DMs: what have you learned from PLAYING that has made you a better DM?

[balard]

The most important thing I learned is the motto of the 4E. Say YES!

I barely played in my whole lifetime. When I got the opportunity(and the time) to do so, I was luck my DM was a very good DM. The story was interesting, the world rich, the NPCs very entertaining. But, he could not say Yes. Every time i tried to take the reins of MY character development, I received a big fat no. And I did not ask for nothing absurd. I DM, I hate power gamers. I asked for some few new options. Cool options. NO. I asked for a certain character development. NO. And this last one was awful, since the NO came IN GAME. Even if I told him clearly for what direction I was going.

So when my players ask me something, I ask then why they want it, and if I don't approve I try to give as many options as I can to fit their idea. Every concept I fit in the campaign for their characters I ask first if they are okay. I even tell then off game about the path they are going with their decisions("if you go with this NPC, you get hid of the magic sword. With the other will will try to master it's will"). It's important to listen to then, and figure out what is fun, cool and entertaining. And leave the channel open.

 

[fanboy2000]

It's just a game.

1. Keep the group size medium. Two small and and the game breaks, two big and the players break.
2. Rule in favor of the player in corner cases.
3. If you don't like a class or think it's too powerful, don't allow it. Because if you allow it and then consistantly rule against it, it's no fun.
4. Don't be stingy with powerful items and tresure. (Note: this doesn't excuse not doing research on items left as tresure in the game.)
5. If your players are bored or feel like they can't do anything, they will suddenly shout "I stab the floating hand." And totaly jack everything up.
6. You're players are not out to get you. They may be out to fustrate you, but they are not out to get you.
7. Generaly speaking, players just want to do cool stuff and have fun. It's not personal, realy.

Your millage may vary.

 

[Cadfan]

Or, you need to have a group of players that are fun and entertaining. With my last two groups, it has not been a problem. If a player is taken out of the fight, they are too busy rooting for the other PCs and enjoying what is going on at the table, but then the other players make the game interesting.

I'm fairly convinced that, when playing with a group of people who have so much fun together that they enjoy a combat even when their characters get knocked out of the battle due to one-hit-takedown attacks, that group will have even more fun during combat if their characters are not knocked out of the battle due to one-hit-takedown attacks.

 

[Jack7]

At some time during any given campaign or adventure give all of your players the opportunity to use their best capabilities. Also at some point give them an opportunity to use little known or obscure abilities and capabilities.

Encourage innovation on the part of your players and allow them to solve their own problems creatively.

Give them new and original challenges and monsters and obstacles. Don't just recycle the same things over and over.

Let the player handle his character, it isn't your job to do that. Allow him, within reason, to innovate, invent, experiment, and manipulate his "virtual world" in the same way you can your "real world." Preprogrammed powers and capabilities are a start, like training for real capabilities is for us, but it shouldn't be the limit of what a player or character can do. Let players develop "original characters" fit to their own personal interests.

Give players time to consider their best course of action unless they are in the middle of a pressing situation.

Give out treasure which is far more interesting and thoughtful than +3 whatever.

Use monsters that are clever and cunning.

Let players actually build real characters instead of just character builds.

Don't get bogged down in so many details that play becomes a rules/bookwork/programming exercise rather than a game.

Clever games and well developed campaigns and settings will have a lot to explore. One trick ponies bore many players easily. Vary hack and slash with role play, interesting stories and plots, unusual challenges, bizarre encounters, moral dilemmas, and so forth and so on. There is a time and season for everything but if it is summer all year long then the grass withers and dies and eventually all you've got left is sand and desert.

Give players and their characters an opportunity to actually effect the world, make a real name and reputation for themselves, and to change events. Let your world and setting change over time to reflect this.

Give them a valuable objective or set of objectives they can aspire towards.

Give them opportunities to be heroic and selfless and bigger than themselves.

Treat players like adults. Let them iron out their own problems. And trust your players to be as smart as you are.

Never discourage originality, even if it won't work in that particular case. Let them find that out by experimentation, not by fiat.

 

[SteveC]

Great thread!

For me, I've learned two big things, one positive, and one negative from recent games.

To start positive, a recent Con GM I played with reinforced how important it is to read your players and go where they want you to go. We were playing in a city based game, and our small group (there were only three of us and he expected a group of 10!) received a job to investigate the murder of a girlfriend of one of the local military commanders. The GM was expecting us to go off and treat it like a dungeon-bash, but we had chosen to take characters who were mostly social and investigative (it seemed to make sense given the initial scenario he gave us).

What followed was one of the best role playing investigations I've ever played in: we had a list of contacts, and we went and talked with them, did some work with the seedier elements of town, and essentially bypassed about 90% of his planned scenario. We still got to the badguys in the end, but we had gone almost 100% roleplay based to get there, rather than using the setpiece encounters he had prepared.

That taught me (gave me a great example of, really) giving the group what they want. The goal (finding the cultists, figuring out the noble who was involved, and bringing them to justice) were all the GMs outline, but how we got there was entirely up to us.

We talked after the session was over, and he had a series of setpiece encounters planned, but he designed a basic connections diagram with this idea in place, so he had some basic information on who had the dirt on who...and then he just ran with it. The trick was establishing interesting "on the spot" NPCs, which he did wonderfully. So the tip in the end was, a little bit of prep, and work on your improv skills!

In the negative side, I've recently played in a very good game where the GM is a stickler for the realistic details of an investigation and unraveling a plot. He's a good and experienced GM, but sometimes we just take too long to get to the interesting stuff he has for us, because he puts a realistic level of detail between us and the eventual fun. There are lots of red herrings and blind alleys to run down, and when we get to the results their fantastic, but to get there!

I am guilty of this myself, as I sometimes will draw something out because I think it's realistic to do so. What I've learned is that realism is great, but if you stall too long, you'll tire and bore your players so that they're not paying attention when important events come up.

To give another quick example: one of the best GMs I've ever played with likes to include the occasional sea voyage for us. His mistake is to actually play out every day of the trip. Now the thing is, there's stuff happening with the NPCs and such all the time, so it's interesting for those of us who are really into immersive play, but part of our group dreads the multiple sessions where we'll be going from point A to point B.

So my second lesson was to not keep the good stuff hidden for too long. You might have a fantastic and dramatic adventure planned for us, but if you spend too many sessions getting there, you'll lose the group first.

Just a couple of (long) thoughts...

--Steve

 

[Ourph]

I am guilty of this myself, as I sometimes will draw something out because I think it's realistic to do so. What I've learned is that realism is great, but if you stall too long, you'll tire and bore your players so that they're not paying attention when important events come up.

>snip<

So my second lesson was to not keep the good stuff hidden for too long. You might have a fantastic and dramatic adventure planned for us, but if you spend too many sessions getting there, you'll lose the group first.

Great point. XP for you!

 

[Dedekind]

This sounds kinda like a bad-DM recovery group.

"My handle is Dedekind and I was once a bad DM..."

I echo the "Yes, and..." comments. The side benefit for me is I find things more interesting to DM when I get to make it up on the fly.

I would like to add that, as a player, I hate gotcha! abilities. I don't recall which DMG I saw it in, but it said to avoid monsters or situations where you can't make predictions about what will happen. When I read it I realized every non-fun moment I have had as a player came from not being able to understand what the monsters/environment is going to do to me. As a DM, then, I try to give players a better idea about what is going on around them.

 

[Remathilis]

I'll be simple.

A DM should work with his players to make sure they have the potential to succeed.

BUT

A DM should never guarantee success.

Its the DMs job to give the players the tools to succeed (be it appropriate gear, hints, etc) but he should never make things easy for the PC.

Make things too hard, you frustrate to no end. Too easy and its boring. Hard but possible is the sweet spot.

 

[MadLordOfMilk]

Most of my experience is with DMing. When I've played, there are a few things I've learned (note: might be some 4e focus here):

• Skill challenges are all about how you run them. I've always thought mine were pretty interesting at the table. When I ran the one on Worldwide D&D Game Day, the DM just had everyone go around the table and arbitrarily pick something to get a success or fail... that was just lame.
• It's awesome when monsters trigger stuff. Some DMs are too afraid of triggering OAs or other effects you land on them. Let them happen! So what if your monsters die faster, that's what the players are going for! Your goal isn't to make the least-fun but most effective move happen.
• The DM should set out to make the game fun. Period.
• Pacing. You have to sit there as a player to really understand what can screw up the pace of a game, what feels comfortable, etc.
• Completely stomping an encounter (even if it was supposed to be a challenge, but wasn't) is fun! DMing my normal reflex is to modify it to be tougher, but I realized "eh, why not let them just wreck it in no time flat?". Assuming it's not a terribly important battle (like the villain you've been chasing for 12 sessions straight or something), it's a nice break from your normal combat routine.
• I understand player frustrations a bit better when I've been on their side of the screen. Related to pacing, I also understand why people will have times when it's their turn and their response is "uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh OH ok, I'm gonna attack using this spell, so that's this vs ac... ok, does an 18 hit? ok, so that's... 1+4+3... ok 8 damage". They were completely zoned out. Note: When they zone out because other people are taking forever like that, it ends up in a sort of vicious cycle.
• When people do the above, it'd be real nice if they just said "delay" and prepared their turn. Sitting around waiting as a player for stuff like that can suck. I don't mind it as much as DM because there's plenty to think about.
• Having your idea completely shut down is a bit irritating.
• Balance! As in, balance between RPing and combat. Very important.
• Skills matter. Even if it seems obscure, have uses for all the skills your players have on their sheet. Having a character's few trained skills not come up in practical applications makes for a lame roleplaying session. It's incredibly frustrating to look at your character sheet and go "Well, my skills blow. Guess I'll just zone out until this diplomatic excursion is over with."

 

[aboyd]

So I would like to know: what have YOU learned from playing that has helped you to be a better DM?

As a player, I hate DMs who think that their job is to "put a stop to players who are too good." I don't mean players who are munchkins or power-gamers. I mean, your character picks a feat chain that isn't seen often, and the DM kills it merely for being unusual and successful.

These are DMs who see your spiked-chain character with Improved Trip, and the DM thinks, "Fine, then every monster will be 4-legged or better, hyper-stable, and never trippable."

These are the DMs who hear that you plan to make a spiked moat around your camp, and decide that all random encounters will leap into camp by swinging from tree-to-tree.

These are the DMs who get surprised by your half-elf bard who has such a high score in diplomacy that he/she can turn hostile combatants neutral with a rushed diplomacy check, and so the DM refuses to play along. Yet spellcasters are still allowed to cast Charm spells.

If you spend a bunch of skill points or invest in feats, you deserve some benefit. These are the specialties of your character. Feats are incredibly rare (unless you're a Fighter), so having even one feat be undermined by a DM is a big waste, and big-time annoying.

I wouldn't ask for guarantees or 100% effectiveness. However, as a DM, if my player invests in something, I let that something do what it is supposed to do.