D&D 5E Constructive Criticism

[Neonchameleon]

My DM asks for constructive criticism.

They insist on honest feedback.

They get offended when I tell them all the reasons why they suck.

And there's the problem. "All the reasons why they suck". If the DM actually sucked then why would you want to play with them as DM? Also "you suck" isn't constructive, and everyone has to start somewhere.

I've yet to play with a DM that didn't do something I liked and wanted to see more of. Talk about that in your feedback. And I've yet to play with a DM that didn't have something that could be improved. So start there. Give two pieces of advice per session of which one should be something they did well (or just better than last time). That's small enough for them to process and one should make them feel good.

 

[Bedrockgames]

There’s a wide, wide gulf between “constructive criticism” and “telling them all the reasons they suck.”

To be effective, make specific suggestions that your DM can implement to improve the game.

This is pretty key. It is about knowing how to deliver constructive criticism. If people are looking to improve in anything, you need to show them what their strengths are and what their weaknesses are. It is like anything else, you also have to read the person. Just think to when a coach, boss, etc has been effective or ineffective in helping you improve.

 

[MGibster]

They get offended when I tell them all the reasons why they suck.

There's not really any nice way to tell someone they suck. I do ask for feedback from my players from time-to-time, but I try to phrase my questions in such a way that they don't have to worry about stepping on my toes with their replies.

 

[bloodtide]

It is just as hard to take any constructive criticism as it is to give it in the first place. Most people jump right to "just complain". And it's not very constrictive to say "everything the GM does is wrong, and all the players are prefect", and that is all too often said.

And, too many people people today take any criticism as a deep personal attack, so if you say even the slightest thing they will react baddy....at best.

And....it's hard to criticize a GM, when you nitpick.....and most players over nitpick. Game session six was a little slow with no action. If the game has a deep story, plot and role playing this will happen from time to time.

BUT it's no help for a player to just fly off the handle and complain "how boring the game is and how the game needs more combat!", when they are only talking about one game session.

And the 800 pound owlbear is....most GM don't Railroad. Or don't do something else, but for just one example I will stick with Railroading. And this is a perfect example of why it's good. Quite often a player will complain about something in the game. But in nearly all cases it was something Player Lead...while the GM just sat back and watched.

Take even something simple: The Pcs needed to talk to the town mayor before heading the the Caves of Doom. This SHOULD have taken less then five minutes. But because all the players were unfocused, goofing off, not paying attention, or otherwise just NOT following the plot......it took FOUR HOURS. So it's natural that one of the players, though they were at fault too, complains about the four hours of wasted time. And at any time the GM could have gotten the game back on track....but because they love the sandbox so much, they just sit back and let the players do whatever.....for four hours.

But this is only one example. The point is most things in the game are everyone's fault most of the time.

 

[Bedrockgames]

My DM asks for constructive criticism.

They insist on honest feedback.

They get offended when I tell them all the reasons why they suck.

Assuming the above is only slightly hyperbolic, how do you thread the needle when giving feedback to you GM? What does "healthy constructive criticism" look like?

(Comic for illustrative purposes.)

I would echo what others have said here but say this is going to depend on how hyperbolic you are being. I have seen players asked for constructive feedback who kind of end up going on a rant, and you can see the moment in the GM's eyers when they disengage from the conversation. But I have seen and been part of plenty of constructive discussions with a GM where they are finding the feedback helpful and useful. Making it about them being a problem (and not saying you are doing this, but the 'reasons why they suck' part seems to suggest it) rather than about showing them what is and what isn't working with this particular group, will lead to issues. Yes they asked for constructive feedback, but they probably aren't asking for harsh judgement or anything that feels like an insult. Also they could just be fishing for compliments. That is why you need to try to read the person and get a sense of what they are really asking (i.e. if they are just asking for feedback because they are worried one of their encounters was a little unbalanced, but you proceed to lay out all of their failings as a GM, they might get defensive). Also even if they don't get upset, with constructive feedback you can also affect a person's confidence and get inside their head unintentionally. So I think it is similar to how you might help someone in any other extracurricular, where you don't want to kill enthusiasm or make them feel like they are never going to be any good but you do want to provide guidance that will legitimately help them get to another level and enrich their enjoyment (and yours if you are successful).

Another approach that can be very handy in my experience is simply to rotate the GM position. So it isn't always one guy running games all the time. That way you all get exposure to different GM styles, you all experience what it is like being on the other side of the screen, etc. I have found in groups that rotate the need for constructive feedback is a lot less because people tend to pick up tools and techniques from one another and also start to see how issues that don't seem like a problem from behind the GM screen can be an issue for players (and vice versa)

 

[Xamnam]

The simplest, most broadly applicable answer is: Don't inform them what you're think they're doing wrong, tell them the areas where you are struggling, or not having fun. Especially given that people are generally good at knowing what they don't like, but not necessarily what will fix that.

"You don't know how to balance encounters." is directed at the person, and sets out something as fact that can be potentially rebutted.

"I haven't felt challenged by most combats." is a personal feeling, and can't really be argued as with. Done right, you can even put more objective problems in this framing, like "I feel like I can't rely on my knowledge of the rules as written to make informed choices."

Obviously, there's a big difference between requested and unprompted feedback, but hopefully if they're asking, it's because they want you to be having the best time at the table possible.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Use I statements! And it helps to be specific. And to offer concrete solutions? It helps to p know what you want out of the game too.

 

[MarkB]

The tricky bit about constructive criticism is that it's making suggestions for more effective ways to do things. And it can be hard, when hearing that, to differentiate it from telling someone how you could DM the game so much better than them.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Wait, I got it!

Convince your DM to record and upload their sessions! Then we'll do the criticism for you!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

My DM asks for constructive criticism.

They insist on honest feedback.

They get offended when I tell them all the reasons why they suck.

Assuming the above is only slightly hyperbolic, how do you thread the needle when giving feedback to you GM? What does "healthy constructive criticism" look like?

(Comic for illustrative purposes.)

Speaking as someone who primarily GMs at present, getting real feedback is hard. Most times, my players simply say they had a good time.

However, from the one shining example of really good feedback, I can draw a few conclusions. In this case, I was using the very excellent Gardens of Ynn supplement, which has you randomly roll to determine what locations are where and such. The players had fun and it was a really solid adventure.

However, one player raised a very valid criticism. Thing is, he realized that locations were only rolled after the players chose to go some direction. Meaning that, properly speaking, it really didn't matter what direction they chose; the map would simply end up being whatever it ended up being, they were just along for the ride. He was fine with that in context and didn't want to disrupt the process to critique it, but he was quite right. It didn't really matter what choices they made moving from one location to another.

The critical parts making this feedback really good were:

• It was specific. Not squishy, ill-defined comments about how things felt or whatever. It was about something identifiable.
• It spelled out why this was a problem (here, lack of agency.) It wasn't just "well I didn't like it."
• While no specific fix was suggested, a goal to shoot for was (here, making exploration choices matter, not just choices within each location.)
• Player was patient and non-judgmental. He knew I was just adapting someone else's work and wasn't upset by the flaw. Just noting it didn't sit well with him.
• Any changes to this format would be relatively easy to implement. This wouldn't require major retcons or system alterations. Just a different approach.

Between those things, this was good feedback. I knew what I needed to accomplish, why, and had a rough idea of where to start. I have made sure to keep these things in mind for future adventure scenes, and I'm pretty sure it has improved the group experience.

As for how I solicit feedback, I do so regularly, both individually and collectively, and get...mixed results. That is, as stated, I usually get just "good session" or "yeah that was a lot of fun" or the like. Which, I mean, I don't want to complain too much, because that means what I did couldn't have been that bad! But I know it's not as good as I could be doing. And it's hard to improve when you don't know what you aren't doing right.