D&D 5E DM Needs Help Finding Pacing/RP Balance

[pontinyc]

Warning; wall of text and slightly nebulous question incoming.

So I just finished another session of Rise of the Rune Lords which I'm adapting to 5e (primarily using pre-adapted versions of monsters I've found online). It was. . . fine. My players were pretty solidly involved for the first two hours but faded pretty seriously in the last hour. To be fair, we went until 11:30 pm and people have work, kids, etc. to deal with during the day. But I think the problem is primarily me.

I really tried to move things along this time after having watched Matt Mercer do so with aplomb recently. However, this came at the expense of good rp and investment in the combat, I think. I had them rp/describe most killing blows, I rp'd the goblin captives they took, I made ridiculous Bunyip noises when they fed it a goblin druid, etc. And yet I think the whole thing felt a little rushed which, in turn, made it feel uninspired. In the past, however, I've gotten the sense that I'm taking too long describing combat, npc's, etc.

One thing to note, five out of six of us are professional actors which actually doesn't help things. Most everyone feels a little self-conscious rp-ing their characters as we're not at work, if that makes any sense. So the sessions generally feel a little shut down.

Anyway, the question really is. . . I feel like I'm incorporating the elements I see Dm's incorporate that I like to watch, but with nowhere near the level of success. Anyone have any recommendations/resources they might suggest other than just, "Keep at it, it'll get better," though encouraging words are, of course, appreciated.

Thanks!

 

[Harzel]

Well, I don't consider myself an exceptionally good DM, but FWIW, I don't spend much effort describing combat details and I certainly don't ask my players to RP their blows. (I have 8 players, so combat takes long enough as is...) I try to focus my narrative on stuff that's going to matter, and secondarily on mood setting and other flavor. For instance, the other day they were fighting a homebrew creature that was vulnerable to cold, but healed by fire. So I spent a few extra words describing how fire damage caused a glow to spread over the creature's body from the point where the firebolt struck it and the arrows that had been embedded in its hide to fall out. Likewise Ray of Frost caused the creature to shudder in agony. Arrow and sword hits we moved past expeditiously.

With NPCs, I do my best (I am definitely not a professional actor) to play up physical or personality traits that reveal critical or at least somewhat relevant information about the NPC. Very occasionally I will throw in something completely irrelevant, just to keep them guessing a little bit or if there is the opportunity to provide some amusement. But generally, if the NPC's shirt color is not going to matter, it doesn't get described (unless someone asks).

One other possibility is to just straight up ask your players what they find engaging and what they find boring. It sounds like they should have some feeling for that.

Those are just a few thoughts off the top of my head, and keep at it at - it will get better.

 

[iserith]

Almost everything I say as DM is three to five sentences that frames the environment and presents the basic scope of options followed by "What do you do?" After the players' responses, I quickly provide the result of what they do and then repeat the above. Thus, there is always a call for the players to be describing things they want to do. Often in some kind of unfolding dramatic conflict. It's never "You're in town - what do you do?" That's boring as hell in my opinion and leads nowhere fast.

The key point I think - and where I think Mercer fails a lot - is who gets to describe what. The player describes what he or she wants to do. The DM narrates the result. Therefore, the DM in my view shouldn't be the guy or gal doing most of the talking and certainly not describing what the character is doing - only what happens as a result. I have found once everyone knows who gets to say what, things run very quickly and smoothly with everyone engaged and sharing the improvisational load.

As for it dragging in your last hour, I recommend thinking about how you can always start and end a session BIG. Chop stuff out of the middle to save time if you have to, but always end on a high, I say. If energy levels at the table are waning because it's a midweek game and folks need to drive home still, consider just coming up with a cliffhanger that makes sense and wrap it early if you must. I think it better to end early on a high note than end later when everyone is in low energy mode.

 

[robus]

It sounds like 2 hours is the optimal run time for your group. so look for an opportunity to wrap it up once that period is up. Either with a victory, a defeat or on the brink of some new encounter. (See: http://theangrygm.com/how-to-structure-a-session/ ) I also have been going too long and since switching to ending on a dramatic moment we no longer end because people are flagging but when it makes sense narratively making it much more satisfying.

i agree with Iserith that Mercer wastes time repeating things that players have already described, but I do like his scene setting skills.

 

[Lanliss]

I agree with Iserith as well. I like Mercer, and just recently got really invested in catching up with the show, but he does drag his descriptions pretty long. Remember the chasm with the bridge in the first few episodes? He spent something like 10 minutes describing almost the entire cavern, and wound up spending so long that his players were forgetting important bits. For you, I would agree that 2 hours seems ideal.

For other bits, try asking only for important kills, very similar to Mercer's "How do you want to do this?", but reserved for only every few combats, or as a reward for what seemed like a particularly difficult battle for the party. Instead have either try to get your players invested in describing their attacks, or just do an abridged version of what Mercer does. Instead of the long combat narrative, just say "You stab him in the side, then swing at his shoulder but miss.". If your players provide their own attacks, ignore that last bit, and do a quick narration of how the enemy reacts.

Case #1
Player: I attack twice with my longsword
DM: You slash at his stomach, but he just pulls out of range. With a deft flick of your wrist, you lunge forward and pierce his leg.

Case #2
Player: I swing my longsword at his neck, then continue that swing into a spin to hit him in the side.
DM: he ducks under your first swing, but takes the second high on his shoulder as a result.

Mercer does the first, but with a lot more adjectives and description. As is always said, whatever works for your table, so he is fine as long as his players like it, but I sometimes think he gets just a bit too wordy.

 

[Shiroiken]

With professional actors, you probably want to minimize the RP. They do that for a living, and probably don't want to do too much of it while trying to relax. I'd suggest only giving out combat descriptions for killing blows or in response to a player's description. This should save time, while still rewarding the players who want to RP in combat. You might want to have this discussion with them to see if this is the case (one of my players does Improv semi-professionally, but still wants to RP).

Also, you might want to adjust the time, because if the game runs late, people are tired and thinking about other things (usually bed, or what they need to do before bed). If you can, start the session an hour early and see if you get the same results.

 

[iserith]

Case #1
Player: I attack twice with my longsword
DM: You slash at his stomach, but he just pulls out of range. With a deft flick of your wrist, you lunge forward and pierce his leg.

Case #2
Player: I swing my longsword at his neck, then continue that swing into a spin to hit him in the side.
DM: he ducks under your first swing, but takes the second high on his shoulder as a result.

Right. To break that down a bit, a player needs to describe his or her goal and approach so the DM can narrate the result of the adventurer's actions. "I attack twice with my longsword" is a statement of approach that lacks a goal, though there's probably, based on context, an implied goal "to wound or kill the monster" or the like. A DM, faced with a description that contains only the approach and not the goal, plus lacking any other descriptive language might then feel compelled to add "You slash at this stomach" and "deft flick of your wrist" and/or "You lunge forward."

This is where I see the DM making a mistake (in my view) and Mercer does this a lot in the few episodes I've watched: The DM has just described what the character is doing which is the role of the player, not the DM! As I see it, the DM should only be describing in the manner exemplified in Case #2 which is to say only describing the impact of the attack, not what the character does.

If the player's goal or approach is unclear, then that's when the DM can ask the player to be more specific. "What goal do you hope to accomplish?" or "What are you actually doing to accomplish your goal?" The DM should not in my view be filling in those blanks for the player with description nor should he or she have an expectation that the player offers anything more than a clear statement of goal and approach. The flowery narrative is nice to have, but unnecessary. And it's certainly unnecessary in my opinion for the DM to shoulder the burden of making up for a description that lacks it by describing what the character does.

This might seem like a very minor thing and, sure, we can play games for years describing stuff for our players, but I have found that when everyone stays in their own role, this increases engagement and moves the game along at a good pace.

 

[Rhenny]

I agree with a lot of what everyone is saying here, and I find it really interesting that your group has 5 of 6 actors, but those actors feel uncomfortable rping because they are not "at work."

Here's my take on it.

If the people in your group want to develop the Roleplaying aspect (and they are not using the game as a way to escape their work, which involves acting), the best way to "turn on" the acting switch is to some how get the group to envision an audience outside themselves. Actors, teachers, public speakers, comedians, etc. all do their best work when they are in front of an audience. It energizes them and performance becomes purposeful. I think that is why Critical Role is so successful. First, they are playing a game they love, born from the player's desire to just play D&D, but second, because they are on video, they feel the draw to perform for an audience, and that taps into their professional talents.

This doesn't mean that you have to video tape, but somehow, if everyone agrees, you should focus on performing for an outside audience. For this reason, I write game summaries of campaign sessions so that when the players re-read them, they get a sense that the show is for more than just the moment, for an audience.

But, like [MENTION=6775477]Shiroiken[/MENTION] mentioned, the actors in your group may just want to take a break from acting, so if that's the case, I wouldn't force them to do too much. You should probably do what you find fun, acting NPCs, narrating what develops more tension and atmospheric imagery, but don't sweat it too much.

 

[Oofta]

In addition to the fine advice above, I would add a few points.

You need to adjust your style to your players. Pay attention to how they respond to your descriptions and embellishments. I've judged for a lot of different groups and what works for one group may not work for another. Sometimes I use descriptive combat scenes, sometimes I don't.

It sounds like perhaps you're trying to mimic Mearl's style instead of finding your own. That's probably not the best approach. For me, my DMing is half improv, half planning and I try not to over-think what approach I'm going to take or how the game is going to play out. That lets me be more flexible and adjust the game to better respond to the player's actions.

Think of a favorite author. How do they describe scenes and characters? What narrative tricks do they use? Some will give a very detailed, fleshed out description while others will give a very simple outline and let the reader fill in the details. Both narrative styles can work, but you need to find a happy medium that will work for you. The worst thing you can do is try to force a style that doesn't fit you or your players.

Be careful how many flourishes you use. A flourish can be any "extra" characterization or description that adds more than absolutely necessary to the scene. Is the group having fun with the baker's wife flirting with the party's bard? Great! That doesn't mean that every single woman the bard comes across will flirt with him. Throw it in now and then to remind people that women flirt with the bard all the time, but there's no need to hit them over the head with it.

So let's talk about combat. Let's say the group is trying to sneak by some sleeping ogres. First I would describe the ogre's current encampment "the area looks like it was once a farmstead, you would think it's abandoned but there is the nearly overwhelming smell of fresh garbage and rot. It appears that someone, or some thing, has taken up residence here and built a crude cage which is holding at least a few of the lost villagers." I may give a general layout and sketch but I'm not going to go into much detail. Let people fill in the details of the farmhouse.

Asking for a stealth roll, one of the player's rolls his eyes and said "Just rolled a 1! That's ... a -2 stealth." As the group groans and gets ready for combat I describe what happened "You were trying to approach carefully but stepped on something slippery. Looking down you realized you had just stepped into what looks like bloody entrails. Startled, you slipped and accidentally knocked over some rusty farm implements making a incredible racket that would wake the dead." I may also let the player describe what happened if they want but otherwise I just improvised the gross but appropriate entrails to step in and decided what would make a lot of noise.

As an ogre comes charging out of the barn "A large humanoid dressed in crude leathers, and wearing what appears to be the rotting head of one of his recent victims as a necklace charges out at you. The dull eyes of the creature show little intelligence but are burning with rage as he yells THIEVES DIE!" using my best stupid ogre voice. Roll for initiative.

In combat, the ogre may yell a few monosyllabic insults and I'll probably describe his club as an old wagon wheel. But describe every blow? Nah. I probably add description to 10-20% of attacks, at most. I try to limit to initial blows, or adding some fun fluff here and there like the fact that the "javelin" the ogre throws is really an old pitchfork..

So that's my advice. Try to find your own voice as a DM and don't overthink your presentation style. Play to your audience and add flourishes only when it makes sense or adds to a scene.

A last thought is that I always ask people when they need to leave, how long they feel comfortable playing. Exhausted players are players that are not having fun.

Good luck! I've been DMing since D&D was a blue book, and I'm still learning so don't give up hope.

 

[Uchawi]

One thing to note, five out of six of us are professional actors which actually doesn't help things. Most everyone feels a little self-conscious rp-ing their characters as we're not at work, if that makes any sense. So the sessions generally feel a little shut down.
Thanks!

Based on the professions you mention, I would recommend a more beer and pretzels fast action game, versus in depth role playing. That lets you play the game, but get a break from real life as well. Most likely players will still role play when the situation dictates, but if you focus on combat or fast action, that is something you can not do as a professional actor. I guess another way to look at it is fast and furious improv that does not allow time to think, but will still foster spontaneity.