D&D General worst (real) advice for DMs

[prabe]

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.

I think @Swarmkeeper is saying you should expect your players to be ready when it comes to their turn--and paying attention, and suchlike--without applying literal timed time pressure to them.

In other words, I think y'all agree more than not, here.

 

[HammerMan]

Player advise instead of DM....

"Make your character before getting to session 0"

 

[Swarmkeeper]

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.

To clarify, we don't use any clock or time pressure or skip player's turns, we just want people paying attention and not wasting game time. As a DM and as a player, I try to model quick decisions and game play. I see other DMs and players doing the same. If someone really has analysis paralysis, we should dig into what is going on. Are they paying attention to the best of their capabilities? Are they putting in the time to understand their character's abilities and spells between sessions? If we can honestly answer "yes" to both these questions, we should have empathy for that player and give them some leeway. Otherwise, we should have an adult conversation about how paying attention and/or player game prep enhances the experience for all at the table; and then, if they are willing, collaborate with them on strategies on how we all might improve.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think @Swarmkeeper is saying you should expect your players to be ready when it comes to their turn--and paying attention, and suchlike--without applying literal timed time pressure to them.

In other words, I think y'all agree more than not, here.

If so, I don't really disagree with them, no. Even though I'm personally terrible about it (but then, my attention span as a player isn't always great, which is one reason I don't fault people who don't want me as a player; I think I spent too many years being only a GM and it kind of wrecked me in this regard).

 

[Weiley31]

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

Hey when your Strahd and your Undeath Life is as boring/not boring as his is, ya gotta spice it up somehow in life.

 

[Thomas Shey]

To clarify, we don't use any clock or time pressure or skip player's turns, we just want people paying attention and not wasting game time. As a DM and as a player, I try to model quick decisions and game play. I see other DMs and players doing the same. If someone really has analysis paralysis, we should dig into what is going on. Are they paying attention to the best of their capabilities? Are they putting in the time to understand their character's abilities and spells between sessions? If we can honestly answer "yes" to both these questions, we should have empathy for that player and give them some leeway. Otherwise, we should have an adult conversation about how paying attention and/or player game prep enhances the experience for all at the table; and then, if they are willing, collaborate with them on strategies on how we all might improve.

This is all entirely fair. I suspect you'd find me a bad player in this area, but that doesn't make your position unreasonable just because it'd bite me.

 

[Jer]

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

I read this as "have strahd CRY when PCs are making plans" and let me tell you it is an entirely different kind of DM advice when you read it that way.

 

[HammerMan]

I read this as "have strahd CRY when PCs are making plans" and let me tell you it is an entirely different kind of DM advice when you read it that way.

no the real truth is the DM cries... when ever PCs try to put together what is going on

 

[Lanefan]

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.

I think you presume a much more self-sacrificial outlook among PCs than I do.

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.

Not at all. If there's even one survivor then the group's identity survives with that character, and that one survivor can try to rebuild the group either through revival, recruitment, or both; and get back on mission. The party - and thus its story - can continue.

If there's no survivors then none of that is true. Which means that while everyone surviving is clearly the best outcome, if there's going to be (or already are) deaths then the focus has to switch to minimizing losses and making sure at least one character survives no matter what.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think you presume a much more self-sacrificial outlook among PCs than I do.

When it comes to assuming people will abandon their companions because an encounter has gone wrong, I've apparently seen a lot more self-sacrifice among PCs than you have. As in, I've never seen it happen, and I've seen enough encounters gone wrong in different games (some of which were with strangers) to have a reasonable sampling.

As I said earlier, if the people you've played with are entirely in the particular old-school "gritty FFV school" of games, that's your gig, but it doesn't make it a piece of advice even vaguely generally applicable as best I can tell.

Not at all. If there's even one survivor then the group's identity survives with that character, and that one survivor can try to rebuild the group either through revival, recruitment, or both; and get back on mission. The party - and thus its story - can continue.

The party isn't a thing unto itself; its composed of its members. This isn't the Ship of Theseus.

If there's no survivors then none of that is true. Which means that while everyone surviving is clearly the best outcome, if there's going to be (or already are) deaths then the focus has to switch to minimizing losses and making sure at least one character survives no matter what.

No, really, it doesn't. Its not like "we all go home or none of us do" doesn't have a history among heroes. To the extent it doesn't, its individual characters throwing themselves on the grenade, not everyone else playing devil take the hindmost.