Does GMing experience actually matter past the first year or two of GMing? It seems that after those one or two years...

Does GMing experience actually matter past the first year or two of GMing? It seems that after those one or two years, most GMs hit a plateau and become set in their ways, for good or for ill.

I have played under various GMs claiming to have GMed since year 2000 or earlier (not that implausible), and yet they were very amateur-like in their GMing. Just hours ago, I had to correct a GM whose had been GMing since AD&D 2e's release; they thought that the average of 1d8 was 4, not 4.5 as it truly is.

I think that if you just stick with one group and one system, you won't really learn much. You get used to everyone's tastes and sensibilities, get into habit of running things in a certain style that pleases everyone you play with.

A GM who's constantly switched groups or run one-shots at conventions or such has probably benefitted a ton from that experience.

A GM who's never ran anything but D&D and has done so for a single group of friends isn't probably very experienced, even if he's been playing since 1979.

>first
If you only run certain playstyles for certain people, like mentioned you probably wont get much better. It's also possible its just personal problems, like one GM I've had who had a habit of leaving out minor but important details.
>second
Contrary to popular belief, rolling dice does not make you better at statistics than the average person. Considering it's a rounding error, they're close enough for the average game to be run alright.

DMing is an arts skill, like acting or painting or writing

You have to be willing to push yourself: write more interesting plots, think up more interesting scenarios instead of just punch fights, play with the setting and the rules.

Research helps. Playing modules that are considered great, both as a DM and a player. Look to other sources: boardgames, video games, film.

Just yesterday, I was taking notes from watching a playthrough of Assassinorum Execution Force. I'm going to use the idea of it, a set map with randomly generated points of interest, to run a heist sequence in Edge of the Empire.

But it IS work. It's really easy to get lazy and just coast on bigger and bigger punch fights and stock fantasy plots.

>I had to correct a GM whose had been GMing since AD&D 2e's release; they thought that the average of 1d8 was 4, not 4.5 as it truly is.

Holy fuck. You are a prime example of autism.

>not recognizing Colette
If only you knew how true that was.

It's not years, but practical familiarity with different systems, game styles and genres.

Okay.

It seems that I had failed to convince the GM that the average of 1d8 is actually 4.5.

I had shown the GM several math examples and even anydice outputs, and yet the GM is still adamant in their belief that the average of 1d8 is actually 4.

That's interesting, because there's only 3 ways to roll lower than a 4 but there's 4 ways to roll higher than a 4. That makes it not being 4 pretty fucking obvious.

It can but it doesn't necessarily. On one hand, someone who's pushed themselves for literally years has a chance to become phenomenal over time. But, as Academia is fond of saying, being a freshman 4 times doesn't make you a senior.

And frankly someone who's made the same mistake a million times isn't likely to get it right on try one million and one.

>buttmad about being called a prime example of autism
>tries to brush it off with a casual "Okay"

Protip, kid. If you don't want people to know you're rustled, don't reply at all. :)

That piercing looks like it'd be annoying to deal with.
Her ear twitches slightly and WOOPS HEAVY WEIGHT GOING BACK AND FORTH.
Would probably hurt, honestly.

And why does this matter at all?

Are you really rolling so many pools of d8's that this matters?

Colette is more of a pro than you are.

>Colette is pro

What did user mean by this?

It's a diminishing returns thing. It doubles each time. The difference between a 0 and 1 year GM is the same as 1 and 3. Same with 3 and 7.

I mean exactly what you think.

I think you're trying to say you're retarded. Are you sure that's exactly what you're trying to say?

Quality thread by the way.

Why are you even wasting time with your GM to argue about dice averages when you could be playing the game instead?

I'm not Colette. I wish I was.

I'd mostly agree with this. I'd also make special note that GMing is not a skill you can easily quantify, so if you're group doesn't know any better everyone may think mediocre gming is the best available.

>Colette is starting to shill himself

THE GLASS CASTLE IS SHAKING BOYS

2HU ON SUICIDE WATCH

> I had to correct a GM whose had been GMing since AD&D 2e's release; they thought that the average of 1d8 was 4, not 4.5 as it truly is.
Surely bait, but in D&D you round down you fucking plebian

What is a colette? Can i eat it?

Because someone who has enjoyed a hobby for almost two decades in which rolling dice and figuring out the math and statistics of dice rolling should be able to figure out how to determine the average of a dice because it's not that fucking hard?

GM doesn't need to know dice tho. Good GM sometimes cheats to favor the players.

Bullshit. The GM needs to know what the expected value and variance of a roll or set of rolls is likely to be and be able to project a likelihood of success if he intends to run a balanced game that is consistently challenging yet winnable.

>winnable

You know perfectly well what I mean. Even if winning isn't the point of an RPG on a macro scale, from encounter to encounter the party is trying to win.

you see, you don't want to have game always winable. First, my group doesn't really has specific goal, so having game "won" would just end it.
Second, what if players do something really stupid?
Third, fuck balance. You wanna do grimderp shit where players can barely survive(so whfrp), do it. You want stupid fun? Do it.
In my opinion good GM railroad as fuck, at least i had most fun with that type

see Non-autists don't need a billion exceptions laid out to them to make a simple and clear sentence understandable.

y'all do know that this guy is actually autistic?

There's a difference between "winnable" and "always win". Something is winnable if there is a way that the players could win it, provided they do the right things. You could even further extend that to say that they should be able to reasonably figure out what the right things are.

That doesn't prevent them from doing the wrong things, in which case they can still lose. Ideally, and this goes for any game not just RPGs, it should be the player's choices, not RNG, that determines whether they win or lose.

I'd argue both RNG and player agency should be a factor.

Some times the dice just don't fall in your favor. That's life. Deal with it and move on.

But if the system is set up so that every choice ends in the same result and the dice have no impact, it's a meaningless game. Regardless of whether the result is victory or defeat.