly more dynamic.
Sure, there is a heartbeat of the storyline that might not change, but only might. If the players circumvent the way it's "supposed" to happen, let the story be dynamic.
What you describe is simply playing out a story from a book or a video game - those mediums are the ones that can't really have dynamic sotrylines.
D&D has so much more potential than that.
DM: Adventures in Phandalin [Khessa], The Dread of Strahd [Darya], Dragons of Stormwreck Isle [Rook], Baldur's Gate Mysteries [4-Player]
Player: Oona in MO's Icewind Dale
Ru's Current Status