D&D General The DM Should Only Talk 30% of the Time... Agree or Disagree?

[MarkB]

I don't see any value in setting a guideline that will have DMs second-guessing themselves as to whether they should hold off on speaking up at any given point. Whether a DM should be talking is determined far more by what is happening in the moment than by trying to maintain some kind of ideal ratio across an entire session.

 

[J.Quondam]

The clever DM will find ways to talk less.

Yes! Sometimes I just stare creepily and at great length at the players, until one of them speaks up.



* No, not really!

 

[iserith]

The basic play loop has the DM talking in 2 of the 3 steps, so it seems like the DM talks more by design. The main thing after that is to make sure the players are more or less equally sharing the spotlight and adjudicating in ways that allow the players' stated actions to have an impact on the setting and everything in it in a way that makes for a fun time and the creation of an exciting, memorable story.

Getting that right is more important than how much the DM speaks relative to the players in my view. Learning to be succinct though, as a DM and player, is a virtue as I see it.

 

[guachi]

I'd like to think as DM I talk about 1/2 the time considering I'm almost always 1/2 of the conversation. Though I do have a few house rules that encourage play solely among the PCs and I always find the times that happens to be really entertaining as a DM as I have zero control or input in that situation.

 

[J-H]

I like to go "What do you do?" and then sit back and let them come up with a plan. I mostly just do combat and descriptions + NPCs... they get to come up with solutions.

 

[S'mon]

I think the OP approach will tend to shift the game away from an immersive world-simulation experience, towards more of a story-creation game. Players like me who play for the immersion won't like it. Others probably will.

 

[JustinCase]

Without getting caught up in percentages that were meant to be only metaphoric, I am interested in this concept. Since D&D (and every RPG) is basically a group activity, there's something to be said for letting the players be more active in the whole thing.

Sure, there's a risk of the story going somewhere you, as a DM, didn't intend, but will the game be more fun for it? Perhaps, perhaps not.

I'm seriously considering trying a few of the things you described in my next session, and see where it goes.

 

[Yora]

30% seems like a good amount to aim for. Though that would be at the high end. If you talk more than this, you're probably having an audience, not players.

 

[LordEntrails]

Yes, imo its a good idea and something I've been toying with and trying to figure out ow to incorporate myself.

Here are some ideas for ways I could pass the narrative burden over to players:

• Have players describe the consequences of their actions in detail (for example, I say "you hit, describe the blow").
• Ask players to describe inconsequential features of dungeons and towns ("Bob, tell us about this cultist statue...").
• Allow players to play as NPCs in scenes their characters aren't present in ("Kathy, why don't you play as the blacksmith...")

I like these ideas. Not something I've used yet, but plan to. Need to get in the habit myself of spurring this discussion or turning over the descriptions to my players.

Here are some more radical ideas:

• Ask players to design important NPCs, and play as those NPCs.
• Ask players to design towns, then run portions of the session when characters are in town.
• Ask players to create interesting descriptions for dungeons, then run the mechanics while the player describes what the dungeon looks / sounds / smells like...
• Have players design random encounters, then describe those encounters when they occur...
• Ask players to contribute design ideas to settings during battles, and then have their descriptions be narrative truths...

I've actually done a little bit of this. I've had my players map and redesign the Trollskull Tavern and one built a MineCraft model of Iniarv's Tower for us. I also ave one of the players often collect lore for parts of our campaign (i.e. put together the history of Myth Drannor) for everyone. I do need to do this more as well.

 

[schneeland]

I somewhat agree, in the sense that in an ideal case, the GM creates situations, which facilitate roleplaying, discussion and action on the side of the players. In addition, my personal preference is to allow players to narrate the details of their success and failure on rolls. I have never measured the exact time, but about 1/3 on the GM side on average seems ok for groups where (most) players take an active role.

It gets tricky, though, for groups where the players are less active and/or are looking for a narrative to be experienced. In those cases, the GM probably has a much higher part of the "talking time".