DMs: what have you learned from PLAYING that has made you a better DM?

[Ydars]

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?

 

[amysrevenge]

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.

 

[chronoplasm]

What I have learned:

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.

 

[amysrevenge]

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.

 

[Kask]

Too many things to list. Tempo, setting, suspension of disbelief, challenging different char classes, rewards & penalties, etc., etc.

 

[Ourph]

I think the most important thing I've learned as a player is that (at least to me)...

detailed and interesting encounter > detailed and interesting adventure > detailed and interesting campaign setting

In other words, the micro-level stuff is much more important to a succesful gaming session than the macro-level stuff.

 

[Badwe]

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.

 

[EricNoah]

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.

 

[Greg K]

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

 

[Wormwood]

detailed and interesting encounter > detailed and interesting adventure > detailed and interesting campaign setting

Brilliant!

Mine, in no particular order:

• I'm not having fun unless everyone else is.
• Less detail, more flavor.
• Pacing. Pacing. Pacing.
• If I'm not having fun---let someone else DM instead.
• Don't bet a night's entertainment on the chance that I can outwit five of my very smart friends.
• Ditch anything that kills fun---be it a rule or my precious plot.
• My plot is not precious.
• Listen to my players.
• I don't know all the rules.
• Provide plenty of spotlight time.
• It is not MY game; it is OUR game.