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

[Jeff Wilder]

As a player, I disengage when there's little or no description of the game world as seen through the eyes of the PCs. Both of my DMs have a weakness in this area. (Lately I've been more assertive about it. DM: "Make a Reflex save." Me: "Okay, but what do we see? What's happening that we're saving against?")

I've been trying for many sessions now to be more descriptive, including as many senses as I can. Not to the point of novelization, but just so that the players can get a somewhat more visceral idea of what's happening around their PCs. It is difficult to keep in mind, especially in combat situations.

 

[Toben the Many]

Going all the way back to the OP - Ydars - what made you learn lessons as a player this time around as opposed to all of the other times? Just curious.

For myself, I've learned the most about DM from being a player.

Many people have said this and even the OP, but I'll reiterate it for emphasis - nerfing character abilities sucks. Telling players, "Well, that Feat doesn't work like that." Or, "that spell doesn't work like that" is pretty crappy.

I especially dislike the nerfing of abilities for the sake of plot. For example, let's say we are investigating something. My survival skill is +17 and I try to Track where the killer's gone off to. Then, the DM tells me, no matter how well I roll that the tracks lead off in X direction, but then disappear.

What? So my Tracking ability told me...nothing? Let least give me a bone. Tell me how tall the killer was, whether it was a man or woman, perhaps if they were human, elf, or dwarf. But so many times, I've seen DMs completely nerf "plot breaking" abilities for the sake of their story.

When I run a game, if you've hit a high DC, I will try to at least give you something. Some kind of information.

Another thing that is related to this is loosey-goosey dice rolling. I personally hate that. When a DM tells you to make a roll. And you do so. If you happen to roll "high" on the d20, you succeed. If you happen to roll "low" on the d20, you fail - even if your skill makes a low roll high.

For example, if I try to track and roll a 6 on the d20 roll, but have +21 to my roll, it's still a decent roll. But I know so many DMs who might tell me - "Yeah, so you fail." "But I have a +21 to track stuff. That gives me a 27." "Yeah, you barely missed it."

The reason I hate this sort of thing is that when a DM does this, it makes me feel like I put all of those points and character development into my skill for nothing.

So, to combat this in my own games, I try to give my players the DC before they roll. This way, they know that know I'm not BS'ing them and it keeps me honest.

But the #1 thing that being a player cured me of is "pure whim storytelling". I know that many people love this. And, in fact, I used to be that kind of GM. However, when I'm sitting across the table from a GM who's making it up all on the fly, I can tell. And it seriously hurts my enjoyment of the game. Suddenly, I can see all the strings on the puppets. I can see all of the camera crews and special effects guys. Also, GMs who do it all 100% on the fly tend to be pretty loosey-goosey with their dice rolls. Often times, if what you're attempting sounds cool to the GM, he'll let you do it. If it doesn't sound cool to him, then he won't let you do it.

 

[Ydars]

Hi Toben!

The answer to your question is complex:

First, I played for a LONG time without DMing and had to adapt to just getting my jollies from playing. I also played across a much wider range of levels than I ever have before 1-13: I don't think I have had a character gain more than 3-4 levels before. This seemed to change my playstyle a little.

I am usually a hard-core roleplayer, who enjoys solving problems through the use of clever use of my wits as well as in-character interactions. So for me, dice are often the means of last resort to solve a problem, which I suspect is quite "old skool".

In this last campaign, I played 3 different characters as well, because I managed to get the first two killed. I discovered that it was REALLY satisfying exploring the different "landscapes" of the various feats and spells available to different classes and this taught me to love mechanics far more and also had me playing different types of characters than I had ever played in the past. So for some of the time I was quite a "hack n slash" merchant, which I have only ever played in one-shot games in the past.

But the major thing was what I said in my original post: always before I was a DM playing. This time I became a player and thought and acted like one the whole time. I was not thinking of ideas for my next campaign or waiting to take over, or getting bored. I think, after my second character that I became a GOOD player as well: one a DM can rely on to pull the party out of trouble if it looks like going bad but who won't spoil someone else's fun just because my character was often the most well built.

So I really now understand players from their perspective and that is why I learned something.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

But the #1 thing that being a player cured me of is "pure whim storytelling". I know that many people love this. And, in fact, I used to be that kind of GM. However, when I'm sitting across the table from a GM who's making it up all on the fly, I can tell. And it seriously hurts my enjoyment of the game. Suddenly, I can see all the strings on the puppets. I can see all of the camera crews and special effects guys. Also, GMs who do it all 100% on the fly tend to be pretty loosey-goosey with their dice rolls. Often times, if what you're attempting sounds cool to the GM, he'll let you do it. If it doesn't sound cool to him, then he won't let you do it.

Huh, that kinda the opposite from me: one thing I've learned from playing is to not plan. Okay, you can have some ideas of what you want to do. But if you plan something'll happen to make your plan to wonky to use.

 

[CharlesRyan]

Great thread! I've been GMing for 30 years, and I still love to learn (and sometimes relearn) ways to improve.

Here are a couple of things I've learned in recent years:

Keith ran really, really exciting encounters in his Red Hand of Doom campaign. (This was 3.5, so while the tactical maps were somewhat diverse, there wasn't the emphasis on terrain or large numbers of foes you see in 4E.) It took me a while to figure out why, but then I realized: his bad guys always had a plan to win. They were never there as speed bumps or XP pellets or just the next routine fight. They attacked and fought not just with intelligence, but with a strategy and a goal. It was as though they actually expected they could win--and sometimes they almost did!

Chris ran a yearlong Vampire: Dark Ages campaign that came together with such a profound and fitting finale that he seemed like a master novelist. For ages I wondered how he could possibly have the foresight to lay down all those relevant details in the first months of the campaign, so that they all came together in the climax. I eventually realized that his plan was not that detailed--he filled the early campaign with details and factions and well-crafted NPCs and locations. When the end approached, he had a broad toolbox of options to weave in and make it seem like it was all headed that way from the beginning.

The one has had a profound effect on my campaign design, the other a profound effect on how I make sure I show my players a good time every session.

 

[Toben the Many]

Huh, that kinda the opposite from me: one thing I've learned from playing is to not plan. Okay, you can have some ideas of what you want to do. But if you plan something'll happen to make your plan to wonky to use.

We probably agree. I believe in a middle ground between planing and going-with-the-flow. I just don't like 110% off-the-cuff style DMing.

 

[underthumb]

But the #1 thing that being a player cured me of is "pure whim storytelling". I know that many people love this. And, in fact, I used to be that kind of GM. However, when I'm sitting across the table from a GM who's making it up all on the fly, I can tell. And it seriously hurts my enjoyment of the game. Suddenly, I can see all the strings on the puppets. I can see all of the camera crews and special effects guys. Also, GMs who do it all 100% on the fly tend to be pretty loosey-goosey with their dice rolls. Often times, if what you're attempting sounds cool to the GM, he'll let you do it. If it doesn't sound cool to him, then he won't let you do it.

I think your point is good one and I've noticed the same thing: "on the fly" adventures are often punitively arbitrary. I think there's a definite sentiment at EN World which is effectively anti-preparation (as preparation breeds outcome attachment), but I believe careful preparation to be almost always preferable to copious "on the fly" decision making.

Improvisation, like a spice, can help flavor an adventure, but it doesn't make for a good adventure by itself. Unless you have a very simple setup, there's just no way to maintain coherence in the face of the usual litany of PC questions and actions.

To expand on your point, this is also why I like rules-heavy RPG systems like GURPS: they allow for the neutral adjudication of a host of complex situations in a way that is context-independent. This helps keep both players and GMs honest, and reduces bickering about whether this or that skill modifier is fair or punitive.

 

[ki11erDM]

Shorter/faster and more interesting combat encounters with more role playing.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I like to let the players win. All the time. They like it too.

For example, when a player takes a tiefling character, and gets fire resistance as a racial feature, the DM might be tempted to avoid targeting that character with fire attacks. The wizard uses Ray of Frost on the tiefling instead of Scorching Burst. The fire resistance becomes worthless, and the player loses. If the DM hits him with a Scorching Burst, suddenly the player is winning in a small way. He is pleased with his choice of character, and feels good about reaping the advantages he has sown.

The fighter has an ability that only works when something shifts next to him. If I never make anything shift, because I know about the ability, then his ability is much less fun.

The party is looking for a secret mind flayer lair under the city. The DM had planned for them to go back into the sewers where the illithid's minions had attacked them and track them back to the lair. However, the party gets the charismatic rogue to ask around among the lowlife thugs at bars to find out if they know anything. Do they know anything?

I sometimes play a game called Donjon, in which a successful roll allows the player to narrate the outcome. The standard example is a "find secret doors" roll. If you're in a room, and you succeed at that roll, there is a secret door. It's up to the GM to figure out where the door leads to.

I use this strategy extensively. On a successful Streetwise check, they can dig up the information. I didn't know that the thugs knew anything about the mind flayer, but I can improvise on their roll to fill in the story. The player who chose Streetwise as a skill wins. When they get to the lair, they might try to find a back way in, to avoid the guards. On a successful Dungeoneering roll, they discover that there's a collapsed tunnel that they could dig out, granting them the chance for a surprise raid. I didn't put the tunnel there until they made the roll. The guy who took Dungeoneering wins.

I tend to give players narrative control without the players even realizing they had it. When they attempt something unexpected, I try to roll with it, by giving it a chance of success.

DMing advice columns always try to tell you to put in things for every character to do. If you have a bunch of combat monkeys, put in big, tough things for them to fight. If you have a sneaky group, let them sneak. But I can't always think of everything. So if someone wants to try to use their abilities to do something cool, I let them do it.

I also agree about "gotcha" abilities. It's no fun when you move next to a monster only to find out that doing so was a really, really bad idea. Does it have threatening reach? Does it have an aura? These things should be obvious. This is not to say that monsters shouldn't have surprising abilities. If you have an attack that makes a zone of flickering black energy, you don't need to say what will happen if you enter the zone. It's obvious that it will suck. But when the bugbear strangler grabs a PC, you should mention that he's holding him up like a human shield, so that the other players know what will happen if they try to hit him. Or what will happen if they don't attack the paladin that marked them.

Likewise, you should point out that a creature has resistance, but not necessarily what kind of resistance. And if a creature has a vulnerability, don't bother to mention it until it takes that kind of damage unless, of course, the PCs figure it out with a skill check.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Another thing that is related to this is loosey-goosey dice rolling. I personally hate that. When a DM tells you to make a roll. And you do so. If you happen to roll "high" on the d20, you succeed. If you happen to roll "low" on the d20, you fail - even if your skill makes a low roll high.

For example, if I try to track and roll a 6 on the d20 roll, but have +21 to my roll, it's still a decent roll. But I know so many DMs who might tell me - "Yeah, so you fail." "But I have a +21 to track stuff. That gives me a 27." "Yeah, you barely missed it."

The reason I hate this sort of thing is that when a DM does this, it makes me feel like I put all of those points and character development into my skill for nothing.

So, to combat this in my own games, I try to give my players the DC before they roll. This way, they know that know I'm not BS'ing them and it keeps me honest.

This is exactly why I love, love, love the by-level skill DCs in 4E. I think that Mike Mearls points out in one of his Design & Development articles that in a lot of cases skill rolls go like this:

Player: I want to do this thing.
DM: Roll for it
Player: I get a 25.
DM: (thinking) Hmm... is a 25 a fail or a success? I hadn't really set a DC for that before he rolled. If I set it higher than 25, it's a fail, but if I set it lower, it's a success. I guess I just need to decide whether he should succeed or fail...

In 4E, the DM needs to ask himself, "is this easy, hard, or average difficulty?" That's a pretty easy question to answer. And he can do it after the roll is made:

Player: I want to do this other thing.
DM: Roll for it.
Player: I get a 25.
DM: (thinking) Is that a failure or a success? Well, he was trying to do something wickedly difficult, so I'll set a hard DC. (checks to see whether a 25 beats a hard DC at that level)

It takes a lot of the arbitrariness out of adjudication, and helps to solve the problem of the DM who always says no, or who just makes things up on the fly all the time.