D&D 5E 9 Things "Pro" DMs Do That You shouldn't

[Lanefan]

So in a bit of procrastination (also because I'm trying to help my 14 year old who's DMing for his D&D club and would much rather hear advise from a random YouTuber than me!), I happened on this video. And I think I agree with every point. Summed up they are, Pro DM's do this, you shouldn't:

1. Long Monologues/narrative descriptions/cut scenes;
2. Focus too much on NPC talks;
3. Wait for the "perfect" moment to introduce a new/replacement PC;
4. Plan for Three hour long fights;
5. Putting the story before the game;
6. Have temporary characters that are planned to be killed off;
7. Allowing PVP or truly high tension Player moments;
8. Letting characters talk endlessly;
9. Setting expectations too high.

Thoughts?

1 and 2. If the alternative is that narrations and monologues become so short and terse that useful and-or important information might be skipped, I'll take the long form. There's a happy middle, yes, but most of us amateurs aren't good enough to hit it regularly.

3. Situationally dependent. If the in-game situation doesn't allow for the introduction of a new PC then sorry, that PC's just gotta wait. Needless delay, however, isn't good; an example being that if you-as-DM know the new PC is a captive in the next room and the wandering monster dice ping in this current room, delay that ping until the room after next so the new PC can get in first.

4. Clearly this person never looked at 4e adventure design, which is often predicated on and built around the big long set-piece battle. Personally, as DM I'd rather plan for three+ hour fights and thus know when to expect one than have them spring up without warning.

5. Given that the game both is and creates the story, it's a bit difficult to put either ahead of the other. However, if by this the author just means "don't railroad" then I agree.

6 and 7. Why the hell not? For 6, what's wrong with temporary red-shirt characters, and for 7, I'm a let-'em-fight DM as long as it stays completely in character.

8. If the talk is in-character they can go as long as they like - it's called roleplaying. If someone gets bored of it in-character, sooner or later that character will do somehting to stir the pot and get things moving.

9. The only one of these points with which I fully agree.

 

[Mort]

1 and 2. If the alternative is that narrations and monologues become so short and terse that useful and-or important information might be skipped, I'll take the long form. There's a happy middle, yes, but most of us amateurs aren't good enough to hit it regularly.

The point is, don't bore your players with long winded NEEDLESS talks. The streaming DMs are mostly doing it for the benefit of the audience not the players. The DM can spotlight hog too - and that's bad.

3. Situationally dependent. If the in-game situation doesn't allow for the introduction of a new PC then sorry, that PC's just gotta wait. Needless delay, however, isn't good; an example being that if you-as-DM know the new PC is a captive in the next room and the wandering monster dice ping in this current room, delay that ping until the room after next so the new PC can get in first.

So plan for spots to get new players/ new characters in quickly. A player sitting out for anywhere near a session (much less multiple) is completely unacceptable.

4. Clearly this person never looked at 4e adventure design, which is often predicated on and built around the big long set-piece battle. Personally, as DM I'd rather plan for three+ hour fights and thus know when to expect one than have them spring up without warning.

If your group LOVES combat, well ok. But the point is, don't just expect to have a session long combat and not bother with other stuff.

5. Given that the game both is and creates the story, it's a bit difficult to put either ahead of the other. However, if by this the author just means "don't railroad" then I agree.

I think that's basically what he means. Don't have predetermined outcomes.

6 and 7. Why the hell not? For 6, what's wrong with temporary red-shirt characters, and for 7, I'm a let-'em-fight DM as long as it stays completely in character.

6. Because if it means collusion with 1 player without the knowledge ok of the other player, it impacts on their agency. That's usually bad.

7. We've had this particular discussion before, lots of times. I'm just gonna go with if it truly works for your group(s) then great. I have NEVER seen it work well.

8. If the talk is in-character they can go as long as they like - it's called roleplaying. If someone gets bored of it in-character, sooner or later that character will do somehting to stir the pot and get things moving.

Again he's talking about spotlight hogging. Where one or two players dominate the conversation to the detriment of everyone at the table. It's a group activity and needs to be treated as such.

9. The only one of these points with which I fully agree.

Ok.

 

[Mort]

On a different note, because I find this hilarious.

My son is home sick today. He emailed his D&D club to let them know and one of the others to DM.

Instead, they Zoomed him from school, said we're all set up and ready - let's go. So he's happily DMing from home.

It's different world from when I was 14!

 

[Umbran]

I feel like most of these could be condensed into a few points

• Don't let a single pillar of gameplay (and in particular social interaction) dominate the game

...unless, of course, your players like it.

 

[Seramus]

3. Wait for the "perfect" moment to introduce a new/replacement PC;

6 hours! That's how long I waited once for my new character to be introduced. The memory genuinely makes me antsy about keeping players waiting these days. Like, I get actual feelings of twisty tension when players are not being included for long stretches of time.

 

[Dausuul]

6 hours! That's how long I waited once for my new character to be introduced. The memory genuinely makes me antsy about keeping players waiting these days. Like, I get actual feelings of twisty tension when players are not being included for long stretches of time.

Yow. That would suck.

Did you at least get to play an NPC or run monsters in combat or something?

 

[Seramus]

Yow. That would suck.

Did you at least get to play an NPC or run monsters in combat or something?

Nope. And this was an otherwise good DM, too! Solid story, good understanding of the rules, good pacing, balanced encounters. He was just hell bent on introducing characters when it "Made Sense", even if that meant you waited until the party eventually made their way (at their own pace) to wherever he decided you were.

 

[Mort]

Nope. And this was an otherwise good DM, too! Solid story, good understanding of the rules, good pacing, balanced encounters. He was just hell bent on introducing characters when it "Made Sense", even if that meant you waited until the party eventually made their way (at their own pace) to wherever he decided you were.

This is REALLY common. And it's HARD to tell someone that this is not fun, so it continues.

 

[Stormonu]

I need to have my sister-in-law watch this and take it to heart.

 

[Stormonu]

6 hours! That's how long I waited once for my new character to be introduced. The memory genuinely makes me antsy about keeping players waiting these days. Like, I get actual feelings of twisty tension when players are not being included for long stretches of time.

Unfortunately, in my younger days I did this to a player once. I promise I will never do it again, though.