General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
DMs: what have you learned from PLAYING that has made you a better DM?
Another thread got me thinking about the last year, where I have seriously played (D&D 3.5) for probably the first time in 20 years. The last time I actually played this seriously was during the games of Tunnels and Trolls that got me into the hobby in the first place c.a 1984
Before this year, playing was something I had little real time for, and was just a rest when I lacked inspiration or had burn't out, or was just because someone else wanted to have a go at DMing. Secretly, all I wanted to do after a few sessions was DM again and I think I was missing something as a result: I did not really, truly understand what a player is looking for in a good game. It is not that I was a bad DM: I am accounted quite a good one, but I didn't really understand the game from a player's perspective.
I have learned that some of the things we DMs think are "funny" and/or "challenging" and that some of our ways of dealing with issues of balance and realism are not very player friendly and are quite frustrating.
For example, neutralsing player abilities through use of monsters that are not vulnerable is seriously annoying when you are playing. Similarly, tactics that completely blast a character out for a fight (like stunning, paralysis etc) are also quite annoying unless you play a fast-paced game where there is plenty of combat each session and so, lots of other chances to "make a difference".
Similarly, not using various parts of the game, because you (the DM) don't really like them is also not very player friendly: I am thinking of DMs who hate wilderness adventures and the effect this has on players of Rangers and Druids, or DMs who hate traps and puzzles and the effect this has on players of Rogues. Or DMs who hate social interaction or intrigue and the effect this has on players of Bards.
I have also learned how important OPTIONS are to players to neutralise some of the above and how annoying it would have been if the DM had said "you can't use this feat". I am not talking about the game-breaking non-WoTC stuff, I am talking about legitimate options that allow Rangers to be more effective in a dungeon or rogue feats that let them sneak attack constructs etc.
In terms of mechanics, being a player has also improved my knowledge of FEATs and spell abilites 1000 fold and I am almost afraid to get back into the DM chair because now I can see how to batter any party with even a few simple tactics that use only level 1-3 spells and give well built monsters SIGNIFICANT advantages.
I would go so far as to say that ALL DMs would benefit from sitting on the other side of the screen for an extended period and actually engaging with the game in a meaningful way that completely shifts their perspective. I know some of you do and have always done this: hats off to you, this is how it should be.
So I would like to know: what have YOU learned from playing that has helped you to be a better DM?
__________________ I don't know half of you, half as well as I should like and I like less than half of you, half as well as you deserve!
The number one lesson I take across the DM screen is about pacing and tempo.
When I am playing, and things are going slowly, I get bored.
When I DM, I try to steer clear of things that will go slowly. I encourage players to proceed through their turns at a reasonable pace, and I discourage off-topic chatting while we are actually playing (I encourage and participate in off-topic chatting before we start, while we are taking a break, and when we are done). My own house rule is "If you talk about WoW while the game is on, you start the next combat dazed (save ends)." I've only had to enforce it once so far, but when I'm playing rather than DMing I live in a constant hell in which I get to learn where the best place is to go fishing in WoW...
I run a number of RPGA games (LFR), and I always have plenty of time to a) have fun, b) let people enjoy the skill challenges, c) have fun, d) fight through combats until they are resolved, e) have fun, and f) finish with up to an hour to spare in the scheduled slot.
Don't railroad the players. If you are going to to railroad the players, don't hide the tracks. One DM I had in a 3.5 game had us wandering through the desert. Apparently there was some kind of sparkling light far away in the distance that we were supposed to investigate, but nobody noticed it or cared. We just ended up wandering around in the stupid desert for the entire five hour session with nothing to do.
The DM wouldn't let us fastforward through the trip to get where we were headed until after we found out what that stupid sparkling light was, only he didn't tell us that was what we were supposed to do. Five hours of walking.
This same DM wrote my character's backstory for me, completely disregarding my ideas, and insisted that I played my character the way he wanted me to play it.
He wrote everybody's backstories, but nobody wanted to play them. He got frustrated with us when we didn't do what he wanted us to do.
What did I get out of the experience?
D&D is not about the DM; it's about the players. The DM is there to facilitate the players and what they want to do, not to tell the players what to do and punish them for not doing it.
finish with up to an hour to spare in the scheduled slot.
I should clarify this one a bit - I don't mean that it is a good thing to play for an hour less; I like playing D&D and more playing is a good thing, in general. The time that I eliminate at my tables is not D&D time, it is the non-D&D time where people are ignoring the game and talking about other things, or poring over lists of options on their character sheet when the best/only choice of action is an obvious one. Folks at my (shorter runtime) tables get all of the good stuff out of each module, with less of the bad stuff.
Let me say that I have a good deal to learn about DMing as I have only had 1 true opportunity to DM (I am writing off my attempts at GMing alternity as a youthful folly!).
Pacing is absolutely something important I have discovered. Going from DM to player I finally had perspective on what to look for in good DMing. If things are dragging you need to shake it up and let the pace change. Don’t rely on the party to pull themselves out of a slump just because they’re trying to. Make it incredibly easy, get as far away from the slow point as you can, either with combat, a skill challenge, or a sudden twist in the plot.
Another thing I’ve learned is the improv game “Yes, and…” As often as possible I try to let my players circumnavigate or outsmart my situations and still give them full credit. This leads into another idea of shared storytelling. If you are married to your setting and your NPC villains are your pets, then the players are just living in your world. Let them shape the world, let them be bold. Whenever possible, let them make that check. If it’s ridiculous, use the highest DC for their level range, and if it succeeds anyway use the lowest damage die range for that level. The act of succeeding is more energizing than making efficient use of your actions.
Speaking of verisimilitude, don’t argue with engineers. They know more about physics than you do, even if you’re an engineer too. “Realism” in gaming is only as effective as it engages your players. If tracking rations adds to their gaming experience, let them do it. If it doesn’t, don’t worry about it. At the end of the day, weather you are a 4e gamist or a 2e simulationist, you need to put things in front of your players they want to engage. You’re not writing a book, you’re telling a story, and there’s an important difference.
When the DM has miscalculated the math side of things (i.e. opponents have unhitable ACs, unbeatable DCs, etc.), I appreciate it when he notices and eases up on us.
I appreciate it when the DM trusts me enough to make decisions about my character's abilities, including home brewing things. And I trust him if he tells me it's not working out right.
Sometimes the players need a bit of chat time at the start of a game - that's a good time for the DM to get organized, but also just a good time for the group to hang out and bond.
I love seeing the DM's world and its quirks. And I love it when my ability to recall those details pays off in some way.
Secretly, all I wanted to do after a few sessions was DM again and I think I was missing something as a result: I did not really, truly understand what a player is looking for in a good game. It is not that I was a bad DM: I am accounted quite a good one, but I didn't really understand the game from a player's perspective.
Well what a player is looking for in a good game is going to vary by player. Someone with a style based heavily on butt kicking and kicking down the door is going to be looking for something different than someone interested in setting exploration and interacting with NPCs.
Quote:
I have learned that some of the things we DMs think are "funny" and/or "challenging" and that some of our ways of dealing with issues of balance and realism are not very player friendly and are quite frustrating.
Possibly, but what doesn't work for some players, may work for others
Quote:
For example, neutralsing player abilities through use of monsters that are not vulnerable is seriously annoying when you are playing.
Unless, it is routinely employed, I would say that it depends on the players.
Quote:
Similarly, tactics that completely blast a character out for a fight (like stunning, paralysis etc) are also quite annoying unless you play a fast-paced game where there is plenty of combat each session and so, lots of other chances to "make a difference".
Or, you need to have a group of players that are fun and entertaining. With my last two groups, it has not been a problem. If a player is taken out of the fight, they are too busy rooting for the other PCs and enjoying what is going on at the table, but then the other players make the game interesting.
Quote:
Similarly, not using various parts of the game, because you (the DM) don't really like them is also not very player friendly: I am thinking of DMs who hate wilderness adventures and the effect this has on players of Rangers and Druids, or DMs who hate traps and puzzles and the effect this has on players of Rogues. Or DMs who hate social interaction or intrigue and the effect this has on players of Bards.
Again, it depends on the group. I, personally,would hate a campaign that was completely dungeon focused or lacked social interaction, but some players want that.
Quote:
I have also learned how important OPTIONS are to players to neutralise some of the above and how annoying it would have been if the DM had said "you can't use this feat". I am not talking about the game-breaking non-WoTC stuff, I am talking about legitimate options that allow Rangers to be more effective in a dungeon or rogue feats that let them sneak attack constructs etc.
Again, this only true for some players, but not all.
Quote:
In terms of mechanics, being a player has also improved my knowledge of FEATs and spell abilites 1000 fold and I am almost afraid to get back into the DM chair because now I can see how to batter any party with even a few simple tactics that use only level 1-3 spells and give well built monsters SIGNIFICANT advantages.
Yes, you learn alot. However, there is nothing requiring you to use those tactics if it would be inappropriate for the NPC/Monster based upon their intelligence, niche, etc.
Quote:
I would go so far as to say that ALL DMs would benefit from sitting on the other side of the screen for an extended period and actually engaging with the game in a meaningful way that completely shifts their perspective. I know some of you do and have always done this: hats off to you, this is how it should be.
I agree with you. It is a good thing.
Quote:
So I would like to know: what have YOU learned from playing that has helped you to be a better DM?
I'm leaving to work, but a few key things.
1. Communication of style, expectations, house rules, sources etc. is extremely important and should, ideally, be done before character generation. Further, communication and feedback throughout the campaign should continue throughout the came.
2. No matter what else, the game is always about the characters. Even if you limit some choices (races, classes, etc.) or institue houserules, the characters are the stars of the show- your NPCs are not!
3. Don't be tied to your plotline/story. As soon as your players' characters enter the game, expect Murphy's Law to take over your finely crafted plans. Learn to accept and embrace this.
4..How to pace
5. How to handle splitting the party (ties back to #3)
__________________ "The designers of the newest edition built so much reliance on rules right into the game, to make it easier to play. As one of those designers, I occasionally think to myself, 'What have we wrought?' " -Monte Cook
" If the DM has to make a lot of judgment calls, the game is more difficult to learn. However, it's my belief that it's also more satisfying." -Monte Cook
"Don't let rules replace good DMing skills"- Monte Cook
Last edited by Greg K; 1st April 2009 at 07:21 PM..
Reason: edited to replace one word with the word I meant to use.
The most important thing I learned is the motto of the 4E. Say YES!
I barely played in my whole lifetime. When I got the opportunity(and the time) to do so, I was luck my DM was a very good DM. The story was interesting, the world rich, the NPCs very entertaining. But, he could not say Yes. Every time i tried to take the reins of MY character development, I received a big fat no. And I did not ask for nothing absurd. I DM, I hate power gamers. I asked for some few new options. Cool options. NO. I asked for a certain character development. NO. And this last one was awful, since the NO came IN GAME. Even if I told him clearly for what direction I was going.
So when my players ask me something, I ask then why they want it, and if I don't approve I try to give as many options as I can to fit their idea. Every concept I fit in the campaign for their characters I ask first if they are okay. I even tell then off game about the path they are going with their decisions("if you go with this NPC, you get hid of the magic sword. With the other will will try to master it's will"). It's important to listen to then, and figure out what is fun, cool and entertaining. And leave the channel open.
Or, you need to have a group of players that are fun and entertaining. With my last two groups, it has not been a problem. If a player is taken out of the fight, they are too busy rooting for the other PCs and enjoying what is going on at the table, but then the other players make the game interesting.
I'm fairly convinced that, when playing with a group of people who have so much fun together that they enjoy a combat even when their characters get knocked out of the battle due to one-hit-takedown attacks, that group will have even more fun during combat if their characters are not knocked out of the battle due to one-hit-takedown attacks.
At some time during any given campaign or adventure give all of your players the opportunity to use their best capabilities. Also at some point give them an opportunity to use little known or obscure abilities and capabilities.
Encourage innovation on the part of your players and allow them to solve their own problems creatively.
Give them new and original challenges and monsters and obstacles. Don't just recycle the same things over and over.
Let the player handle his character, it isn't your job to do that. Allow him, within reason, to innovate, invent, experiment, and manipulate his "virtual world" in the same way you can your "real world." Preprogrammed powers and capabilities are a start, like training for real capabilities is for us, but it shouldn't be the limit of what a player or character can do. Let players develop "original characters" fit to their own personal interests.
Give players time to consider their best course of action unless they are in the middle of a pressing situation.
Give out treasure which is far more interesting and thoughtful than +3 whatever.
Use monsters that are clever and cunning.
Let players actually build real characters instead of just character builds.
Don't get bogged down in so many details that play becomes a rules/bookwork/programming exercise rather than a game.
Clever games and well developed campaigns and settings will have a lot to explore. One trick ponies bore many players easily. Vary hack and slash with role play, interesting stories and plots, unusual challenges, bizarre encounters, moral dilemmas, and so forth and so on. There is a time and season for everything but if it is summer all year long then the grass withers and dies and eventually all you've got left is sand and desert.
Give players and their characters an opportunity to actually effect the world, make a real name and reputation for themselves, and to change events. Let your world and setting change over time to reflect this.
Give them a valuable objective or set of objectives they can aspire towards.
Give them opportunities to be heroic and selfless and bigger than themselves.
Treat players like adults. Let them iron out their own problems. And trust your players to be as smart as you are.
Never discourage originality, even if it won't work in that particular case. Let them find that out by experimentation, not by fiat.
For me, I've learned two big things, one positive, and one negative from recent games.
To start positive, a recent Con GM I played with reinforced how important it is to read your players and go where they want you to go. We were playing in a city based game, and our small group (there were only three of us and he expected a group of 10!) received a job to investigate the murder of a girlfriend of one of the local military commanders. The GM was expecting us to go off and treat it like a dungeon-bash, but we had chosen to take characters who were mostly social and investigative (it seemed to make sense given the initial scenario he gave us).
What followed was one of the best role playing investigations I've ever played in: we had a list of contacts, and we went and talked with them, did some work with the seedier elements of town, and essentially bypassed about 90% of his planned scenario. We still got to the badguys in the end, but we had gone almost 100% roleplay based to get there, rather than using the setpiece encounters he had prepared.
That taught me (gave me a great example of, really) giving the group what they want. The goal (finding the cultists, figuring out the noble who was involved, and bringing them to justice) were all the GMs outline, but how we got there was entirely up to us.
We talked after the session was over, and he had a series of setpiece encounters planned, but he designed a basic connections diagram with this idea in place, so he had some basic information on who had the dirt on who...and then he just ran with it. The trick was establishing interesting "on the spot" NPCs, which he did wonderfully. So the tip in the end was, a little bit of prep, and work on your improv skills!
In the negative side, I've recently played in a very good game where the GM is a stickler for the realistic details of an investigation and unraveling a plot. He's a good and experienced GM, but sometimes we just take too long to get to the interesting stuff he has for us, because he puts a realistic level of detail between us and the eventual fun. There are lots of red herrings and blind alleys to run down, and when we get to the results their fantastic, but to get there!
I am guilty of this myself, as I sometimes will draw something out because I think it's realistic to do so. What I've learned is that realism is great, but if you stall too long, you'll tire and bore your players so that they're not paying attention when important events come up.
To give another quick example: one of the best GMs I've ever played with likes to include the occasional sea voyage for us. His mistake is to actually play out every day of the trip. Now the thing is, there's stuff happening with the NPCs and such all the time, so it's interesting for those of us who are really into immersive play, but part of our group dreads the multiple sessions where we'll be going from point A to point B.
So my second lesson was to not keep the good stuff hidden for too long. You might have a fantastic and dramatic adventure planned for us, but if you spend too many sessions getting there, you'll lose the group first.
Just a couple of (long) thoughts...
--Steve
__________________ Be a rebel...order your coffee in one of these three radical sizes: small, medium or large.
"Sure as I know anything, I know this. I aim to misbehave."
--Capt. Malcolm Reynolds, Serenity
I play 4E, and it's every bit as much Dungeons and Dragons as any other edition, including the one(s) you play. No more, and no less.
I am guilty of this myself, as I sometimes will draw something out because I think it's realistic to do so. What I've learned is that realism is great, but if you stall too long, you'll tire and bore your players so that they're not paying attention when important events come up.
>snip<
So my second lesson was to not keep the good stuff hidden for too long. You might have a fantastic and dramatic adventure planned for us, but if you spend too many sessions getting there, you'll lose the group first.
This sounds kinda like a bad-DM recovery group.
"My handle is Dedekind and I was once a bad DM..."
I echo the "Yes, and..." comments. The side benefit for me is I find things more interesting to DM when I get to make it up on the fly.
I would like to add that, as a player, I hate gotcha! abilities. I don't recall which DMG I saw it in, but it said to avoid monsters or situations where you can't make predictions about what will happen. When I read it I realized every non-fun moment I have had as a player came from not being able to understand what the monsters/environment is going to do to me. As a DM, then, I try to give players a better idea about what is going on around them.
Most of my experience is with DMing. When I've played, there are a few things I've learned (note: might be some 4e focus here):
Skill challenges are all about how you run them. I've always thought mine were pretty interesting at the table. When I ran the one on Worldwide D&D Game Day, the DM just had everyone go around the table and arbitrarily pick something to get a success or fail... that was just lame.
It's awesome when monsters trigger stuff. Some DMs are too afraid of triggering OAs or other effects you land on them. Let them happen! So what if your monsters die faster, that's what the players are going for! Your goal isn't to make the least-fun but most effective move happen.
The DM should set out to make the game fun. Period.
Pacing. You have to sit there as a player to really understand what can screw up the pace of a game, what feels comfortable, etc.
Completely stomping an encounter (even if it was supposed to be a challenge, but wasn't) is fun! DMing my normal reflex is to modify it to be tougher, but I realized "eh, why not let them just wreck it in no time flat?". Assuming it's not a terribly important battle (like the villain you've been chasing for 12 sessions straight or something), it's a nice break from your normal combat routine.
I understand player frustrations a bit better when I've been on their side of the screen. Related to pacing, I also understand why people will have times when it's their turn and their response is "uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hh OH ok, I'm gonna attack using this spell, so that's this vs ac... ok, does an 18 hit? ok, so that's... 1+4+3... ok 8 damage". They were completely zoned out. Note: When they zone out because other people are taking forever like that, it ends up in a sort of vicious cycle.
When people do the above, it'd be real nice if they just said "delay" and prepared their turn. Sitting around waiting as a player for stuff like that can suck. I don't mind it as much as DM because there's plenty to think about.
Having your idea completely shut down is a bit irritating.
Balance! As in, balance between RPing and combat. Very important.
Skills matter. Even if it seems obscure, have uses for all the skills your players have on their sheet. Having a character's few trained skills not come up in practical applications makes for a lame roleplaying session. It's incredibly frustrating to look at your character sheet and go "Well, my skills blow. Guess I'll just zone out until this diplomatic excursion is over with."
So I would like to know: what have YOU learned from playing that has helped you to be a better DM?
As a player, I hate DMs who think that their job is to "put a stop to players who are too good." I don't mean players who are munchkins or power-gamers. I mean, your character picks a feat chain that isn't seen often, and the DM kills it merely for being unusual and successful.
These are DMs who see your spiked-chain character with Improved Trip, and the DM thinks, "Fine, then every monster will be 4-legged or better, hyper-stable, and never trippable."
These are the DMs who get surprised by your half-elf bard who has such a high score in diplomacy that he/she can turn hostile combatants neutral with a rushed diplomacy check, and so the DM refuses to play along. Yet spellcasters are still allowed to cast Charm spells.
If you spend a bunch of skill points or invest in feats, you deserve some benefit. These are the specialties of your character. Feats are incredibly rare (unless you're a Fighter), so having even one feat be undermined by a DM is a big waste, and big-time annoying.
I wouldn't ask for guarantees or 100% effectiveness. However, as a DM, if my player invests in something, I let that something do what it is supposed to do.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
