"The Dungeon Master (DM) is the creative force behind a D&D game. The DM creates a world for the other players to explore, and also creates and runs adventures that drive that story ... A Dungeon Master gets to wear many hats. As the architect of a campaign, the DM creates adventures by placing monsters, traps and treasures for the other player's characters (the adventurers) to discover. As a storyteller, the DM helps the other players visualize what's happening around them, improvising when the adventurers do something or go somewhere unexpected."
And now, another definition, from the 1st Edition DM's Guide, p. 7, Preface:
"When you build your campaign you will tailor it to suit your personal tastes. In the heat of play it will slowly evolve into a compound of your personality and those of your better participants, a superior alloy. And as long as your campaign remains viable, it will continue a slow process of change and growth. In this lies a great danger, however. The systems and parameters contained in the whole of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons are based on a great deal of knowledge, experience gained through discussion, play, testing, questioning and (hopefully) personal insight."
Interesting.
The replacement of the 2nd-person "you" with the 3rd-person "DM" is telling. The 1st Edition introduction doesn't talk at all about the DM or the adventure. It talks about systems, about what the author tried to include, about boundaries to put on the party and what not to allow the party to do. And again, it talks about "you," not some amorphous "the DM."
I had to find a comparison paragraph in the Preface that I could match up with the 5e DMG, and it still doesn't. The 5e DMG uses a lot of verbs to describe what the DM does. The DM creates (used 3 times), runs, gets, places, helps and improvises. These are all connected directly to the DM and what the DM does is written in every sentence.
The 1e DMG uses two verbs, build and tailor, and only in the first sentence. The rest is about what happens after the DM acts. The campaign evolves, continues, changes, grows.
The 5e introduction spends its time talking about what an adventure is, what things are, what the DM gets. It never talks about cost and it never talks about change. It is static. It is these things we are telling you.
Whereas the 1e preface talks about what things require, what they limit and balance, and ultimately where it can all go wrong. It talks about this on the first page. Six paragraphs in, Gygax is warning that a mutable system means it can all go wrong and fast. In the paragraph above, he lays it straight. This is not going to be easy.
And it wasn't.
Consider the words, "In the heat of play," and how divorced they are from virtually anything you will read in a rule-book nowadays. Gygax is remembering his wargaming days, his Chainmail days, the sessions where fights broke out and people hurled dice and threats at each other. He's telling us, the reader, that the forge of play is going to make our game better. The phrase, "evolve into a compound," is a weaponsmith's, the metallurgist seeking the right mix, so that it can be hammered and beat on the anvil to produce the best metal. Those elements are our personality and our best participants. Not players we "help," but players who, along with ourselves, found together to make the best alloy.
It is right there in his 2nd paragraph. Inferior DMs and Players do not make good games. A good game is not created, it is forged in fire and anger and hard work. Nothing is guaranteed. You've got to work. You've got to discuss and play. You've got to test and question. Hopefully, he says, you have insight.
Why "hopefully"? Why toss in that possibility that you won't have insight? Why doesn't he just pat you on the head, like 5e does, and assume you can do it, without ever giving you reason to doubt?
Gygax isn't selling something. He's saying, "Life is pain. Anyone who says differently is selling something."
And this, I think, is at the core of everything.
2nd edition and everything afterward ~ no, scratch that, because I think it started even while I was still playing D&D in high school. The modules and other like role-playing games that were published tried to sell an idea that "anyone could do it." It is splashed all over the 5e DMG. This book will help you. As a DM, you get to wear many hats, like you've won a prize. Want to invent a world? This book helps you "nail down a few important details," like it's something you can sluff off in an afternoon, no problem. Your world is a place where you can escape. You don't have to memorize this book. Swear to gawd, it says right here, "Being the DM should be fun."
Why? Why should it be fun? Because, as the 5e DMG says, "Focus on the aspects you enjoy and downplay the rest." See? This isn't about you and your players working together, this is about you slacking off when you don't give a fuck and just doing what feels like a laugh riot.
This guy made a game. |
Gygax takes time and effort to make it perfectly clear that no, not everyone can be a DM. You can try, but be warned. These are dangerous waters. You're going to fuck up. You're going to have to work. There's heat and lots of hammering ahead of you. And a lot of sweat. It is going to be a bitch to bring this sucker home. And you might never do it. Be warned.
The Hater's Game says, "Hey, woah, slow down there. DMing should be fun. You don't have to work that hard, man. You've got the books, don't you? If something happens, well, shit, it's your world. Just ... make something up. Improvise. Fuck, dude, what's with all this danger bullshit?"
One is truth and one is evasion.
One is your parents telling you as a child, "You lost. If you want to win next year, you'll have to keep practicing."
The other is your parents telling you, "You did great! You tried your best. You have nothing to be ashamed of!"
It isn't even that there's a black and white line between "yes you can" and "no you can't." That's a grey, grey line. With a lot of work needed over here and time spent practicing over there, with things inside us to overcome and books to read, not to mention figuring out just what "insight" is. But however grey the line is, there is definitely a tipping point that DMs reach where they realize, "No, I was not cut out for this."
In my opinion, that tipping point comes just at the moment when the DM realizes what it is we mean when we say, "this." Effectively, the actual whole and complete picture of what it really means to be a DM. It takes time to get there; and a lot of that time is spent wallowing around and scrambling ~ and then the sun comes up and the whole vista of D&D reveals itself as one immense picture. For a moment, we stare at it, taking it all in. It's ... it's huge. It's just so fucking big. Big and beautiful ... and scary.
And DMs divide themselves into two kinds of people. One hesitates, blinks, feels a moment of lightheadedness, then picks up a pair of heavier gloves, hefts the forging sledge up on their shoulder and starts down into that enormous valley.
And the other shakes their head and says, "No fucking way," and promptly goes back the way they came. The sun sets and leaves the familiar way in the dark and for a few years, the backpeddlar furtively pokes around at shit before deciding, "You know, this is kind of a waste of time."
I believe that 5th Edition, the Hater's Edition, deliberately caters to the backpeddler. And the company went along because they realized that the DM with his hammer wasn't going to need the company anyway, not after they'd seen Shambhala. So the Company and the Haters made a marriage and 5th Edition is the rough beast offspring that came out. And we have be vexed to nightmare by the rocking cradle.
Alexis: I had not realized how drastically the use of 2nd person affects presentation until you lined those paragraphs up side by side here and pointed it out.
ReplyDeleteYou've captured why I like re-reading the 1E DMG on occasion. (And why my books from other systems/editions mostly sit on shelves and gather dust...) It's rare to find anything written quite like it, specific to D&D, that has that same personal tone and pulls no punches about how difficult the work required is.
All I have beyond that is a congratulatory, "Well said!" I look forward to seeing where you go with your next post.
First: I am trying to find a way to not be 'Unknown' but its 3 AM and...well, screw it. I'll simply sign my name at the end.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your premise. I do not know if I'd call it the 'haters edition' however...I might instead call it the 'DnD for Dummies' edition. I see it very much as the edition of 'I want to run Dungeons and Dragons but I'm not very good at it/have never done so before'. 5e is...well, not hard to run. A monkey can do it and get a pretty average result. In other words, it is hard to demonstrably FAIL at running a 5e campaign.
The industry is designed around making you feel good for running a game separate from the quality of the content of your game. It isn't bad, it isn't mediocre, as long as you are having 'fun'. This is almost impossible to argue against. How can you tell someone 'thats not fun' when they can counter 'It is for me!'?
Well designed rules attempt to answer the question: "How does a DM maximize player interactivity at the table?" However, this question lends itself to debate and one can simply point to literally any other edition and say '5e doesn't do this, this other edition or ruleset does it better'.
The designers know this. So instead, they changed the terms of the debate. I can't counter an argument of 'But we're having fun!'. That 5e stresses the '...but fun!' REALLY effectively shields it from criticism and at the same time nips in the bud any honest debate. This is by design. It's impossible to really counter in an effective manner. Rules, solid and well designed, can be argued with and debated and changed and in the forge analogy used so long ago...an alloy can be created that will fit each individual table and further refined over time (much as you have attempted to do on your wiki with your house rules). As you say: A well designed system provides a foundation that is sturdy and can be built upon.
In my experience (and I have tried with 5e...I've given it SEVERAL honest shots both as DM and as player) it just does not lend itself to interesting game sessions. Nor is it fun or interesting to 'build upon'. I consider myself an excellent DM. I can make ANY system work, given enough time and enough changes. However, the 5e simply does not give the novice the GM the tools they need in order to effectively run an interactive and interesting campaign in a believable and memorable world.
-HJFudge
HJ,
ReplyDeleteYou will notice an entire online industry has grown up around the problem, "How can I be better ...?" Colville supposedly parlayed this into "the biggest kickstarter there ever was." There's room for improvement.
Incidentally, there are quite a lot of industries pointing out that fun things aren't fun. Booze and drugs for a start, right into excessive sugar, fats and a lack of exercise. Fun things are often self-destructive. The argument we make is, "Yes, I know it is fun now, but do you want to have fun tomorrow?"
Do you want to play D&D for two years until you get sick of it, or do you want this game to sustain your "fun" for decades?
Just to echo Stealth: "well said."
ReplyDeleteAs you know, I live very near to WotC headquarters...it would be a terrible commute because of Seattle traffic, but I've worked on that side of the water before. Several times over the last year I've had the idea of applying for a gig there, just to monetize my gaming passion, knowing full well that my public remarks may well have blacklisted me from ever working for them.
THIS. This post. This is the kind of thing that stops me from even fluffing up a resume.
I suppose I've been fortunate in my life to have never had to work for a business that went against my values or ethics. I spent most of my working career in the public sector, but even my private sector jobs had a "service" value to them that I appreciated (or, in fast food, were effectively "neutral"). But working on selling D&D in this way...well, it would be pushing something that I don't believe in, all in aid of making a quick buck for the company. Catering to the lowest (or loudest) common denominator.
I've got an oddball theory: D&D (or rather its owners) has been its own worst enemy ever since it decided to start chasing trends, instead of setting them. Ever since it stopped dictating to its fan-base and started doing "market research." Ever since it started listening to the proles.
Every new edition, every shiny, fancier version, has simply been the corporation's attempt at treading water. Doesn't matter which corporation. Ever since the bottom line (and what its profits meant to the executives in charge) became more important than the product being produced, the thing's been in decline.
That main sound dumb...a bunch of anti-capitalist twaddle but, yeah. I guess it depends on how seriously you take a game like D&D.
Thank you for this post, Alexis. Earlier this year, I switched my 5E game to Classic D&D (with some house rules) because I was putting in too much effort to try and mold 5E into the game I wanted it to be instead of the game it is. This post helps me to clarify my thoughts on why I wanted to change.
ReplyDeleteWotC seems to think that "fun" is fighting monsters with 30 hit points and doing 5 damage at 1st level, fighting monsters with 100 hit points and doing 20 damage at 5th level, fighting monsters with 300 hit points and doing 40 damage at 10th level, etc etc etc. It's a very narrow conception of what the game is and can be. But as you say, it sure is easy to run a game that way! Just keep throwing bigger monsters their way, and keep giving them cooler magic items! Watch those XP accumulate!
I'm glad I rejected that. And this post will help me to better articulate why I made that switch.
Once again, the difference that the presentation makes is astounding. I've read the 1e players' handbook, but never the dungeon master's guide. These articles are a great inspiration.
ReplyDelete