Dungeon Master Rating (DMR)

Another interlude from the onslaught of reviews...

Waaay back when I was getting ready for my first Cauldron convention, I was checking the DM Info page and came across the following in their "guidelines" section:

3. There is no upper or lower milliwhack limit.

What the heck is milliwhack, I wondered.

But after some research, I discovered that "milliwhack" (mW) is a non-real measurement, postulated (humorously, I believe) by Michael Prescott in this 2014 blog post as a way to determine the lethality of a campaign, adventure, or Dungeon Master.  One's milliwhack score is based on the number of character deaths (or permanent traumas) suffered by players over a given number of sessions. For example, my mW score for my five sessions of Cauldron 2025 comes out to 341 and change. Which is probably a bit higher than my home game, but the Con players were not raising each other from the dead.

Anyway, milliwhack is supposed to be a joke...but then I started thinking about golf handicaps. If you're a regular golfer, you have a handicap based on how well you play (and, more importantly, how well you've played recently) which is used to give more parity to golfers of disparate skill levels that play together. I don't have a golf handicap (if I did, it would be in the 55+ range...). But if I played with someone good (like my friend Connor) I would get to subtract the difference in our handicaps from my score to make our match more competive.

Here's the thing, though...a match between Connor and I would not be competitive. I've golfed with Connor (his son and mine are good friends and avid golfers, and we've taken the boys out before). He knows it; I know it. And just giving me a +40 stroke advantage (or whatever) doesn't change the fact that I SUCK at golf...and he's pretty good. However, here's the thing about the handicap...more than giving "parity" to disparate golfers, one can look at handicap and say, "Um, yeah...we probably shouldn't be playing together." You can use it to find someone close to your own level or (to put it another way) use it to somewhat judge whether you think you'd get a fun match with one or another of the people playing the course. It's a measurement to give you an idea of what you're getting into.

And I started thinking about this with regard to Dungeon Mastering.

When it comes to Dungeon Masters, the skill of the DM is often judged subjectively. Players describe a DM as "fun" or "challenging" or "deadly" but these descriptions rarely give a concrete sense of what a new player can expect at a table. What would be helpful (IMO), is a numerical, composite measure of a DM's performance...something equivalent to an NFL quarterback's passer rating...that communicates the style and intensity of a Dungeon Master's average game session.

Enter the Dungeon Master Rating (DMR), a method of measuring how a particular DM runs their table.

DMR examines three core aspects of a Dungeon Master's game (pace, reward, and challenge), and compiles them into a single score that can be used to gauge intensity and proficiency. It is mainly of use/interest to people who play "old edition" D&D...if your players are not exploring traditional adventure sites, searching for treasure, and facing the risk of death, then it will be of little use to you. It ranges from zero to 160.3, with a score of "100" being considered good/solid DMing, and anything over 100 to be varying degrees of excellence.

I recognize that DMR is an imperfect score. It does not measure flair, humor, improvisational skill, or rule mastery. It does not account for the relative skill of the players, nor the quality of the adventure being run. It focuses on objective, measurable elements of game play, providing a simple, transparent way for DMs and players to assess what to expect.

Calculating DMR

DMR is calculated in three steps:

1. Enter Your Variables

• h = hours played in the session
• e = keyed encounter areas visited/explored during the session
• p = number of PCs used during the session
• d = number of PCs killed during the session
• x = % of x.p. needed that was gained in treasure taken during the session

To explain that last one: add the total treasure take (in x.p.) and divide it by the total x.p. NEEDED of all surviving party members. EXAMPLE: Bill needs 1,870 x.p. to level up, Layna needs 346 x.p., and Al (playing a brand new magic-user) needs 2,500 x.p. Total needed is 4,716 x.p. If the party recovered 3,000 g.p. worth of treasure in the session, then x equals 63.6% (3,000 / 4,716 = .636).

2. "Normalize" Each Component

• E (exploration/pace) = e/h; divide results exceeding 3 by 1.5; E cannot exceed 5 
• L (lethality/challenge) = 100d/p; divide results exceeding 15 by 4; d/p cannot exceed 60 (before dividing)
• T (treasure/reward) = 100x/h; divide results exceeding 8 by 3; x/h cannot exceed  20 (before dividing)

3. Find Composite Score ("DMR")

DMR = 7E + 8L/3 + 5T

• DMR approaching 100 represents a solid session
• DMR > 100 indicates high intensity and excellence
• DMR 150+ represents a near-perfect, elite-level session

This formula ensures that DMR clusters around 100 for solid, balanced gameplay, while giving room to highlight extraordinary sessions.

FOR EXAMPLE, a session with:

• 13 rooms (keyed areas) over four hours (3.25 rooms/hour)
• 8 PCs, 2 deaths (25% lethality)
• 35,826 g.p. of treasure towards 90,000 x.p. needed over four hours (10%/hour)

is normalized to:

• E = 3.17 (.25 / 1.5 = .17; 3 + .17 = 3.17)
• L = 17.5 (10 / 4 = 2.5; 15 + 2.5 = 17.5)
• T = 8.67 (2 / 3 = .67; 8 + .67 = 8.67)

DMR = 22.2 + 46.7 + 43.4 = 112.3

...indicating a solid session with strong exploration, generous treasure, and a healthy level of danger.

The Dungeon Master Rating provides a simple, objective framework for evaluating DM sessions, in an attempt to give a clear sense of pace, reward, and risk. While it does not capture every nuance of DMing, it allows DMs to quantify and communicate their approach. By using DMR, Dungeon Masters can measure consistency, compare sessions, and give players meaningful expectations before they sit down at the table. 

Gauging my own performance over my last eight sessions (the only ones I have real data for) has been interesting. My lowest scores were definitely in the adventures where I felt something "off" or lacking, whereas the ones I felt good about had higher overall scores. My "weighted average" (accounting for some sessions being shorter or longer than others) comes out to a score of 119, but that's adjusted based on some adventures I ran at the con having objectives other than treasure. However, even throwing those sessions out (like my running of the kids through Tamoachan), I still get scores of 104, 105, 125, and 135. That's pretty good stuff. If I was a QB with those scores for my passer rating, I'd be up for a pretty fat contract!

; )

ANYway. Just something I'm digging at the moment. When it comes to D&D, we don't have enough objective measurements to "grade" game play. And I think it's helpful to have them. NOT because we want to make people feel bad ("oh, nos! My DMR is only a 76!") but we want to have benchmarks for improvement. Stats like DMR...or "milliwhack"...don't tell the whole story about a Dungeon Master, but they tell us something...and can give us ideas about how we might refine our game to make it more smooth, more efficient, more exciting. 

For me, it feels like a way to better measure, refine, and control my own game.

[Some Notes: baseline numbers are set per what I feel are solid. An 8% per hour rate of treasure accumulation against x.p. required is considered "good" by my account, but this maxes out at 20%...usually due to character deaths causing spikes in reward for survivors. Lethality includes those PCs who are raised or wished back to life, simply counting deaths (even though later mitigated) as a measure of how challenging the game is; to be clear, body counts can be TOO HIGH as well as too low, and this is reflected above. Pacing is based on "keyed locations" (i.e. numbered "rooms") that a party interacts with over the course of a session, does not count the same room more than once (even when re-visited), and is based on my observations of what it generally possible within a certain time frame.

DMR promotes a certain style of play: snappy, challenging, rewarding. It does not measure whether or not a DM is a "good bloke." Sometimes you want to play golf with someone just because they're a ton of fun: drinking, joking, slicing into the rough, etc. D&D is the same. DMR simply gives a measure for evaluating play, but there are lots of ways to find enjoyment and entertainment at the table]

Accolades

Well, I did think I was going to have more time for blogging. Unfortunately, the last of the "running beagles" is on her last legs (that is to say: apparently dying) and her care has been occupying much of my attention this week. It is what it is. I still need to finish (well, start really) my NAP3 contest submission, so that I can get it in by the 30th. Fortunately, I have a plan for that.  The plan for the dog is...slower in the coming. Though it appears the writing is on the wall.

*sigh*  ANYway...on to something a little more upbeat...

One thing I neglected to mention in my post about the Cauldron convention is that I, too, won a prize: I was awarded the trophy for "Best Dungeon Master" of the tournament. I am told (by the con organizer) that this was the "most prestigious trophy" of the con (it was certainly the largest trophy). It was also stated that I won handily by "all metrics considered" including number of game sessions run and quality of game sessions run (as graded by players). I was also the undisputed leader in the "most deadly DM" category (again, as voted by the players) with some players writing-in their own categories for my games including "Very Deadly...But Fair" and "Fantasy Fucking Vietnam." I am told that the results (at least in that category) weren't particularly close. Though I also handed out a lot of treasure.

Something to keep my dice in...

...

...

I haven't blogged about this before because...well, because it's needed to sink in a bit. I did not go to the convention to win trophies, after all. I went to Cauldron to play AD&D (specifically to play with a large number of adult aficionados) and I went there to meet people who...previously...I have only known or interacted with via the (rather impersonal) internet. I know I said as much in my last post. And I meant it.

But in mulling it over, there was definitely another reason I wanted to play this particular game with these particular people.  A selfish reason...an ego-driven reason. And yet a simple reason:

I wanted to show my chops.

Look: there are a lot of faceless blowhards on the internet. Not much has distinguished me from such folks over the years (if I am at all "distinct") except, perhaps, longevity and the fact that I've published a book or two. And, truthfully, that's cool...I'm not really blogging for recognition so much as for carving myself a little forum on which to vent my meandering thoughts. It is what it is: humans crave outlets for creative expression, and I am no different. I just choose this particular hobby as my channel. Once upon a time, I might have chosen something different. But this is plenty gratifying.

And yet, when one "holds forth" and blusters with such...mm..."strong opinions" as I am wont to express here, I am sure there are some who might wonder: Is this guy full of shit? Or what? And there are times myself when I am confronted with self-doubt. After all, here I am writing about the joys and wonder of playing 1st edition AD&D...and, yet, the only people I've run the game for (since starting up again) have been children. My own and those of others. Not "real people;" not adult peers, some of whom have plenty of experience and design cred under their belts. Not the kinds of people that judge like I have a tendency to judge. 

And, so, running games...AD&D (1E) games...was something I desperately wanted to do. Not just for the joy of it, but to prove to myself...and perhaps others...that I could do it. Because I still wondered. Despite all the theory-hashing. There are plenty of folks who teach because they can't do (that old chestnut). But being able to teach or speak or write with any degree of authority requires one to put into practice the preaching. To put up or shut up.

That can be a tough leap to make in this hobby. 

No, no...it's not because it's rocket science or particularly difficult (it truly isn't). Rather it's just because so many game masters are (like so many other people) cursed with (at least slightly) fragile egos. Far easier for the fifteen year blogger like myself to NOT take the plunge: to instead stay home and say, oh yeah, wish I could go to that but, you know, totally busy. And, thus, not even taking the field. Save the reputation from the potential hit one might take. People seeing your failings, judging you, maybe (heavens!) posting on the internet how much you suck.

It's human nature to doubt oneself at times.

So, no: I was not at the convention with the objective of competing for awards, but I was there with the aim of proving myself...both to myself and to others. ANY acknowledgement of me running a competent game would have been welcome, trophy or not.

Especially considering the quality of DM running games at Cauldron. Guys who are well-known in OSR circles...designers/writers like Gabor Lux and James Raggi and Prince of Nothing. The Germans themselves brought more than half-a-dozen 1E DMs, most of whom (I believe) are associated with Nexus, the German adventure gaming club that has really pushed hard in recent years to dig deep into AD&D and its glory. No slouches on display, in other words...just competent, confident DMs. 

So a good testing ground...and a chance to step up and show that I'm not just an idiot with a blog.

It's all very silly, of course. Crowing about...or worrying/stressing about...how well one runs a game in a niche section of a niche section of a niche hobby. But while DMing isn't rocket science, it does take work and effort. As with any pastime, one can treat it seriously and respectfully...or not. That is: the person doing the act (i.e. the person running the game, specifically ME in this case) can treat the "DMing art" with respect, or not.

Whether the rest of the world does or does not respect the work is not (and should not be) of much concern. It's my life after all...my time I'm spending on the effort.

Still, it's nice to have external acknowledgement. Always nice; always gratifying. Like the people who put electronic dollars in my DriveThru account every time one of my books is purchased, it is encouragement: encouragement to keep at it, to keep working, keep striving at getting better. A pat on the back and an "attaboy" probably would have been sufficient. 

But it is a nice trophy. And (sad but true) I don't think I've ever earned ANY kind of award for ANY endeavor that I cared more about than this hobby of ours. I feel stupidly, absurdly proud...just for killing a few imaginary characters and handing out imaginary treasure.

Though it probably helps that my players (my kids) thought it was pretty cool.

; )

Addendum to "Staycation"

As I wrote yesterday, my son's friend Caro enjoyed her time playing D&D and expressed serious interest in becoming a dungeon master (much like Diego's other friend, Nicholas, she almost immediately attempted to add to the narrative when we started playing. The kids call this "improving"). This time, I decided to actively encourage this desire by offering to let her borrow my extra copy of Moldvay's basic rules.

I should probably note that nine year old Caro is, like my son, a voracious reader. In fact, from what I understand she is the best reader in their class (my son, never one for modesty, offers himself as the clear #2). Not only that, she is a writer: she finished her first novella (more like three short stories, joined by theme) just recently, and gave a printed copy (about 30 pages) to my son which we (Diego, myself, and my daughter Sofia) took the time to read (it was fun). The POINT is, Caro is certainly of an age and skill level to absorb the material of the 64 page Moldvay rules and...given that the kids are going to be out of school for the next eight weeks...she certainly has the time to do so.

Her reaction: "I have to read all THAT?" Even after explaining (and showing) that much of the book was illustrations, or charts, or spell/monster/treasure entries that she could peruse at leisure (i.e. not actual instructions for play), she still balked. She kept her character sheets when she left our house...because she still wants to play...but she didn't take the book.

I didn't have the heart to tell her about 5E.

I suppose, in retrospect, that I could have offered her a copy of the 40 page Holmes Basic (I happen to own two copies) and perhaps that, coupled with her experience playing the game, would have been enough. But I'm a slave to inertia and I still consider Moldvay the finest book for learning the D&D game that I've ever read (too many weird discrepancies in Holmes for my taste). I can't quite bring myself to suggest any edition but B/X as a gateway to understanding The Game.

Gateway drug.

My boy is currently reading Moldvay. He started it...mmm, yesterday, I believe (our session with Caro was Friday). He is currently up to Part 5: Encounters.  A couple times, I've had him pause so that I could quiz him on the material. I've offered additional insights and info for him to consider alongside the rules as written. It's been a bit of a slog for him: he enjoys reading but he prefers biographies and historical texts to instruction manuals (this is the first game text I think he's ever read...most games, he has me read the instructions and then teach him the rules). But I think it's important that he has a grasp of the text as a tool...if he really wants to be a dungeon master, he's going to need to know how to use the book. 

Until he no longer needs it.

; )

Addendum to "Certifying Dungeon Masters"

This is a follow-up to this post over here.

I feel like I touched off a bit of madness with my last post, and that I need to add some clarifying remarks.

Here's the short and sweet:

1. I've been reading a lot of old (ancient, really) Dragon magazine articles.
2. I found an interesting one about awarding "experience points" and "levels" to both players and Dungeon Masters based on particular actions they've taken. I thought it was kind of fun.
3. It got me thinking/remembering an idea I had about certifying Dungeon Masters. This comes back to...oh, a bunch of jumbled theories/ideas in my head. Stuff like: the confusion amongst new DMs about how to run a game/campaign, the lack of information, training and teaching, the lack of coaching, and the problem that some folks who might otherwise be interested in playing the game get utterly turned-off based on bad experiences with poorly run games.
4. I then muddled #2 and #3 because I lack the patience to do systematic posts and was in a rush to puke all my ideas onto the internet as quickly as possible.

That's what that post was all about. Here's what I could have/should have/would have said if I'd been a bit more thoughtful and measured:

I believe it would be a good thing to have a hobby full (or mostly full) of competent Dungeon Masters. Good Dungeon Masters would be preferred, great Dungeon Masters would be awesome...but I'm willing to settle for competent.

[normally, I'd insert an essay-and-a-half attempting to define "competence," but I'm trying to be measured and systematic, so I'll leave that for a future post]

So when I talk about "certifying" individuals as Dungeon Masters, what I'm getting at is finding a way to qualify a person as "objectively competent" to run a game of Dungeons & Dragons. Because anyone can call themselves a "Dungeon Master," even a person who's never cracked the book to read the rules. I know there are folks who, in fact, have done this very thing.

[my buddy, Steve, told me about his introduction to D&D in elementary school: a neighbor kid "ran" a game using nothing but a Monster Manual. All the players had to pick a monster out of the book to be their character. How they accomplished anything is beyond me...Steve didn't remember, but he still referred to the kid running the game as his "Dungeon Master" and said he (the DM) would tell the players what they needed to roll; I get the impression the PCs of this game mainly fought each other for their treasure]

Even owning the necessary rulebooks is no guarantee of an individual knowing the rules; I've owned rulebooks that I've never bothered to finish reading and fully integrate into my game (The Dungeoneers Survival Guide comes to mind). And even reading the rulebook might not make some individuals competent to run the game...they might not even be adequate, depending on the level of expectation from the players at the table.

Now, before I go any further, please allow me to say that I'm NOT trying to excise DMs from the table based on inadequacy. My goal is to bring every would-be Dungeon Master "up to snuff;" my whole idea of having a certification process is in aid of that goal. It's not about exclusion...it's about elevating the level of play, in order to provide a more enjoyable experience AND help sustain and grow the hobby.

OKay...so, HOW does one go about achieving certification? I don't know. That's the part where my romantic pipe-dream always falls down. I don't have an idea, and I'm not proposing one. This is the bit that got confused in my prior post. The idea that popped into my head (upon reading Jon Mattson's article) is that, hey, maybe there are some objective ways to measure a person's ability to act as Dungeon Master...and objective measurements are the first step towards certification.

[I've never been a doctor, but I assume that there is some sort of testing of knowledge and skill necessary before an individual can be licensed to perform medicine...it's not simply a matter of paying a fee like you're picking up a permit to fish during the season]

Subjective measurements...like how many players show up to your table and whether or not they have "fun" (as written on some sort of feedback/evaluation form)...are not good means of certifying anything. And I wouldn't leave such a thing in the hands of the industry that publishes the game (for profit)...that's like putting the FDA in the hands of private pharmaceutical companies. But actually coming up with objective measurables...and finding ways of assigning weight and ranking to those measures...is a tough chore. What I found interesting and exciting about the Mattson article was that someone had taken the time to put together SOMETHING that wasn't just based on subjectivity (see DeAnn Iwan's article "How Do You Rate As A DM" in Dragon #43 as an example of a subjective...and poor...means of evaluating skill). I found it interesting and exciting...but I did not see it as an answer to the question "how can we certify DMs." I just see it as opening the crack of potential for the possibility.

Does that make sense? While the level titles make me chuckle, and it's fun (for me) to tabulate my "XP" with regard to Dungeon Mastering, I'm not saying one needs to achieve 12th level (or whatever) in order to receive some sort of diploma or certificate. Levels are fun because I think there ARE tiers of experience when it comes to some professions/skills...and Dungeon Mastering is one. But certifying competence is something on a much different scale from what Mattson's proposed "leveling" system. My apologies for confusing the two things.

Over the next few days I'm going to be very busy with a bunch of things and...for my own mental health...I'm going to be limiting my posting. However, I do plan on thinking about this more; maybe I'll come up with some of my own "objective measures" that I think would apply towards basic DM competence.

Later, Gators.

How about some sort of
"official cap" instead of a certificate?

Certifying Dungeon Masters

Man, my brain has really been addled by all things D&D lately ("The Sleeper has awakened!")...if I wasn't so busy with a gazillion other things, I could/would be posting multiple blog entries on a daily basis (and probably still find the time/energy for drafting some campaign notes/house rules). *sigh* Such is life...when I have LOTS of time on my hands, my inertia always seems to be the other direction.

ANYway, I was combing through a bunch of old Dragon magazines the other day (specifically the first 50 or so), looking for a particular article, and kept coming across little buried "gems," pertinent to my own thoughts and musings. As I've often found over the last ten years of blogging/researching there really isn't all that much new under the sun...people have been obsessing and coming up with ideas and putting 2 and 2 together for a long, long time. The execution wasn't always quite right, but the early days of the hobby were still "early days;" lots of stuff hadn't been worked out yet. And yet some of our adaptations of these ideas (or decisions to go 180 degrees directions, in certain instances) are/were even more flawed than the original stab at the kernel of a concept.

[I'll give you one quick example: I've recently come to the conclusion that Alexis Smolensk's system of awarding experience points based on damage inflicted and received (in addition to XP for treasure found), is really the only sensible way of handling combat/encounter XP, and have decided that I'll probably adapt it wholesale in my next campaign. Welp, Dragon #36 (April 1980) already proposed this variant system ("Experience Points to Ponder: A New System" by William Fawcett). Alexis has the advantage of a bit more thoughtful design and about a decade of play testing...but someone had a similar idea (and for the same reasons) almost thirty years prior]

But I don't want to get sidetracked...the reason I decided to open up Ye Old Laptop and post something (instead of doing what I should be doing) is because I just have to mention this idea from Dragon #28 (August 1979). In an article entitled "Level Progression for Players and Dungeon Masters," writer Jon Mattson proposes a method of awarding experience points to players and DMs (not characters) based on their actual gaming experience, in order to provide an objective measure of ability.

This is something I've been thinking about for years, and only more so since considering the discussions I've had (both on the internet and in-person with other designers) about the possibility of training or certification for game masters. My opinion is that some sort of training for individuals who want to run games is not only desirable but necessary, and that the lack of good, codified training is detrimental to the hobby (some of my blog posts have mentioned this in passing). But I've often wondered how one would go about certifying a person as a credible, proficient GM.

Because here's the thing: it really doesn't matter all that much to me how experienced a player is at a table (neither as a DM or a fellow player), but it matters a LOT to me how competent a Dungeon Master is running the game. Because my enjoyment of a game session hinges on whether or not the DM can do his or her job at the table. And it is, frankly, very difficult for me to come back to the table of a DM whose game I neither appreciate nor respect (I don't think I've ever walked away mid-game from such a DM...I'm a little too polite for that...but I have come away from game sessions feeling frustrated, angry, and vowing to never waste another chunk of my time with that same dungeon master)...even if the person running the game is a friend that I like and respect.

Mattson's article provides the following experience point awards for DMs (he also provides some awards for playing/running other games that might have a certain "carryover" effect, but I'm just going to stick to the ones that are Dungeons & Dragons specific):

Per campaign* of basic D&D you play:  60
Per campaign* of basic D&D you DM:  900**
Per campaign* of Original D&D you play:  80
Per campaign* of Original D&D you DM:  1200**
Per campaign* of Advanced D&D you play:  100
Per campaign* of Advanced D&D you DM:  1500**

* Mattson considers a campaign to be "one full adventure, i.e. if a group of characters set out to explore a five level dungeon, the whole five levels (and only those five levels) would count as one campaign." While I take this to mean that XP is not awarded every session for a multi-session, site-based adventure, the article does not indicate what counts as finishing a "campaign;" should a DM be awarded full XP if a party abandons an adventure site, or if the delve ends in a Total Party Kill? I'm inclined to say "Yes" since that's the outcome of the "campaign," but I'm not sure that's the author's intent.
** Per Mattson, only two-thirds of this amount is awarded if the DM did not design the adventure (for example, if a published module was used). This seems reasonable to me, awarding one-third XP each for writing/designing, game prep, and actual running. 

Being written in 1979, the only "basic D&D" the author could be referring to is the Holmes-written basic set. B/X (published in 1981) is much more similar in complexity and rule scope to OD&D and I'm inclined to put both it and the later BECMI in that category. 2nd edition AD&D would go into AD&D, and you could probably put all "later editions" (3rd, 4th, 5th) there as well...but then some might argue that the objectives of play are so different for later systems (especially 4E) that they really need to be put into the "other games" category for simple "carryover" XP.

[maybe you'd need to have "multi-class DMs" these days with XP split between Old and New school. Ha!]

The advancement table for Dungeon Masters in the article looks like this:

Level 1: Initiate     0-1499 experience points
2: Apprentice     1500-2999
3: Expert     3000-4499
4: Overseer     4500-5999
5: Supervisor     6000-8999
6: Moderator     9000-11,999
7: Mediator     12,000-17,999
8: Arbitrator     18,000-24,999
9: Referee     25,000-34,999
10: Referee, 1st Class     35,000-49,999
11: Judge     50,000-74,999
12: Dungeonmaster     75,000-99,999
13: Dungeonmaster, 13th level     100,000-124,999
14: Dungeonmaster, 14th level, etc.     125,0000 plus 25,000 per level after 14th

[ha! There's also a note that Dungeonmasters of 18th level or higher may also be called "Overlord." I dig on that!]

I'm sure that some folks reading this are going to just shake their heads and call it all ridiculous. After all, the mark of a good DM should include something about how they're evaluated by their players, right? How they interact, how they arbitrate, how they smooth over difficulties and deal with troublesome issues? Not to mention how they improvise and adapt, how they role-play monsters and how much fun is had by all? Certainly, if a DM is giving the impression to everyone who joins the game that he/she is an asshole, it shouldn't matter whether they've run five adventures or five hundred, right?

Maybe. But maybe we need to have some concrete "measurables" to measure. Maybe there is something about a person who writes, preps, and runs a game getting better at writing, prepping, and running games. And maybe that's kind of important when you're emphasizing the game aspect of the hobby and not the "oh, it's just another way to socialize and interact with buddies in a casual, geeky fashion." Sure, yes, that's a thing...but some folks want a higher standard of gaming. I know I do.

Mattson's article isn't a bad starting place for such a discussion. Going over my own DMing history (as best I can remember it), and sticking with only these XP awards (and counting B/X play as "basic" rather than OD&D, and not counting any post-2E experience), I'll say I conservatively calculate my own experience as 65,420, giving me a rank of "Judge," but being about 10,000 shy of "name level." If I upped the awards for B/X campaigns and included awards for other games I've run (there have been many...including 3E D&D), it's possible I might crack 12th or even 13th level, but I'm inclined to leave it as is...a good indication of my "rank" in terms of Old School D&D.

Which...frankly...is about all I care about these days.

And which ALSO means, I've got room to grow. I'd certainly like to be worthy of the "Dungeon Master" title ("Overlord" seems like a pipe dream any time in this lifetime). But, being honest here, I've still got plenty to learn and discover. "Judge" actually sounds about right (I'm pretty judgmental). "Mastery" is something I'm working on.

Anyhoo, I welcome thoughts and ideas on the subject, and ways one might use this (or a similar) objective system to analyze quality, skill, and competence...or any differing opinions from folks who feel this line of thought is unnecessary or impossible. Also, I invite anyone who feels so inclined to post how they level themselves (using this system) in terms of "old school DM experience." To be perfectly honest, I'd like to see how I rank in comparison to the other DMs out there.

Just please: no taking XP for 5E games. I don't care if they're run in an "old school" way or not.