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

[Mort]

C'mon the dice rolling is hyperbole. You know that.

The point is any DM can try these at any time and sometimes they work and sometimes they do not. It is an artform. And sometimes, with certain tables, it works, and other times, with other tables, it doesn't.

It is NOT a to do and not to do list. That is what I meant by the art critic analogy.

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?

 

[jtylerk]

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.


Now some of these are MUCH more important than others, but overall I agree

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yeesh. That seems crazy to me. You shouldn’t go messing with an engine before you understand how it’s designed to work.

Eh, I’ve never run a TTRPG without any modifications at all. The simple “start with this” options in games also get an automatic skip from me, every time, as well. I’m gonna play the sorcerer first time playing a game, not the champion fighter.

First time GMing, I spent all my free time for a month building a world and several homebrew races.

It’s just two different styles of learning a system.

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?

Yes. It’s useful to tell them that XYZ are potential pitfalls of doing a thing. Giving them what will come across as a set of “rules for not being a bad DM” is inadvisable.

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)?

“Allowing PVP” to quote the OP.

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?

How is this idea communicated in the OP? I can’t find it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yeesh. That seems crazy to me. You shouldn’t go messing with an engine before you understand how it’s designed to work.

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.

 

[Mort]

Yes. It’s useful to tell them that XYZ are potential pitfalls of doing a thing. Giving them what will come across as a set of “rules for not being a bad DM” is inadvisable.

It's not a rule, it's a suggestion. Basically, learn the pitfalls first.

"Allowing PVP” to quote the OP.

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.

How is this idea communicated in the OP? I can’t find it.

Perhaps not communicated well enough then. But I've clarified many times since the OP.

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

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It's not a rule, it's a suggestion. Basically, learn the pitfalls first.

So, the phrase “will come across as rules” actually indicates an acknowledgement and understanding of the fact that it isn’t a rule. I wasn’t saying that it is a rule, I said that in a “9 things you shouldn’t do” list, it will come across as rules to a new DM.

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.

The impression in the PHB isn’t even that this is just advise for new DMs. Rather, the wording is such that it presents “don’t do these things in your home game, regardless of how experienced you are”.
And that’s a huge “onetrueway” ism, IMO. Advice about how to do a session 0, how to handle conflict mid-game, etc.

“Here is how to have a discussion about PVP, comfort zones, and boundaries, before and during the game” is vastly more useful and helpful than “you shouldn’t allow pvp or especially intense interpersonal scenes”.

New groups should work to communicate well and understand consent, and then dive straight into what excites them about the game. If that is interpersonal drama, then it’s bad advice to tell them they shouldn’t allow the sorts of scenes like many of the scenes between Kingston Brown (from Uptown) and Pete the Plug on season 1 of dimension20’s Unsleeping City game, or the tension between Mollymawk and Beau in c2 of Critical Role. They absolutely should.

Perhaps not communicated well enough then. But I've clarified many times since the OP.

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

This post is the first time that I’ve seen even an admission that the list in the OP gives a different impression, though. So clarifying comes across, instead, as doubling down and defending the position presented in the OP.

So, having said that, “railroading” is certainly something to be careful of. The OP doesn’t even say “your story” or “the DMs story” or even “a predetermined story outcome”, but even moving on to the position you’ve clarified…it’s still not a universal truth.

I’d go so far as to say that certain kinds of railroading is often necessary for new DMs, like simply narrating a transitional scene in order to get the game moving again, especially when running a published adventure.

Look, I apologize if this has gotten heated. The OP comes across very “I know better than you what is good for your game”, and that is gonna put people on a defensive stance. I get that you don’t mean it like that, at this point. That’s awesome. Would you consider rewording your list to make your intentions clear in the OP?

 

[Bill Zebub]

Oh, got it. Yeah, I can't get into watching others play. I have tried and found it boring as paint drying. I think it is a horrible method for new DMs to learn to DM because trying to make a good passive experience (the "pros" people watch/listen to for entertainment) is nothing like trying to make a good active experience (playing).

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

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

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.

 

[Vaalingrade]

The OP comes across very “I know better than you what is good for your game”

More than that, it came of as 'A-ha! I finally got a firing solution on some famous D&D'ers! Let's get 'em!' at least to me.

 

[Argyle King]

I agree with not planning 3+ hour combats -if playing contemporary D&D.
There are games in which that can be fun, but I'm of the opinion that contemporary D&D tends toward not being one of them. As HP totals go up, combat already slows down.