D&D General Survivor Dungeon Masters -- discussion

[Malmuria]

re: "D&D Survivor - Dungeon Masters!"

What style of dming, contemporary or not, is ideal for you?

 

[Maxperson]

re: "D&D Survivor - Dungeon Masters!"

What style of dming, contemporary or not, is ideal for you?

For me it's a mix of improv and prep. I prepare a basic outline of the adventure, have an idea of where the plot arc is going, and prep specific things that the players have chosen to pursue. The rest is improvised and the players sometimes go in directions I never saw coming.

 

[CleverNickName]

My ideal style of DMing is probably "contemporary." It's the style that goes something like:

* The players have limited control over the world. The DM sets the main elements in place, then allows the players to flesh them out as appropriate.

DM: Sir Huxley opens the chest. Inside, he sees a glittering weapon! Sir Huxley, describe the weapon to us.​

Player: It's a battleaxe, with a double-edged blade.​

DM: (writes "battleaxe +1" down on a slip of paper and passes it to the player)​

* The DM uses theater of the mind to describe dungeons, corridors, rooms, and other scenery, and only resorts to using battle-mats, minis, and 3D terrain when absolutely necessary (cinematic battle scenes that are expected to last for more than an hour, for example). You don't need to draw and build out every single tunnel and door if they're only going to be background scenery.

* The DM talks to the players regularly between games and gets feedback about their characters, the game world, and their goals. Is a player satisfied with their character? Would it be okay to make a few changes? The next chapter of the story is going to focus on the warlock for a little while, is it okay if I bring in some of your bard's backstory as well? Are there any topics or subject matters that are off-limits for you? That sort of thing.

* The DM relies less on math and more on imagination when it comes to encounter balance. The DM trusts that the players will have the sense to flee from hopeless battles, and the players trust the DM to make escape possible (if also difficult and expensive).

* The DM isn't afraid to change or scuttle an entire adventure ("kill your darlings") and adapt the story if the dice or the players aren't cooperating. Sometimes the players don't want to go into the haunted house, and you're not going to make anyone happy by forcing them to do so. Move on!

* The DM doesn't just arbitrate the rules, but pays attention to the players as well. A good DM can "read the room" and notice if someone at the table is getting bored, angry, or uncomfortable, and will make course-corrections on the fly to ensure that everyone is having a good time. A good DM will take player complaints seriously and make adjustments.

Not sure if "contemporary" is the right word, now that I think about it. I mean, Dungeon Masters have probably been doing this for years, decades even, but this style of play didn't really become popular until the advent of live-play shows on the Internet became a thing. Maybe "modern" is a better word?

 

[overgeeked]

Player agency is primary. If the players don't have the ability to make meaningful, impactful choices, there's literally no point for them being at the table. Linear adventures are fine, sandboxes are my preference, but they're not everyone's favorite.

I prefer something that tries to emulate the rough structure of a story, but I'm far more interested in emergent story. The game is a collaboration between the DM and the players. Whatever story there is should be a result of the DM putting obstacles in front of the characters and seeing what happens as a result. Prescripted endings or railroading is anathema to RPGs.

The DM is in charge but shouldn't be a jerk about it. They should be somewhere between neutral referee and fan of the players.

And if a DM ever gets to the point of insulting their players, they can screw. That burns infinite goodwill from me.

So removing player agency, railroading, playing favorites, singling out and punishing players, forcing specific outcomes, being a jerk DM, insulting the players, etc are all things that are terrible DM/GM habits. Any DM/GM that does those things shouldn't be running games.

 

[Malmuria]

I mentioned this in the other thread, but this kind of dming is increasingly distasteful to me. I think especially non-dnd games helped me realize this. The premise here is that it is the job of the dm to curate an experience for the players and create the illusion of a deep, complicated world. To this end the dm fudges die rolls to make encounters more dramatic, pretends that their improvisation is actually something written down in their notes (or in the module), and basically guides players along a more or less linear path (which, to my mind, is a kind of soft railroading).

This seems to be kind of the default style of dnd? And as someone who came up in the 2e era, it has long roots. But I find it exhausting and unfun to dm in this way. It makes the dm an entertainer rather than just another player at the table.

 

[KS_Collector]

re: "D&D Survivor - Dungeon Masters!"

What style of dming, contemporary or not, is ideal for you?

I believe my style is the "extreme reader". Acquire a lot of knowledge to adapt the plot to as many directions as possible, I love it when my group is creative and for that reason, I think it's essential to be creative, and for that, it's necessary to have a repertoire.

 

[Lanefan]

My preferred style of DMing is neutral, fair, prepared, committed, and without regard for the particular PCs being played. By this last, I mean that a DM shouldn't be adjusting challenges or adventures because the party does or doesn't have a particular class or ability in its current lineup. The adventure or challenge is what it is and it's on us to either sort it out with what we have or go and find what we need.

Neutral includes letting the players do what they want (even including battle each other in character) and simply refereeing and-or adjudicating things when needed. It also includes being ready willing and able to hit whatever curveballs the players might throw, and this can sometimes include abandoning the prepped adventure if the players/PCs go elsewhere or can't find it or decide it's not for them. Further, it includes a willingness to let the PCs sail themselves into disaster if they ignore warnings and-or if the dice just horribly turn against them.

Fair includes neither playing favourites nor picking on one PC or player; and also includes presenting fair - even if sometimes harsh - challenges for the players/PCs to overcome.

By prepared I mean I want there to be a setting for us to explore that isn't being made up on the fly, that has enough sense of history and background to it to give the impression of being in a living breathing world, and where the NPCs have character and quirks. Having the here-and-now adventure prepped is also useful but I don't care much if a DM is winging it.

Committed is simple: I greatly prefer a DM to be committed to running the game for as long as people want to play in it, however long that might be.

Above all else, the DM is doing most of the talking thus if the DM isn't intrinsically entertaining that's a big hurdle to overcome.

Unlike @overgeeked , I'm happy enough to accept a bit of railroading once in a while (but not constantly!) as long as the results are entertaining; in that some good adventures and-or adventure series simply don't and can't work without a bit of lead-'em-by-the-nose.

 

[Lanefan]

I mentioned this in the other thread, but this kind of dming is increasingly distasteful to me. I think especially non-dnd games helped me realize this. The premise here is that it is the job of the dm to curate an experience for the players and create the illusion of a deep, complicated world. To this end the dm fudges die rolls to make encounters more dramatic, pretends that their improvisation is actually something written down in their notes (or in the module), and basically guides players along a more or less linear path (which, to my mind, is a kind of soft railroading).

This seems to be kind of the default style of dnd? And as someone who came up in the 2e era, it has long roots. But I find it exhausting and unfun to dm in this way. It makes the dm an entertainer rather than just another player at the table.

I think all players should try to be entertainers. And given that the DM is almost certainly going to be doing most of the talking in any given session I think it's on the DM to be as entertaining as she can while doing it.

And a DM can absolutely create a deep complicated world without having to resort to fudged rolls and-or guiding players/PCs along a linear path; never mind that these are different issues anyway. The roll-fudging and player-guiding are nothing to do with the creation of the setting; instead they are poor attempts to control how that setting is interacted with by the players.

 

[CleverNickName]

Re: fudging rolls and 'soft' railroading:

A few years ago, I stopped hiding my rolls behind the DM screen. I put my dice tray in front of the screen so the players can see it, and I roll my dice out in the open. At the time, I did it for dramatic effect. I thought it would just a simple means of letting the players know that I'm willing to surrender a bit of control of the narrative during a crucial part of the adventure. You know, a way to demonstrate that I was going to be completely impartial to the outcome of the scene, that they would "own" some of the risk.

It turned out to be a huge change, with a profound impact on the feel and the pacing of the game.

My players seemed to prefer it, so I kept doing it. And now, after years of rolling my dice out in the open, it feels weird to roll my dice in secret. Not like I'm cheating or whatever, but more like...it feels like I'm trying to take more than my fair share of the story, or something. It's hard to describe.

Do any other DMs roll their dice in the open?

 

[Mort]

Re: fudging rolls and 'soft' railroading:

A few years ago, I stopped hiding my rolls behind the DM screen. I put my dice tray in front of the screen so the players can see it, and I roll my dice out in the open. At the time, I did it for dramatic effect. I thought it would just a simple means of letting the players know that I'm willing to surrender a bit of control of the narrative during a crucial part of the adventure. You know, a way to demonstrate that I was going to be completely impartial to the outcome of the scene, that they would "own" some of the risk.

My players seemed to prefer it, so I kept doing it. And now, after years of rolling my dice out in the open, it feels weird to roll my dice in secret. Not like I'm cheating or whatever, but more like...it feels like I'm trying to take more than my fair share of the story or something. It's hard to describe.

Do any other DMs roll their dice in the open?

I made the decision, long ago, to roll out in the open.

It's helped with my DMing (and adventure design) to not have to even think about fudging.

And Frankly, I've played with plenty of GMs who fudged rolls - I have yet to play with one who's as good about hiding it as they think they are - it's A LOT more obvious than most GMs think! That lessens the play experience for me.