D&D General What makes a good DM good?

[Reynard]

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.

It feels like a distinction without a difference.

 

[iserith]

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.

It's what the game says to do. Doing what the game says to do is, along with other standards, a decent guideline for whether the GM for that game is doing a good job at the role in my view. It has the side effect of the game running pretty smoothly in my experience.

 

[Stoutstien]

It feels like a distinction without a difference.

In 5e insight is based on mostly perceiving clues. Catching the NPC's weight getting shifted to their back foot like they may attempt to strike the PC is straight up perception. Trying to determine if they would take that action isn't something one can do based on visual or any other sensory clue as much as a involuntary feeling.

It also allows the player to 'ask their gut' in other instances. Like a limited augury effect. My players love having a way to have a bad feeling as their character when they are unsure what to do.

 

[Reynard]

In 5e insight is based on mostly perceiving clues. Catching the NPC's weight getting shifted to their back foot like they may attempt to strike the PC is straight up perception. Trying to determine if they would take that action isn't something one can do based on visual or any other sensory clue as much as a involuntary feeling.

It also allows the player to 'ask their gut' in other instances. Like a limited augury effect. My players love having a way to have a bad feeling as their character when they are unsure what to do.

I have known plenty of people that I would call "perceptive" in a situational awareness kind of way that were essentially clueless in interpersonal communications. I think it is quite reasonable to separate the two.

As to gut instinct/spideysense: I HATE that interpretation of Insight. It just grates on me. That's what the augury spell is for.

 

[Stoutstien]

I have known plenty of people that I would call "perceptive" in a situational awareness kind of way that were essentially clueless in interpersonal communications. I think it is quite reasonable to separate the two.

As to gut instinct/spideysense: I HATE that interpretation of Insight. It just grates on me. That's what the augury spell is for.

Which fall back on the non casters can't do cool stuff problem.
Why shouldn't PCs have gut feelings? All it is your body and mind interpreting details that are minor and applying past experiences to give you a general feeling. It is something that happens without analytic thought or knowing something in the absence of evidence.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Relaxed.

That's pretty much it. Other than that, just don't be a rooster.

Lowkey come to snuff the rooster, aww yeah, hey yeah
Yeah here come the rooster, yeah
You know he ain't gonna die...

 

[Reynard]

Which fall back on the non casters can't do cool stuff problem.
Why shouldn't PCs have gut feelings? All it is your body and mind interpreting details that are minor and applying past experiences to give you a general feeling. It is something that happens without analytic thought or knowing something in the absence of evidence.

I guess it is just a bridge too far for me. I won't claim it is logical or "should be" the way I prefer it. I just plain don't like it and don't use Insight that way in my games.

 

[Stoutstien]

I guess it is just a bridge too far for me. I won't claim it is logical or "should be" the way I prefer it. I just plain don't like it and don't use Insight that way in my games.

Definitely a preference thing. For me it is about allowing players to play what they want regardless of person ablities. I wouldn't ask someone playing a barbarian to be able to lift a car or athe player with awizard to actually explain the secrets of the cosmos so why would I ask the person with a sage like monk to have a well honed sense of intuition personally?

 

[Reynard]

Definitely a preference thing. For me it is about allowing players to play what they want regardless of person ablities. I wouldn't ask someone playing a barbarian to be able to lift a car or athe player with awizard to actually explain the secrets of the cosmos so why would I ask the person with a sage like monk to have a well honed sense of intuition personally?

I get that and I generally come down in the same line. I don't even expect players to speak in character if that's not their bag. I feel like if the game has interpersonal skills, you shouldn't let the smooth talking players run rampant without regard to their character's 6 Cha. And I don't think I would mind, say, an Intuition skill that was separate from Insight (which I see as a purely interpersonal skill) that does what you suggest. I just don't like Insight being used for that any more than, say, using Athletics to seduce because fit=hawt.

 

[Zardnaar]

1. Deodorant
2. Z in the name
3. Modesty.