The DM's Agenda

I've been playing D&D for a long time. When I first started, like everyone else, I was just trying to keep my head above water - remembering how the rules worked, figuring out how to describe things, determining how to run NPCs, and what it meant to have a plot. As I've grown, I've gained a lot of experience (level up!). One job in particular has had a big impact. I worked as a consultant for over a year with a top-notch consulting firm. A big focus of my job was running effective meetings and facilitating groups. It was a very serious task for the company, and they provided tons of training and feedback on how to do these things effectively. The highlight of that job was being the lead facilitator for a week-long workshop offsite with a group of 25 rowdy Marines. The experiences I gained from that have given me pause to reflect on what it is that I do when I DM, and what it is that I want to do. After all, I think there are a lot of similarities between running a meeting and sitting down at the gaming table with a diverse group of people.

That being said, here are the three cornerstones of my agenda when I DM. If I can be successful at all three, then I've done the best that I can, and the only cause a player might have for not having fun is if the adventure content simply isn't to his taste. I don't claim this to be "The One True Way," but I do think it is helpful for me, and you may find it helpful as well.


Referee

This means to be an impartial judge of the rules. To do this, you need to be familiar with the rules, and comfortable enough to make a spot ruling when something is obscure. As DM, you are the final arbiter when rules questions arise, and it is your responsibility to make the correct ruling for that moment to keep the game moving.

Refereeing also means to bring the world to life. It means that NPCs and monsters act and react in a reasonable manner (in accordance with their nature), not with the meta-knowledge of the DM. It is your responsibility to be impartial and judge events in the world according to your information about the world.

This is extremely important because it builds the trust of the players. If they learn that you can be trusted to make impartial rulings, they will trust you to lead the game. You become the "third party arbitrator" that people go to when conflict arises, and that is exactly what you need.


Facilitate

When a diverse group of people gets together, chaos often ensues. People bring various agendas to the table, and they pursue these agendas with various styles. A meaningless decision can devolve into a lengthy argument, going nowhere fast. All of this can lead to frustration and even anger. As DM, it is your responsibility to ensure that everyone has a voice, that time isn't wasted on meaningless arguments, and that the group can come together to achieve a common objective.

I think this may be the most difficult part of a DM's duties. It takes confidence and calm. You have to know when to tell the table "Everyone be quiet - Joe, tell me exactly what it is that you are doing," and you need the authority to be convincing. You also need to be able to recognize a pointless discussion - "It really doesn't matter whether you call it 'right' or 'North', they are the same direction. So which way are you going?"

It takes the ability to earn the trust of the players. You need to be able to solicit the support of the group when one person is being disruptive - "Bob, right now is not the time to tell Joe what he did wrong with his character. I think we all want to get to the next room, right guys?"

It takes patience. You need to be able to give the quiet person a minute here and there to have a voice, even when the more forceful players are in high gear, and even if the quiet person probably doesn't have anything relevant to contribute - "Sam, I'll get to you disarming the trap in a minute. Ok Quentin, what is it you are doing with your squirrel?"

And it takes moderation. If you spend too much time focusing on any one aspect of facilitating the group, they will become frustrated. But if done right and done consistently, the players will appreciate the time given to them and they will appreciate that the group resolved something even in the face of argument.


Keep it Fun

It's your responsibility to make the game fun for everyone. Sometimes it's best to skip over a minor encounter. If you've just spent the last 2 hours role-playing, and players are itching to get to the heart of the Dreadlord's Keep, chances are they don't want to spend 20 minutes more role-playing the taxes they have to pay to the guards at the gate. Even if you had planned for a role-playing scene that would reveal information X, the players might appreciate it more if you say, "As you pass the guards and pay your taxes, one of them mentions X." Alternatively, if the players have fought a random patrol every quarter mile on their journey to the keep, the 12th (or 2nd, or 7th, or whatever) patrol may do nothing than delay the fun. It's ok to skip a patrol here and there if it helps get to what the players really want to be doing.

Sometimes it's best to introduce some action. If things have been going for a while with nothing exciting, the players tend to get bored, cantankerous, or both. Introduce a pickpocket in the market, or have that monster three rooms over come to investigate. A little bit of random excitement can help players get back in to the game.

Look for opportunities to create interesting encounters. If the players have all been deafened by a wayward thunderstone, go ahead and introduce a wandering monster, even if the area they are in is completely deserted. If it would be the height of irony for a character's love interest to walk by as he is haggling for information with a trollop, make it happen!

Use variety to keep the players engaged. Mix up role-playing, combat, exploration, and investigation. Even if the players all like pure hack-n-slash, or pure role-play, you need variety. Four encounters in a row with kobolds in a room becomes stale. If you make one of those encounters include a vat of boiling oil, or an in-progress ritual, or a turn-coat kobold who wants to join the party, the game is more interesting. Likewise, four encounters in a row where the players need to bluff their way past the guards are uninteresting and become formulaic. Maybe one of the guards can know a PC by reputation, or one of the guards is on the verge of "going postal." Anything that makes this encounter stand out from the previous, even if the basic premise is the same, will contribute to the enjoyment of the players.

Finally, use moderation. Much of the time it's fine to let the players drive and the adventure guide. Too much intervention by the DM can derail the game to the point where there is little progress and players are completely stymied by unanticipated events.


These are some of the guidelines that I find myself following when I DM. They seem to have served me well so far, as the players keep coming back, and when it's all said and done, that's what it's all about.

It is always worthwhile to be sure that the players buy into the overall game concept prior to the commencement of play. I've run games where there were specific goals to be achieved, particularly one-shots and tournaments. I've run campaigns where the players had free reign and the setting would develop based on their personally set goals. I've also run campaigns where the world was moving apace and would develop independently of the players plans and goals, and they had the option to attempt to affect that world or try and live apart from it. My current campaign is of the third variety. I've never been a fan of funneling players toward actions not of their own choosing, but that is considerably different from presenting what is happening and giving the players the choice whether or not to play or giving the player characters the choice whether or not to become involved.

Mark CMG said:

It is always worthwhile to be sure that the players buy into the overall game concept prior to the commencement of play. I've run games where there were specific goals to be achieved, particularly one-shots and tournaments. I've run campaigns where the players had free reign and the setting would develop based on their personally set goals. I've also run campaigns where the world was moving apace and would develop independently of the players plans and goals, and they had the option to attempt to affect that world or try and live apart from it. My current campaign is of the third variety. I've never been a fan of funneling players toward actions not of their own choosing, but that is considerably different from presenting what is happening and giving the players the choice whether or not to play or giving the player characters the choice whether or not to become involved.

Click to expand...

That's an excellent point. If the players don't buy in to the type of campaign you're running, it's probably going to be a failure regardless of what else happens. I think you can approach it one of two ways - either talk with the players beforehand about the type of campaign they like, then run that; or decide ahead of time what type of campaign you want to run, then sell it to the players. Whichever you choose, that initial buy-in is critical for the success of the campaign.

In consulting terms, this is always the first step, to reach commitment on common objectives.

Yup. I've even had a recent situation where a player claimed to have bought in and tried to bend the game toward a different premise once involved, later quitting the game when adjustments were not made toward their own vision of how the game premise should be. It was unfortunate because a great deal of time and effort was put toward the inclusion of that veteren player that could have gone to better use had the player simply been honest in not wishing to participate in the concept from the start.

Things get interesting when providing consistency clashes with providing fun.

DMs should think beforehand, "Am I going to rule by the RAW, according to what conceptually makes the most sense, or according to what is simplest/quickest/most fun?"

All are valid ways of ruling, but it helps to decide that beforehand and communicate it to players.

moritheil said:

Things get interesting when providing consistency clashes with providing fun.

DMs should think beforehand, "Am I going to rule by the RAW, according to what conceptually makes the most sense, or according to what is simplest/quickest/most fun?"

Click to expand...

It's a trap! - Admiral Ackbar

moritheil said:

Things get interesting when providing consistency clashes with providing fun.

DMs should think beforehand, "Am I going to rule by the RAW, according to what conceptually makes the most sense, or according to what is simplest/quickest/most fun?"

All are valid ways of ruling, but it helps to decide that beforehand and communicate it to players.

Click to expand...

Mark CMG is right - that can be a tricky subject. I personally feel that the needs of the game are generally better served by erring on the side of consistency when judging game rules. This creates trust that the players will know what to expect from your rulings, establishing the DM as an impartial judge, and therefore the burden of responsibility for the outcome of any decision is placed back in the hands of the players, where it belongs.

If players don't know when the rules are going to be thrown out "for the sake of fun", things become much more subjective. Players begin to feel that they have little control of the situation, which can be frustrating. After all, the whole point of having a set of rules is to have a consistent basis for playing the game that everyone agrees to, thereby allowing people to make meaningful decisions based on those rules. If the rules change on a whim, people can't make meaningful decisions.