D&D General worst (real) advice for DMs

[dave2008]

I'm not going to get into my opinion of "decisions only as meaningful as the GM lets them" again, but yes, if there's no extent mechanical heft to engage with, that will often make for faster decision making.

You misunderstood a bit. There is existent mechanical heft (particularly since we are feats only), it is just that our group was already used to make decisions from a potentially infinite list of possibilities. So adding some hard-coded mechanical choices didn't really change their decision making ability. I mean we did the same thing in 4e as well (even at level 30), which had a lot more hard-coded choices.

 

[Weiley31]

I think there's something to this one, but only because of your first sentence. Taking, effectively, a second combat character as an aspect of your character design shouldn't make the two of you consistently better than everyone else in the group, even in combat. Its admittedly a fine line to make the companion useful and not too good, but if you want it to be as good as any PC and the actual PC to be worth a damn too, I think you expect too much.

I meant more along the lines that both, as a whole/together, should be considered a potent fighting unit. Especially if they are the only or second kind of "martial" aspect the party has as a whole. I've seen some argue that even the Ranger/Animal Companion or Druid/Animal Companion aren't supposed to be able to wreck face together despite the bond/training they have.

My bro's Revised Ranger PC's Black Panther isn't going to be the one to save the Kingdom. It's going to be both of them and if a last stand happens, both are going to make sure faces bleed.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

"Give players X amount of time to make a decision on their turn in combat"

I don't mean to pick on this advice too much but, at least at our table, it is expected that most of the time when the initiative order comes around to your turn that you the player have been paying attention in order to have a course of action ready right away. Of course, there are times when there might be a few moments of deliberation, especially when something unexpected happened on the turn just before yours. We also should absolutely be patient with new players as they get a sense of how to play.

TLDR: Session time is precious. Pay attention, Know how your character works, Keep the action flowing with minimal delay

 

[Thomas Shey]

The stories tell tales of heroes.

What they don't tell is that for every hero, ten others tried and died along the way. That's the story the game tells; not just that of the heroes, but of those on whose dead shoulders said heroes stand.

Missing the point. Most of said heroes were not going to abandon companions, so expecting the players to is ignoring what they're getting into the game to be.

If you want to stay in and go down with the ship, that's your choice. Me, if I'm in over my head and have a chance to get out I will; and if later I can somehow find a way to bring the lost back to life I'll follow it up.

But its not about what you feel like doing. Its what the majority of players do, and the fact that doesn't fit your expectations could not be less relevant.

Whose survival and continuance is more important: that of the party, or that of any one individual? Pick one; "both" is not an option.

Or, put another way, sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few - or the one.

But this isn't a case of putting the group's safety over your own; its putting your survival over other members of the group. Its the exact opposite of the sentiment you're pushing.

 

[Thomas Shey]

You misunderstood a bit. There is existent mechanical heft (particularly since we are feats only), it is just that our group was already used to make decisions from a potentially infinite list of possibilities. So adding some hard-coded mechanical choices didn't really change their decision making ability. I mean we did the same thing in 4e as well (even at level 30), which had a lot more hard-coded choices.

I did, and I apologize. But honestly, the people with decision paralysis I've hit would probably exhibit it in the case you're describing, too. Heck, it might be worse.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I meant more along the lines that both, as a whole/together, should be considered a potent fighting unit. Especially if they are the only or second kind of "martial" aspect the party has as a whole. I've seen some argue that even the Ranger/Animal Companion or Druid/Animal Companion aren't supposed to be able to wreck face together despite the bond/training they have.

I'd find that a hard sell with the ranger/companion combo, since that's a fighting class. I can see an argument it shouldn't be as true of the druid/companion because the druid already does a ton of things, he doesn't need to be a full substitute for a melee character, too.

My bro's Revised Ranger PC's Black Panther isn't going to be the one to save the Kingdom. It's going to be both of them and if a last stand happens, both are going to make sure faces bleed.

Well, the phrasing in the original implied that the Companion by themself was as good as a normal combat character. There's a big difference between that and the sum of the two characters together being one. The problem with making that work is that the main character has to lose enough capability that the critter is making up (and maybe pushing ahead a little) the lost capability.

 

[HammerMan]

Have strahd scry when ever PCs are making plans... or atleast have a % chance... even if they are batheing when they talk.

 

[Thomas Shey]

"Give players X amount of time to make a decision on their turn in combat"

I don't mean to pick on this advice too much but, at least at our table, it is expected that most of the time when the initiative order comes around to your turn that you the player have been paying attention in order to have a course of action ready right away. Of course, there are times when there might be a few moments of deliberation, especially when something unexpected happened on the turn just before yours. We also should absolutely be patient with new players as they get a sense of how to play.

TLDR: Session time is precious. Pay attention, Know how your character works, Keep the action flowing with minimal delay

While this is a defensible position, some people are just terrible at this, and applying time pressure will not actually make them better. In some cases it'll make them worse. So in practice you'd end up just having people who skipped their turns a lot; whether they stubbornly stuck it out and kept doing it or walked away, it'd probably be easier just to find people who were more time focused in the first place.

Basically, I'm unconvinced this sort of social engineering produces a good result except in the mildest cases.

 

[dave2008]

I did, and I apologize. But honestly, the people with decision paralysis I've hit would probably exhibit it in the case you're describing, too. Heck, it might be worse.

Sure, I can only deal with the players I have. I was not trying to suggest it works for everyone.

 

[Jer]

Hm - worst advice for DMs.

probably "Take any advice you read on the internet seriously". Or maybe "DM advice is always universal so trust what you read when you read it."

(IME DM situations are very fluid and what works at one table won't work at another. Good GMing books take this into consideration, but most DM advice is actually bad if you take it as universal rules for good GMing rather than suggestions about what has worked for some people in some situations.)