Hey, D&D oldies. I've glad that you've DMed hundreds of games and have just been able to improvise skill checks so you've never desired to bring in skill challenges, cuz that's what skill checks are for.

Not every DM had years of playing before sitting behind the screen.

I'd like to remind all y'all with your history of websites and blogs and supplements that with the explosion of D&D that y'all like to talk about, that brings an explosion of people new people into the game.

The historical foundation you have isn't everyone else's experience.

I don't think anyone would argue that skill challenges were perfect in their initial iteration, but they were there to provide a narrative framework, because a big part of 4e's design was geared for NEW players.

Those players who don't have the years of experience you do.

Those players who actually don't know how they can use their skills in a creative way. Who don't just "call that rolling skill checks". Who need to have the reminder to look at their proficiencies and think "how can I use THIS skill here?"

Those DMs who don't know how to just improvise trying to cross a bridge-less chasm, or can't just pull out a complex social negotiation out of their back pocket on a whim.

Those DMs who didn't sit at a table for years in multiple campaigns before sitting behind the screen.

Remember that there are a LOT of people who are DMing who have player LESS than a dozen games.

A LOT who played literally ZERO games before DMing.

Literally ZERO.

The old-school "path the the Dungeon Master" isn't the current one.

I had played a couple AL games before I DMed.

That's it. That is literally it. That's more the normal now than your experience.

We need the additional structure and framework because we have to make up for the fact that we have zero experience. It's got to hold up weight because we don't have decades of play.

The fact that a bunch of you are writing blogs and websites and adventures and supplements but you still can't seem to get this through your head is so frustrating.

We came to the game two very different ways, and you have to step away from the old assumptions.

If you think something was bad, but people keep talking about how great something was, maybe ask why might be?

What are they seeing in it?
Why don't you need it?
What problems might it be solving for them?
What structure might it be serving for them?

And on that note, Imma get coffee.

I'm sorry if this came out extra snarky; I haven't even caffeinated yet, and it really is so tiring and irritating to see these takes over and over again.

It feels like this weird elitism. Might not be intended that way, but it often feels it.