The Sacrament of Death
- Thread starter Johann
- Start date
Beoric
8, 8, I forget what is for
Sure, people may have more or less aptitude for social skills, just like people can have more or less aptitude for athletics or moth or pretty much every learned endeavour. However, except at the top tiers of any profession, the effect of education/training/practice can outweigh the effects of biology in most cases. In my experience.
squeen
8, 8, I forget what is for
I could write a squeen-sized post on this. (What! Now I'M doing it too. You people...)
Pseudoephedrine
Should be playing D&D instead
Everyone has to learn social skills - children start off not being able to speak or coordinate their hands, let alone communicate. They spend years acquiring the relevant skills to be able to socialise effectively. Some people require different modes of learning to acquire sufficient levels of these skills, but that simply means that skills have multiple pathways to realisation and development. This supports the idea that they are complex dispositions rather than innate knacks.
CHA is irrelevant to the description of real people, which is what Courtney is purportedly doing.
"Magnetism" actually can be taught - there are even people who make a living selling various skills-upgrade programs for it. Dale Carnegie is probably the best-known author who sold this stuff. Almost every complex behaviour that people are told is "innate" in origin is actually dispositional, with innate factors dominating only at the lowest and highest levels of the spectrum of possibilities.
Lots of DMs suck because they lack fundamental skills, but this isn't because they are innately defective. Typically, it's a combination of low skill levels at relevant tasks and low metacognitive skills that make noticing the problem, identifying its source, formulating a plan to improve, and then following through on the plan difficult. You see this in all sorts of domains, especially ones with a poorly defined "body of knowledge" or catalogue of techniques that are transmitted in irregular, informal ways.
So the main reason lots of referees suck more than they need to is not due to innate flaws, but due to the crudity of the pedagogy available, especially in D&D. It's one of the worst taught subjects I have ever encountered. It needs paedogogical reform or transformation. Claims that the problems are innate and thus irremediable, or that you need to go drop ayahuasca in the Amazon to learn the truth of the human heart to be a good referee just obscure the problem and thus are worthy of criticism.
squeen
8, 8, I forget what is for
Here's the thing -- always used to argue with my Mom that anything can be learned and that "innate ability" was just an excuses for not putting in the effort to self-educate.
...Then I had kids.
We raised them almost identically, and yet there are very profound personality differences.
Yes. They can all achieve success in life and master any required skills, but their desire to do so seriously affects the amount of effort they apply, and hence the level to which they excel.
Where those innate desires come from...that's the mystery.
...Then I had kids.
We raised them almost identically, and yet there are very profound personality differences.
Yes. They can all achieve success in life and master any required skills, but their desire to do so seriously affects the amount of effort they apply, and hence the level to which they excel.
Where those innate desires come from...that's the mystery.
Beoric
8, 8, I forget what is for
This is so true. Having been stuck homeschooling my kids for the last couple of months due to COVID-19, who have varying levels of interest, I feel your pain.
EOTB
So ... slow work day? Every day?
Yeah, there's innate talents and gifts. I've seen lots of people who aren't gifted in an area go through trainings, and they mostly learn to avoid common mistakes - which does set them apart from people who haven't trained; they're definitely a sigma ahead. But I've seen many untalented, trained negotiators lose to naturally gifted, untrained ones. We've all worked under many trained and bad managers. The shamanism bit isn't the point, just that there is a je ne sais quoi about some people that makes others eager to put themselves in their hands. This isn't necessary to be a DM, but everyone will remember playing under such a DM.
Beoric
8, 8, I forget what is for
See, I think Courtney is saying the opposite, that it could be taught but that it is not being taught. He complains that DMs have "little relevant training," that published linear adventures are a cop-out instead of teaching people how to do it properly, and that (in his opinion) 5e has at least started to try to address the problem.
Yeah, the pop version armchair anthropologist use of the term shamanism may be an annoying distraction to those who see it as misguided, and it certainly can't lend authority to the ideas Courtney expresses. But notwithstanding, I agree with my reading of what I think Courtney is expressing.
With respect to the "innate talent" argument (which I don't think Courtney is proposing), I am of the view that except in cases of actual impairment, pretty much anyone can be taught to DM well.
However, I also agree with @squeen's point that not everyone is interested in learning those skills. When I think of the bad DMs in have encountered, they are usually people who aren't really interested in getting better, not even enough to evaluate whether they are good or not. I can expand that to cover people I have met who are bad at any profession they practice. In my experience it is very rare that the lack of skill results from innate talent in any endeavour, and very common that it results from just not caring.
EOTB
So ... slow work day? Every day?
I agree - the DM is in a team that wants the adventure to go off. So "well" is that one sigma ahead, and everyone's happy because they're already trying to support and buy-in.
You don't really need "talent" to be a DM. Perhaps in a world where campaigns lived or died on the creativity and verve of persons-on-an-island this would be more true. But the point of buying materials is to lower the floor of DMing to those who are eager, willing to not make "mistakes", and can leverage others talents. This can be pretty much anyone.
squeen
8, 8, I forget what is for
Two things:
First, I think D&D should focus on training DM's more than it does. Recently reading the 1979 Ghost Tower of Inverness, it's clearly assumes a "teaching" tone. Instead, as EOTB pointed out (elsewhere?) modern RPGs have instead tried to dispense some of the game-burden on to players---which has its own slew of problems. I also think training DMs today is a very different beast from requiring a genius/savant level DM like the hobby did at its inception. The "Information Age" helps with that.
Second, back to the original essay, my best DM was a year older (at least) than all the players. He was also a bold and massive intellect. He stood apart. Likewise, in my home campaign, I am a generation older than my players. The same mantle of authority occurs naturally. I think it helps that the DM is an outsider.
First, I think D&D should focus on training DM's more than it does. Recently reading the 1979 Ghost Tower of Inverness, it's clearly assumes a "teaching" tone. Instead, as EOTB pointed out (elsewhere?) modern RPGs have instead tried to dispense some of the game-burden on to players---which has its own slew of problems. I also think training DMs today is a very different beast from requiring a genius/savant level DM like the hobby did at its inception. The "Information Age" helps with that.
Second, back to the original essay, my best DM was a year older (at least) than all the players. He was also a bold and massive intellect. He stood apart. Likewise, in my home campaign, I am a generation older than my players. The same mantle of authority occurs naturally. I think it helps that the DM is an outsider.
Pseudoephedrine
Should be playing D&D instead
Sure, differences in desire are normal, and IMHO explain much more than mere differences in "talent" (if you think desire is mysterious, boy have I got a stack of neo-Aristotelian literature about "talent", "excellence" and "powers" for you). But I do think the claim "Lots of referees are bad because they don't care to become better" is kind of an unremarkable insight.
I think Courtney's framework here is just totally off, and while I'm glad people are able to puzzle out what he means, I think his focus on the essential characteristics like someone having enough "IQ" or being a shaman distracts from the paedogogical issues I, and others, often have to extract from it. I also don't think it's unfair to point out that framework's inadequacies, considering it's often referred to as his essay on or about shamanism, even in this very thread.
Anyhow, I don't want to threadshit, so I won't go on any further about it after this, but I think without a solid theory of paedogogy to guide the practical side of constructing a robust paedogogical ecology, a theory that this essay lacks, no major progress can be made (and I think such progress would lead to a more robust, healthier hobby, obv.).
I think Courtney's framework here is just totally off, and while I'm glad people are able to puzzle out what he means, I think his focus on the essential characteristics like someone having enough "IQ" or being a shaman distracts from the paedogogical issues I, and others, often have to extract from it. I also don't think it's unfair to point out that framework's inadequacies, considering it's often referred to as his essay on or about shamanism, even in this very thread.
Anyhow, I don't want to threadshit, so I won't go on any further about it after this, but I think without a solid theory of paedogogy to guide the practical side of constructing a robust paedogogical ecology, a theory that this essay lacks, no major progress can be made (and I think such progress would lead to a more robust, healthier hobby, obv.).
squeen
8, 8, I forget what is for
I do!...throw me a bone.
Beoric
8, 8, I forget what is for
So for those of us who are neither philosophers or educators but have an interest in teaching the craft, and discussing teaching the craft, how would we proceed? Or are we doomed by lack of a solid theory of paedogogy?
Pseudoephedrine
Should be playing D&D instead
Not doomed. Individual people will be able to proceed informally with some skill, and perhaps even get a bit better if they're really interested in doing it well. But to "git gud", you need a robust system of practice you can insert yourself into that simultaneously teaches you how to teach while also teaching you what to teach. Funnily enough, play-based education methods for children IRL have already solved this problem, using games to teach teachers how to teach children using games.
What I would say is right now we're in a situation where the majority of successful paedogogy mostly relies on the heroic efforts of individuals who have cultivated their talents both as referees, and as teachers, and who then, mostly through chance, encounter interested pupils. Part of the shift to a superior mode of transmission is to regularise and broaden the methods of instruction and the methods by which people are inducted into them.
Streaming is doing a bit of this - it's providing people with an impersonal example of a certain kind of good play that doesn't rely on them sitting down at a table with a great referee who eventually teaches them their secrets - but it's not revealing the underlying structure of those sessions or how they're produced, and it's mostly focused on a very particular kind of play (showy, dramatic, primarily about what Tuovinen would call "princess play, not too crunchy or mechanically-focused, etc.).
OSR blogging is another tool - part of the OSR's success is not so much about its actual position on anything in particular and the appeal of that position, but about how accessible and paedogogically-oriented it is, especially around technique. You can learn "to run a West Marches game" way more easily through forums and blogs than you can learn how to run a traditional "silver age" Dragonlance rip-off. The OSR focus on technique is one reason you see trad gamers adopt its terms and concerns sometimes, even if they don't want to. The story games crowd is in a similar spot in terms of sophistication of transmission, and that's probably why the two groups seem like the two most important scenes in RPGs outside of the swollen convulsing mass of 5e newbies.
I'll admit to a somewhat irrational and unempirical love of text and diagrams, so while I don't think it would be a complete solution to the problem, I think WotC should put out at least one book covering basic skills. This would range from establishing a standard visual grammar for hand-drawing battlemaps and dungeon maps, to the assignation of roles like mapper, caller, timekeeper, initiative tracker, along with lists of responsibilities and checklists for new DMs to hand out (advice on drawing up calendars and maps would be good too). It could also include advice on using mind maps, relationship maps, timelines, etc. to plan a campaign, and how to stage rolls to generate maximum excitement and engagement at the table. It could include a list of sample social conflict scenarios for DMs to consider with advice on inobvious features or solutions. etc. etc. etc. There's tons more that could be in there. I would think of such a book as the true "Dungeon Master's Guide" even if it ends up being called something moronic like "Melathaur's Guide to Lost Lore".
Pseudoephedrine
Should be playing D&D instead
I think step one is checking out After Virtue by Alasdair MacIntyre. It's not too jargon-heavy, tho' it does assume you know some Aristotelian ethics and the basics of Kant. MacIntyre's basic point is that excellence is always excellence within some normative framework that is embedded in a social practice which itself is embedded in history. So a talent can never be isolated or understood apart from a specific historical context which allows it to develop, and charges it with value (which then helps govern its expression). This summary doesn't do the book justice tho'; it's rightly considered a masterwork of 20th-century ethical thought.
Pseudoephedrine
Should be playing D&D instead
You: "How's the weather today, Pseudo?"
Me: [4000 words and three book recommendations later] "...in conclusion, I would say it is a fine day".
Me: [4000 words and three book recommendations later] "...in conclusion, I would say it is a fine day".
squeen
8, 8, I forget what is for
Thank you! I'll take a look at the MacIntyre text.
What you say is interesting, but also goes against the grain against what I thought was the final lesson of graduate school: you don't need anyone's help to learn --- it's really on you. We all come to knowledge differently. Structured systems are design to protect against failure, not necessarily ensure or enable success.
Full disclosure: I've seen (from the inside) the US educational system do a long, slow nose-dive into mediocrity and, honestly, failure. I am distrustful of "paedogogy" in exactly the way engineers and physicists tend to be.
Probably said too much.
What you say is interesting, but also goes against the grain against what I thought was the final lesson of graduate school: you don't need anyone's help to learn --- it's really on you. We all come to knowledge differently. Structured systems are design to protect against failure, not necessarily ensure or enable success.
Full disclosure: I've seen (from the inside) the US educational system do a long, slow nose-dive into mediocrity and, honestly, failure. I am distrustful of "paedogogy" in exactly the way engineers and physicists tend to be.
Probably said too much.
Pseudoephedrine
Should be playing D&D instead
It helps if one remembers that the US educational system, from bottom to top, is mainly structured to reinforce its class structure, with a secondary effect of generating enough people with enough education to meet the labour requirements of its industry while driving down the cost of labour. Actually learning something, including even just how to learn, is a peripheral good in it.
The Heretic
Should be playing D&D instead
Oy vey all of this philosophy makes me want to become violent. It reminds me of all the time I've wasted engaging with Ayn Rand fans.
I remember buying Robin Laws' book on game mastering hoping that it was something like this. It...wasn't. It still had interesting insights but it was not what I was looking for. At the time, specifically, I think I was looking for help with how to use skills. I had noticed the problem that Bryce has mentioned frequently, that you don't want to hinge the rest of the adventure on the success of one skill check. This book didn't help with that.
Actually, I think this is why I enjoy reading Bryce's reviews so much. He elaborates on things I've picked up subconsciously, but never put a name to.
This, one hundred times this.
I remember buying Robin Laws' book on game mastering hoping that it was something like this. It...wasn't. It still had interesting insights but it was not what I was looking for. At the time, specifically, I think I was looking for help with how to use skills. I had noticed the problem that Bryce has mentioned frequently, that you don't want to hinge the rest of the adventure on the success of one skill check. This book didn't help with that.
Actually, I think this is why I enjoy reading Bryce's reviews so much. He elaborates on things I've picked up subconsciously, but never put a name to.