D&D General What makes a good DM good?

[CleverNickName]

I think I understand. The player doesn't want to hear that there is still a lack of clarity or certainty after their skill check, because then it feels like the check didn't really happen and their actions didn't matter.

"I rolled Stealth; now tell me if I'm hidden or not. I rolled Insight, now tell me if the merchant is lying or not. I rolled Investigation, now me if the door is trapped or not. Whadda ya mean I still don't know? I rolled for it and everything...what else do you want from me?"

I don't know how to work around that. The best I've got is to narrate it as carefully as I can, and use ambiguity and uncertainty to build tension. So for an Insight check, I'm far more likely to say "The merchant doesn't seem nervous or shifty, but you can't shake the feeling that maybe he's hiding something" than I am to just flatly say "He's lying."

 

[slobster]

In some cases that may be true. In other cases no so much. It can be a clever little trick for the DM to frame things in terms of "you think" and "you believe" so as to set up a situation where there is an expectation that what follows from the player will be in line with what was just established in this regard or else is just looks weird. Players that don't want to look weird in front of others will go along with it. I see this a lot in games I play in and observe, particularly among DMs who have a plot they need the PCs to stay on.

Whether shorthand or a DM trick, this is best avoided altogether in my view by letting players determine what their characters think, say, and do. There's also rules support for exactly that, so I see no downside.

Lots of things to unpack here, but I won't get super into each one in the interest of respecting the thread topic. But briefly:

In terms of DMs who want to keep the PCs on rails, the real issue here is the railroad, IMO. Now I'm not actually against railroads per se, I think as long as the GM and players all know the score and are on board with the idea of a plot that's on rails, it can be okay. But a GM who tells players "you decide to trust Baron McObviousEvil" and compels them to walk into a clear trap is sinning because he's ignoring player choice far more egregiously than an occasional flavor embellishment which assumes that your character thinks flowers smell nice, or wtv. I think the two things are so different that you should consider them different issues.

As to sneaky GMs, well, we're a sneaky lot. I subtly use GM tricks to try and set up surprises for my players and play off of their likely assumptions all the time. I do see how it can be more annoying for a GM to tell you what your character thinks, then betray that stated opinion with a SHOCKING TWIST!, than it would be for that GM to just describe a situation, let you come up with your own idea, and then pull the rug out from under you with that same SHOCKING TWIST!

So I feel where you are coming from, but I also think that most GMs who use the "you feel like the sword is heavier than it should be" rather than "the sword is about 1.4 times as dense as steel usually is" are usually just falling back on more natural language, and that no harm is meant by it.

 

[iserith]

I think I understand. The player doesn't want to hear that there is still a lack of clarity or certainty after their skill check, because then it feels like the check didn't really happen and their actions didn't matter.

"I rolled Stealth; now tell me if I'm hidden or not. I rolled Insight, now tell me if the merchant is lying or not. I rolled Investigation, now me if the door is trapped or not. Whadda ya mean I still don't know? I rolled for it and everything...what else do you want from me?"

I don't know how to work around that. The best I've got is to narrate it as carefully as I can, and use ambiguity and uncertainty to build tension. So for an Insight check, I'm far more likely to say "The merchant doesn't seem nervous or shifty, but you can't shake the feeling that maybe he's hiding something" than I am to just flatly say "He's lying."

I'm of the position that ability checks resolve uncertainty - they don't continue uncertainty or create it. I've no problem with saying directly that, for example, the NPC's mannerisms indicate he's not being truthful. I have no reason or incentive to hide or otherwise obfuscate that fact, given I already established the stakes of the roll after the player described what he or she wants to do. What's important now is what the PC does in the face of this new information.

 

[Stoutstien]

Honestly rolling at all for anything the PC knows or not is an issue I just avoid all together.
If a player doesn't trust a NPC the results of on insight check won't really change that.

 

[Panda-s1]

Honestly rolling at all for anything the PC knows or not is an issue I just avoid all together.
If a player doesn't trust a NPC the results of on insight check won't really change that.

man that seems a little cynical, as a player I'm willing to let my character do all sorts of dumb naughty word I would never do irl. like said if my character is gullible and the DM says the NPC seems trustworthy on a bad roll I'll totally let them go along with the NPC (barring anything obvious).

 

[iserith]

Lots of things to unpack here, but I won't get super into each one in the interest of respecting the thread topic. But briefly:

In terms of DMs who want to keep the PCs on rails, the real issue here is the railroad, IMO. Now I'm not actually against railroads per se, I think as long as the GM and players all know the score and are on board with the idea of a plot that's on rails, it can be okay. But a GM who tells players "you decide to trust Baron McObviousEvil" and compels them to walk into a clear trap is sinning because he's ignoring player choice far more egregiously than an occasional flavor embellishment which assumes that your character thinks flowers smell nice, or wtv. I think the two things are so different that you should consider them different issues.

I don't have to because unless I have made a mistake I will not say what a character does, thinks, or says. That's not my role as DM, shorthand or otherwise.

So I feel where you are coming from, but I also think that most GMs who use the "you feel like the sword is heavier than it should be" rather than "the sword is about 1.4 times as dense as steel usually is" are usually just falling back on more natural language, and that no harm is meant by it.

As I said above, in some cases that may be true. In other cases no so much. I don't think we have enough data to say whether your assertion about "most GMs" is true. I'd like to believe that's true, but I observe and play in a lot of games across a relatively large population of DMs and telling players what their characters do, say, and think is awfully common.

In the end, whether harm is meant by it or not changes little in my view. No harm can occur if the DM simply avoids doing it at all and that's the most effective approach in my experience.

 

[univoxs]

Those ones mentioned are good. Charisma is important, the ability to get people listening to you and interested in what you are saying. Empathy is good. When you are being empathetic then you are feeling the fun that your players are having. I would say Empathy might be the most important thing because the truth is, its a hobby and hobbies are supposed to be fun and if your players are not having fun then they wont play and then YOU don't get to play so now no one is having fun.

 

[Prakriti]

I'm of the position that ability checks resolve uncertainty - they don't continue uncertainty or create it.

Really? In my games, ability checks only have a chance to resolve uncertainty. For example, if a player makes a Medicine check to determine what disease an NPC is suffering from, there is a chance that they recognize the symptoms as a particular disease. But if they roll too low, then they might learn nothing; the disease and its symptoms are outside the scope of their knowledge. Is that not how you would rule it?

 

[Oofta]

Honestly rolling at all for anything the PC knows or not is an issue I just avoid all together.
If a player doesn't trust a NPC the results of on insight check won't really change that.

As much as I like to think differently, I am not a professional actor. My players may or may not be as good as their PCs at picking up on deception.

Whether or not a player decides their PC trusts someone is up to the player, determining the true intentions of a creature is the definition of an insight check.

 

[iserith]

Really? In my games, ability checks only have a chance to resolve uncertainty. For example, if a player makes a Medicine check to determine what disease an NPC is suffering from, there is a chance that they recognize the symptoms as a particular disease. But if they roll too low, then they might learn nothing; the disease and its symptoms are outside the scope of their knowledge. Is that not how you would rule it?

I might not have been very clear there. What I mean to say is that if you succeed on a check, I'm not going to beat around the bush. You engaged in a task with an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure. If you succeed on the check, I'm not going to rob you of what you just earned by not being direct about the result.

As for your example, context would tell, but it's unlikely I would ever say "The disease is unidentifiable..." on a failed roll. It's more likely that you figure it out, but now you've been exposed to it (assuming that makes sense in context), what the PHB calls "progress combined with a setback." That is a meaningful consequence for failure.