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

[Mort]

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?

 

[BookTenTiger]

I think all these things make for great streaming!

But I agree many of them are features I don't enjoy in play. More and more as a DM I'm trying to put more control of the story and content in the hands of my players.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

very good advice... is there one for players shouldn't play like they are on a stream too?

I mean I am sure I would have fun streaming one of my games... I could even somewhat edit my 3 hour session into a 45 min fun vid to watch... but most of what we do isn't really worth spectating.

BTW that 3 hour session is already chopping 30-45 mins off for "hey how was your week" and "oh I saw this thread on enworld I wanted to talk about"

 

[Jer]

I had this discussion with my kid recently - it's all about audience. They're a huge fan of The Adventure Zone and we were talking about how the McElroys' games aren't like the games I run or the games my kid runs. But it's because the audiences for these games are completely different. The McElroys are performing to a wide audience, the players are all acting towards that audience, and the game that they're running has to have a narrative throughline to it to be a satisfying podcast and keep listeners. And the game itself is often more of a tool for guided improvisation than it is a game. The DM and the players truly are there to entertain a large audience, and so there are a lot of things that make sense in that environment - like having the DM talk as multiple NPCs in different voices, or letting one PC monologue for a substantial length of time, or many of the other things on that list above - because those things are entertaining to listen to when professional entertainers are doing them.

In contrast when you're running a game for friends the audience is the folks at the table and that's it. There's no concern about how it's going to play for an audience and you're not trying to keep subscribers enthralled by your performances. The narrative only really needs to make as much sense to the extent that the folks at the table care that it makes sense (which may be a lot, or may be not at all, or may be anywhere in between). And the DM and players probably aren't professional entertainers, so listening to folks go on for long monologues isn't going to be nearly as much entertaining as it is when you're a passive consumer of entertainment.

In short, Actual Plays are great for evangelizing the game and teaching some of the basics to players who don't have a group to teach them, but aren't so great for showing what a "typical" game is going to be like or even what it should be like.

 

[DND_Reborn]

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.

Wait a minute... what "pros" do these things???

Sorry, but most of those a most definite no-nos in my book, personally, the only exceptions being possibly 4 and 5.

#4 because I know some fights are going to be long, drawn-out, slug-fests of wave after wave of enemies. They are rare, of course, because they can be rather intense, but they happen.

#5 because (if this is what this means) often elements of the story drive the game, but sometimes the outcome of the game drives the story as well.

 

[Jer]

Wait a minute... what "pros" do these things???

The ones who are doing Actual Play podcasts and YouTube shows? They're pros in the sense that they're getting paid to DM.

All of them except maybe the "three hour long fight" one seem to be pretty standard for Actual Plays that I've listened to or watched. But that's because what makes for a fun listening experience isn't the same thing as what makes for a good gameplay experience. Good APs tend to be more like improvised radio plays that use the game as a structure for improvising off of, which is not the same thing as what makes a good game IME.

(Who is running three hour combats in an AP by the way? That sounds like it would be immensely boring to listen to or watch.)

 

[Mort]

Wait a minute... what "pros" do these things???

Sorry, but most of those a most definite no-nos in my book, personally, the only exceptions being possibly 4 and 5.

#4 because I know some fights are going to be long, drawn-out, slug-fests of wave after wave of enemies. They are rare, of course, because they can be rather intense, but they happen.

#5 because (if this is what this means) often elements of the story drive the game, but sometimes the outcome of the game drives the story as well.

He's mostly reacting to Critical Role and Dimension20.

 

[Composer99]

I feel like most of these could be condensed into a few points

• Don't let a single pillar of gameplay (and in particular social interaction) dominate the game
• Remember that you are running a game for your players to play, not creating a compelling narrative for an audience to watch

... actually, I would boil it own to those two. Everything else is kind of an example.

 

[iserith]

Agree with all of the points you listed. I'm good with 3+ hour long combats though. They aren't common in my experience, but at my table such a situation is really be something to behold. It wouldn't be sitting around waiting 30 minutes for your turn because the pace is sluggish - it is fast-paced, but complex and changing with lots of goals and sub-goals with a lot of interaction and different challenges. Really more like multiple encounters occurring simultaneously or back-to-back.

 

[Mort]

Agree with all of the points you listed. I'm good with 3+ hour long combats though. They aren't common in my experience, but at my table such a situation is really be something to behold. It wouldn't be sitting around waiting 30 minutes for your turn because the pace is sluggish - it is fast-paced, but complex and changing with lots of goals and sub-goals with a lot of interaction and different challenges. Really more like multiple encounters occurring simultaneously or back-to-back.

His point is more: don't STRIVE for 3 hour long combats. If they happen, they happen (and they sometimes happen) but don't plan for it just for the sake of having a "big long fight."