Kinda Feel Like Throwing Out My DMG

[Anonymouswizard]

I wasn't talking about general rules for categories of spells (tho D&D seriously needs some for illusions & mind control), but actual advice on specific spells that goes beyond what belongs in the PH. Wish, miracle, sim, plane shift, teleport, summons, all those spells that cause DMs angst at the table. AD&D recognized those spells as game changers that warranted extra attention for the novice DM.

It's nice that you didn't need a DMG to help you start DMing, but it's not what I've experienced. People generally don't start as good DMs (I certainly didn't) and take their cues from the books. If the DMG isn't going to help new DMs... I dunno. I can't finish that thought now. Got to do other stuff.

It's also important to understand that even a great GM can run a game terribly if it isn;t what they're used to.

I suck at running most of the games I originally ran, and am much better at running others. This is because I personally found that games like Unknown Armies and Fate explained how they wanted to be run much better, and it was easy for me to grok (but your mileage will vary heavily on if it was clear to you). Meanwhile no edition of D&D I've owned has explained what it wants, and sometime even claims the complete opposite (yeah 5e, claim that things unrelated to combat are important).

Does good GMing advice suddenly make a new GM a good one? No, but it helps somebody learn faster.

[Kvess]

It's nice that you didn't need a DMG to help you start DMing, but it's not what I've experienced. People generally don't start as good DMs (I certainly didn't) and take their cues from the books. If the DMG isn't going to help new DMs... I dunno. I can't finish that thought now. Got to do other stuff.

Hey, I never said that.

I read the Dungeon Master's Guide before I ran games in 5e, and I thought it was helpful! It didn't teach me how to be a DM, but it did give me tools for my campaign.

What do we even expect out of a DMG? I think it's most accurate to look at the 5e DMG as a rules compendium mixed in with general advice. The rules have to go somewhere and someone needs to at least skim them. I don't think it's adequate for everyone by itself, but it's also not the only book in existence.

[Tanarii]

There is some advice for adjudicating spell effects in the Using Miniatures section of Chapter 8: Running the Game, but I think that 5e is intended to have more rules explicitly inside the text of spells instead of relying on general rules for categories of spells like phantasms and images, as had been the case in previous editions.

It's worth noting that D&D 1e DMG's spells advice was actually addendum/errata to the rules Gygax snuck in as "advice" after playing with them for a year after the PHB had been published, and finding out the problems caused.

[Telok]

What do we even expect out of a DMG? I think it's most accurate to look at the 5e DMG as a rules compendium mixed in with general advice. The rules have to go somewhere and someone needs to at least skim them.

Thats probably the issue. I expect a whole stand-alone book for the DM to be about how to run the game and have fun with it. Which will include things like common mistakes to avoid, best practices, different ways to do things, etc. The 5e DMG struck me as more a collection of optional rules, assorted mechanical tools, and random tables, in no specific order.

It's worth noting that D&D 1e DMG's spells advice was actually addendum/errata to the rules Gygax snuck in as "advice" after playing with them for a year after the PHB had been published, and finding out the problems caused.

Yeah, that was useful. So were the different hirelings, ships, and how to attack castles. There's probably no way to get a similar thing into a first DMG-type book these days with the pressure to release "core three" sorts of things as a package. Unfortunately DMG v2 sorts of books don't sell as well even if they could probably help DMs more, so its harder to get momentum on those. I see lots more "go watch someone's youtube channel to learn how to run the game" or suggestions to read people's blogs.

[Glorthindel]

What do we even expect out of a DMG? I think it's most accurate to look at the 5e DMG as a rules compendium mixed in with general advice. The rules have to go somewhere and someone needs to at least skim them. I don't think it's adequate for everyone by itself, but it's also not the only book in existence.

I found the absolutely most useful section in the 2nd ed AD&D DMG (to the point that I still use it to this day, as later edition DMG's just didn't replicate it well enough) was the random treasure and magic item tables. Sure, not every day you are going to be statting up a Dragon hoard, but still, it was good to know what ballpark to put for the loot in say, a Wolf or Owlbear lair, or how much a goblin should have in his pockets.

[KorvinStarmast]

It's worth noting that D&D 1e DMG's spells advice was actually addendum/errata to the rules Gygax snuck in as "advice" after playing with them for a year after the PHB had been published, and finding out the problems caused.

Yes, there were also some errata published in Dragon Magazine that I have still got notes about in my DMG.

I could fetch the exact quote, but in 1st edition AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide Gary Gygax spells out that a player who's read it ought to be treated as someone "less worthy of an honest death".

Spoiler: The citation from DMG preface (page 8)

Show

As this book is the exclusive precinct of the DM, you must view any non-DM player possessing it as something less than worthy of honorable death. Peeping players there will undoubtedly be, but they are simply lessening their own enjoyment of the game by taking away some of the sense of wonder that otherwise arises from a game which has rules hidden from participants. It is in your interests, and in theirs, to discourage possession of this book by players. If any of your participants do read herein, it is suggested that you assess them a heavy fee for consulting "sages" and other sources of information not normally attainable by the inhabitants of your milieu. If they express knowledge which could only be garnered by consulting these pages, a magic item or two can be taken as payment - insufficient, but perhaps it will tend to discourage such actions.

Gygax, and a lot of DMs in that era, liked to try and invoke a sense of wonder that the process of discovery could create. Letting facts emerge through play is a part of the exploration pillar. I have noticed a powerful counter trend to that among WoTC era D&Ders, to the point that the above passage is often viewed as DM is Hostile to Players as EGG's default attitude. (Yet those who played in his games enjoyed them, so what are they missing?) The purpose behind not having everything known: it can set the conditions for evoking the sense of wonder and the joy of discovery. Arneson likewise tended to referee in this fashion (with his little black book of Blackmoor that he was always adjusting and retuning as a result of play).
The problem is, in the wrong hands, the above advice in the spoiler box can be seen as an endorsement for DM vs Players as the correct attitude, and it never has been the correct attitude.

[Luccan]

Thats probably the issue. I expect a whole stand-alone book for the DM to be about how to run the game and have fun with it. Which will include things like common mistakes to avoid, best practices, different ways to do things, etc. The 5e DMG struck me as more a collection of optional rules, assorted mechanical tools, and random tables, in no specific order.

Different ways to do what things? What are the best practices a DMG should include? These aren't rhetorical questions; it's hard to conceive of what the DMG is missing with vague statements like that.

I will say, 5e doesn't make the DMG feel necessary, but maybe that is for the best. It has, if not the greatest, at least useful advice for pre-game preparation. But obviously more experienced DMs won't need that

[Telok]

Different ways to do what things? What are the best practices a DMG should include? These aren't rhetorical questions; it's hard to conceive of what the DMG is missing with vague statements like that.

Advice on: Problematic magic, illusions & mind control have been problems in the player/DM tug-of-war for decades and there are solutions out there. Dealing with characters & parties that have serious defects (can't do anything but fight, can't fight, etc.) that are real or perceived. Fact vs perception on dice rolls. Iterative probability, not as in-depth math but in a non-technical "adding more rolls does..." style. How PCs relate to normal people in the default play style (chumps, normal, skilled, heroic, superheroes) and how the system deals with normal people. Different rolling schemes (one and done, opposed rolls, x success before y fails, x successful opposed, sum to a giant dc, opposed sum to a giant dc, etc.) and how they interact with different levels of bonuses. How often PCs should be succeeding at stuff and what they should be accomplishing with extraordinary rolls vs. regular rolls...

Stuff like that. For example, in DtD40k7e there's WH style skill-based spell casting with a chance of reality backlash that has a small but real chance of killing a character. And cue the wails of "oh what a terrible system that punishes the player". But there's a starting character build, with a 95% success rate at casting 2nd level spells, that only has a 1/100,000 chance of even rolling on the warp tables. Which then gets to roll 4 times on a table, with about 2/3 of the effects being temporary cosmetic special effects, and pick which roll to use. Even just one or two feat choices can reduce the "danger" to less than 1/2500 casts and still rolling twice for the effect. And you still get "oh what a terrible system that punishes the player". Even the player I had who didn't take any safe casting measures, regularly pushed spells to automatically invoke the warp, and chronically over-reported his bonus to the warp table rolls, took an entire year of weekly sessions (probable about 40ish) and casting lots of spells every time, to drive his character permanently insane and become an NPC. He did get the insta-death results twice too, but survived them.

And I still hear "oh what a terrible system that punishes the player" about it.

[Quertus]

I remember when there was a subset of the gaming culture, strong in the D&D crowd, that DID take a dim view of "players" owning a DMG... there was almost this idea that someone would start as a player, and then some of them would "graduate" to being a DM, and that it was "improper" for someone who was "just a player" to own or read the DMG.

It was always utter nonsense, but it was there.

Not entirely nonsense - you wouldn't want the players reading the module, would you?

There's a difference to the experience when you've peeked behind the curtain. See also the sigma of metagaming.

Now, yes, most gamers were also GMs (at many of my tables, at least). But a lot of new gamers are missing out on the "learning about the world in-character" experience. And the loss of this mindset (and, obviously, the internet) share some of that blame.

[Vahnavoi]

I will say, 5e doesn't make the DMG feel necessary, but maybe that is for the best. It has, if not the greatest, at least useful advice for pre-game preparation. But obviously more experienced DMs won't need that

"But obviously more experienced dungeon (game) masters won't need that" is the mindset why a lot of games have utter crap for game master's advice.

I'm not sure if Ville Vuorela, the designer for Praedor roleplaying game, wrote about this in English somewhere (like his blog, over at Burger Games website), but to paraphrase his experience and message on the subject: back in the early 2000s when he made the versions 1.0 and 1.1 Praedor, the game master's section were something of an afterthought. Vuorela, at the time, thought game mastering is the kind of thing everyone just can do naturally, so he found writing advice for it somewhat forced. 10+ years of game design and game mastering experience later he realized he'd been completely off, and indeed the lack of quality game mastering advice is one of those things that keeps people from getting into tabletop roleplaying games. Skilled game masters don't grow in trees, so where is a smaller game system going to get those if the game itself doesn't teach them?

So, Vuorela remedied the lack of game mastering advice with gusto in late 2010s supplements to Praedor and the new Version 2.0 of Praedor does indeed have separate volumes for players and game masters. I'd like to do a side-by-side comparison to show the difference, but it's a lot of work, since the game is not in English.

[KorvinStarmast]

10+ years of game design and game mastering experience later he realized he'd been completely off, and indeed the lack of quality game mastering advice is one of those things that keeps people from getting into tabletop roleplaying games. Skilled game masters don't grow in trees, so where is a smaller game system going to get those if the game itself doesn't teach them?

Bravo, and good on that author for choosing the make a difference.

Original B1 module had very good DM advice for how to run the game. I wish 5e had looked at that and put something like that into the first chapter of DMG and the Basic Rules for DM and the Starter's Set when the game was released.

Spoiler: aside

Show

I am reading through Svenson's original dungeon (in the Blackmoor campaign) that likewise has some solid 'how to DM/referee' advice, but that's a limited edition book.

IIRC, Robin Laws did the whole community a good turn with his book: Robin's Laws of Good Game Mastering

[PhoenixPhyre]

One thing about DM'ing--it's not entirely objective. What counts as "good" DMing (beyond certain rather obvious things like "don't throw physical objects at your players") is a matter of play style, table preference, as well as lots of intangible factors.

I, personally, strongly dislike systems that are "preachy", that assume that there is a "right way" to DM (usually being the designers' preferences). As examples, the entire PbtA system has very strong "DM this way" lines. Which are super confining and don't allow for DMs (and tables!) with different preferences. They encode taste as a matter of system fiat. Which makes me highly unlikely to use those products for anything.

Could the 5e DMG be structured better? Sure. But does it contain significant useful advice across the board for the type of games it's trying to promote? Absolutely.

Adding more tables? Useless (for me). Adding bunches of coercive "play this way" advice? Worse than useless. Adding "handle this spell that way"? Worse than useless, because it sets expectations that are table-dependent.

What really needs to happen for 5e DMs to be better is for them to actually read the DMG and understand what it's saying. No amount of shuffling the content will help those that won't/don't read in the first place, or those who only read the tables and skip all the explanations.

[Vahnavoi]

Another interesting comparison point is Lamentations of the Flame Princess.

LotFP has made steady sales with its hardcover rules & magic book, but I got into it early with the Deluxe Boxed set and the bought the Grindhouse Boxed set as soon as it came out. I'm sort of sad I gave away my Deluxe set, because doing side-by-side comparison would've been really educational.

IIRC, the Deluxe set referee booklet was this really thing leaflet that began with "This book is compost". Basically, James Raggi, the author, didn't truly believe new players would be getting into the game, despite going through the trouble to actually copy B/X boxed set format, complete with a tutorial and sample adventures. Indeed, by his own admission he really just wanted to do adventure modules and the game system was devised just so you didn't absolutely have to own some old version of D&D to play them.

By comparison, the Grindhouse booklet was much thicker, meatier, with genuine ground level advice, a new sample adventure and while I'm too lazy to check, I don't think it opens up with "This book is compost" anymore.

A newer version of the Referee book was meant to appear close to the hardcover rules & magic book, but it's been in Development Hell for years now (but coming soon - pinky promise!). But the Grindhouse version has since been made freely available as PDF, to accompany the free artless core rules.

The point here is that Raggi, who wanted to do ultra niche hardcore horror adventures and didn't really have sights set on creating a new system, realized somewhere along the way that competently done basic rules and the advice on how to run the sort of adventures he wanted to make were selling points all on their own.

[Telok]

Adding "handle this spell that way"? Worse than useless, because it sets expectations that are table-dependent.

What really needs to happen for 5e DMs to be better is for them to actually read the DMG and understand what it's saying.

I take it you've never gotten the:
Dm: evil priest casts Command and tells you to fall.
Pc: Save failed. I try to trip to evil priest and make it fall.
Dm: evil priest casts Dominate and tells you to protect it.
Pc: Save fails. I try to stuff evil priest in my bag of holding to protect it from wizard fireballs.
...or the illusion version of that. Thats the sort of crap I've seen forever (DMs & players, goes both ways) and could use some "handle this spell" type advice.

More importantly I don't know what you mean by "understand what its saying". Every DM I've known has read the DMG for their game and they're all native speakers of the language, so I presume then understood all the words. The were certainly all able to use random tables, cr guides, xp awarding, and monster building bits. But the new 5e DMs I've played with all had terrble times with adjucating basic stuff like climbing, jumping, cheracter social interactions, stealth... just basic running the game stuff. And every time it comes up on the forums I hear that they must not have read the DMG or something, when I've watched them reading from it. So there's an issue somewhere if they read the book, used it, and still run games contrary to what the internet says is in the book.

[Easy e]

The Dungeon Master's Guides have consistently failed to be decent gamemaster handbooks. It's like they always make a new version of the older DMGs, but never bother to look elsewhere for what a useful bok for GMs could look like.

(The best GM book I've ever seen is the 1993 Gamemaster Handbook for Star Wars Second Edition. 100 pages of pure advice on running games, with no additional game rules that aren't in the normal rulebook.)

I recently re-read this and yeah.... it is amazing! I am so thankful I have a copy. It was Chapter 2 even!

Some highlights:
- Your Job
Make sure everyone is having a good time and things are resolved fairly

- The Gamemaster as Referee
- The Gamemaster as Storyteller
- The Gamemaster as Mood Setter

Each section had a lot of helpful hints for running a fun game too.

[Tanarii]

like "don't throw physical objects at your players"

I've been doing it ALL wrong.

[Anonymouswizard]

A newer version of the Referee book was meant to appear close to the hardcover rules & magic book, but it's been in Development Hell for years now (but coming soon - pinky promise!). But the Grindhouse version has since been made freely available as PDF, to accompany the free artless core rules.

I think part of the problem is that Raggi wants to redo some things about the game (the magic system sand making every class bar Gighter, Magic-User, and Specialist.optional), but doesn't want to publish it until the Referee book is out, which he doesn't actually want to work on. It's a shame, I'd like to see if he's got any updated advice (or tools(.

But he does actually subscribe to a philosophy I don't, so maybe I should just get the RECC if possible.

[FrogInATopHat]

I take it you've never gotten the:
Dm: evil priest casts Command and tells you to fall.
Pc: Save failed. I try to trip to evil priest and make it fall.
Dm: evil priest casts Dominate and tells you to protect it.
Pc: Save fails. I try to stuff evil priest in my bag of holding to protect it from wizard fireballs.
...or the illusion version of that. Thats the sort of crap I've seen forever (DMs & players, goes both ways) and could use some "handle this spell" type advice.

At the very least, with the Command and Dominate spell examples, this is covered in the spell text.

Dominate says:

If you and the subject have a common language, you can generally force the subject to perform as you desire, within the limits of its abilities. If no common language exists, you can communicate only basic commands, such as “Come here,” “Go there,” “Fight,” and “Stand still.” You know what the subject is experiencing, but you do not receive direct sensory input from it, nor can it communicate with you telepathically.

Command says:

You give the subject a single command, which it obeys to the best of its ability at its earliest opportunity. You may select from the following options.

The list of 5 options you can select also include the specific results that should be expected.

The text is identical in PF1e.

So for at least 18 years, for either spell, no additional adjudication has been needed.

Tbh, I would see no need to keep at my table a player that insisted on such a contrarian view of the game to the point where they would try to insist that 'fall' and 'trip me' have the same meaning.

EDIT: And this also speaks to your second point because a player who could insist on such an interpretation but has read (or had read to them) the spell text in a language that they speak clearly hasn't understood it.

I get your point somewhat when it comes to illusions spells. But on the basis of 'what's good for the goose...' (by which any consistent approach to handling illusions has pros and cons for both sides of the table) I have to agree with PhoenixPyre that I don't particularly want the book to mandate a specific approach based solely on the preferences of whichever developer wrote that bit.

So, for multiple reasons, any text instructing me to handle particular spells or spell types a particular way is, to me, wasted space that could be put to better use, and also rubs me the wrong way and sours me on the system as a whole in any case.

[Telok]

At the very least, with the Command and Dominate spell examples, this is covered in the spell text....

...I get your point somewhat when it comes to illusions spells. But on the basis of 'what's good for the goose...' (by which any consistent approach to handling illusions has pros and cons for both sides of the table) I have to agree with PhoenixPyre that I don't particularly want the book to mandate a specific approach based solely on the preferences of whichever developer wrote that bit.

So, for multiple reasons, any text instructing me to handle particular spells or spell types a particular way is, to me, wasted space that could be put to better use, and also rubs me the wrong way and sours me on the system as a whole in any case.

It's nice that you know two versions of spells in two games where it's not a problem when people don't have bad habits from previous experiences. It's nice that you're a good DM who doesn't need advice or guidance on adjucating illusions. Apparently you wouldn't be the target audience for that sort of advice.

Two things I'd note (beyond say, Suggestion, Charm, D&D phantasams, and all the other game versions): First is that I don't generally want to advocate "mandate a specific approach", but rather setting a baseline of common expectations and intent that tries to address the most common problems across the effects.

Second, text on handling the general problems of mind-control spells in D&D 5e has been moved into the spells themselves. Except of course that leaves any spells without the mandated uses back at "potential problem". For example, Command has a limited list of defined commands mandating that you can use it in that manner for those options, while leaving everything else back in "allowed to misinterpret" territory. So you already have the mind-control mandates in specific spells while leaving the more general issue unchanged.

[FrogInATopHat]

It's nice that you know two versions of spells in two games where it's not a problem when people don't have bad habits from previous experiences.

If their habits are that bad, I just wouldn't play with them. There are, these days, no shortage of players. I don't even play 5e, I play PF1 and even with that tiny-by-comparison-and-shrinking pool, there is enough room to tell potential players with such weighty baggage to keep walking to a different table.

It's nice that you're a good DM who doesn't need advice or guidance on adjucating illusions. Apparently you wouldn't be the target audience for that sort of advice.

And this is exactly the problem with such advice. It is needed by a small (but admittedly no doubt significant) proportion of the market and is, as we can see from threads on the subjects, a likely source of disagreement even amongst its intended audience where likely half of the recipients still won't agree with it and will then need to specifically houserule against it.

This means that its inclusion in a rulebook (limited space, printing costs, all of the other issues with publication previously raised) is not necessarily a great idea.

If it is included, it then potentially serves to exacerbate the problems that your suggesting that it would fix.

A problem player or DM whose agreed interpretation is the one used by the books then has text to back up their furious assertions of the One True Way. And I refuse to believe that you might be suggesting that a player who would interpret the 'fall' command to mean 'trip me up' would even come close to not 'chucking a tanty' as the saying goes if a DM dared try to suggest that they disagreed with a specific suggestion in the DMG (or equivalent source for another game).

Two things I'd note (beyond say, Suggestion, Charm, D&D phantasams, and all the other game versions): First is that I don't generally want to advocate "mandate a specific approach", but rather setting a baseline of common expectations and intent that tries to address the most common problems across the effects.

How do you suggest that this is achieved without adopting, in the rule book and thus mandating, a specific approach?

Second, text on handling the general problems of mind-control spells in D&D 5e has been moved into the spells themselves. Except of course that leaves any spells without the mandated uses back at "potential problem". For example, Command has a limited list of defined commands mandating that you can use it in that manner for those options, while leaving everything else back in "allowed to misinterpret" territory. So you already have the mind-control mandates in specific spells while leaving the more general issue unchanged.

'The DM determines how the target behaves' is specific enough that the problem player you initially posited has not a leg upon which to stand, even if a dictionary near the table should also likely be sufficient in both of your suggested cases. That is very different from a rulebook saying that such things must (or should) be interpreted or played out in a specific way.

Back to the general point rather than the one spell, yes, that leaves us open to abuse by DM (although not by player because the player does not and should not get to decide how spells work in the game universe and there is nothing to support any suggestion that they do or should). But: (i) the DM has far more effective tools available to them for this purpose (ii) any DM who resorts to such chicanery should be pelted with clods of earth until they promise to never DM again (iii) there is plenty of room in the spell text itself for this to be fixed and it shouldn't fall to the DMG to fix oversights in the PHB, and (iv) (imo) the likely outcome should vary depending on the spell, with higher level spells (and not merely up-cast in that delightful 5e way) being more likely to force the casters intended effect and lower level spells allowing more... creative... interpretation by the target.

[Bacon Elemental]

Yes, there were also some errata published in Dragon Magazine that I have still got notes about in my DMG.

Spoiler: The citation from DMG preface (page 8)

Show

As this book is the exclusive precinct of the DM, you must view any non-DM player possessing it as something less than worthy of honorable death. Peeping players there will undoubtedly be, but they are simply lessening their own enjoyment of the game by taking away some of the sense of wonder that otherwise arises from a game which has rules hidden from participants. It is in your interests, and in theirs, to discourage possession of this book by players. If any of your participants do read herein, it is suggested that you assess them a heavy fee for consulting "sages" and other sources of information not normally attainable by the inhabitants of your milieu. If they express knowledge which could only be garnered by consulting these pages, a magic item or two can be taken as payment - insufficient, but perhaps it will tend to discourage such actions.

Gygax, and a lot of DMs in that era, liked to try and invoke a sense of wonder that the process of discovery could create. Letting facts emerge through play is a part of the exploration pillar. I have noticed a powerful counter trend to that among WoTC era D&Ders, to the point that the above passage is often viewed as DM is Hostile to Players as EGG's default attitude. (Yet those who played in his games enjoyed them, so what are they missing?) The purpose behind not having everything known: it can set the conditions for evoking the sense of wonder and the joy of discovery. Arneson likewise tended to referee in this fashion (with his little black book of Blackmoor that he was always adjusting and retuning as a result of play).
The problem is, in the wrong hands, the above advice in the spoiler box can be seen as an endorsement for DM vs Players as the correct attitude, and it never has been the correct attitude.

Personally, I always favoured the PARANOIA 2E approach.

(The book heartily encourages players to read the GM-only section [but not the sample adventure], and heartily encourages GMs to kill off the characters of any player foolish enough to openly display knowledge of said rules)

[Kvess]

I don’t think there is a rule or guideline that will prevent a bad DM from purposely misinterpreting the intent of your spells, where there is room to do so. For any open-ended effects (illusion, charm, etc), you are relying on communication and good faith collaboration between the player and the DM to make that effect work.

If there is no room to misinterpret the intent of your spell, it isn’t open-ended.

[Quertus]

, where things like FATE (which is mostly DYI)

I'm guessing that was supposed to be "DIY"? FYI (autocorrect won't even let me type it) would be… "does you itself"?

"But in Giant's Playground, Fate does **you**!"

(No, in all seriousness, was "DIY" what you meant? I spent far too long trying to parse your sentence, and even though I know that it's a sunk cost fallacy, I want to be sure I've got it.)

Gygax, and a lot of DMs in that era, liked to try and invoke a sense of wonder that the process of discovery could create. Letting facts emerge through play is a part of the exploration pillar.

The purpose behind not having everything known: it can set the conditions for evoking the sense of wonder and the joy of discovery.

I see you said what I tried to say, but said it better, and first. Kudos!

Playing Titan Quest, I'm *almost* going in blind - I checked online for "how many ranks to summon 3 wolves" (because "number of wolves" is sadly missing from the power's description), and am concerned that I might not be earning full XP for all minion kills, and that my poison poison poison bow might not be adding the poisons together (and, if I hand it and my ring of poison damage of to a Rogue, will I get poison x5? How do the stacking rules work?).

Anyway, point is, it's a lot of fun getting to *Explore* the game, trying to make experiments to test various hypothesis. But it's a flavor of fun so many gamers can't seem to comprehend. And it's possible because the game is so easy, most of the class abilities are just "extra" (as evidenced by "the gamer beside me" running through without choosing a class / taking any class levels yet).

Although oldschool meat grinder games weren't exactly *easy*…

I recently re-read this and yeah.... it is amazing! I am so thankful I have a copy. It was Chapter 2 even!

Some highlights:
- Your Job
Make sure everyone is having a good time and things are resolved fairly

- The Gamemaster as Referee
- The Gamemaster as Storyteller
- The Gamemaster as Mood Setter

Each section had a lot of helpful hints for running a fun game too.

Yeah, that *does* sound awesome.

I tend to focus on… duty and responsibility. From the ancient "what the GM's role" thread, I feel "make sure everyone is having fun" is everyone's responsibility, whereas generally *only* the GM can serve as the eyes and ears of the character, the interface between the players and the fiction. But yes, if you want to get across what *mindset* the GM should approach the game with, I suspect that there's few better or more concise answers than, "Make sure everyone is having a good time and things are resolved fairly".

At the very least, with the Command and Dominate spell examples, this is covered in the spell text.

I dunno, an *ally* could scream, "protect me!", and get shoved in an extradimensional space - I think it's poor planning on the caster's part (outside systems like, apparently, 5e) to give an open-ended magical compulsion of "protect me", and be surprised and upset to get shoved in a bag.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm guessing that was supposed to be "DIY"? FYI (autocorrect won't even let me type it) would be… "does you itself"?

"But in Giant's Playground, Fate does **you**!"

(No, in all seriousness, was "DIY" what you meant? I spent far too long trying to parse your sentence, and even though I know that it's a sunk cost fallacy, I want to be sure I've got it.)

Oops. Yes. Yes it was. Sometimes my brain goes dyslexic[1] on character combinations. Not so much words, but things like digits in numbers or letters in acronyms. Especially when I'm tired or not focusing.

[1] colloquial meaning (ie character-pair reversal issues), not actual psychological meaning

[Quixotic1]

I think that the most important thing a gamemaster's guide of any sort can contain is information on how to run a game.

I don't mean an explanation of the system or the rules within it. I'm talking about the foundation of storytelling. Talking about tone and pacing, about the objective behind different sections of an encounter/session/campaign, why the objective is what it is, how to get there and why the how is a better option than others.

The Angry DM has a wealth of information like nothing I've ever seen in this regard. I mean, "how to DM" in four steps? That on its own opened up a whole new perspective for me.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think that the most important thing a gamemaster's guide of any sort can contain is information on how to run a game.

I don't mean an explanation of the system or the rules within it. I'm talking about the foundation of storytelling. Talking about tone and pacing, about the objective behind different sections of an encounter/session/campaign, why the objective is what it is, how to get there and why the how is a better option than others.

The Angry DM has a wealth of information like nothing I've ever seen in this regard. I mean, "how to DM" in four steps? That on its own opened up a whole new perspective for me.

Doesn't that all presume (without foundation IMO) that there is a single, objective (for any system or game) answer to those things? Personally, I like games that are able to have a wide range of tones/pacings, encounters/sessions/campaigns with different objectives, different ways to approach those objectives, etc.

I hate when games tell me that there's only one way to play and then start throwing barriers when you deviate. And no, D&D (at least 5e) doesn't do that until you're way off the beaten path. I've had whole arcs with only a few dice rolls. I've had arcs that were basically back-to-back combat. I've had arcs with almost no conflict. All of those worked just fine. And honestly, I did that in 4e without significant issue, despite being a totally new DM who hadn't ever played a TTRPG before that.

One-True-Way-ism devolves into badwrongfun real fast. Systems should provide useful, optional frameworks, content, and language. They're there as a support for the content-creator (DM or module writer) to automate some of the labor-intensive (or otherwise annoying to manually implement) processes and uncertainty-resolution cases and provide a common language for the players to use as they need to. They should not (IMO) make demands about how they must be used.

[Anonymouswizard]

The Angry DM has a wealth of information like nothing I've ever seen in this regard. I mean, "how to DM" in four steps? That on its own opened up a whole new perspective for me.

They're also a One True Wayist who promotes bad practices?

Like, his psionics article actively says you should throw people from the group for picking options you've offered. Because apparently wanting to play a telepath is a reason to boot somebody these days.

[PhoenixPhyre]

They're also a One True Wayist who promotes bad practices?

Like, his psionics article actively says you should throw people from the group for picking options you've offered. Because apparently wanting to play a telepath is a reason to boot somebody these days.

I agree with the sentiment I heard expressed somewhere that AngryGM is good at identifying problems, but his solutions are pretty uniformly bad (as in maladapted to solving the problem and often counterproductive). And then he drowns it all in his torrent of "fake angry" marketing shtick which really just obfuscates the message and turns off serious readers.

[Tanarii]

They're also a One True Wayist who promotes bad practices?

Like, his psionics article actively says you should throw people from the group for picking options you've offered. Because apparently wanting to play a telepath is a reason to boot somebody these days.

Citation needed.

[Anonymouswizard]

Citation needed.

=htps://theangrygm.com/ask-angry-why-do-psionics-suck]
]Hell, I like having psionics as an option just so that I can use it to screen potential players. Anyone who asks to play a psionicist is just wrong for my game.[/URL]

Now his actual solution to the actual problem he has identified (element X is unsuitable for my games) and his solution (don't use element X) are both reasonable. But then he suggests implying that psionics is fine so you can boot anybody who takes you up on it.

At best he's suggesting to use a landmine to solve a problem that needs a scalpel.