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

[DND_Reborn]

Agreed. I honestly can't figure out why watching other people play D&D is interesting to anybody.

Well, lots of people watch other things that wouldn't appeal to me (like many sports and video games), but I enjoy things they might not like (such as golf ). So, to each their own...

 

[robus]

Also, you don’t need a ton of driving to understand how an engine is designed to work. Any rational system can be studied, not only in how it’s designed to work, but also the work of modders, what they’ve tried, and stress tests that pushed the capabilities of the engine.

While I don’t recommend going as hard as I did first time out (there were invented linguistic elements and interrelations and geopolitics), I also strongly recommend against being hesitant to have opinions and preferences going in. People are much smarter than they give themselves credit for, IME.

Hmm I think learning to run D&D is more like sitting someone down in the cockpit of a 747 and asking them to taxi to the runway and take off. The “engine” is the least of my worries

But I do agree that not messing with things before you’ve got some sessions under your belt.

I still think adding to the list of things a new DM should be worried about is not particularly helpful, the new DM is already mentally overloaded. Much better, IMHO, is to focus their attention in the key skills required to run the game: narration, action adjudication and running combat. The rest will come with time.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

There’s a big difference between understanding a system in theory and having actual practical experience with it. Sometimes there are emergent functions that are not obvious through theoretical analysis alone. While you certainly can hack a game system without trying it as written first without breaking it, you will almost certainly miss out on subtle elements of how it functions as designed.

D&D is not a terribly complex system, nor a particularly high stakes activity. New DMs will be fine as long as they don’t get too wound up about it, and try to both have fun and watch for the fun of the players.

Hmm I think learning to run D&D is more like sitting someone down in the cockpit of a 747 and asking them to taxi to the runway and take off. The “engine” is the least of my worries

D&D is not anywhere near the same continent as flying anything. It’s just not that complex a hobby.

But I do agree that not messing with things before you’ve got some sessions under your belt.

I think that is something that doesn’t need advice. Those new DMs that will agree will be inclined toward that anyway, and the DMs that that are strongly inclined to learn to swim in the deep end with either ignore it, or just be discouraged from DMing by it.

I still think adding to the list of things a new DM should be worried about is not particularly helpful, the new DM is already mentally overloaded. Much better, IMHO, is to focus their attention in the key skills required to run the game: narration, action adjudication and running combat. The rest will come with time.

Sure. I’d agree that there is a limited amount of advice a given DM will even retain, especially those that are a bit anxious about how well they’re gonna do, anyway.

My best advice for new DMs (and I mean best in that it has seemed to help the most when I’ve given advice to IRL people) is simply, “don’t try to be perfect. Take a breath, remind yourself this is supposed to be fun, and trust yourself.”

 

[Lanefan]

But some things tend to NOT work - and it's good to point that out.

Are you honestly saying you think it's bad to tell fledgling DMs to NOT allow 1 or 2 players to completely dominate the conversation?

Or to tell them to be careful with PVP because it's very likely to go wrong and when it does it can destroy a group (remember we're talking about new DMs/players here)?

Or that it's inadvisable to prioritize their (the DMs) story regardless of what the players do or want to do - because player agency is important?

When it's presented as merely advice, then at least to a point I get it.

But some present these things as absolute "do not"s, which only serves to prevent DMs - and players, for that matter - from learning what works for them in a more trial-and-error fashion.

Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks only works if there's no impediment to trying said diff'rent strokes to determine if they suit your folks.

 

[Lanefan]

Personally, I've had enough bad experiences with PVP that I don't allow it, and I'd be very hesitant to play in a campaign that does.

For a new player, I'd absolutely suggest not allowing it unless they get a REALLY good feel for their table, and to be hesitant even then.

Except the only way you're ever going to get that feel for the table - particularly with strangers but sometimes even with friends - is to just let them play their characters however they will and see what transpires.

IME each party - even if it's the same players involved as were in other different parties - sets its own tone for how it's going to function; and IME that tone usually gets set early enough - as in, within the first few sessions - that if a few characters die or get driven out in the process it's no big deal as the players aren't too attached to them yet anyway.

Putting the DMs story over the game essentially means railroading predetermined outcomes - regardless of what the players choose or want. It's something many new DMs do and it's generally not a good way to go

On this I largely agree, though even then there's occasional tables where a full-on railroad works just fine as that's what the players want. Again, trial-and-error and let-'em'play wins here: in this case you drop some adventure hooks and if none get any bites due to indecisive or hesitant players then maybe you need to fire up the ol' 6-2-4 locomotive...

 

[Lanefan]

Hmm I think learning to run D&D is more like sitting someone down in the cockpit of a 747 and asking them to taxi to the runway and take off. The “engine” is the least of my worries

But I do agree that not messing with things before you’ve got some sessions under your belt.

Which really plays against those whose first reaction to being given control of a 747 (preferably a sim unit rather than the real thing!) is to start poking buttons and pulling levers just to see what happens, and by so doing learning what does what and what works and what doesn't for any given need.

I still think adding to the list of things a new DM should be worried about is not particularly helpful, the new DM is already mentally overloaded. Much better, IMHO, is to focus their attention in the key skills required to run the game: narration, action adjudication and running combat. The rest will come with time.

Agreed.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Except the only way you're ever going to get that feel for the table - particularly with strangers but sometimes even with friends - is to just let them play their characters however they will and see what transpires.

IME each party - even if it's the same players involved as were in other different parties - sets its own tone for how it's going to function; and IME that tone usually gets set early enough - as in, within the first few sessions - that if a few characters die or get driven out in the process it's no big deal as the players aren't too attached to them yet anyway.

On this I largely agree, though even then there's occasional tables where a full-on railroad works just fine as that's what the players want. Again, trial-and-error and let-'em'play wins here: in this case you drop some adventure hooks and if none get any bites due to indecisive or hesitant players then maybe you need to fire up the ol' 6-2-4 locomotive...

Right, I’ve run short story campaigns on a rail, and it was great. My players have a wealth of options for DMs, so It’s not like I can get away with unilateral decision making anyway.

 

[Lanefan]

Right, I’ve run short story campaigns on a rail, and it was great. My players have a wealth of options for DMs, so It’s not like I can get away with unilateral decision making anyway.

I've found that within a long-running campaign an occasional bit of embedded rail - where they get on the rails (intentionally or not), chug along for a few adventures, and then the rail ends and they can get off to go do other things - can work quite well.

Not something to be overdone, though, at least in my own experience. Obviously, that of others will vary widely.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I've found that within a long-running campaign an occasional bit of embedded rail - where they get on the rails (intentionally or not), chug along for a few adventures, and then the rail ends and they can get off to go do other things - can work quite well.

Not something to be overdone, though, at least in my own experience. Obviously, that of others will vary widely.

Absolutely. Some adventure types work better on rails.

Also, some folks conflate railroading and “having stuff happen regardless of what the PCs do”, which muddies the discussion.

 

[Scott Christian]

But some things tend to NOT work - and it's good to point that out.

Are you honestly saying you think it's bad to tell fledgling DMs to NOT allow 1 or 2 players to completely dominate the conversation?

Or to tell them to be careful with PVP because it's very likely to go wrong and when it does it can destroy a group (remember we're talking about new DMs/players here)?

Or that it's inadvisable to prioritize their (the DMs) story regardless of what the players do or want to do - because player agency is important?

I am saying it is situationally dependent. I have seen many fledgling DMs let PVP happen, and sometimes it worked out. When it didn't, it taught the players a good lesson. I have seen tables where one or two players do dominate the RP because the others don't like it that much.

I am saying exactly what I am saying. A DM will never figure out what works where and when if they are told not to do something.