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

[ECMO3]

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

Honestly, I always looked for a time to introduce a new character, a time where the story made sense but was quick.

Then I played with one of my current DMs and he just puts them in immediately. He comes up with some thinly veiled reason - This adventurer just happened to be adventuring inside Asmodeus stronghold too!

He does make some minimal story hook that is super easy to see he just made up.

To be honest I thought it would detract from the story thematically but in play it really doesn't. If I can suspend disbelief on the guy that has fire coming from his fingertips and can breathe water, I can suspend disbelief that this new guy just happened to show up in here.

 

[Lanefan]

I've taken the liberty of re-sequencing some of the quoted bits, below, as some relate to each other.

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.

This assumes the ability to predict what the PCs will do and-or where the PCs will go next, which is by no means an exact science.

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.

Not sure what you mean here. If there's a major set-piece combat embedded in the adventure I-as-DM would rather plan for it (given the vagaries of PC actions as noted above) such that, for example, it can start and finish in the same session rather than either span across a session break or keep us up till 4 in the morning.

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.

Not sure on this - having a secret plot involving one player doesn't impact on anyone else's agency until-unless that plot starts restraining what other players can have their characters do. Now, I admit I've never seen a player plot with a DM to intentionally set up their PC to be a red-shirt; but I've seen - and been involved in from both sides - many other secret plots.

Flip side: I've many times seen players on their own initiative play their PCs as red-shirts, without any help from the DM. I don't think that's what was being got at here, but I could be wrong.

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.

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.

There's not much you can do about a DM hogging the spotlight.

When it comes to spotlight hogging by players, though, I'm a bit more law-of-the-jungle than some: if you want the spotlight, try doing something proactive to get it rather than just passively waiting for it to come to you.

 

[Charlaquin]

It’s funny, because for me watching these “actual plays” really demystified the game and how things should go at the table.

This is a definitely a major benefit of actual plays, and a lot of people have gotten into the game who otherwise never would have because of it. But just because they demystify the gameplay doesn’t automatically make them good role models.

I don’t understand this constant fear of exposure to pro DMs and players. No one thinks that after watching a pro ball game they’ll be able to replicate it. But they have fun trying to up their own game.

Personally, I don’t fear players being exposed to these games. I do, however, think it’s good advice to keep in mind that what makes for good viewing/listening doesn’t always make for good gameplay, and vice versa. I don’t think my games would make for good actual plays at all; not because they aren’t good games, but because what’s best about them can’t be consumed passively. 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.

 

[Charlaquin]

I suppose it could , in theory, work. For the right group.

But in 35 years of gaming I have, never, not once seen it work well in D&D.

Even in a D&D game where everyone was a mature adult and we agreed beforehand that PvP was fine and everyone was playing an evil character. Though the reason for that one not working was different. Everyone was so intent on doing their own thing that the DM had to split his attention like 6 different ways - most of the time most of the players were bored silly and it was just not a fun experience.

So can it be done? I'm sure it can, and I've seen it work in other games (Paranoia being a prime example). But I haven't seen it done satisfactorily in D&D.

I think it’s exceedingly difficult to make work in the modern style of play, where the players each portray a member of a consistent cast of characters around whom the events of the campaign revolve. It’s much easier to make work in the old-school open-table style where the players each have a large stable of characters and the gameplay is almost entirely location-based.

 

[Charlaquin]

It's something that requires moderation by the GM with established ground rules.

However, I see the opposite with number 8: If you're players are talking, don't interrupt them. They are playing the game.

Troof!

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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 with all of them.

Thoughts?

I think every one of those things (reworded with less loaded terms) is good for some folks games.

I don’t enjoy D&D that is too…narratively casual? Too focused on game over story, maybe. I don’t give a damn what the rules say if they come into conflict with the story, and neither do my players.

I definitely am more like Mulligan than Mercer, in general style, but yeah sometimes introducing dramatic irony via a cinematic “cutscene” that the PCs aren’t privy to is fun. Sometimes high expectations bring out better roleplaying and greater engagement with the game and other player’s characters. Sometimes an NPC you know is most likely going to die gets the players really amped about some aspect of the story/setting/conflict and it leads to very satisfying gaming sessions. Etc.

Experiment. Screw up. Burn the rules (not literally they’ve very useful as advice) and challenge yourself. DMing is a skill. Roleplaying is a skill. Engaging meaningfully with the “crunch”, the levers and switches and buttons of the game engine, is a skill.

The game is both more fun and more satisfying the more you develop those skills, and every single thing listed in the OP can help you do that, if deployed with care and intention.

 

[Smackpixi]

Say no

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think it’s exceedingly difficult to make work in the modern style of play, where the players each portray a member of a consistent cast of characters around whom the events of the campaign revolve. It’s much easier to make work in the old-school open-table style where the players each have a large stable of characters and the gameplay is almost entirely location-based.

Just to share a related anecdote, some of the best moments I’ve experienced as a player have been born of pvp.

In D&D 4e, I was playing a Good Halfling Hexblade of the White Well, who was also a professional thief and spy, and a reformed assassin. He saw the Lady as a path toward some kind of redemption.

So, we are looking into some Sahuagin attacks on the southern cost of the Sea of Fallen Stars, near a small Druidic village my friend made up for the adventure. We ambush some Sahuagin and keep one alive to question. It gives us some intel, and the damn Warlock goes to cut its throat, so I declare that I’m going to interpose my blade to stop him. He’s shocked, and a very intense character driven scene unfolds, followed by a very dumb scenario where the warlock decides to duel the Sahuagin in single combat, with the loser becoming the other’s servant for a year. And then proceeds to lose the duel. The Warlock, being a stickler for deals, doesn’t balk at sticking to the stakes, so he is a manservant now.

Anyway we leverage sparing that Sahuagin’s life as a foot in the door, and end up resolving the situation with very little bloodshed, earning us a decent reward from both parties, and the Druids give us potted saplings that can magically grow into anything of a size smaller than like gargantuan or something, like a small ship or a house.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

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

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

No, it’s not. Usually if it happens I’ll let that player control an NPC, familiar, companion, etc.

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

I don’t think this is well communicated, if that is what he means.

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.

Not at all. “Bell’s Gambit”, as it were, doesn’t rob anyone of agency. I’m not sure what even leads to the idea that it does?

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.

Eh, it depends. Liam and Marisha had a couple scenes where I was a little tired of listening to them drama at eachother again. OTOH, there are many half hour long scenes that only involve one or two characters that my table has loved, because we are all big fans of each other’s characters and get that not all story beats can be shoehorned into group scenes, and don’t ever want to try to hurry those scenes up just because they don’t involve my character.