D&D General The mentality of being a DM

[pming]

hehe I agree in 5e, i feel like I work hard to try to kill my players, and they always get out of it!

[Inigo Montoya] "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means..." [/Inigo Montoya]


^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[p_johnston]

I view my job as a GM in a few different ways

I am a mad scientist: I like to experiment with changing rules, monsters, settings, character creation methods, etc. I make stuff up that I think will make the game fun and interesting and then test it out. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. When it doesn't I get rid of it, apologize, and explain why I tried it if the players are frustrated.

I am a sheepdog: I try and keep my group of players together, focused on the adventure and moving forward. I will also try and point them towards the path I expect but I won't force them to take it. I will however force them to keep moving forward in a direction so that they don't get bogged down.

I am a watcher and listener: I take note of what my players say and do to try and know what they want from the game and whether or not they are having fun. Often more importantly I take note of what they don't say and do, which often involves noticing when one player is not participating or having fun. When I notice a player being unusually silent or not having a chance to participate I can swivel the game to try and include them more.

I am a judge: I will interpret the rules and make rulings on the players actions. If I am unsure I will make something up that applies for now and look up the actual rule later.

I am transparent: I will let the players know the why of my rulings, rules, and actions especially if they are getting frustrated. I may not explain immediately but I will explain my thought process so that they can understand even if they don't agree. Another part of this is admitting when I make a mistake that needs to be retconned.

I am a storyteller: I either come up with the world/story or interpret one (a pre built campaign). This means that I am responsible for letting the players know everything they need to know about that world in a way that is interesting. This also means taking the things my players give me in both their actions and backstories and finding ways to integrate them into the world.

 

[ad_hoc]

I don't view it as MY job for everyone to have fun. Everyone at the table has that job and all should contribute equally.

It is a huge peeve of mine of DMs who don't allow character death. There is no 'coming close' because the possiblity isn't there in the first place. When I DM the players know that they can fail, sometimes catastrophically. It creates tension and excitement.

 

[Emerikol]

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.

The reason why I am pushing back is because I don't think you are comprehending what the term means. I got your elaboration in your original post.

A neutral DM does these sorts of things....
1. He makes his NPC/Monster plans in advance so as not to be influenced by PC planning.
2. He doesn't change things midstream because things are going too good or too bad for the PCs
3. He lets the dice fall where they fall.

Yes he plays the roll of the bad guys. And given their knowledge AND PERSONALITIES, he plays them to the best of his ability. If though they are cowardly, he must play them cowardly and not as super brave fight to the death types.

That is all that being neutral means. It's not fudging. It's being fair and making impartial rulings. Impartial means ruling according to the rules and the world concept.

It does not have anything to do with being impartial about having fun. Everyone wants to have fun. Being neutral and impartial helps promote more fun for everyone. The neutrality part is ABOUT rulings inside the game.

 

[Democratus]

It depends on the style of campaign.

I'm running an old-school B/X hex crawl/west marches campaign. In that one I am neutral arbitrator and referee. All actions are driven by the players and the map. It's my job to represent the world in an authentic way and let the dice fall where they may. I assign one player as the 'caller', one as the 'mapper', and stick strictly to the rules.

I'm also running an Adventures in Middle Earth(tm) game. Here I am a storyteller, weaving the players into something that feels as much like the original author as possible. My job is to be evocative and present the literary magic of the world and its themes.

 

[Shiroiken]

A DM wears 3 hats: author, judge, and storyteller.

Before the session I work as an author, designing challenges for the party to overcome. I'm personally a bit on the "evil" side, often designing challenges with no obvious solutions. I used to ignore CR, but I've started looking at XGtE's charts lately to gauge strength. Logic outweighs encounter balance, however, so if it makes sense for there to be 50 orcs, then I'm not going to tone it down to 12 just because. I always assume my players are going to outwit me, because 95% of the time, they do.

During the session, I'm a judge: I try to impartially interpret the actions of the player by the rules. If they find and exploit a weakness I didn't intend, well good for them. If they miss something obvious, well that sucks. The dice are the final arbiter of anything in question, and they will kill PCs. Enemies in combat will act according to their intelligence and motivations listed in the adventure (or added by me).

Being a storyteller takes place both before and during the session. I not only design challenges beforehand, but I also design story elements to motivate and affect the PCs. Sometimes these challenges draw upon the backstory, personality, bonds, and flaws of a character, and I try to focus upon the character development that might occur. During the session, I try to describe the world and events in a way to give the players the feeling of being in the world. Just as my encounter design is considered a bit "evil," I do have a tendency to do this with my storytelling as well, but my players are aware that I run a mature game with adult themes.

 

[Blue]

The reason why I am pushing back is because I don't think you are comprehending what the term means. I got your elaboration in your original post.

A neutral DM does these sorts of things....
1. He makes his NPC/Monster plans in advance so as not to be influenced by PC planning.
2. He doesn't change things midstream because things are going too good or too bad for the PCs
3. He lets the dice fall where they fall.

Yes he plays the roll of the bad guys. And given their knowledge AND PERSONALITIES, he plays them to the best of his ability. If though they are cowardly, he must play them cowardly and not as super brave fight to the death types.

That is all that being neutral means. It's not fudging. It's being fair and making impartial rulings. Impartial means ruling according to the rules and the world concept.

It does not have anything to do with being impartial about having fun. Everyone wants to have fun. Being neutral and impartial helps promote more fun for everyone. The neutrality part is ABOUT rulings inside the game.

You say the same things I said, but your skewed weighting misses the point by a country mile. You trivialize the point of playing and somehow just assume "fun will happen", without realizing it's the absolute most important thing about the game and it needs to be a DM's first priority.

Answer me this. Which situation would you rather be in?

Playing with a scrupulously neutral DM who puts together a technically adept world but does not prioritize enjoyment at the table, just assumes it's going to happen. It's fair, dry, and not tailored to the specific characters or players, instead they must find what they like in the world - or not. If they want intrigue and that's not what the DM wanted, too bad. This describes what you have above.

Playing with a DM who is actively working to make sure all of the players are having fun - crafting personal character arcs, making sure that over time all of the characters have equal time in the spotlight, making sure little used character features, quirks, backstory etc come up occasionally. Pays attention to player interests (they liked that organization, or they enjoy RP challenges more than dungeon crawls) when crafting future adventures. Oh, and is just as fair and consistent in application of the rules and plots in motion as the first one, because being fair also adds to the player fun.

BTW, I don't say this to degrade your style of play - I honestly believe that if you listed out everythign about how you DM it would be a heck of a lot more player-centric then what you put above without sacrificing what you wrote. I just put it like this because the parts not listed are the most important parts.

 

[Fenris-77]

You can be a fan of the players, and their characters, while still being neutral in terms of action adjudication and consequences.

 

[S'mon]

You say the same things I said, but your skewed weighting misses the point by a country mile. You trivialize the point of playing and somehow just assume "fun will happen", without realizing it's the absolute most important thing about the game and it needs to be a DM's first priority.

Answer me this. Which situation would you rather be in?

Playing with a scrupulously neutral DM who puts together a technically adept world but does not prioritize enjoyment at the table, just assumes it's going to happen. It's fair, dry, and not tailored to the specific characters or players, instead they must find what they like in the world - or not. If they want intrigue and that's not what the DM wanted, too bad. This describes what you have above.

Playing with a DM who is actively working to make sure all of the players are having fun - crafting personal character arcs, making sure that over time all of the characters have equal time in the spotlight, making sure little used character features, quirks, backstory etc come up occasionally. Pays attention to player interests (they liked that organization, or they enjoy RP challenges more than dungeon crawls) when crafting future adventures. Oh, and is just as fair and consistent in application of the rules and plots in motion as the first one, because being fair also adds to the player fun.

BTW, I don't say this to degrade your style of play - I honestly believe that if you listed out everythign about how you DM it would be a heck of a lot more player-centric then what you put above without sacrificing what you wrote. I just put it like this because the parts not listed are the most important parts.

I guess I like something in between these two, but closer to #1. #2 sounds too much like The Truman Show. The GM should be prepared to accommodate a decently wide range of play styles within the genre of the game, and the more they can accommodate, the better. I didn't much like playing with a GM who was literally unable to play NPCs, though he had some positive qualities. But if it's a setting where intrigue would have limited relevance, eg a West Marches style campaign, that seems fine to me.

 

[Emerikol]

Playing with a scrupulously neutral DM who puts together a technically adept world but does not prioritize enjoyment at the table, just assumes it's going to happen. It's fair, dry, and not tailored to the specific characters or players, instead they must find what they like in the world - or not. If they want intrigue and that's not what the DM wanted, too bad. This describes what you have above.

Every bit of what you say is for naught though if the DM is not impartial and fair. So I will say that I will always prefer an impartial and fair DM to one that is not. Now you do make a good point that creativity and campaign construction are important and go on the list for sure. I tend to build campaigns independent of a group as it takes me a while and typically when I ask if people want to play they think "next week". So I get things ready and then seek players.

I think I make a pretty darned interesting world for anyone. I have a ton of plot threads involving villainous types and a lot of gray types in between. I am of the living world philosophy so the world is not boring. I do not mean to lessen that but the most creative most awesome creator of adventures and worlds will fall short if not a neutral and fair arbiter.

So sure we are prioritizing the fun absolutely. For me, number one on that list is a DM who knows the rules and is fair and impartial. Arbitration is his primary "in session" job.