D&D General The mentality of being a DM

[FrozenNorth]

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?

Mostly in the same manner. The big difference is that I am a “Let the dice fall where they lay” DM. As much as it sucks to lose a character, I feel that if the DM is unwilling to kill a character when the dice say so, tension drains from the session.

 

[jmartkdr2]

The analogy I use is: it's like cooking a meal for your friends.

The reward is the satisfaction and pride of making something and having others enjoy it. I want to enjoy it too, but the goal is for everyone to enjoy it.

To that end, that means some compromised may need to be made. If someone has a food allergy, I will not use that food, even if the recipe normally calls for it. If people have different tolerances for spiciness, I'll factor that in, maybe doing spicy and sweet versions of side dishes to accommodate multiple people.

But I'm not going to overwork myself by making a unique menu for each guest, nor am I going to make foods I'm not comfortable/competent in. I won't be serving my first attempt at homemade pie crust - I'll store-buy that component or do something other than pie.

But dming is more about crafting a thing than playing a game, to me. If everyone has a good time, I am glad I did a great job.

 

[jasper]

Killer Referee. I run the adventure mostly as written with the players causing the changes in the script. I roll out in the open with dead being on the line depending on the encounter and INT of the monster. Dead is dead and is resolved with Adventure League rules.
While homebrewing dead is dead. And generally just required the party to pay the cost of the raise dead/resurrection spell. Aka Drop another quarter in the slot for an additional life.
I do use props, handouts, and other activities to get the player and pc involved in the adventure path.

 

[Scott Christian]

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

I view the job as fun. But, like most fun things, it has rules to help the fun along. These are the rules I use to help make sure it is fun, for both sides of the table:

• If I have a great scene in mind, it is most often built prior to the PC's making decisions. An example would be them seeing the dragon enter the cave. Once their motives and actions are involved, it is all up to impromptu and letting the dice make the decisions. (There are exceptions, such as having a small script for when a PC succeeds on their persuasion roll or when a boss creature reaches bloodied and something morphic happens.)
• The dice decide. I have found this is one of the key pillars to having the player's care about their characters.
• Always err on the side of the players when they are being creative (and often, even when they are not).
• Make sure each PC has a chance to shine when designing scene, adventure, or campaign plot lines.
• Help players help themselves. Take time after the game to talk, explain or listen.
• Be prepared. This is, by far, the biggest one I have found that adds fun to both sides of the table. The other rules can often leave one side with a restricted (example: DM making a plot line that needs to include everyone) or bummed out (example: letting the dice kill the one player at the table that actually has a problem with dying) feeling. But, I have never had the experience of this rule altering any one's judgement of the session in a negative way. It is always positive. The players have a tendency to like the pace, fluidity and exactness of a well prepared DM. The DM is happy to not scrambling to find an answer, mini, map, stats, etc.

I have not read the other answers, but am looking forward to. The thing I am struggling with in this question is how everyone doesn't simply answer: The DM's job is to help facilitate fun. In the end, that is the job. And in doing so, have fun ourselves.

 

[billd91]

I have not read the other answers, but am looking forward to. The thing I am struggling with in this question is how everyone doesn't simply answer: The DM's job is to help facilitate fun. In the end, that is the job. And in doing so, have fun ourselves.

Mostly because there are about 50 zillion variations on helping to facilitate fun.

 

[Scott Christian]

Mostly because there are about 50 zillion variations on helping to facilitate fun.

I understand there are different categories DMs prefer to focus on. But, they are all the same: crafting challenges for players, rewarding players, describing settings, etc. These are always the same for any DM with experience. And the preferred outcome of these focuses is to have fun. That was the reason for my last comment. Hope that clarifies.
I wrote that last paragraph because It seems to me the better question is:
How do you prioritize the jobs of a DM?

But we all speak colloquially, including my paragraph you responded to. And the OP's question is easily understood. Sorry if there was any miscommunication in mine.

 

[Imaculata]

Mostly because there are about 50 zillion variations on helping to facilitate fun.

Indeed. That everyone wants to have fun is pretty much a given.
But HOW you facilitate fun is far more important, and this is where we differ in approach.

 

[Emerikol]

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.

True. I mean if nothing else you can replace a player far easier than you can a good DM.

 

[Emerikol]

Another comment on being a cheerleader of the players. I run the rules fairly and consistantly, but I would never descibe an important part of my job as being a "neutral arbiter". A referee in a sports match needs to be neutral and not favor either team. However, as hobbyists sitting around the table we are all on the same team. With only one team, we should all be on each other's side working for fun. The characters are working to overcome challenges, and there I will be fair, and often what I design is mean or deadly. But that's nto because I want the players to not have fun, it's because I want the players to have loads of fun trying to overcome them. Character failure just leads to another branch of the story, and all of the branchs - with character success or character failure - should be fun for the players and the DM.

I would have argued that being a neutral arbiter or referee as you say is a key component of making it fun for the players. Overcoming real challenges is more satisfying than having the DM fudge things so you always end up winning.

 

[Blue]

I would have argued that being a neutral arbiter or referee as you say is a key component of making it fun for the players. Overcoming real challenges is more satisfying than having the DM fudge things so you always end up winning.

You cut out important bits in what you quoted that addresses exactly that.

I am fair and consistent in my rulings, and provide real tensions and fear of death without fudging so that rewards are well earned and they have epic stories because that's what gives fun to my players. It also provides fun for me. Providing that real challenge to the characters is one of the ways that I provide fun to the players. If I was teaching young children to play, I would have different parameters, since that is what would be the most fun around that table. There is only one team - the people sitting around the table (which includes the DM). They all want to make that team win (everyone around the table have fun).

It is only by falsely conflating character success with player success that the misguided idea that a DM should be impartial has any traction. DMs fell for it as well, with the old adversarial DM idea. The DM should NEVER be impartial - they should be actively working for more fun at the table for everyone (including themselves). By the flip side, the players should never be impartial either. They should also be actively working for more fun at the table for everyone (including themselves).

In a game with multiple sides, it provides fun to have a neutral arbiter to provide fairness. The idea that the players are a side, the DM is a neutral arbiter, then leaves who to oppose the players? (Note: not to oppose the characters.) No one. Without that, the idea of a neutral person makes no sense. I know it's been one of those ideas that's been around for ages, but it really needs to be reexamined instead of just accepted.

Just like players and characters are different, the challenges, setting and foes the DM sets up and controls in the world are separate from the DM themself. The DM and players are on the same side. The characters and the challenges are not. Or maybe, through clever play, they are.