D&D 5E DM Best Traits

[Sacrosanct]

1) [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION], ironically the first to respond to your thread, has more XP than you. Did he not mention it because he is gracious or just oblivious? Inquiring minds want to know.

2) I don't believe you're kidding. (Just kidding. )

He has more laughs (by a huge margin. Must be that people like to laugh at his anguish over paladins and gnomes ) . But I have more XP. In fact, I'm almost ready to overtake Morrus, but there is no way I'd ever catch up to Gary any time soon.

3) *musing to self* So now that he has made an issue of it, do I give [MENTION=15700]Sacrosanct[/MENTION] XP because being nearby I may bask in his reflected glory, or do I withhold, hoping to someday catch up and be King of the Neighborhood? Choices, choices...

You're in Portland. That makes you awesome by default, regardless of any other awesomeness you may be around

 

[Sacrosanct]

Back on topic, I'm a bit surprised no one chose acting. I know being only able to choose one probably has a bit to do with it, but it hasn't been mentioned that much in comments either. Acting is what gives the the NPCs and monsters character, and we've seen how good acting can make a great session (like some of Matt Mercer's sessions). I suppose it's just one of those really nice things to have, but since most of us suck at it, it's not a must have lol.

 

[Mort]

Back on topic, I'm a bit surprised no one chose acting. I know being only able to choose one probably has a bit to do with it, but it hasn't been mentioned that much in comments either. Acting is what gives the the NPCs and monsters character, and we've seen how good acting can make a great session (like some of Matt Mercer's sessions). I suppose it's just one of those really nice things to have, but since most of us suck at it, it's not a must have lol.

Yeah, I think that's it - Acting is nice and all but it's far from top priority for most.

And as you said, great acting can really make a session shine (Mercer really is good at that).

But conversely, bad acting can also take away from the session - so most people leave the acting out.

 

[Mort]

Honestly if you asked my personal opinion, I'd say "rule strictness" is most important for me. Because DMs house-ruling or not knowing the rules properly is what makes me not want to be a player and is the core reason why I'm a DM and not a player. But I don't think this is globally the most important trait.

This is an odd one for me. I want the DM to know the rules - inside and out if possible. but I don't want to the DM to be paralyzed by them.

Too many DMs I've seen are so afraid of making the "wrong" ruling or opening some kind of can of worms allowing players to suddenly walk all over the rules that their default answer to anything non-standard (or even many standard things) is either a flat "no" or (frankly even worse) to get into a prolonged discussion (with rulebooks out, browsing the web etc.) on why the action should/should not be allowed.

The flat (often knee-jerk) "no" is irritating because it stifles player creativity and discourages trying stuff in the future. Note I'm not talking about on its face absurd stuff. i'm talking about a player wanting to swing on a chandelier and the DM saying "no you'll auto-fail" because the player isn't trained in acrobatics.

The "Stop everything for prolonged discussion":The DM doesn't want to rule "incorrectly" so engages in a session stopping discussion on the issue. Nothing wrong with a quick rules check or quick back and forth, but anything more is terrible. As an example: Wagons catch on fire and the PCs want to put the fire out. The PC wizard has a spell that digs a hole in dirt or sand (a lot of which is present, and the spell mentions the dirt is thrown about) and wants to use that to douse the fire. The DM instead of a quick ruling or a "no" goes the "convince me" route and takes an hour of actual time between argument, rules look up, etc. That's a HUGE amount of time for a 4 hour session!

I suppose this is actually a cross of rules knowledge and adaptability- the ideal is for a DM that knows the rules, applies them in a fair manner but also is adaptable enough to roll with the large amount of situations players tend to come up with.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

I usually tell my players I asked other DMs (after I created a thread on ENWorld) and tell them I will rule "X" temporarily until I got some replies.

 

[Shiroiken]

Back on topic, I'm a bit surprised no one chose acting. I know being only able to choose one probably has a bit to do with it, but it hasn't been mentioned that much in comments either. Acting is what gives the the NPCs and monsters character, and we've seen how good acting can make a great session (like some of Matt Mercer's sessions). I suppose it's just one of those really nice things to have, but since most of us suck at it, it's not a must have lol.

Acting is like Letting the Players Run the Story, Being a Fair Referee, Player Incorporation, and Prone to Bribes: useful for certain groups, but problematic for others. For example, the "kick in the door" style game has no use for acting, and might irritate some players who just want to get on with the killing.

In addition, Communication and Storytelling are similar to Acting, but much more integral to the game. Even with 3 votes, I feel that Acting would still have the fewest votes because of this.

 

[Sacrosanct]

In addition, Communication and Storytelling are similar to Acting, but much more integral to the game. Even with 3 votes, I feel that Acting would still have the fewest votes because of this.

I suspect you're right. So far there are some good takeaways here though. I've heard new players say they are hesitant to be a DM because they aren't rules experts, or don't have the best organization skills. What this poll says, is that that's not all that important. Better to have good communication skills, be fair, don't be rigid in your plans, and turn the campaign into an interesting story as you play it. None of those require any system mastery at all. Which is encouraging to new DMs I think.

 

[Harzel]

He has more laughs (by a huge margin. Must be that people like to laugh at his anguish over paladins and gnomes ) . But I have more XP. In fact, I'm almost ready to overtake Morrus, but there is no way I'd ever catch up to Gary any time soon.

Oh, interesting, I didn't know they were tracked separately. Is there a way to see one's own separate counts if one has not made The List? The only thing I can find is my combined total.

You're in Portland. That makes you awesome by default, regardless of any other awesomeness you may be around

But of course!