Collaborating with Your DM

Is your D&D game a battle of DM versus players? Or do you prefer a collaborative relationship over an adversarial one?

View attachment 99739​

Before I dig into this, let me be clear: the best style of play is whatever your group prefers. I’m not here to tell you your fun is wrong. If everyone is enjoying the game, that’s the only thing that matters!

However, I know a lot of people who had unpleasant experiences with DMs who came to the table and gleefully announced their intention to shoot for a TPK. In other cases, the DM wasn’t that aggressive, but enjoyed running a world in which the players felt they didn’t have much agency and characters existed mostly as pawns in the DM’s story. If your group isn’t that into roleplay, it can work.

I support a more collaborative approach for groups that enjoy lots of roleplay, so the whole group tells the story. Long campaigns especially benefit from this approach. The DM still has plenty of control, but involves the players heavily so their characters affect the story instead of merely walking through activities. It works best when all the players are onboard with this approach, so everyone has a little breathing room for character exploration. Personally, I like playing in a game where I’m a fan of the other characters and am excited to see what they do even when my character isn’t there.

This method does require a bit more preparation outside the game, for DM and players alike. But it’s fun! When you’re collaborating with someone, it’s a bit like getting some extra play time.

The main campaign I’m playing in currently has five regular PCs: a well-adjusted barbarian, an arcane archer/professional prizefighter in a wrestling-style kirin mask, and three enormous drama llamas (one of which is my character). It’s a nice balance because everyone has goals and desires as individuals and as a group, but not everyone is in a pit of existential horror all the time. We’ve formed an interesting unit, and can help each other with various problems.

This campaign is RP-intensive, so our DM works with each of us separately from time to time to find out what our characters are feeling, what they hope to accomplish in the short-term and long-term, etc. He consistently requests feedback, and always is receptive to emails about character business between games. It’s nice knowing that he’s interested in what we want, both as players and characters, and we see these conversations bear fruit in the game.

Over time, I’ve learned to trust him with that information. This trust is crucial. I wouldn’t feel as comfortable getting so deep into roleplay in a game where the DM only intended to use personal insight to torture the characters. In this case, we know he cares about us players as people. He’s definitely going to use that information to fuel drama. That’s part of the job. But there’s a difference between being ruthless and being careless. He maintains a good sense of each player’s threshold for fictional pain, which is important and keeps it fun -- even when we’re crying or having in-character nightmares in real life.

(That actually happened last week. I had my character’s nightmare. I mentioned this while hanging out with my game group and our DM was perhaps a little too excited to get all the details. I take it as proof that the game is going well though. It’s gotten under my skin enough that my brain is still playing when I’m asleep! That’s amazing! But if you don’t want to get quite that intense, that’s okay too.)

Yet another benefit: a collaborative approach bleeds over into the way players interact with each other. When you spend enough time delving into characters, you might end up having in-character, out-of-game conversations like I talked about a few weeks ago.

I don’t mean to suggest that DMs should soften all the edges and make every session a picnic at Hugs and Puppies National Park...unless that’s what you all want, of course. You can fill your game with plenty of dramatic tension and thrills, but balance it with opportunities for characters to stop and have feelings. Then it will actually make an impact when the DM occasionally springs a major trap. They get the joy of watching players freak out in a truly meaningful way, and players get the rush from that emotional rollercoaster. If that sounds good to you, try it! It’s well worth the effort.

This article was contributed by Annie Bulloch as part of ENWorld's User-Generated Content (UGC) program. We are always on the lookout for freelance columnists! If you have a pitch, please contact us!

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The job of the DM is to describe the world, play the NPCs, and adjudicate uncertainty in action resolution. It is not the job of the DM to contrive coincidences either for or against the party.

The relationship between players and DM is neither collaborative nor adversarial. This is a role-playing game. It isn't some exercise in story-telling.

 

[ad_hoc]

A DM announcing gleefully that there might be a TPK is a sure warning sign. A DM is victorious when their players have fun, not when their monsters win.

I find that running a game where the PC’s actions and internal existence (i.e., what they feel and want) matters really helps with player involvement and enjoyment.

I don't know how you can have one without the other.

When I DM I let the players know that TPKs are entirely possible because I want their actions to have meaning.

I also don't like the framing of DM as enjoyment bringer. It is not the DM's job to make people have fun or entertain. It is everyone's job.

 

[DCRWrites]

What excites me as a DM is when things happen in the game that the players are still talking about even months later. That's cool.

I want the players to have fun and enjoy the game, and I love it when they try to influence the world. I never try to kill their characters or aim for a TPK because quite frankly that would be too easy. I'm the DM, I can throw whatever I want at the PCs in whatever number I want. Challenges, sure; I want the emotional investment that comes from the PCs overcoming their foes, but the fun of the game comes from the journey.

The monsters and NPCs may want a TPK, I want to create emotional investment.

 

[Imaculata]

I try to make my players feel comfortable with what their characters know about the world. This is I think the most important distinction between a DM that works against the players, and a DM that works with the players. There have to be some things that the players can feel certain about. There have to be some characters in the campaign that the players know they can trust, and they need to feel safe in the knowledge that the DM is not just going to turn that around all of a sudden. There has to be some consistency to the world that the players can rely on. Consistency to the laws of the land, and consistency to basic physics, and to how characters interact with one another. This means that the villains do not have psychic powers that allow them to some how know about the player's secret plans, unless previously established.

For example, I have a female pirate in my campaign called Scurvy Scarlet. And it has been well established in the campaign that she is a bit untrustworthy. Her alliance can swing to either side, depending on what benefits her. If the players form an alliance with her, a future betrayal does not come out of left field.

On the other hand, the players also befriend people that ARE loyal allies, and they will always remain loyal allies. Once a character has been clearly established, it is not likely to suddenly change. A character that is dumb will not suddenly act smart, and vice versa.

I have played in campaigns myself that are very different. Where the DM uses his npc's to screw over the players at every opportunity, where no one can be trusted, and every attempt by the PC's at social interactions is doomed to failure. There's no point in trying to bluff your way out of a situation, if the npc's all have fool proof lie detectors. Nor is there a reason to intimidate a character, if it is only going to result in combat. Every npc is a character just waiting to kill your player-character, and every location is an ambush or robbery waiting to happen. There are no safe locations. So don't trust anyone, and always keep your weapons at your side. Keep it on you in a tavern, and keep it under your pillow at an inn. Also, always have someone keep watch at night in an inn, or all your stuff will be gone in the morning.

It is a nightmare if you're playing with a DM that constantly makes you feel like that, and so I made it my mission to do the exact opposite. I want my players to feel safe at various points in the campaign, and I want them to feel safe to take actions without the DM always screwing them over on technicalities. I feel it is very important to break up the tension with moments of safety, where the players just get to wander around in town without a cut purse lurking in every shadow. I think you also lose a lot of suspense if the players are never ever safe, and it makes the players annoyed with the game-world.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

There’s a world of difference between a DM saying “just so you know, I run difficult games and the chances of a TPK are higher than normal” and one cackling out “Alright, let’s see if I can get a TPK today!” It’s possible to be difficult but fair, challenging but not adversarial.


I think fun is absolutely the responsibility of everyone at the table. But when one person’s fun (either a DM or a player) is kicking over everyone else’s blocks, no one’s going to want to play with them.

I don't know how you can have one without the other.

When I DM I let the players know that TPKs are entirely possible because I want their actions to have meaning.

I also don't like the framing of DM as enjoyment bringer. It is not the DM's job to make people have fun or entertain. It is everyone's job.

 

[GMMichael]

Some people don't care, they just want to roll some dice and eat some junk food while making bad jokes which is great.

::shivers::

Side question: why is this thread in the 5e forum? The article and subsequent discussion can be applied to many systems - shouldn't this be in General?

That depends on which game features Drama Llamas as a playable race. Or "ancestry."

Re OP: if part of the game might also be a part of a character's (unique) backstory, let the player tell it. ::Casting 'Summon Wil Wheaton'::

 

[Oofta]

::shivers::



That depends on which game features Drama Llamas as a playable race. Or "ancestry."

Re OP: if part of the game might also be a part of a character's (unique) backstory, let the player tell it. ::Casting 'Summon Wil Wheaton'::

I stopped assuming that people play for the same reasons I do a long time ago. I don't have a problem with people that treat the game as little more than an elaborate version of Betrayal at House on the Hill (assuming they don't become possessed and try to kill the rest of the party of course) if that's what they want.

As long as they're OK with and support the people who do want to RP or have a deeper investment in story it's fine.

 

[Dausuul]

A DM announcing gleefully that there might be a TPK is a sure warning sign.

Not necessarily. It's a technique I've seen used (and used myself) to ratchet up tension in combat-heavy games. You talk about how deadly the adventure is and how you're looking forward to racking up the PC body count, and it makes it that much sweeter for the players when the session ends and they're all still alive and the BBEG who was supposed to kill them all is lying dead on the floor.

Actually being an adversarial DM is very bad. But pretending to be one can add some edge to the game.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Heh, that's fiendishly clever.

Many years ago in a Ravenloft campaign, the PCs were exploring a vampire castle. I might have laid down some hints that this might be a spare castle belonging to Strahd Von Zarovich. Okay, so it was just a plain old vampire. But when he rose from his coffin, the PCs ran in terror without a second thought (even though they could've taken him). Glorious.

Not necessarily. It's a technique I've seen used (and used myself) to ratchet up tension in combat-heavy games. You talk about how deadly the adventure is and how you're looking forward to racking up the PC body count, and it makes it that much sweeter for the players when the session ends and they're all still alive and the BBEG who was supposed to kill them all is lying dead on the floor.

Actually being an adversarial DM is very bad. But pretending to be one can add some edge to the game.

 

[guachi]

The job of the DM is to describe the world, play the NPCs, and adjudicate uncertainty in action resolution. It is not the job of the DM to contrive coincidences either for or against the party.

The relationship between players and DM is neither collaborative nor adversarial. This is a role-playing game. It isn't some exercise in story-telling.

The very first sentence in the Basic Rules (and I'm fairly certain it's the same in the PHB) - the FIRST SENTENCE - is this The Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game is about storytelling...

Still in the introduction, first sentence of the fourth paragraph One player, however, takes on the role of the DungeonMaster (DM), the game’s lead storyteller...