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

[payn]

Hey all, just a quick note that I purposefully did not make this a + thread because I do want folks to disagree as well. Though I am also surprised by how much some folks are glomming onto the number, I'm not too concerned about it.

C'mon now. Its a D&D site. You could write an entire treatise on role playing an Elf, but one single number and it will descend into an argument on that metric.

 

[Oofta]

I think this is the big thing.

For my own game, I want to reduce the power and responsibility of the DM, and increase the narrative power and responsibility of the players.

Now I know that's a break from tradition!

But here's how I would love to play out your example:

The players decide to explore the mountains.

During Session 0, we had divided up the map, and I'd asked different players to come up with descriptions and histories for different areas. So I turn to Susan and ask her to describe these mountains, since this is her territory. From her notes or imagination, she details the topography, flora, fauna, etc.

I roll a random encounter... Two trolls! I ask the players what two trolls might be up to in the mountains. They come up with the idea that they have an abandoned guard tower they've turned into a hunting lodge (hunting people, of course). I have some of the players come up with descriptions for the tower as I sketch out a map.

During combat I have the players describe their own actions and spells, and sometimes I ask the players to help me flesh out these trolls. What are they wearing? What makes them distinct?

Now at the end of the encounter, the characters have a cool tower, and I give the players time to plan out what they want to do with it, taking notes so I can provide some rules, structure, or costs for their goals.

That, to me, would be a fun session, and shouldn't "die by fire."

(Oh, also, saying someone's idea should die by fire is a pretty, um, inflammatory way to add to a conversation!)

I understand, I still simply disagree. A lot of my players would feel very uncomfortable for being put on the spot to make up something on the fly. I improvise all the time in my games and I wouldn't want to do that. I have little or no context, I have no way of knowing how to weave it into the world in a way that reveals something new or revelatory.

Last, but certainly not least, it totally takes me our of the moment and destroys any sense of immersion.

I've tried it as a player, its not for me. It's great to explain different approaches because different people enjoy different things. My not liking that approach doesn't make it wrong.

But end of the day? I'd rather have the DM tell me what the trolls are doing here. So I agree your idea doesn't need to"die by fire" but at the same time sometimes changing how things are done will not be as enjoyable for people.

 

[Vince_Snetterton]

I think this is the big thing.

For my own game, I want to reduce the power and responsibility of the DM, and increase the narrative power and responsibility of the players.

Now I know that's a break from tradition!

But here's how I would love to play out your example:

The players decide to explore the mountains.

During Session 0, we had divided up the map, and I'd asked different players to come up with descriptions and histories for different areas. So I turn to Susan and ask her to describe these mountains, since this is her territory. From her notes or imagination, she details the topography, flora, fauna, etc.

I roll a random encounter... Two trolls! I ask the players what two trolls might be up to in the mountains. They come up with the idea that they have an abandoned guard tower they've turned into a hunting lodge (hunting people, of course). I have some of the players come up with descriptions for the tower as I sketch out a map.

During combat I have the players describe their own actions and spells, and sometimes I ask the players to help me flesh out these trolls. What are they wearing? What makes them distinct?

Now at the end of the encounter, the characters have a cool tower, and I give the players time to plan out what they want to do with it, taking notes so I can provide some rules, structure, or costs for their goals.

That, to me, would be a fun session, and shouldn't "die by fire."

(Oh, also, saying someone's idea should die by fire is a pretty, um, inflammatory way to add to a conversation!)

So in your view of D&D, everyone is a DM, making base content. Sorry, that is not D&D. There is one DM, not everyone.
And as stated by others, many, if not most, players would be very uncomfortable coming up with stuff, even if I gave them a week to do it.

And my "die in a fire" comment, have a look at the original comment I replied to.

 

[BookTenTiger]

So in your view of D&D, everyone is a DM, making base content. Sorry, that is not D&D. There is one DM, not everyone.
And as stated by others, many, if not most, players would be very uncomfortable coming up with stuff, even if I gave them a week to do it.

And my "die in a fire" comment, have a look at the original comment I replied to.

Since when has there been only one way to play D&D? Do you go around in real life telling people the way they play is wrong, or is that behavior you save for this community?

It's totally fine to disagree with my idea. But please do not tell me that what I play isn't D&D.

 

[Vaalingrade]

The real question is whether that talk time is dedicated to the DM ranting about how they're the most important person at the table because they chose to run game and how the others are just there to do as they're told.

Then 0% might be a nice change of pace.

 

[Campbell]

Taking the stance that GMs should try to maximize player involvement does not necessitate a collaborative storytelling stance. I mean this aligns perfectly with the sort of advice you see in most OSR games and they maintain a pretty standard authority structure. It often just means focusing on the relevant bits, being concise, and putting the ball in the players' court.

That still might not be your thing, but this advice is thoroughly compatible with traditional play.

 

[BookTenTiger]

Taking the stance that GMs should try to maximize player involvement does not necessitate a collaborative storytelling stance. I mean this aligns perfectly with the sort of advice you see in most OSR games and they maintain a pretty standard authority structure. It often just means focusing on the relevant bits, being concise, and putting the ball in the players' court.

That still might not be your thing, but this advice is thoroughly compatible with traditional play.

This is a really good point, and not something I had thought of!

 

[J.Quondam]

Ummm...hate to break it to you, but the DM DOES so all the work. Unless the DM is using a module, the entire setting was spawned from the DM's brain. Players don't choose cultures, build maps, build world histories.

Players are IN the DM's world. The players can operate within constraints of that world. If players tell me "we have decided we want to go explore the mountains on the edge of the map", well then, I have to slow the game down until I can build the actual topography, history, flora and fauna for that area created, if I have not already created it. Players don't get to decide one bit of those things.
This idea of "players have an equal say in the game" needs to die in a fire.

"Flora"? Seriously? What self-respecting DM puts "flora" in a traditional game of spattered blood, rended flesh, and murderous carnivores??
D&D is a serious game, good sir, not a salad bar!

 

[prabe]

"Flora"? Seriously?? What self-respecting DM puts "flora" in a traditional game of blood, rended flesh, and murderous carnivores??
D&D is a serious game, good sir, not a salad bar!

I object to your implication that vegetation can't be murderous and/or carnivorous.

 

[J.Quondam]

I object to your implication that vegetation can't be murderous and/or carnivorous.

That's why create ranch dressing is, by far, the most potent 1st-level spell in the multiverse.