How much should the GM talk during a session?

[Lanefan]

There is no good answer to this question as it varies so much from one session to the next.

In one session I-as-DM might hardly say a word* as they spend the night arguing amongst themselves.

In the next session I might do 90+% of the talking as they explore new places and-or learn new things that I then have to tell them.

* - laughing doesn't count.

 

[Tutara]

There is no good answer to this question as it varies so much from one session to the next.

Ironically, this is itself a good answer - understanding that it varies from session to session is a good mindset to be in. I don't think there is a single 'correct' ratio, but rather I wanted to get a feel what ratios might be depending on game an preference.

But it should be DM 70/Players 30, in a "perfect game".

I think I would find this exhausting! I have definitely noticed, in my experience, that DMs (and they are DMs, because it only ever seems to happen in D&D for me) talk far more than in other systems. From how you describe your players, it might be that you end up doing the heavy lifting more as GM? My players tend to be excellent at RP and taking the initiative in gameplay so I sometimes feel redundant outside of acting as a facilitator (good redundant - it means I can enjoy myself rather than having to chivvy everything along).

That's so funny, I created a thread a while back with the same 30/70 split!!!

As a D&D DM I try to turn as much talking time over to the players as possible. If I haven't created the description for something, and it's not vitally important, I'll often ask the players to describe a city, NPC, or environment. I know that doesn't work for every table, but I really like it!

I very much remember reading a comment of yours relating to this, because it was definitely something that got me thinking about this! I believe you mentioned that the 30/70 split correlates to the teacher/pupil classroom ratio, which is relevant to me professionally. I too have begun to farm out some of the narrative responsibilities to my players - often in system, but also in more GM led systems too. I have found it works really well at maintaining player interest and giving them a hook into the setting. I quite like meta-currency improvisation and player-led twists, though, but I know some GMs can't stand them so your mileage may indeed vary.

Thank you for the interesting replies.

 

[Hand of Evil]

Are we 'talking' session related conversion or just table BS conversion?

I put the split GM 60, players 40. The GM is setting the scenes, handling NPCs, interacting with the players, doing color commentary.

 

[Imaculata]

As a DM I'm constantly talking. Explaining rules and rulings, and general chit chat.

But ingame, I try to keep my narration brief, since I know that if my descriptions are too wordy, I'll end up having to repeat the important details to my players. After all, there is only so much information we can process that quickly. Flavor text can get in the way of conveying the important details. By all means, try to set the mood. But also keep descriptions of rooms and situations short and to the point.

When describing a location, I try to focus on the shape and size of the location, threats or important details, and doors/roads. I may dress it up a bit, but in the end it should be clear to my players, so that their next question isn't: "can you repeat that, how many doors?".

Of course I also play the part of any of the npc's, and talk whenever they do. But I prefer to let the players narrate their own actions (I just narrate the outcome).

 

[Tutara]

Are we 'talking' session related conversion or just table BS conversion?

Definitely session related. I had one game I played in where the start time was advertised as 19:00, but the session didn't really start until 20.00 or even later because everyone was sitting on Roll20 yammering on. It's fine when your players are genuinely friends (and in person it's part of the enjoyment of the session in my opinion) but on Roll20 when you're there to play a game it can be a bit monotonous.

 

[Yora]

I think there's probably a strong corelation between players talking and players exercising their agency. So more player talking is generally better.

It probably should at least be half. If the GM foes more than half the talking, then it seems the players don't have enough to talk about. If they are not asking questions from the GM or discuss plans among themselves, then it seems the players are not given enough information to become meaningfully active.

 

[Dragonsbane]

The default for most games would seem to be DM 99/ Players 1.

A good 20% of players play "Lone Wolf" character types, and will mostly refuse to speak very much during the game....even out of character.

At least half of all players will refuse to even role play their character. So even when it comes up, the player will just say "my character says funny stuff to distract the guard."

And far too many players just play solo, and ignore the other players and characters, so they don't talk to them.

But it should be DM 70/Players 30, in a "perfect game".

I would say mine are 70/30 DM.
Quick hint - have NPCs interact with the quiet ones, and have the plot success depend on their interactions. Have plot success depend on teamwork. Also, house rules can go a long way. For example:
- Character Concepts: Players must be willing to work with the DM to make a character that works in the context of the setting and the game. Don't come to a new campaign with a highly specific character in mind, as it might not make sense or be well suited to the campaign itself. Character concepts must be able to work together as a team; concepts that contradict this are not appropriate for most games.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

It's funny, nothing made me realize how much I used nonverbal communication (gestures, expressions) when I DM when I had a visually-impaired player at the table. I really had to make sure I communicated using both (i,e. frowning and saying "the NPC frowns sternly at you).

A good DM relies on mime skills exclusively.

This is my feeling. Sometimes the DM needs to relay lots of information and description. Sometimes the DM needs to just be quiet while the players do their things.

One rule I do try to stick by, however, is that the amount of time a DM spends on two NPCs talking to each other should be as minimal as possible.

There is no good answer to this question as it varies so much from one session to the next.

In one session I-as-DM might hardly say a word* as they spend the night arguing amongst themselves.

In the next session I might do 90+% of the talking as they explore new places and-or learn new things that I then have to tell them.

* - laughing doesn't count.

 

[Guest 7034872]

One rule I do try to stick by, however, is that the amount of time a DM spends on two NPCs talking to each other should be as minimal as possible.

The truth of that should never go underestimated.

 

[beancounter]

Just enough time to sufficiently describe the environment, answer any questions, and ask the players what they want to do.