D&D General What DM-skills are you bad at?

[Oofta]

There's surely more, but I've identified a few areas of improvement last year.

1. When my players engage into social interactions, whether its negotiations, intimidation, or persuasion, I tend to give them all the information without asking them for rolls. My players with high skills in those areas mentioned a few times that they'd like to be able to shine more.
2. After almost 15 years of DMing, I still overprepare every single time.
3. I'm not great at accents. But again, I'm a french canadian DMing in english, so it's an accent on top of an accent.
4. I sometimes fall a little too much on the linear/rail side of things. I almost never force my players in a direction, but sometimes they'll be strongly hinted through social interactions. I'm often trying to hold back on it but it's an hold habit. No players ever complained about it though.

For #1, a lot of people would say that it's not an issue, but I agree with your players. If I've invested in something, whether that's being good at stealth or social skills I want it to matter at least now and then. Obviously there are times when some information needs to come out, but there's a difference between need to know and nice to know.

 

[iserith]

I suspect in most cases it isn't as absolute as that. I.e. a DM may relatively rarely call for a certain skill to be checked, or they may be unconsciously or simply without mentioning it be not asking for checks because skills are high. If they absolutely never do though sure it can inform things, eventually, once the players realize. Also some people build largely for verisimilitude, and will take the skills they think are right regardless of whether the DM makes much use of them. Bizarrely this can include people who are min-maxers in other areas of their character (I have one such in my group - he'll min-max the heck out of combat performance, but beyond taking Athletics for wrastlin', skill and tool wise he just goes with what logically his PC should have).

Sure, I know some players do this, but to me it's somewhat like (to build on your example) taking Arctic favored terrain because I'm from the Frozen North but knowing full well the campaign is a desert hexcrawl. Like at some point this is the player's fault.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

In my opinion, it's as bad as the opposite, which is to just ask them to make a roll and not to say a word. I like the mix of both. But once again, I just get excited and immersed in the social interaction and forget about it. So I do it as much as I can, but it's something I have to work on.

As a player and a fellow DM I would say it's not as bad, because what you're doing tends to be a lot more fun than the opposite.

The worst is when you're made to roll a check at virtually the end of every sentence. Bonus awful if the DM doesn't ever give Advantage/Disadvantage based on what you said.

 

[iserith]

It's as @iserith described. I just really get involved in the social interactions and forget about the rules for a moment. My players will be roleplaying their argument, and then I'll decide on what degree of information the NPC is willing to part with depending solely on that. To there's still a degree of success. But I fully understand when a player with a character that has a high Persuasion skill feels a bit bad. Another character with a low charisma and persuasion could have reached the same result if the player argued effectively.

I think the best way for a player to think about skill proficiencies is as insurance. I'm going to take actions and say stuff that will hopefully grant me automatic success without rolling. BUT, if I have to roll, I'm sure glad I have X proficiency. In a game like yours where you prefer to play out the social interaction without ability checks (perfectly fine), I don't need to buy that insurance.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Same. My maps are awful:

Mapping. I can't draw for crap anyway, but always have over-grandiose set pieces, which always ends in crudely drawn garbage.

Easily my least favorite part of gaming, next to dealing with problem players and interpersonal conflict. I would get so frustrated with trying to schedule a session that I'd give up for months at a time. I eventually just switched to a "we game at such and such a time on this schedule. If you make it, you make it. If not, I run for whoever does show up." Life has been much easier since then.

I suck ass at scheduling. Gathering a party is such damn nightmare I ended up paying another dude so he would do it for me.

I'm also bad at accents, but I speak Netflix English and there are no accents in Russian anyway.

A good DM always has things to improve. When we stop trying to be better, we start down the path of being bad DMs.

Oof, lots of things to improve. If I have to pick one that wasn't mentioned before in this thread:

 

[Blue]

I think the best way for a player to think about skill proficiencies is as insurance. I'm going to take actions and say stuff that will hopefully grant me automatic success without rolling. BUT, if I have to roll, I'm sure glad I have X proficiency. In a game like yours where you prefer to play out the social interaction without ability checks (perfectly fine), I don't need to buy that insurance.

This isn't directly to you iserith, just a jumping off to the whole "use my skills" player request discussion.

The other way I can see this play out is the non-silver-tongued player with the social character. I have a player with social anxiety playing a bard in one game. She can tell us what she's trying to do in 3rd person ("the approach") and then if I feel a check is needed call for it. That doesn't seem to be this case, but I can see one player feeling like other players were stepping on their niche because they were more eloquent. It's like letting the fighter cast spells because the player is good at faux Latin technobabble and making cool gestures.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

For me, it's probably describing environments that I'm the weakest at. I'm also pretty bad at accents, but my players enjoy the weirdness of my bad accents.

Oh, and drawing. If I create a homebrew monster, I cannot draw it for the life of me. Recently a player told me that my poor drawing skills makes the drawings of the monsters more terrifying when I do draw them. I'm not sure whether or not that's a compliment, but it's something. . .

 

[Burnside]

Same. My maps are awful:

View attachment 136234

I'm pretty sure you spelled "incredible" wrong

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Same. My maps are awful:

That looks strangely similar to the first dungeon map I ever used (my cousin made it).

 

[iserith]

This isn't directly to you iserith, just a jumping off to the whole "use my skills" player request discussion.

The other way I can see this play out is the non-silver-tongued player with the social character. I have a player with social anxiety playing a bard in one game. She can tell us what she's trying to do in 3rd person ("the approach") and then if I feel a check is needed call for it. That doesn't seem to be this case, but I can see one player feeling like other players were stepping on their niche because they were more eloquent. It's like letting the fighter cast spells because the player is good at faux Latin technobabble and making cool gestures.

Stating what one is trying to do in 3rd person is all that is required for the DM to determine if the outcome is certain or uncertain and/or there's a meaning consequence for failure. Saying the same thing with more eloquent words really doesn't matter, though it's possibly worth Inspiration for certain characteristics.