Observations on DM styles
After many years of Roll20 D&D campaigns, we have whittled the process down to the bare essentials: there are only three of us now, with one DM and two players running two characters each. Having completed many of the classic modules of our youth, we are now tackling an extension to the Mines of Phandelver - Shattered Obelisk. Because this is golden age D&D from when we were teens, we chose a classic lineup. My friend is playing a half orc fighter and wood elf rogue, while I'm playing the dwarven cleric and high elf wizard.
What is new for us this time is that the DM is brand new to the position. He's been a player forever but has never had the time to run a campaign. These pre-packaged modules make things quite easy though so we're delighted to finally get the forever player behind the screen so that the two normal DMs can really play this team to its potential. It's been a blast.
But what I realized yesterday is how different his style is, and that's what I'd like to discuss here. I come from a theater and Hollywood background as a screenwriter/playwright and character actor. I also have a ton of improv comedy experience. I'll throw out a number of story elements or NPCs and just cut loose, completely fine with where the dice and the player decisions take me. Our other usual DM is also a Hollywood guy, but he's a producer. So for him it's all about marshaling the resources, optimizing the setting, and conducting the grand scenario. He cuts right through all my roleplaying to get to the tactical play as soon as possible.
Well our new DM is a senior medical doctor at a teaching hospital. I just realized as we played last night that he isn't narrative in the slightest because he is presenting each of the scenarios or NPCs as if he's on his rounds with a knot of junior doctors, giving them a brief outline or quick synopsis of each patient's condition before moving on to the next. It's such a different way of approaching this kind of data that it took me a few months of this before I realized what he was doing. All of us are trained to our own methods, that's for sure.
How do you and your tables present information and move the game forward? I fear that the success of Critical Role, etc. has given too many newer players the idea that there is only one way to conduct these kinds of games and I'd like to hear of more original approaches.
I think the success of shows like Critical Role and other shows like it definitely do give a skewed impression of what a campaign is like and an even more skewed impression of what DM-ing is like -- not every DM needs to be an absolute master of improv and voice acting. But I think they play into broader problems with D&D culture more generally where way too much burden is put on the DM compared to other players at the table when it comes to engagement with the game and its systems, and I think the popularity of semi-scripted actual play shows exacerbates this. There can also be a tendency at certain tables of players not engaging with the rules enough to learn the basics and expecting the DM to essentially be a videogame engine for them, but that doesn't seem to be an issue at your table thankfully!
I've been getting more into the indie TTRPG space lately myself, though I do think part of why is that my tastes in gaming aren't super well-served by D&D specifically on either a mechanical or genre level, which is more of a me-thing than anything else. That said, I do think some of the games I've looked at do a much better job providing a GM with tools and guidance about how to run a session/campaign than others, and I wouldn't rank recent D&D editions particularly high on that scale. Perhaps that's better when running pre-written modules, though -- I tend to find games that rely on those more approachable but haven't ever engaged with them for D&D specifically.
Unfortunately most of the 5E modules are laughably bad... As an example, dungeon of the mad mage has, in the lair of the eponymous mad mage - a dungeon intended for characters of at least level 17 - a trap that does 1d6 damage on a failed dex save. 1d6. This for characters who certainly have over 100hp at this point.
More to the point, the modules just aren't written for DMs to use. I've seen a lot of people argue online that the modules are written to be read (not played), and that doesn't quite ring true... but it doesn't exactly ring false either. The contrast between your typical 5e module and something from, say, Delta Green is immense. The latter has vastly more information on NPC motivations and what actions they will likely take in response to the PCs doing something, for instance, while most 5E modules have monsters that stand around waiting for you to blunder into their rooms.
Funny… Dungeons of the Mad Mage was the last module we ran and… yeah… Little to no coherent gameplay to be had.
Honestly I’m tired of D&D myself. If I could convince my friends we would try a new system or go back to my homebrewed campaigns. But my friends are less experimental than I am and busier in their daily lives. So the extra work doesn’t appeal to them.
If anyone here wants to start a new campaign of something unique and strange, let me know!
Yeah 20 years ago I was running only homebrewed campaigns with friends I had in town. Now everyone is all over the place and so busy that the appeal of prepackaged artwork and structures got us.
When my daughter was three we developed Princesses & Palaces together. The princesses only had three stats (strengths, smarts, sweets) and they had a giant castle they lived in that was under constant attack.
More recently, I developed trailgoblins , a rules-light RPG meant for 5 to 10 minute encounters while hiking. I’m always looking for new ways to tell stories.
Ooh both of those sound super fun!
I've run TTRPGs for over 10 years now and I feel like I've explored a wide variety of systems and played with a wide variety of GMs.
I completely agree with the sentiment that Critical Role and the subsequent actual plays that come from it have set some seriously skewed expectations for new players now. I've had situations I've had to sit one on one with players and go over expectations for the game which has gone a long way to help.
But I have a friend pool I've drawn on for a very long time where I'm always able to get at least a couple of people to jump onboard and play what I'm pitching.
That's a long intro to say that I think I hate rules in these games. The best games I've had are ones where it's people talking, not the dice.
I struggle to put into words how I present my games, but I'm going to try.
I like to take a setting or at least a theme and get some very light rules (re skin powered by the apocalypse or something). I'll jot down as many ideas and thoughts that come to me as I'm thinking about the idea to try and give me ammunition during a session, then honestly I just get some people and go from there.
I used to have a huge weight on my shoulder about having a coherent, over arching story but as the years go on I've found it's more and more ok to run by the seat of my pants and string it together between sessions.
I think the key to all of this is between the document I have with ideas and my players great input its usually really easy to just put the pieces together and make some incredibly cool stuff.
GM secrets
I think I would very much like playing with you. My favorite system now is something I came up with called bids and negotiations. No DM and no rules, just a deep familiarity with tabletop statistics and dice lol.
Example: “I charge through the door kicking at the first goblin and slashing at the face of the second goblin with my axe. I figure, with the increased difficulty, I would probably need to roll a 14?“
“No. That’s at least a 16. The second goblin is behind the first.“
“And I think it’s two separate rolls, a 12 and 15 to succeed.”
“All agreed. Roll!”