D&D 5E What are the common features of the best DMs

[Rodney Mulraney]

Not really sure if the title is correct. What I am interested in is what people think are the qualities for the being a good/great DM. This is because I am a new (a few years) DM and what to try to improve my DM'ing.

Chris Perkins; Ok, it hardly needs mentioning this guy is probably the best DM in teh world, atleast he is super highly regarded, and I agree with that sentiment.

I'm not going to name drop anyone else, but there are a ton of DMs (on youtube) that I think are absolutely amazing, and I notice certain things they tend to do.

Something interesting I notice about Chris is that he seems to change depending on his players reactions and constantly adjust things to constantly increase the player enjoyment of the game, also he is very "rules loose", it seems to me. As if rules are a minor concern and player enjoyment trumps all. Some of the DMs I regard highly do not do this, they are rules strict instead and seem uninterested in how players generally react.

DM style is not what I am concerned about here, there are lots of different DM styles and I think they are all generally equal; different people prefer different styles, but everyone can generally recognise top quality DMing.

So anyway here is a list of things, that so far, I am thinking are good qualities of great DMs;

1. Timing; the great DMs seem to have an excellent sense of timing, balancing tension and relaxation for the players.

2. No random encounters; I never see them use "random encounters", everything the party meets seems like a coherent part of the world with its own complexities and goals and flaws and well fit into the world they live in.

3. Multi-thread convergence; Ok thats a bit of a mouthful, what I mean is that the different things the player characters do or happen upon end up being related in various ways, leading to lots of "aha" moments when the party realise the connections, for instance; that kid you helped find their lost pet a while back, who kept talking about his dad, is actually the son of a BBEG or some important npc or whatnot.

4. Totally off the cusp; Ok thats a history term, basically they add in unnecessary detail about various things, people etc, that whilst might have no bearing on anything at all, nonetheless makes for a more interesting and believable world.

5. The art of short and sweet; they are aware they are not narrating a book, and keep their talking time down a bare minimal to achieve their goals.

6. Seriously smooth flow; they craft their words in such a way that the adventure has a smooth and natural flow, as opposed to being a series of disconnected blocks.

7. The player is always right; Whilst we all know DMs are always right and players generally can often make various mistakes, great DMs adjust how they word things to save face for players.

8. No time for players; ok that sounds wrong, but what I mean is that players are never left unengaged with interesting things to concern themselves with.

So what does everyone think about this list? And/or what are other features that great DMs share?

EDIT adding 9. (thanks @Shiroiken)

9. The danger is real; they maintain a real level of danger and possibility for character death/TPKs/etc keeping the players on their toes and focused on making good decisions.

EDIT2: Ok there seems to be some confusion over point 2. It was worded in a way to try to express what things looks like from a players/observers perspective. Someone else mentioned how cool it is when your players congratulate you on a well prepared and detailed adventure arc, expressing appreciation with the prep time and effort you put in. However, you just totally made that up on the fly.
So however the DM actually generated / designed that encounter, from the observers perspective it looks like a well planned, real and living part of the world, something the DM designed into the world originally, as opposed to something adhoc generated on the fly to fill some gap.

 

[Shiroiken]

I will disagree with 2 and 7. The best DMs I've ever played under used wandering monsters, both as a time constraint and to point out that the world doesn't revolve around the PCs. Traveling poses a level of chance, and the area you traverse may be occupied by creatures that are more powerful than you are otherwise capable of handling. The reverse is also true at higher levels, and it's actually quite enjoyable to send a goblin war band fleeing with a well placed fireball or two.

Best example of this was a green dragon rolled up while traveling through the forest at level 2. The DM had the dragon flying overhead, seemingly oblivious to us. We scrambled for cover, until we sighed with relief as it flew away. We noted where we were, however, and decided to come back a few levels later. We tracked it down, and fought it in it's lair. It toyed with us a bit, since it HAD noticed us, but just finished a fine meal of villagers, having no room for dessert. We eventually managed to kill it, avenging the fallen villagers, and taking its hoard to fund our next expedition.

As for the players always being right... no fricking way! Players are often wrong, and need to realize that things don't go their way just because they're the PCs. One of the worst games I played in (well, because of the DM anyway) had the players ALWAYS choose correctly, no matter how poor our logic. Not only does it become silly, but it's gets old really fast (same as in a game where you can't die or fail). For most people, success has no joy without the chance of failure.

As for the rest, I don't really know. The best DMs I played under made their world REAL, and that's what mattered most. Timing, vocals, plot weaving... those are things I haven't paid that much attention to, but I'm also the guy who reads a book because the story is interesting, not because of the "subtle nuances" and "hidden meanings" literary people like.

 

[Rodney Mulraney]

I will disagree with 2 and 7. The best DMs I've ever played under used wandering monsters, both as a time constraint and to point out that the world doesn't revolve around the PCs. Traveling poses a level of chance, and the area you traverse may be occupied by creatures that are more powerful than you are otherwise capable of handling. The reverse is also true at higher levels, and it's actually quite enjoyable to send a goblin war band fleeing with a well placed fireball or two.

Best example of this was a green dragon rolled up while traveling through the forest at level 2. The DM had the dragon flying overhead, seemingly oblivious to us. We scrambled for cover, until we sighed with relief as it flew away. We noted where we were, however, and decided to come back a few levels later. We tracked it down, and fought it in it's lair. It toyed with us a bit, since it HAD noticed us, but just finished a fine meal of villagers, having no room for dessert. We eventually managed to kill it, avenging the fallen villagers, and taking its hoard to fund our next expedition.

As for the players always being right... no fricking way! Players are often wrong, and need to realize that things don't go their way just because they're the PCs. One of the worst games I played in (well, because of the DM anyway) had the players ALWAYS choose correctly, no matter how poor our logic. Not only does it become silly, but it's gets old really fast (same as in a game where you can't die or fail). For most people, success has no joy without the chance of failure.

As for the rest, I don't really know. The best DMs I played under made their world REAL, and that's what mattered most. Timing, vocals, plot weaving... those are things I haven't paid that much attention to, but I'm also the guy who reads a book because the story is interesting, not because of the "subtle nuances" and "hidden meanings" literary people like.

Interesting take of things, thanks for input. I also prefer to not have to listen to lots of subtly nuanced story stuff as well.

About point 7 though, maybe I didnt word that very well. I didnt mean the DM ever "gives way" to players only that they use words and actions that "saves face" for players, so when they do something that is mechanically incorrect the DM would just word things as if what they did made sense and do the behind the scenes bookkeeping the same. They might additionally word things so as the player knows for future reference that mechanically that is not what they did, without drawing attention to the fact "the player got something wrong".

I think it is very important also that "the threat is real"; games with no real threat seem extremely mindnumbingly boring to me. I think I will add that to the list; cheers

 

[MichaelSomething]

Well let me list three things that I think are important...

1. The ability to read their players and react to them. Every group has their own preferences. Some may find dealing with the guards outside of town boring while others will riot if it's implied that they are boring. Good DMs can figure out what a group needs/wants at the moment and adjust things to make it work.

2. Knowing the right tool for the job. In the first two post we already have conflicting views if random encounters are good or not. A good DM understands that using random encounters can be great for one game and horrible for another. They know what to use when to make the game work.

3. A good DM knows how to communicate with their players. A good DM can convey information to the players so that understand what's going on.

 

[Imaculata]

I completely disagree with point 2, because a good DM can merge random encounters seemlessly into his campaign, without the players ever feeling that the encounter is out of place.

What I personally consider a good DM skill, is good spot light management. Especially when you have a lot of players in your group, being able to keep everyone invested is a very important skill. I think a good DM does not leave any player waiting for their turn for too long, or finds ways to get every player involved what is happening, even if their character isn't present.

 

[FrogReaver]

[MENTION=6904821]Rodney Mulraney[/MENTION]

Great thread!

 

[Sacrosanct]

A good DM is like any other relationship, with the added responsibility of being knowledgeable in the game rules.

1. Know your players and especially what each one likes. Some players like interaction, some like combat. Ensure that you're paying attention to each of these things in as much equal time as you can. Get them involved
2. Know how the game works
3. Communicate effectively. Talk disagreements out and try to understand other perspectives, and explain your rulings/reasonings. Let them know your style beforehand, and any houserules you have
4. The big one: No reasonable request should ever be unreasonably declined.
5. The biggest one: It's a game. A social event. You're there to have fun above all else. Don't take things too seriously if it results in no fun.

 

[Rod Staffwand]

$10000 worth of Dwarf Forge and minis?

 

[Celebrim]

If you don't think a good DM can do random encounters that seamlessly become part of the campaign, I'll share a random encounter from my current campaign.

And for that matter, I doubt that there is a DM that doesn't use random encounters. Some of them use dice to help inspire naturalism, and some of them rely on whim, but all are adding new previously unplanned encounters to the environment all the time. If they do so well, then it is good DMing, and if they don't then it is bad DMing, but it's not true that whim is always better than dice or that whim and dice are even discrete things and not a continuum of approaches to being creative.

Your list is a mixed bag. Some of it I would consider actually true. Some of it I would consider your personal preferences regarding style or which are built up from anecdotal experience of the DMs you encountered that were skilled at what they did.

For example, whether you rely heavily on dice as an aid to sparking imagination or you just go with your gut instinct is style - not quality.

Whether your narration is jocular and uses natural conversational speech, or whether your narration is literary and poetic is again style - not quality. You can do either one well, and some DMs - as with some writers - will alter their approach to suit the situation.

Whether a campaign has a central master story line that everything revolves around (Tolkien, Martin), or is episodic and involves a series of self-contained stories (Howard, Leiber) is again style. Both can go very wrong, and which you prefer depends a lot on your taste as a player.

I would say that great GMs tend to have the following qualities:

1) Hard workers. They take their game seriously and really want to deliver an enjoyable experience. They are always practicing, preparing, and trying to learn. They strive to gain system mastery in any game that they run.
2) Are humble and self-aware and know their own strengths and limitations, and can play to them. If the DM is funny and witty, they use that. If they are good writers, then they use that. If they are detailed oriented and creative world builders they use that. If they can do voice work well, they do that. Whatever they are good at becomes a hallmark of their game.
3) Shamelessly steal what they can't make or do themselves, but always personalize it.
4) Understand the limitations of the media and what approach to use for groups of different sizes or different personalities. They don't tend to have a 'one true way' regarding style, and will do their best to accommodate a groups needs with respect to difficulty level, active vs. reactive play, melodramatic vs. tactical gameplay, serious versus lighthearted approaches, and so forth within the limits of what they themselves can do (and enjoy) as a participant in the game.
5) Decent group people management skills. They are capable small group leaders. People tend to accept and respect their authority at the table.
6) They are masters of a illusion. So much of the game is a sort of prestidigitation, where you use various devices to make the players believe in the trick, and imagine that the game is a real world with substance and depth and that successes or failures in it are meaningful.

 

[Morrus]

Enthusiasm. Nothing makes or breaks a game like a GM who is really into (or not enthused about) their game. Enthusiasm - and its lack - is catching.