D&D General How to be a Better DM: One Size Doesn't Fit All

[jgsugden]

I disagree with some of this advice. And I do so based upon the wise advice of Dr. Suess in Green Eggs and Ham.

“Try them, try them, and you may! Try them and you may, I say.”

As a DM, my game has only improved by listening to others, trying their advice and evaluating 1.) what I wanted to steal for myself, 2.) what I wanted to twist in other ways, and 2.) what I definitely do not enjoy.

The games I ran as a 8 year old, 16 year old, 20 year old, 30 year old, 40 year old and cough cough year old are all very different. I enjoyed all of them, but I've become a better DM by being open to what others suggest, by experimenting, and by outright stealing from the best of the DMs I have seen/enjoyed.

I am often very firm in telling people that their game will improve if they watch Critical Role and try to emulate it in their games for a bit. This is not to say that copying that style of game is possible for everyone, or the style is exactly what you'll enjoy - but putting on those shoes as well as you can for a bit can open your eyes to a variety of elements that you do not see in the same way as you will after you try them.

There are plenty of things someone recommended to me that I thought were rubbish ... and proved to be horrible when I tried them myself. There are a small number of things I thought were rubbish that I tried - and found to be Green and Eggy with a side of Ham.

Trying them is not committing to them - it is just learning what you can from them and giving yourself a chance to evaluate them for yourself.

 

[Oofta]

To be clear about the analogy-

It's not that people can't learn anything at all about, um, intimate relations from adult films. Obviously, they can!

It's just that adult films aren't about capturing the actual experience- they are about entertainment. If you believe that ... for lack of a better phrase ... this is how things really work ... you will end up with some profound misunderstandings.

Same with Critical Role and similar shows. Yes, you can get some tips here and there; but if you go in there believing that this is how your D&D table actually works, then .. you will end up with some profound misunderstandings.

I get that no stream is going to work for everyone, but I enjoy CR and watch it while I exercise. Just now I watched it while making banana bread. I get ideas on how to run things from them all the time. Is it entertainment? Yes. Is it a D&D game? I would also say yes. Do I expect anyone at my table to be a voice actor? Of course not. Do I expect my game to work like it? Of course not, no more than any other stream that I could watch.

But I completely disagree with the idea that "this is not how D&D works". It is how it works for their game. Just like how my game is not going to match yours. I see a group of friends sitting around playing a game, rolling dice, laughing and having fun. All of that looks an awful lot like my home game.

 

[Umbran]

Do I expect anyone at my table to be a voice actor? Of course not.

And, therein lies some major differences. The interpersonal interactions on Critical Role are all performed before a camera, and by professional actors trying to make a thing interesting for an audience. Both of those are significant differences from most of our tables, and if you aren't specifically and actively adjusting for those facts, you can end up with problems when you try to do what they do, and not have anything like the same results.

 

[Oofta]

I prefer Games Operation Director, shortening it to the acronym ...

Back in LFR public games, I used to have character tents with my name and character name, along with an image for my PC. When I DMed, instead of a player name I did have G.O.D. along with a cartoon image of the proto-typical old bearded man looking down from the clouds.

 

[Oofta]

And, therein lies some major differences. The interpersonal interactions on Critical Role are all performed before a camera, and by professional actors trying to make a thing interesting for an audience. Both of those are significant differences from most of our tables, and if you aren't specifically and actively adjusting for those facts, you can end up with problems when you try to do what they do, and not have anything like the same results.

I see a difference between their regular streamed show and when they're at conventions. When they're at conventions they do feel more like they're acting for an audience. When it's just a regular stream? I'm not going to say I run a professional game and certainly I don't run a game full of voice actors but, yes, in many ways I look at it and see similarities to my home game.

Are they acting? Aren't most of us acting when we're getting into characters? Do I have as much exposition or straight RP between PCs as they do? Not in all games, but there are times when it comes close. Do I expect to have the range of voices or special sound effects as Matt Mercer? Of course not. I wouldn't even try to replicate his combat set pieces, I'm not sure I'd even want to try.

To say that they aren't playing D&D though, to me, is a bit silly. Just because I'm not a voice actor doesn't mean I can't pick up ideas on how to characterize NPCs from Matt or pick up ideas on how to run encounters whether I ever choose to implement those ideas.

Maybe I just don't understand the criticism. They started out as a home game, their stream becoming a big thing was completely unexpected. They claim that they just enjoy playing the game and that it's not at all scripted. I have no reason to believe they're lying. You don't have to like it. I think there are some negative effects if people expect their home game to match the visuals or the voice acting of the group. But saying they're just actors, to me, is off base. They're talented voice actors who happen to play D&D.

 

[jgsugden]

And, therein lies some major differences. The interpersonal interactions on Critical Role are all performed before a camera, and by professional actors trying to make a thing interesting for an audience. Both of those are significant differences from most of our tables, and if you aren't specifically and actively adjusting for those facts, you can end up with problems when you try to do what they do, and not have anything like the same results.

If you watch the video of them playing from their home games, before the stream, their style is substantially similar. While a couple of the cast members are audience conscious and adjust their playing to suit the audience (mostly Sam), most of them didn't need to make any adjustments - they're just playing D&D as they did before the stream.

Go back and watch the first few streamed sessions. They had a tiny audience and had no expectations. They were just playing ... and it is very similar to what we saw all the way along. T

Not all DMs run a game like Matt Mercer, and not all players play like his group does - but that style is something I saw as far back as 1982. Immersive play is not a fallacy.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Maybe I just don't understand the criticism.

No, you don't! And that's fine. Because it doesn't have to be negative; no one is saying that entertaining people is bad.

Instead, it's similar to Mitchell & Webb's Kitchen Nightmares:

Spoiler: NSFW Language

In effect, you're right. It's just a normal home game.

A normal home game where:
A. The players are paid to play.
B. The players are all talented voice actors.
C. The DM's career is based off of the game.
D. The DM is a talented voice actor.
E. Effectively infinite resources (in time and money) to prep for games- including making lore and props as needed.

Yes, it is "D&D." But thinking it is the same as your home game is a category error; it just isn't. That's not a bad thing, at all! People can watch (for example) Gordon Ramsay cook and be inspired to cook more food. People can watch the Bucks win the NBA championship and want to shoot some hoops at the Y. But there is a difference.


What is odd (IMO) is the number of people who reflexively assume that those who correctly note that this game is different than most D&D games are somehow besmirching the reputation of Critical Role as opposed to acknowledging the obvious- that viewing this as typical D&D (as opposed to performance, or entertainment D&D) tends to cause quite a few issues. The reason it's weird is because it would be like someone saying, "How dare you note that this Disney Marvel movie is different than what I am doing in my local community theater? How dare you, sir???" No one was insulting Disney for having higher production values than you local community theater- far from it.

 

[prabe]

Yes, it is "D&D." But thinking it is the same as your home game is a category error; it just isn't.

Even aside from the category error ... Even if the way they play on the stream is basically the way they played without the cameras ... Every table is different. What works at Mercer's table isn't at all guaranteed to work at your table, even aside from differences in theatrical-ish talent or props budget or whatever. That doesn't mean there's absolutely nothing any other GM can learn from them; it just means ... it just means that Mercer's table is different.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Even aside from the category error ... Even if the way they play on the stream is basically the way they played without the cameras ... Every table is different. What works at Mercer's table isn't at all guaranteed to work at your table, even aside from differences in theatrical-ish talent or props budget or whatever. That doesn't mean there's absolutely nothing any other GM can learn from them; it just means ... it just means that Mercer's table is different.

There's that, but there's also a more fundamental distinction which was implicit in the other factors.

An audience. The presence of observers necessarily changes how you approach things. Most people, the vast majority of people, do not play D&D as a performance or a product. Even when you are performing for the people around you, you aren't performing for a larger audience that is observing you (and, for that matter, directly or indirectly paying you).

But for the limited number of people who stream their games for an audience, or those that play public exhibition games. this involves certain choices that would not be relevant to most tables.

 

[Mort]

Even aside from the category error ... Even if the way they play on the stream is basically the way they played without the cameras ... Every table is different. What works at Mercer's table isn't at all guaranteed to work at your table, even aside from differences in theatrical-ish talent or props budget or whatever. That doesn't mean there's absolutely nothing any other GM can learn from them; it just means ... it just means that Mercer's table is different.

Mercer is a good DM and the players are REALLY game and like to chew scenery - but strip that away and his game is near bog standard D&D 5e.
It's zero to hero, start small (small area, single town) and expand the world from there.
The rules are standard 5e with Nary even a homebrew (he shoehorned in a pathfinder class initially and has introduced more stuff as he goes but mostly classes and items, the rules remain untouched).

This is not a criticism - it's a comment stating anyone who wanted to start their own campaign could use the way he started and expanded his as an easy to follow model.