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

[Mort]

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.

Maybe at first (early campaign one), but It's REALLY obvious that they've introduced more and more performative elements. And not for each other's benefit - but for the audience. Sure, they are still gaming and I would hope they are still having fun. But they are also performing for an in a way that home game just don't do.

 

[Lanefan]

Doesn't have to be exact. IMO and IME, the slight hit to game continuity is more than worth it to get the new player playing instead of spectating.

True, but in a game like ours where it's more than possible to be put out of action for the night by bad luck on a save or by having your character die, occasional spectating is an accepted par for the course.

If you know it's coming ok and it's been building up sure. But too deliberately throw it in because you, the DM, want a three hour fight? That's the issue. It essentially railroading that could be the problem.

OK, this makes sense. Yes.

I generally hate secret plots between the DM and a player. Players tend to think they're all James Bond about it, but 9/10 times they're Mr. Bean and it's just annoying/irritating to watch.

And, personally, I hate it when DMs Foster distrust in the group by colaberating with individual players to undermine group efforts.

Where I quite like it.

One stunt a player and I-as-DM once pulled off some years back went like this: her PC had worn out its welcome in the party and was asked to leave. The player wanted to keep that character going, and as it already had disguise mastery in its background what we did the following session was bring in two new characters, one as "her new one" and another as "an adventuring NPC". The "NPC" was her character returning in disguise, her new "character" was in fact an NPC; with the end goal being that the disguised character could prove its worth in the field and then later reveal itself for who it really was, ideally to acceptance by the party.

During the week we'd give each other instructions on what each character should-would do, to be followed as best as possible during the session, then at the game I'd play her character as an NPC and she'd play the NPC as her character.

This cover went on for two whole adventures, with none the wiser despite numerous rolls to see through the disguise. Then the big reveal came, and while it didn't go perfectly the end goal was mostly achieved, and that character is still active in my game today.

Right, it's not. If a player wants to play like a red shirt that's mostly on them. Though, if a player is constantly undermining group efforts for their own amusement? That player risks not being invited back to the table. Usually, this is a group effort to accomplish specific goals. A player undermining that, especially because he thinks it's fun/funny? He's being a jerk, and that's not ok.

A group, however, is made up of individuals; and I don't like situations where individuality (of either a player or a PC) is expected to be sacrificed "for the good of the group". The extreme end of that is a bunch of yes-people who go along with anything, often completely dominated by the one person who actually suggests things to be gone along with. Bleah.

I'm generally against players essentially screaming "me, me, ME..." at the table, that's not what I'm there for.

Fair enough, though at the same time I say the onus is on the person who never speaks up to speak up rather than on everyone else to stop and wait for that person to say something.

 

[Lanefan]

As to different pillars, at my table we pretty much do the roleplaying and social pillar thing. When there have to be combat it's mostly 4e style set pieces. As a DM I find the combat pillar less and less interesting, but find comfort in BBEG monologues - don't you dare touch them. Hand on heart, I probably spend more time writing elaborate evil guy speeches than prepping the actual combat scenes 8-P.

Heh.

On the rare times I have a BBEG (try to*) monologue I prefer to make it up as I go along, mostly because something made up on the fly almost always sounds more natural and in-character than does reading something that is pre-written. Occasionally, a published module will include a bit of BBEG monologue, and I can never make them sound the least bit convincing if I just read them out.

* - "try to" because oftentimes the moment my players hear the first inkling of a monologue they'll do everything they can to shut it down posthaste!

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Maybe at first (early campaign one), but It's REALLY obvious that they've introduced more and more performative elements. And not for each other's benefit - but for the audience. Sure, they are still gaming and I would hope they are still having fun. But they are also performing for an in a way that home game just don't do.

I disagree. I’ve recently rewatched early campaign one, up to the beginning of the Briarwood Arc, and have also recently watched c3 episodes. The quality of production around the game has improved, Matt clearly puts aside more time for tattle builds, and the set, lighting, and music, are all improved and better integrated. Otherwise, the game is largely the same. The group meshes better and better over time, and things like that, but no. It’s not wildly different from all home games, it only as different as mine and yours probably are from eachother.

 

[Synthil]

The only time the CR cast clearly performs for an audience, is in their live shows. The difference can be felt there, because the cast can see the reaction of the audience.

 

[Composer99]

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.

I have no idea why you quoted my post, because this doesn't seem to relate to anything that I wrote.

On occasion, Mercer calls for ability checks when there are no stakes - no meaningful consequence for failure, no change in the fiction whether the check succeeds or fails. No "story emerges" from them in terms of changes to the fiction that can be traced back to their success or failure. Such checks are needless. It's as simple as that. It's hardly a scathing condemnation - more a remark on a foible.

 

[Reynard]

I have no idea why you quoted my post, because this doesn't seem to relate to anything that I wrote.

On occasion, Mercer calls for ability checks when there are no stakes - no meaningful consequence for failure, no change in the fiction whether the check succeeds or fails. No "story emerges" from them in terms of changes to the fiction that can be traced back to their success or failure. Such checks are needless. It's as simple as that. It's hardly a scathing condemnation - more a remark on a foible.

Checks can be informative. Sometimes you might use a Persuasion check just to see what the NPCs attitude is, rather than judge the result of an action. Or any number of other bits of information. I don't think that's "too many checks."

 

[Neonchameleon]

To me there's a right time for PVP and a whole lot of wrong times. The right time is at the end of the adventure. The PCs have stopped the bad guy and taken the McGuffin, but only one of them gets to keep it and it would be very useful for whoever they value or whoever they serve and can't really be split. The characters are probably going to retire after the event anyway and having something they are in competition for really clarifies who they are and can lead to a memorable campaign.

A lot of the time it is of course bad.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

@Lanefan, @doctorbadwolf, and others have said all the things that really needed saying to debunk this list of thou shalt nots. Yet I still find my fingers drawn irresistibly toward the keyboard...

1. Long Monologues/narrative descriptions/cut scenes;
I'm okay having all of these in the game. Hell, I've been doing cut scenes in my home games since the early 90s. And monologues and narrative descriptions go back to the beginning of gaming. How long is too long for a bit of scene setting description? Depends on your table.

2. Focus too much on NPC talks;
Talking to NPCs or NPCs talking amongst themselves? If NPCs are talking amongst themselves, presumably the GM is doing it because it's providing some useful drama/info. Okay, yes, it's a big world, there's bound to be GMs out there who are doing it solely for their own amusement and that would be subpar, but how often does it really happen? As for PCs talking to NPCs... for some players that's 100% of the game. For most players it's a greater than 0% of the game.

3. Wait for the "perfect" moment to introduce a new/replacement PC;
Okay, this one I can be onboard with. But it depends on your game.

If you're just having a classic beer and pretzels monster bash don't wait, just have the new PC appear. There's wandering monsters, why not wandering PCs?

For myself I prefer games with a consistent narrative. So by preference I will wait for a good spot to bring in new PCs. In the meantime the player can run NPCs or even help me run the bad guys. Of course my preference isn't always going to work. In the Reign of Winter AP I had to introduce 2 new PCs inside Baba Yaga's super secret personal demi plane that no one in the universe knew about. I just had them show up through a planar gate, the last survivors of another adventuring party that had been working to stop the BBEG's plot. Did this undermine some of the pre-existing narrative? Yep. Did anyone care? Nope.

4. Plan for Three hour long fights;
Eh, long fights is part of the game. As others said above, most of what makes a fight drag is time wasted by players who can't/won't focus, and/or have no idea what they can do. And of course many players love a big fight scene.

5. Putting the story before the game;
Railroading? Yeah, that's bad. But there are times the story is the game. It depends.

6. Have temporary characters that are planned to be killed off;
No problem with this at all, as long as the player wants to of course.

7. Allowing PVP or truly high tension Player moments;
Depends on the table, but a lot of good fun drama can be milked from this. Some players love it, some hate it. Some game systems (GURPS, Hero) really do lend themselves to arena combats where the players can test their builds against one another.

8. Letting characters talk endlessly;
Ummmmm, if the players are happy, why interfere? Let 'em talk.

9. Setting expectations too high.
Well, by definition too high is, you know, too high. No-one is going to do this deliberately.* Yeah too high expectations will happen sometimes, learning how to set realistic expectations is a life skill we all learn with time.


So is this a list of things not to do? No. It's a list of things one should approach in a considerate manner. Everything on the list depends very much on the table.


*I know, it's a big world, someone has.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

8. Letting characters talk endlessly;
Ummmmm, if the players are happy, why interfere? Let 'em talk.

Hell yeah. Moving the spotlight back and forth is one thing, giving a player an NPC with a quick note to interject into a scene with an interruption (the king is dead!) is great. Very fun way to time a big event outside the PCs control that needed to happen around now, is right at a good “cut away/fade to black/stare at eachother dramatically” moment in that intense interpersonal scene.