D&D General The DM Should Only Talk 30% of the Time... Agree or Disagree?

[payn]

I'm an elementary school teacher, and I find a lot of my teaching practice bleeds into my DM'ing. One of the things I've tried to do in my classroom is reduce the amount of time that I, as a teacher, am talking. If I can have a student revoice something, I will. If I can have a student take attendance, pass out snacks, give appreciations, read the directions, etc etc etc, I will.

This is part of a larger trend of moving teaching (especially in elementary school) away from lecture-based lessons. The general idea is that teachers used to speak 70% of the time, and the goal now is that teachers speak 30% of the time, and students speak 70% of the time. Generally.

I love this, unfortunately, it wasn't until graduate level courses did I get that experience with any regularity during my education. You are a cool teacher!

So what do you think? Is this a strange, quixotic quest with no real benefit? Is this a molehill just I'm willing to die on?

Do you think there's any benefit to a DM speaking only 30% of the time?

I try to do this less with chores, and more with in-game opportunities. Some of these techniques I found while running/playing other games that focus more on skills, problem solving, and social opportunities. I'd expand your adventures to put more umph in the exploration and social pillars of the game. The other part is taking notice of what drives players at the table, and what shuts them down. Try to emphasize those parts. If a player likes making NPCs, ok let them do it. If the player wants nothing to do with making NPCs, scrap it post haste. Keep in mind, your players are there to have fun, not learn like your students.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I only play when the DM is a mime.

 

[MGibster]

The DM should talk as much as he or she believes they should talk.

 

[MGibster]

I only play when the DM is a mime.

Like children, players should be seen and not heard.

 

[Shiroiken]

The only sessions I've ever experienced where the DM talked less than half the time was planning sessions. My college 2E game was more player active than reactive, so we would periodically need to take a session to figure out what we were going to do next. In those sessions the DM might talk as much as 30%, answering our questions (or resolving spell effects like Divinations). While those sessions were really fun, I couldn't image enjoying a game where the DM is only a minor participant all the time.

Many of the suggestions I've seen here would just put individual players on the spot to improv. I have a hard enough time doing this as a DM, and I can imagine the "deer in the headlights" look most players would have. It's even worse since a player could easily overstep what the DM would find acceptable (e.g. "my sword cuts off his arm" for a normal hit).

 

[payn]

Many of the suggestions I've seen here would just put individual players on the spot to improv. I have a hard enough time doing this as a DM, and I can imagine the "deer in the headlights" look most players would have. It's even worse since a player could easily overstep what the DM would find acceptable (e.g. "my sword cuts off his arm" for a normal hit).

It can be a challenge for sure. I recall a near future cyberpunk like game that the GM kept trying to get players to add to the narrative.
GM; "You are in the lobby of a corporate HQ. What do you see?"
Player: "umm.....potted plants?"
Other players "ugh..."
Sometimes the GM just needs to lead to keep the pace and maintain immersion. This is the kind of thing players might need to step up to. Also, some players like to GM, and this kind of thing they will take to like a fish to water. Other players, want that firmly in the GMs hands.

 

[iserith]

The only sessions I've ever experienced where the DM talked less than half the time was planning sessions. My college 2E game was more player active than reactive, so we would periodically need to take a session to figure out what we were going to do next. In those sessions the DM might talk as much as 30%, answering our questions (or resolving spell effects like Divinations). While those sessions were really fun, I couldn't image enjoying a game where the DM is only a minor participant all the time.

Many of the suggestions I've seen here would just put individual players on the spot to improv. I have a hard enough time doing this as a DM, and I can imagine the "deer in the headlights" look most players would have. It's even worse since a player could easily overstep what the DM would find acceptable (e.g. "my sword cuts off his arm" for a normal hit).

Yes, and as with anything, having the right group used to players establishing things outside their role can work fine; however, it can also make the flow of play sometimes rather clunky. The conversation is going in one direction with the DM doing their thing and the players doing theirs with everything moving along, only to have the DM suddenly change up the flow of play to ask a player to do a "DM-thing." It can be like a record skipping in the middle of a great song (remember record players?). Or worse, dead air. Best avoided in general unless the group is just very used to doing it and can switch back and forth between roles seamlessly.

 

[Quickleaf]

Yeah, that seems roughly accurate to me. Love hearing about applying teaching principles to DMing!

I'd actually stretch that ratio even a little more, so if there are 5 people (4 players + DM) sitting around a table, that everyone should – on average – get about the same amount of speaking/spotlight time, so the DM can be expected to – on average – speak about 20% of the time. Maybe slightly tilted in the DM's favor, for exposition's sake.

I'd also be more flexible that it will naturally adjust from session to session, and that's perfectly ok and to be expected.

As for your radical ideas, I've done many of those things, and they were well received by my current group, albeit with certain boundaries. Basically, they enjoy contributing, but they don't want to explore their world, they want to explore mine, and if I'm including a random encounter or NPC they suggested/created, it's always with the understanding that I'm going to spin a twist on it to keep them on their toes or delight them in an unexpected way.

I don't treat that sort of player involvement as some kind of moral mandate for my roleplaying games, and it's all about reading the pulse of the group.

 

[jsaving]

In a solid gaming group where people are enjoying themselves and are role-playing their characters, they'll naturally do most of the speaking. If that's not happening in your group, then you might consider having an honest discussion with your players about whether they are as engaged as you'd like them to be, making clear that any suggestions for improvement are welcome. Perhaps they're simply so captivated by your storytelling ability that they find speech unnecessary, but my experience is that when players don't say much, it often stems from a feeling that they lack agency and hence aren't especially motivated to speak. Teaching is not a good analogy for DMing and in my judgment it would be a mistake to deputize your players as "student teachers" rather than making much more fundamental changes to your approach. Good luck!

 

[pming]

Hiya!

First, get away from the hard-coded percentages. That's just going to annoy you and your group. Just say "Hey guys, I'm gonna do a bit less 'long speaking'. You guys fill in the details", or something like that. Some nights you may only speak 20% of the time...others, 80%. The amount spoken isn't the value...it's what's being said. Don't get pigeon holed into 'absolutes'.

Second...maybe not play D&D? Not to be flippant or anything, but D&D pretty much requires the DM do a lot of speaking and explaining, describing, questioning, etc. It's just how the game works. There are a lot of "behind the screen" stuff that a competent DM is doing all the time...for me, it's dice rolling, table consulting and note taking.

There are game systems out there that are "Player Driven". Like Dungeon World, for example. When I finally "got it" and the game clicked, I found myself just sitting back and enjoying the Players tell me a story...and describe stuff...and add stuff to the world...and even make up new rules on the spot!

BUT...if you want to keep doing the D&D thing, you need to explain the new expectations and limitations of the Players roles at the table. This relates to my first point, obviously. The "less speaking" is fine, but you need to give the Players some guidelines and responsibility. Not all Players may even WANT this. I mean, they aren't DM'ing, they are there to Play the role of a PC. That means they aren't there to hear you speak less...they are there to not have to do all that DM'ing stuff.

Think of it like showing up at a dinner party with 4 other friends, then your host says "Ok you guys, I got the pots and pans out, the knives and cutting boards, and some ingredients. You guys get in there and start cooking dinner. I'm gonna stand over here and drink some wine and offer general guidance if you want it". They didn't show up to cook and create dishes...they cam to eat what they want of what you prepared. Some weird-o may even ask for ketchup for his well-done steak! (barbarians!).

Also, as a side note, I find it a bit disturbing that teachers are being told to "speak less"...but that's a different kettle of worms.

^_^

Paul L. ming