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

[robus]

I think the worry is that in trying to “up their game,” new DMs looking up to their favorite streamers may overlook techniques that could improve their game, but would not improve an actual play.

Perhaps I’m the exception, but I’m regularly mentally critiquing Mercer’s DMing decisions and thinking what I would do differently. For example he recently had Cheney’s werewolf make a strength check to bust through a wooden door (which of course went against the player) and so what had been a tense exciting scene turned into a bit of a farce. I thought at the time, that was a bad call DM!

So I would say: watch these streams with a critical eye.

 

[robus]

I definitely don’t think either Mercer or Mulligan are guilty of that.

One thing I’ve struggled with is giving my players enough information to make interesting decisions. We have to set the scene.

 

[Mort]

And plenty of groups would say the story is the game...so how do you put "story first"?

The problem is when the DM has his PREDETERMINED story happen regardless of the players actions. In other words the players have no real choice, the story (as the DM envisions it), happens regardless.

Now, obviously if you're playing a module or adventure path, there are going to be constraints - and that's just fine because all of the players have agreed to that. But generally, predetermined outcomes are not desirable.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

To me several of the OP points are different aspects of the playing-for-an-audience epidemic. I find it kind of sad when so many obviously can't find enjoyment in playing pretend with friends around their table (or vtt), but have to be gazed upon by others to be fulfilled. Oh well, it's just me being an old fart I guess.

People stream their games because they hope to make money from it. Nothing to be sad about, just business.

 

[beancounter]

I've always hated when DM's do number 3.

It's a game, just let the new PC jump in, and think of how it fits into the story later...

 

[Composer99]

Perhaps I’m the exception, but I’m regularly mentally critiquing Mercer’s DMing decisions and thinking what I would do differently. For example he recently had Cheney’s werewolf make a strength check to bust through a wooden door (which of course went against the player) and so what had been a tense exciting scene turned into a bit of a farce. I thought at the time, that was a bad call DM!

So I would say: watch these streams with a critical eye.

I do find Mercer tends to call for ability checks too often. And that's made me interrogate my own DMing. So I will definitely say the streaming shows are good, in some way or another, with helping you run a better game.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That's better than nothing, but generally not enough. Your players are there to PLAY and play their characters. Making them wait for hours just to satisfy your (the DMs) sense is story, not ok in my book.

Okay. Other peoples’ game isn’t your book.
Many groups, players just as much as the DM, would rather the story continue in a way that feels right than force their new PC into the narrative in a clearly forced manner.

I would absolutely rather play an NPC for a session or two than have my PC randomly appear in a cell in a dungeon that is only in the story to more quickly introduce my new character.

I think it's pretty clear - don't railroad. Don't let your (the DMs) story force a determined outcome.

Yeah seems to be saying more than that, to me.

I got the sense early on (even posted it in in a thread here) that Travis was trying to get Bertrum killed. Subtle at first but became more obvious. This does impact the other players, because every resource spent on him is wasted. But the point is, it's not great for a home game.

“Wasted”. Wow. Yeah we view the game very differently.
It’s not great for your game. Cool. For other people it’s great.

And that's the point. They are performing for an audience, not gaming.

No. This is false. They are performing for eachother as part of playing the game. The only difference between thier game and how we have played for more than a decade at least is how good we are at performing a character at the table.

If you enjoy that in the group great. But again, most people in a home game come to play not watch other people play. Unless it's REALLY known to be ok, taking up a half hour of someone else's play time is just not great.

BS. You don’t like it. Good for you.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The home game is different, your players are generally there to play, not watch you monologue and amus e yourself. My players don't have enough time at the session to hear me seeing in for a half hour at a time.

It’s not that different. The main difference, especially with dimension20, is that my home game has a much looser time frame. With CR, it’s mostly just less pressure, and the fact we can have sessions where no one does a character voice and we mostly tell jokes and shop for airship supplies or whatever. And the terrain and minis. I ain’t got time for that.

And again, the quality. My game wouldn’t be as entertaining, I’m neither as practiced a voice actor nor improviser, and neither are my players.

But the tools are largely the same, and they make our game better than they’d be if we felt obligated to follow advice like that in the OP.

The point is, their games are meant more for an audience than their players (who are also catering to an audience). The only audience your home game should be catering to is the players.

Dimension20, sure, though like a lot of improv it’s very much as much for eachother as for the audience.

But that's not exactly it. Would one of your players be ok if you killed their character off JUST to satisfy your sense of where the story "needs" to go?

Literally nothing in a game I run is determined solely by what I see as a good story.

I remember, when I was younger, a DM left out his notebook when he ran off to the bathroom. One of the other players looked at it and said, hey look at this! I did. The DM had scrawled into one of the encounters "one of the players is mangled..." Not might be, not could be but IS. His plan was to, in spite of whatever the characters might do, mangle one of the PCs for his (the DMs) sense of story. Sorry but that's not ok, this is not a scripted TV show.

It’s not okay when the players don’t know that sort of thing is on the table, and without the players’ consent, sure.

When I ran a duel between the Bard/Paladin who chose to champion an ancient sentient Druidic tree against the avatar of the corruption of a bound Overlord (Eberron), I telegraphed very clearly that his character had a choice between self-sacrifice with no guarantee of reward, and keeping himself safe but it’d be harder to finish the incomplete binding of the overlord, he chose death. When I asked him if he was okay with a light transformation upon being brought back by the ancient tree, he said no, and I improvised a seeming transformation that then crumbled away to reveal a fully healed body.

It was one of the best sessions of D&D we have ever had.

Experimentation is great, and as the DM you will screw up. But the point is, you do that for the players for their benefit. They are your audience, unlike streaming shows - which cater to a different one

Okay.

 

[Reynard]

I do find Mercer tends to call for ability checks too often. And that's made me interrogate my own DMing. So I will definitely say the streaming shows are good, in some way or another, with helping you run a better game.

I didn't see the situation specifically cited, but what I get from Mercer is he likes to let the dice decide things a lot, rather than he arbitrarily decide. I agree with that stance. I am not interested in presenting what I think would make a cooler scene or a better story. I am interested in see what story emerges from the interaction of agency and randomness.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

One thing I’ve struggled with is giving my players enough information to make interesting decisions. We have to set the scene.

Absolutely. People rag on Mercer for the intro to campaign 3, but that is exactly a moment for his players. If he was only concerned with the audience, that would have been more succinct, and more info would be peppered throughout the first several episodes.

But it’s 1000% a good DM move, that makes it easier for the players to later retain information when you repeat it, and helps transition from pre-game BSing into the vibe of the opening scenes of the game.

I do find Mercer tends to call for ability checks too often. And that's made me interrogate my own DMing. So I will definitely say the streaming shows are good, in some way or another, with helping you run a better game.

I agree.