People just don't believe me (I guess).
Over and over again I hear the same complaint; it generally goes something like this:
Man, I'd love to run an [old edition] D&D game, but I've had to bite the bullet and run 5E. That's the only game players seem to want (or know how) to play.
Let me be perfectly crystal clear here: no, you NEVER have to run 5E (nor any other version of the world's greatest RPG) for anyone.
Nope. Zero.
These folks that are complaining are missing an important dynamic here: the Dungeon Master holds all the power.
"But-but-but...without players to DM, what IS a Dungeon Master? I must please my players or they will leave and there will be no game! I'll be left all aloooooone...!"
It is this kind of thinking that keeps you in chains.
Look: forget (for a second) that there is this internet thing that allows us to connect with (and find) players all over the world. Ignore that...forget about it. Okay? Got it? Moving on:
Is anyone forcing you to be a Dungeon Master?
Seriously...blink twice if you are being forced to run D&D against your will; we'll send the cops to free you from your kidnappers.
For the vast majority (if not 100%) of cases, we are choosing to be the Dungeon Master. For any number of reasons! But "Dungeon Master" is not a profession (yes, yes...I know there are some people who earn money DMing...just keep wit my thread). You are not dependent on running D&D to earn your daily bread...something else is putting food in your mouth and a roof over your head. Being a DM ain't that thing...it's not like you will starve to death and become homeless if you stop being the DM.
We CHOOSE to be DMs to run a D&D game. No one is putting a gun to our heads. And just as we have the free will to choose to run D&D, we have the free will to choose which version of D&D we want to run. In fact, if you plan on taking up the mantle of a DM it is your responsibility to choose a version of D&D that you want to run, that is most comfortable for you to run.
Because if you don't, your game will suck.
That's the truth of the matter: a DM cannot be fully invested in their own game if it isn't a game they want to run. Instead, you'll end up frustrated, regretful, and resentful. You will grow fatigued when it comes to the act of creation, rather than inspired and energized. Your games will suffer, you will lose enthusiasm, you will draw out a long, slow, death and constantly looking forward to the time when the campaign finally, mercifully ends. You may be a competent DM for the duration, but you will definitely NOT be the best DM you could be. How could you be? When you hate coming to work every day, you either drag your feet (perhaps subconsciously hoping you'll get fired) or build up a smoldering ball of anger inside that kills all the joy you should feel at this pastime you've CHOSEN to do.
You MUST have joy in the act of being a Dungeon Master: not only of running the game, but of crafting the world and writing adventure scenarios. If you do not, your game will suck and your players will sense it no matter how good a job you do at hiding it (unless, I suppose, they're really obtuse players). Running a campaign is WORK. You must enjoy that work or you will not give it your best effort. True...you MAY be able to "steel yourself" and still put up a heck of a game. But it will NOT have the excitement and joyfulness it could have. And will, thus, suffer for it.
"But-but-but...all my players are my FRIENDS! It's not just about wanting to play D&D, it's about wanting to play D&D with THESE PARTICULAR PEOPLE. And they ONLY want to play 5E! If I refuse to run 5E, my long time gaming group will disappear!"
Just what kind of slave are you? Or, perhaps a better question, what kind of friends are these?
I have friends. Most of them I've never gamed with. NONE of them are folks I currently game with. That doesn't stop us from being friends. And if they invited me to join their table and play a session of 5E with them, I might give it a whirl...if I didn't have any other pressing engagements that particular evening.
But I wouldn't run 5E for them. I would not run a 5E campaign for them.
And if they wanted me to run a D&D campaign for them...or ANY kind of campaign for them (that is an incredibly imposition, just by the way: hey, will you our Dungeon Master?)...and IF I had the time and the bandwidth to do so, it would be under MY TERMS.
Because I am the Dungeon Master.
I used to run a weekly game at a local bar every Thursday night. For the most part, the game I was running was B/X. For the most part, most of the players that would show up to the game were people I had never met before they sat down at my gaming table. Over time, the number of players grew to double-digit numbers. Then I stopped running a B/X game and instead started play-testing other things. The number of players shrunk. But new players comtinued to show up...people who had read about my game on my blog or who had heard about the game from a friend or someone who was bringing their significant other to the table.
The game ended because I moved to Paraguay for three years. The game only ended because I ended it.
In my youth, I stopped running games because I stopped running games. It's not because "all my players left me." So what? You can always find players. People like to play games and people are (usually) pretty lazy...as long as all they have to do is show up and roll dice, well gee, that's pretty easy. Hell, most players these days can't even be bothered to read the rule books!
[damn illiterate culture we're sliding into]
The only person doing REAL WORK here, is the guy or gal sitting in the Dungeon Master's chair. So guess what? THAT's the person who's calling the shots on what game gets run at the table. There's not even the excuse (only semi-valid 10 years ago) that the old books are out-of-print. You can get all the 1E stuff now, print-on-demand! Or PDF if you want to go cheap and digital!
[sure, buddy...like you're really going to read the book]
Don't let would-be players manipulate you. "But 1E isn't supported with on-line tools like 5E," they whine. Yeah, because it doesn't need "support;" there aren't any 'character builds' in 1E. "But 1E was written by racist old white dudes." So what? Lots of games were. Does it stop other people from enjoying them? Have you ever looked at the guys who built the NBA, the NFL, the MLB, etc.? "But 1E is all about killing people and robbing them!" Look, I thought you wanted to play Dungeons & Dragons. The game is about finding treasure in a violent, action packed world. If you don't want to play that kind of game...that's OKAY. But that's the game I run.
[and please tell me, just by the way, is it somehow better to play a game that still involves murder but without the robbery? Because your murdering for "altruistic" reasons? Just WTF does THAT say about our cultural norms these days?]
There are some people who disagree with, or dislike, the premise of the D&D game. And that is fine...D&D is probably not the game for them. But if you (like me) are okay with that premise and want to run a game of Dungeons & Dragons, then do so. And do so in the manner...and with the system...that YOU find most comfortable and that best suits your needs. Maybe that IS 5th edition. Or 2nd. Or B/X or one of its many clones. That's fine...YOU are the Dungeon Master. You call the shots.
But don't bitch and moan about it. Don't say you have to run 5th edition. That's a damned lie. No one HAS TO run 5E (save, perhaps, for WotC employees who have it stipulated as pat of their contract). One of the perks of being the Dungeon Master is that you're the honcho in charge...stop giving away your power!
Dungeon Masters, sorry to say, are a premium commodity: there aren't enough of them to go around. And if you don't have a DM and want one...that can be tough. Like it or not, you might very well end up in a 5E game if that's the only thing available in your area. And that's sad because 5E (especially its latest incarnation) ain't great.
But if you're a competent and willing Dungeon Master? You're good to go. Just run the game you want to run, regardless of any demands of the players. If the game/system you're running is one YOU are enthused about, the players who are interested in that type of gaming will be fully engaged and committed. If they're not, they'll walk...and that's okay. Because the alternative is going to be ending up with a game that sucks.
Grow a backbone. Stop whining. Run the game you want to run.
Agreed. If they don't want to play what you're running, then either they step up and run or they don't get to play. When I run I'm always upfront about what system I'm running and what kind of game it is. If that's not a player's cup of tea, they get to sit out until the next game, however long that takes. If they build a character and then get all passive/aggressive and try and ruin the game, I will ask them to leave and not come back. Life is too short to game with jerks.
ReplyDeleteYep. My time is already at a premium.
DeleteLove the Marxist overtones of this! "It is this kind of thinking that keeps you in chains."
ReplyDeleteBut slightly off-topic, I really appreciated your treatment of the argument: "But 1E is all about killing people and robbing them!" It is. It is a violent game about killing. I get why people may not want to play that sort of game.
But playing 5e doesn't fix that! Not killing demi-humans because they have culture doesn't fix that! It just moves the inherently-evil-thing-that-I-can-feel-good-about-killing label to something else.
I actually accept the criticism that D&D is colonialist. Me and my players joke about some of the stuff that is in old TSR modules, but I also think that we can acknowledge that and move past it, accepting that it is just a game.
Right. I mean (w.r.t. "what D&D is about"): I'm not into car driving games (unless we're talking Car Wars...*vroom*). I'm not into "first person shooter" video games. There's enough shooting in the world.
DeleteD&D may have "colonialist overtones," but that's not how I run my game. I mean...first of all, do we even want to argue that an aboleth or mind flayer has "rights" or something? Because they're a hostile frigging xenoform species...the latter of which subsists on HUMAN BRAINS. Really...you want to adopt a "live and let live" policy there?
I don't use alignment in my game. Orcs and goblins are just other sentient beings sharing the planet in the setting. Players tend not to "murder the orc villagers" for the same reason they choose not to "murder the human villagers:" there's not much profit in it. And the players need money to survive. So they look for more exciting fare.
But all this is taken care of in the world building aspect of the DM's job. Create a world that makes (a certain degree of) sense, and the players will live in it. And the only way for a DM to have enough excitement/initiative to do that kind of world building is for the DM to run the game they WANT to run.
The cycle feeds itself.
; )
You know, the whole "old D&D is about murder and robbery" just hasn't been my experience. As I used to often talk about on my now-defunct blog, experience points from monsters and foes in older D&D is *peanuts.* Most of the experience is from treasure. The last time I ran older D&D was an OSE campaign I ran online during the height of the pandemic, and the players quickly learned that the key to experience isn't wanton murder, but wheelin', dealin', and stealin'. Sure, a game about robbing people blind probably isn't the height of morality, but I've just always seen mass slaughter in the game as a high risk-low reward way of going about things.
DeleteMaybe I'm lucky to live in an open minded community, but I haven't seen that attitude from players on the whole. I know a few people that "know what they like" in games and only want to play those games or systems. But the vast majority of players are up for whatever game the GM wants to run. And they few who stick to their preferrdd system aren't trying to pressure GMs into running games for them. Is that attitude more prominent in the US?
ReplyDeleteI haven't personally observed it...it's just what folks tell me (or what I read) on the internet.
DeleteIt's also not confined to the U.S...I've heard this from the European community as well.
Just had this exact same scenario. I was getting back into DMing, having been out since 3.5. Did a lot of research and picked Shadowdark for my middle school group. I chose it because it seemed like fun -- fast combat, lighter rules, etc. Most of the kids had only played 5e. They complained loudly and begged for 5e. I relented 2nd semester and gave it my best shot. They had a pretty good time but I didn't. This year I just said it's Shadowdark, baby! The group is bigger than last year, and I'm loving DMing. I've done loads of research on DnD over the past months and have a better idea why I prefer the old-school style and why I'm not a fan of 5e. You can like whatever you like for sure. It's just at my table, we're going in to the Shadowdark. Torches up!
ReplyDeleteYou can't be both a dancing monkey AND an effective DM.
DeleteAgreed, play what your passionate about.
ReplyDeleteWhen my long 2e campaign ended because I moved cities, once I was settled in to my new job and place I decided it was time to run a game again. I wanted to run my homebrew rules. I reached out and all my old players jumped at the chance to play in my game even though it was a playtest of homebrew rules and online. They knew I was a good DM who ran good campaigns. Rules didn't matter to them. Went for 2 years before I had to wind it down.
A DM who is engaged with the subject matter will create a better game. There's already so much on the DM's plate...you have to make it as easy as possible for the creative juices to flow. As a DM, you must not allow yourself to be stymied!
DeleteAt some point there was this weird shift in attitude in the D&D community (it might not be restricted to D&D, but I haven't noticed it in other games' communities as yet) that the DM is no longer one of the players at the table, also there to have fun, but is a functionary who's job/obligation is to "provide an enjoyable game experience for the players".
ReplyDeleteI'm not positive about this but I want to put the blame at the feet of 3rd edition's "RAW over Rulings" culture. This created a scene where players now felt comfortable telling DMs they were wrong because "it says in the book on page 183...", and my feeling is that this lead to players also feeling comfortable demanding that DMs run specific games/editions regardless of the DMs preferences.
Huh. Interesting take.
DeleteI'm going to disagree with your hypothesis; certainly there were "rules lawyers" before 3E. It was not uncommon during the 1E days of the early 80s for someone to point out a rule that had been overlooked...especially if it provided some advantage to the player.
Furthermore, I wouldn't consider 3E culture to be any more "RAW over rulings" than any other edition of D&D. Knowing the rules, and following the rules, are large parts of what give the DM their authority. To be an arbiter of the game, the DM needs to know and understand the game.
But even the most seasoned DM can miss an obscure rule every now and then ...I know I have. And while embarrassing, I appreciate having a missed rule pointed out to me.
Because D&D, as a game, isn't an "anything goes" free-for-all of "rulings over RAW." Yes, it requires rulings from the DM...generally if/when the actual rules are UNCLEAR or SILENT on how to handle a given situation. Some of us (including myself) use specific house rules...deviations from the text of the rules. But at my table (and hopefully others), these rules are clearly stated at the outset and, for all intents and purposes, they are as 'canon' as anything else in the rulebooks.
So, players SHOULD feel comfortable questioning a decision made by the DM that seems to go against the rules (both book and house). That's fine. But that's NOT the same as demanding some other system be played, or some house rule be incorporated. Players don't get to make 'demands'...sorry. The game being run is the prerogative of the person running the game, i.e. the Dungeon Master.
Speaking for myself, I'm perfectly willing to play "rules as written." That is, my rules, as I have written them, because I'm prepared to follow them. I like if a player points out a rule that I have written and holds me to it, because that's my purpose for writing the rule. So that I have to play the game according to a standard that I agree to play to.
ReplyDeleteI see no way to connect "you have to run 5e to be successful" and "RAW over Rulings". That is a ridiculous leap. It's hard enough for me to reconcile "provide an enjoyable game experience" to "RAW over Rulings," which clearly did not care in the least about the game experience, it was there to service certain DMs and players who had grossly destructive attitudes in and of themselves.
The "provide an enjoyable game experience" arises from the "fear of the players being disappointed by the game's structure." We're not actually moving towards a great game, but away from the fear that players might be asked to do anything that's uncomfortable for in the context of their young, helicopter-parent ordered lives. Of course they don't want to play 1e. Characters DIE in 1e. How are they going to deal with that? They can't imagine. So they flee to anything that makes them feel safe, secure and that the experience they're going to have is consensual.
It takes time for those people to climb out of their bubble-wrapped existences and embrace something that might endanger their assumptions about comfort and getting what they want and no one threatening them. So, when asked to play something other that bubble-friendly 5e, naturally they resist. And they tell other bubble-wrapped would-be DMs, "Please, you can't run something other than 5e. We wouldn't know how to cope with it."
And, bubble-wrapped as they are, these poor misbegotten souls, in America and Europe, get on the internet and bleat out all the things that JB has heard, and has written this post about.
But... and forgive me… none of these voices come from D&D players. They are not our people. We wish they were; they wear cloaks that remind us of our people… but they're not. And, I'm afraid, barring some chance encounters and getting their bubble-wrapping ripped just enough, they never will be. We can write posts like this and offer to care about them, but truthfully, most of them need a level of professional help that we just can't offer at a distance.
One thing it has absolutely not one thing to do with is some silly 3e cultural nonsense that ceased being relevant 25 years ago.
You and I are on the same page. BUT...I still gotta' try.
Delete; )
I understand that, but I have recently come to understand how clearly I relate to the general D&D community, regarding my perception of D&D. It is the acquisition of three attitudes.
DeleteThe first is one of cold recognition: The game people are playing isn't mine; it is something that forced itself against the game I fell in love with, and something with which I refuse to indulge. It's a thought pattern that needs to be killed in my head, nothing more.
The second is one of unbothered clarity. People are angry because someone has stepped out of line. Let them be. Their anger is irrelevant, a useless tantrum from those who can't accept losing what they think they're owed.
Finally, the third is the rejection of validation: I don't need the approval of the community. I'm fine on my own. I'll get along and I won't mind if others don't come with me. Whether others like it or not doesn't matter. I will do as I please.
Huh. Yeah, I've acquired those, too (maybe to a lesser degree with regard to the second).
DeleteHowever, I seem to have this fourth attitude of "frustrated longing:" for some reason I continue to want to bring illuminate the darkness, and bring reason to the ignorant masses.
It keeps me keeping on.
Love this post. I know it's been awhile, but I do lurk from time to time. While I am curious about D&D2024 in the way that I slow down to rubberneck a horrific car wreck on the side of the road, we are not bound by what's popular, especially when the DM makes the game happen. I've been running Dungeon Crawl Classics weekly since June 2023, with no plans to stop, and my group loves it. (Even when they are killed and/or maimed. :) )
ReplyDeleteWow...a year and a half? That's impressive. I played in a couple DCC games, and they never seemed to go more than a couple/three sessions. If you've made it work: good on you! And, yes, you should absolutely run the game YOU want to run...and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
DeleteWell said! From my own perspective I'm always appreciative that players are into playing in whatever game I'm running but I can't imagine feeling forced to run something I wasn't into just to get that experience.
ReplyDeleteIn all honesty, I don’t believe most of these folks are FORCED into running 5E, but they definitely feel PREsSURE, and (in their mind) somehow feel like they have no other choice.
DeleteThat’s wrong. You ALWAYS have a choice.