Measurable Improvement

This example of the novice highlights an inaccuracy in the designation, "dungeon master." As Danielle Osterman notes in the book, 2d6 Taoists, (Dungeon Apprentices: How Players become Dungeon Masters), the word "master" cannot apply to many who run the game, because the word implies a level of expertise or control that fails to match that of the person. This misnomer carries into the common alterative, "game master," or GM, which does not reconcile the problem as the wrong word is changed in the title.

From this, and from the description of the novice's shortcomings in the previous post, we can see that experience and ability are qualities that develop gradually through knowledge, learning and practice. The novice may nominally possess the authority of the DM, and the title, but this does not in itself ascribe that he or she has earned this position. Many have not. Many perceive that the mere act of adopting the title is sufficient — and as such tend not to accumulate expertise over time, through an inability to admit wrongdoing. Still others assume that the division between "novice" and "not-a-novice" is something that can be expressed in black-and-white terms, believing that having run the game for a few years, they're now an "expert," though there remains an entirely subjective measure.

Still others argue there can only BE subjective measures — that the game is so complex and, more importantly, personal, that distinctions of "good" and "bad" can be explained away by arguing, "I simply run differently," or "My priorities are different." These are convenient appellations, by necessity poorly defined and of course dismissive of any possibility that the speaker might yet have something to learn.

Continued on The Higher Path