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

[Lanefan]

So what do you think? Is this a strange, quixotic quest with no real benefit? Is this a molehill just I'm willing to die on?

Do you think there's any benefit to a DM speaking only 30% of the time?

Only if the DM wants an even higher percentage of the time to be lost to non-game chatter or to silence than is already the case.

That said, the DM does need to know when to shut up and let the players RP their characters; and sometimes this means not talking for half a session or more except to answer occasional questions around things the players have forgotten but their characters would remember.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

This seems like the sort of principle that would just help my anxiety over being a good teacher bleed into my anxiety over being a good Dungeon Master, and that happens enough already.

I think a classroom teacher often has to limit how much they talk because students often will not participate if they can just passively listen to the teacher instead, and will not even passively listen to the teacher if they can just zone out instead. I think the dynamics of a D&D group should be different. Hopefully it is made up of people wanting to be there, hopefully with everyone ready to participate when given the opportunity, hopefully with everyone comfortable speaking in front of the group, and hopefully with players willing to interrupt the DM where appropriate to a degree we discourage in schoolchildren interacting with their teacher. If the DM has to monitor and moderate their speaking time to get players participating there are probably more fundamental issues with the group, better addressed by working to get players more comfortable interjecting and asserting themselves rather than by stressing out over DM talking time.

 

[Lyxen]

The key to running games like this is to get past the curse of Dragonlance and stop trying to write a story in advance and making it happen during play. That's not how RPG as a medium is made to work.

Please don't start with OneTrueWayism. This is totally the way RPG as a medium can be run, although there are also many other ways is can be run, sometimes even with the same adventure. It's not even black and white, it's a gradation with each table finding their balance between guidance and improvisation.

Yes, sandboxing and improvisation can be cool, but 5e published adventures are very much "Dragonlance-like" in the way they present play, with a succession of chapters to be followed more or less in order (if not even stronger railroading like in WDH), they are hugely successful and I'm pretty sure that a large percentage of the D&D games run worldwide are run that way.

And this is because sandboxing and improvisation not only require some experience, they are not for everyone in terms of both DM appetites and capabilities, but also in terms of tastes for the players.

And yes, I agree that not defining too much in advance saves time, there are also DM who have the time and the appetite to craft detailed adventures for their players, and it's not wrong to do this at all. Saving time is not the objective here, fun is the objective, and tastes vary a lot in the community.

Which in turn leads to the fact that the amount that the DM will talk is also not something that can be defined at all, it will vary wildly depending on the table, the campaign, the adventure, the phase of the adventure, etc...

 

[R_J_K75]

"Bob, tell us about this cultist statue..."

Bob, eerr, Bobbie cant because I murdered them in the movie ratings thread.

To address the OP, I've done this on a larger scale. As where I was the only DM last year I asked three out of four players that weren't previously DMing to take the plunge and they did. So theoretically Id assume it works out about the same insofar as it reduces the DMs burden. I have in the past and still do ask for and build on player input while running games but anything more I feel would take too much control from me as the referee of the game. I think anyone who DMs assumes the responsibility of prepping and running the game that comes with it. I dont think your idea of talking less and doling out things to players is a bad idea just that the DM running the game, talking more than other players is so ingrained that it would be hard to move away from dand still be D&D. Every tables different and the OP has got me wondering how much I as a DM talk during a game as opposed to other players? If I had to guess It would probably be about equal but Ive never given it much thought.

 

[jgsugden]

D&D is an RPG ... a role playing game. Players run characters in a story. People enjoy different types of stories. Some are dialogue driven, and some are stopped in a lot of description and mood building. I've had excellent sessions with minimalist DMs, and had other great ones where a master storyteller DM enchanted us with the world he was describing. There is no magic formula or best answer.

 

[Vince_Snetterton]

Hiya!

First, get away from the hard-coded percentages. That's just going to annoy you and your group. Just say "Hey guys, I'm gonna do a bit less 'long speaking'. You guys fill in the details", or something like that. Some nights you may only speak 20% of the time...others, 80%. The amount spoken isn't the value...it's what's being said. Don't get pigeon holed into 'absolutes'.

Second...maybe not play D&D? Not to be flippant or anything, but D&D pretty much requires the DM do a lot of speaking and explaining, describing, questioning, etc. It's just how the game works. There are a lot of "behind the screen" stuff that a competent DM is doing all the time...for me, it's dice rolling, table consulting and note taking.

There are game systems out there that are "Player Driven". Like Dungeon World, for example. When I finally "got it" and the game clicked, I found myself just sitting back and enjoying the Players tell me a story...and describe stuff...and add stuff to the world...and even make up new rules on the spot!

BUT...if you want to keep doing the D&D thing, you need to explain the new expectations and limitations of the Players roles at the table. This relates to my first point, obviously. The "less speaking" is fine, but you need to give the Players some guidelines and responsibility. Not all Players may even WANT this. I mean, they aren't DM'ing, they are there to Play the role of a PC. That means they aren't there to hear you speak less...they are there to not have to do all that DM'ing stuff.

Think of it like showing up at a dinner party with 4 other friends, then your host says "Ok you guys, I got the pots and pans out, the knives and cutting boards, and some ingredients. You guys get in there and start cooking dinner. I'm gonna stand over here and drink some wine and offer general guidance if you want it". They didn't show up to cook and create dishes...they cam to eat what they want of what you prepared. Some weird-o may even ask for ketchup for his well-done steak! (barbarians!).

Also, as a side note, I find it a bit disturbing that teachers are being told to "speak less"...but that's a different kettle of worms.

^_^

Paul L. ming

You point about the people maybe should play another game other than D&D is totally on point. The game was never designed to be anything but a complex game where the "Dungeon Master" runs the show, providing the vast majority of content. Those that somehow think that the DM is "just another player" or "should not talk that much", fundamentally do not understand D&D.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I think the premise is flawed.

I'm not teaching and thus not attempting to trigger memory creation through repetition and vocalizing. I'm acting as the senses of the PCs, the other characters in the world, local physics and metaphysics, on top of answering questions.

How often I'm called upon to talk is highly variable and rarely soley under my control. If there's a lot of travel and intrigue, I talk a lot; if it's a poor choices planning session, I might not talk at all.

 

[ccooke]

Honestly, I think this concept misses the point a bit. Thinking about how much the DM should speak (or GM in any other system that has a "person who runs the game") is focussing on the wrong problem.

The role of a GM is to maximise the enjoyment of the participants (including, of course, themselves). Sometimes that means they should play a load of complex PCs, describe action or scenes, maybe rarely even have two NPCs having an argument while the players figuratively eat popcorn. Sometimes that means that the GM says absolutely nothing while the players run off with ideas for an hour. Fundamentally, the GM should always be ready to either shut up and let the players have fun, or jump in with a few words of prompting or NPC dialogue to keep things rolling and the players involved.

As to involving the PCs in worldbuilding (as in defining things, creating backstories, to a lesser extent running NPCs)... it depends massively on the group. I play with several different groups, and I don't think I could put together one complete group of people who would love doing their share of the worldbuilding from them all. When I have tried involving the players more in that side, I have had very mixed results. As with most things, my take on it now is that it depends on the group dynamic. In almost all cases, I would only do group worldbuilding if all the players wanted in on it, though, because anything else is setting the game up for inequalities tension and lack of fun.

 

[Helpful NPC Thom]

I speak exactly 31% of the time and no more. If I've allotted four hours of game time, I speak for 74.4 minutes exactly. Once my 74.4 minutes are done, I remain totally silent until the players get uncomfortable and leave.

 

[prabe]

I speak exactly 31% of the time and no more. If I've allotted four hours of game time, I speak for 74.4 minutes exactly. Once my 74.4 minutes are done, I remain totally silent until the players get uncomfortable and leave.

But if they leave early, haven't you in fact spoken for more than 31% of the time?