D&D General What makes a good DM good?

[slobster]

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.

That's fair enough, you're welcome to your own preferences as always. Hopefully you understand why GMs like me will occasionally fall into the "he seems pretty sad about something to you" language rather than holding ourselves to strict rules about that sort of thing. No harm meant, it just can be exhausting to break years of habit using natural English, and sometimes I think it's more evocative anyway!

 

[iserith]

That's fair enough, you're welcome to your own preferences as always. Hopefully you understand why GMs like me will occasionally fall into the "he seems pretty sad about something to you" language rather than holding ourselves to strict rules about that sort of thing. No harm meant, it just can be exhausting to break years of habit using natural English, and sometimes I think it's more evocative anyway!

Yes, it's a very hard habit to break. I'm watching a number of DMs in our Discord try it now that I've pointed out what they're doing. But progress has been made!

 

[Stoutstien]

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).

Which is a player's decision. They could roll high and know the NPC is charging them double for the room and still decide to play the small town folk hero visiting the big city. The roll is a suggestion and I don't want players to think the dice control their agency.

 

[CleverNickName]

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.

I'm of the position that ability checks can resolve uncertainty, or they could continue, or create, or even compound it. An hour of research in a library could give you the answer you were looking for, but it could also give you more questions about other topics. Chatting with a merchant could give you an inkling about how honest he is being, but how do you describe an inkling to a player without starting your sentences with the words "you feel" or "you believe."

Some would say you don't. Just tell everyone that the merchant isn't being honest. It's a pass/fail toggle switch and you should flip it to "Pass," then move on.

I don't know what the best course of action is. All I can say is that my players seem to prefer a narrative approach, where I tell them all about these inklings and what their characters might be feeling or experiencing. I can see how others might not.

*Edit: staying on the topic of Insight

 

[iserith]

I'm of the position that ability checks can resolve uncertainty, or they could continue, or create, or even compound it. An hour of research in a library could give you the answer you were looking for, but it could also give you more questions. Chatting with a merchant could give you an inkling about how honest he is being, but how do you describe an inkling to a player without starting your sentences with the words "you feel" or "you believe."

You don't - you can just say the merchant's changes of speech indicate he or she is not being truthful. "What do you do?"

As for the research example, that's not the same thing that I'm talking about. I'm talking about this on the scale of the individual task. You either did the thing or didn't do the thing or you did the thing with a setback. Those are the results of an ability check. That may lead to subsequent tasks which are resolved in the same way. I won't narrate the result as anything that isn't absolutely clear to the player. They took the risk, so me being straight with them is the reward.

 

[Reynard]

OR the player rolls and hits and says "I stab the orc in the neck! blood gushes everywhere!" and the DM says "hell yeah!"

The problem I have with this is that the player doesn't know how many hit points the orc has or what that force's capabilities are or anything else. The job of the GM is to give the players information they can use to make meaningful decisions. In the case of combat, that includes things like telegraphing effectiveness through description. When I GM, a description like "You stab the orc in the neck and blood gushes out like Tarantino directed this scene" means you just dropped that orc to nearly dead. The player is literally incapable of determining that (unless the enemies' HP are "visible") so it disrupts the flow of information from one side of the screen to the other.

I'm not saying that players should not apply flourishes to their descriptions, just that results are necessarily the purview of the GM in D&D and most other traditional RPGs. There are games that support player driven narrative, of course, and many are a hoot.

 

[iserith]

The problem I have with this is that the player doesn't know how many hit points the orc has or what that force's capabilities are or anything else. The job of the GM is to give the players information they can use to make meaningful decisions. In the case of combat, that includes things like telegraphing effectiveness through description. When I GM, a description like "You stab the orc in the neck and blood gushes out like Tarantino directed this scene" means you just dropped that orc to nearly dead. The player is literally incapable of determining that (unless the enemies' HP are "visible") so it disrupts the flow of information from one side of the screen to the other.

I'm not saying that players should not apply flourishes to their descriptions, just that results are necessarily the purview of the GM in D&D and most other traditional RPGs. There are games that support player driven narrative, of course, and many are a hoot.

The play loop is DM, Player, DM, Repeat. The player describes the flourish without reference to what happens to the orc. Then the DM describes what happens to the orc without establishing anything new about what the character does. Easy peasy.

 

[Panda-s1]

The problem I have with this is that the player doesn't know how many hit points the orc has or what that force's capabilities are or anything else. The job of the GM is to give the players information they can use to make meaningful decisions. In the case of combat, that includes things like telegraphing effectiveness through description. When I GM, a description like "You stab the orc in the neck and blood gushes out like Tarantino directed this scene" means you just dropped that orc to nearly dead. The player is literally incapable of determining that (unless the enemies' HP are "visible") so it disrupts the flow of information from one side of the screen to the other.

I'm not saying that players should not apply flourishes to their descriptions, just that results are necessarily the purview of the GM in D&D and most other traditional RPGs. There are games that support player driven narrative, of course, and many are a hoot.

if I do a massive amount of damage I don't see how it's a problem to assume the orc is almost if not already dead.

but fine, the player rolls and hits and rolls damage and the DM says "the orc goes down" and the player says "I stab the orc in the neck! blood gushes everywhere!" and the DM says "hell yeah!"

 

[Stoutstien]

I replace the insight in my games with sense motive. IMO picking up subtle tells and mannerism is firmly in the realm of perception.

At least with since motive it is a true gut feeling. It might not be super immersive to treat it like Spidey senses but the players gets the information without having to ask every time.

 

[Reynard]

The play loop is DM, Player, DM, Repeat. The player describes the flourish without reference to what happens to the orc. Then the DM describes what happens to the orc without establishing anything new about what the character does. Easy peasy.

Another important skill for a good GM is to be able to read their players and run the game in a way that makes those players as happy as practical and possible. So if a player doesn't like being told how their character feels is at the table, the GM adjusts their behavior to not do that thing for that player's character's actions. It's harder at conventions and other circumstances where you are exposed to new players more often, but it's not impossible.

I mostly took issue with the assertion that the behavior was a definition of good GMing when it's entirely a player preference thing.