D&D General The mentality of being a DM

[Kodiak3D]

I just wanted to post and ask how different DM's view the "job" of being a Dungeon Master. I occasionally teach a class about game mastering, and I always find it interesting to see how different people think of it.

I've been running games for 28 years. Personally, I view myself as a "Warden of Fun." If you have taken on the responsibility of running a game, you have made yourself responsible for others having a good time. Now, I'm not saying that you are responsible for EVERYTHING that happens (you can't control what other players do), but you at least should create a situation for your players to play characters they enjoy and be part of a story where THEY are the main characters. It's the story of THEIR heroism, and it should make them feel special.

I do not take an antagonistic view of DM vs Players.

I try to avoid situations that are frustrating (in a bad way, not like puzzles or mysteries, which can be fun) or just annoying. I also tend to not let the dice kill players (but I'll let them come close). Honestly, I don't have many players deaths unless A) they do something foolish, B) it's a boss fight, C) the death would be meaningful/memorable.

So, how do you view the job of a DM?

 

[Burnside]

I largely follow your understanding of the role. I believe in removing what I have generally found to be frustrating obstacles to fun. For example, in a site-based adventure I do not require players to create their own maps based on my verbal description. I will always provide a visual map and gradually reveal areas as the players explore.

However, I WILL let the dice kill characters. One reason for this is that there is a thrilling tension that arises from genuine danger arising from choices plus abilities plus chance. I think the element of chance is important, and you lose something if you over-control it. It is after all a game, not a book or a movie.

In recent years I think my DMing has evolved a lot by virtue of developing a willingness to let go of the reins and let the game play itself when appropriate. As a result many amazing moments have happened that would have been missed had I over-curated the story to “make sure it went right.”

 

[HJFudge]

I view my role as DM as very much a combination of referee and story advocate. I set the stage on which the players and NPCs together will tell their story, using both dice and decisions.

Yes, the dice can kill the players. In fact, if you are preventing the dice from killing the players via fiat you aren't doing your job and are stripping players of part of the fun imho. Not all stories have a happy ending. Not allowing players to die due to dice really robs them of a lot of the fun of the game and tends to lend toward cavalier attitudes. Why care what option you choose if you know none of the options will lead to actual danger? That said, I'll do my best to balance encounters in a way that there are multiple outs if the dice turn bad. But bad luck can make for an interesting tale.

The rules are there to allow some measure of non-arbitrariness to how the story progresses. The Players make decisions based on the rules and the NPCs will as well. Antagonist NPCs/Factions will always have a goal, a motivation. They will be striving to meet this goal regardless on whether or not they are opposed by the heroes. The story will progress, for example, if the players decide not to investigate certain goings ons or deal with the mysterious figures that robbed the temple. They are free to choose what they do: They are not free to choose the consequence of their choice.

Being the DM means striking a balance between letting the players drive the narrative while at the same time presenting them with challenging, interesting and meaningful options and obstacles. Place them in a larger tapestry and it allows both you and the players to cooperate to tell a grand tale.

Without that tapestry, I find I have less fun. Without those obstacles and meaningful choices, my players have less fun.

 

[Kodiak3D]

I should clarify that I don't have a hard rule against letting the dice kill a player, but I don't let it happen often, at least with my usual group of players. After playing with them for 25 years, I know what their play style is, what they enjoy, and what frustrates them. For them, getting killed by an orc or bandit in a random encounter is a pointless death that kills off a character someone has put a lot of time into. However, if the encounter is something more interesting or meaningful to the story, then the dice are very much a danger.

I think this comes from our old days in AD&D 2e when things were much more lethal. Now with 5e (which we only recently switched to after a long time with Pathfinder), it's a little easier to stay alive. We've also been playing more online, not only due to covid, but one of our group moved away. I've been making my dice rolls visible, so if it happens...so be it.

 

[Burnside]

Of course you should play according to what's most fun for you and your group.

As a counterpoint, though, I would say that I am currently in a campaign (as a player) that has four players who each put a lot of thought and heart into backstories, personal goals, etc and were really invested. In session three, one character, due to resource exhaustion and a string of hideously bad rolls on the part of the whole party, was killed during a not-random, but very much not-climatic or "key" encounter - a fight with four skeletons in a totally avoidable dead-end room in a dungeon.

My initial reaction was "this completely sucks that this player lost this character he really cared about in this pretty arbitrary way simply because we should have maybe rested one encounter sooner, and everyone just plain rolled badly (including the player himself failing three death saves in a row while the rest of us were blowing medicine checks right and left)." However, the aftermath of this "lame" death ended up being a huge character moment for the party and in some ways an unexpectedly pivotal early turning point in the campaign. That would never have happened had the DM prevented the character from dying in an "unsatisfying" way.

 

[Li Shenron]

I am the referee: I explain and uphold the rules of the game, resolve ambiguous situations and adjudicate where the rules do not reach. I do not let the players exploit the rules against the spirit of the game, I do not let them argue at the table as rules lawyers, and I am prepared to sanction disruptive players off the game (though I never needed to make it happen).

I am the storyteller: I provide descriptions, set the mood, visualize the scenes, and immerse the players as if they were in their characters' place. I do that with my verbal skills, but also with music and noise, by showing pictures and maps, and occasionally even by setting up the room better.

I am the mastermind: I design and provide challenges related to discovering the plot, revealing mysteries, solving problems, manage scarcity of resources, and combat tactics.

What I am not, is a movie director: I do not lead or force the story towards a predetermined outcome, and the characters towards a specific set of necessary actions. I do not fudge the dice or cheat. But I also let the players choose if it's time for their character's permanent death.

 

[prabe]

I provide the setting in which the PCs' stories happen and the instigating events that kick them off, and I provide antagonists and foils and such to help their PCs define themselves. I am the final word on rules questions, because it seems to work better when someone is.

 

[Emerikol]

I think provide an interesting setting and then to arbitrate the interaction with that setting in a fair and impartial way.

I think the job of providing fun is very much a group responsibility. Anyone can sink the fun. If you read "Arbiter of Worlds" by Alexander Macris, there is some discussion that should prove interesting if you are an old school type. So you might want to read that book if you teach classes. It's focused on one particular style but I think he does that style justice.

 

[Burnside]

I think provide an interesting setting and then to arbitrate the interaction with that setting in a fair and impartial way.

I think the job of providing fun is very much a group responsibility. Anyone can sink the fun. If you read "Arbiter of Worlds" by Alexander Macris, there is some discussion that should prove interesting if you are an old school type. So you might want to read that book if you teach classes. It's focused on one particular style but I think he does that style justice.

Anyone can absolutely sink the fun. But I'd rather be a DM with a bad player than a player with a bad DM in terms of the possibility of the game being any fun at all.

 

[MGibster]

I try to avoid situations that are frustrating (in a bad way, not like puzzles or mysteries, which can be fun) or just annoying. I also tend to not let the dice kill players (but I'll let them come close). Honestly, I don't have many players deaths unless A) they do something foolish, B) it's a boss fight, C) the death would be meaningful/memorable.

While I try to avoid situations that are frustrating, I've got no problems letting the dice kill player characters. And, yeah, depending on what game I'm running I can rack up quite a body count. Some players (such as myself) don't really mind too much when their characters die and I have a lot of great stories about my characters dying. Other players find it somewhat frustrating and especially so when the death seems rather meaningless.

So, how do you view the job of a DM?

My job is to keep the game on track and do my best to ensure everyone is having fun.