DM Critique

At the end of our spring 2004 sessions, the DM asked for player comments, in order to improve his DMing style. Here is what the players said:

• The DM having a PC is a BAD idea. It fosters resentment amoung some players if the PC is given too much attention or is too “cool” or skilled, it causes the DM problems when the other PCs ask their PC to help in decision making, and it pulls the DMs attention away from the rest of the party and external NPCs.
• Players doing stupid things, even if it's the entire party, should pay for it, perhaps even die, if the plot setup would do so. This is how Players learn to be better players. Just like any game, your losses often teach you more than your wins.
• Even when it hurts the plot a little, I think that realism is preferable to drama. For example, why were the two thieves still on Daggershark island when the party arrived? Were they really waiting there for _ten days_ for the adventurers? And how did a hut remain standing on a rock through two weeks of heavy rain? Yes, an important plot point would have been lost, but you could have fit it in somewhere else.
• I think you should be stronger with your DM rulings, even if they have to be spontaneous or even arbitrary from time to time. Doing so would prevent half-hour rule arguments and keep the game moving more quickly. For example, more than once you were hesitant on making a solid rule about rolling for easy skill checks. If you'd just said “Two consecutive ones is a failure no matter how many ranks you have,” we could have avoided the argument.
• I don't know how the other players think about this, but I'd be interested in seeing a little more role-playing. I'm not suggesting we go overboard, but a couple simple tricks like awarding role-playing experience or the rule that Jason brought up about requiring some sort of signal (was it raising crossed fingers?) to say anything out of character, would add a lot to the realism of the game.
• I've found the game enjoyable overall. Most of the combat has been challenging and fun, and enough fights have required innovative strategies to keep things interesting.
• The pace of the campaign has been good so far. I have definitely felt rushed at times (we haven't been able to do absolutely everything) but that helps to move along the plot and bring forth the sense of urgency that is becoming increasingly necessary.
• Nothing poor can be said about the plot in my opinion. Good marks all around. Gripping and intellectual with a good mix of rp and combat.
• Keep up the good work with the differences in cultural aspects as we travel along. It gives a real sense of meaning to the concept of travelling when those you meet suddenly have a different dialect or greeting or behavior of some sort. Differences like “well met” to “olore” or the dwarven for goodbye, “I go” will all help out further.
• I don't feel as though we have handled rule conflicts well enough to date. A lot of times someone will try something that someone else voices a complaint about and then one or two strong voices make their argument one way or the other and that is the end of it. More often than not this has led to incorrect conclusions that then need to be sorted out the next session.
• At certain plot points in the campaign, particularly those dealing with political intrigue we have been hitting dead ends and getting frustrated with our lack of progress. Figuring out the traitor in Leland-to and more memorably attempting to figure out all the stuff going down in Narlekh (be it the vampires, the murders, or the thieves guild) was extremely trying. I felt as though we were all exploring pertinent avenues but got nowhere with any of them. Perhaps this will become less of an issue in the future with a (seemingly) more combat oriented section coming up but I still feel as though it should be addressed.
• If there is any debate over a rules issue I would like to see it dealt with immediately (preferably although not always with a citation) and agreed to by all so that it never has to come up again. This may not be the speediest approach at first, but in the end we may have less issues that pop up each session.
• Be more perceptive as to when we, as a party, are getting stuck or simply missing something. Try to create some way of intervening with new information or encounters that may lead to either more discussion or simply, results.
• One thing I would like to see happen, although I'm not sure if it would be possible due to the party's urgent pace, would be a return to previously visited areas. I would love to go back and wipe out the orcs around Narlekh or to go investigate El Jazeera's whereabouts. Maybe those will be quests for another campaign however.
• Another thing I would find enjoyable would be to travel to a non-human dominated area. I think it would be interesting for our party of people that are already out of place in the world to become even more so by entering a halfling community or dwarven stronghold, for instance. How would our party of misfits act in a situation where they can't even relate to others on a racial level? Would it bring our party of (mostly) humans closer together?
• I think it would be better if he reworked the mechanics of the whole “Talon” concept. It would be better if he either just designed the characters wholesale, or gave the players total freedom w/ the mechanics. Trying to do it half-way like that really just didn't work out too well in the end. I think it would be better if he made things more straightforward, whether it's one way (designing the characters beforehand and letting the players pick), or the other (letting the players design their own characters). Also, he should know that as the DM it's good for him to allow the PCs to advance the plot, but if the players seem to be incapable of doing that, or have been trying to do so for an extended period of time without success, it's gonna be up to the DM to advance the plot himself. It's an admirable goal, and definitely something to shoot for, but the DM's job is to be prepared for the unexpected, which means that if things aren't going according to plan, then it's far better to just rework the plan on the fly than to sit and watch the players banging their heads against the wall for the better part of an hour, on the off-chance that they might break through.
• It's also a good idea to keep track of any inter-player conflicts, and even if he's uncomfortable intervening in them personally, it might be a good idea to call a time-out if things are getting out of hand (i.e., the heckling becomes vicious or unfriendly, or the players have been mired in indecision for half an hour), and if it continues, to take each player involved aside to address the issue individually with them. Obviously he's just the DM, not a baby-sitter, and can't be expected to personally resolve every difference of opinion; but if he feels an argument may be detracting from the game, he really should try (within reason) to moderate it.

Thank you all for the collected comments. I wanted to address the ones that I got most frequently, or things I was thinking about anyway:

A couple of comments expressed mild-moderate frustration at the players getting stuck too often (especially during the Narlekh scenario), and the DM sort of sitting back and letting the party play through it.

I feel like it´s a “damned if you do, damned if you don´t” situation. If I give too many clues or advance the plot TOO far, I feel like I´m railroading or “leading by the nose.” For example…yes I wanted you all in Narlekh so we could play through that scenario and gave strong motivatinos for doing so (only port for many miles; where the assassin came from), but I had also prepared enough contingencies if the party balked at the idea of surrendering their weapons and left town (hiring a wainright from Narlekh to tend to the wagons as they made an overland journey would have been one option; going back to Leland To to wait out the storms, while XP lite, would have been another). But if I don´t give them enough to go on then I run the risk of “leaving everyone in the dark.”

My style is just more of a “let them play through it.” I´ve established a general plot with a series of encounters that do work in a fairly linear fashion, a la “Dragonlance Classics.” But I also try and always provide the characters with motivation for going from A to B to C, and enough to do that even if one lead runs dry, they can do something or go somewhere else and still feel like it was a session well spent.

But I also want to encourage more “lateral thinking” on the part of the party. In real life the options aren´t always “storm the fortress or fail” or “investigate the BBEG´s mansion or fail.” I always try and provide at least two ways of getting the job done in situations like this, and I feel like encouraging players to think laterally will help them in future campaigns, this campaign, and as people who might have to think laterally in real life situations.

I fully admit that we´ve spent a little too much time in session arguing over rules and applications of rules (or house rules on the fly…as with failing skill checks), and that a big part of it is I am reluctant to impose my will as DM (another damned if you do, damned if you don´t). Most of the problem has been an unfamiliarity on my part with some aspects of the PHB and DMG. I´ll try and address that over the next couple of months by combing over the sections I think I´m weak on, so I at least know how I feel about issues that might come up that I want to house rule.

In the days ahead, I´ll send out an updated House Rules set for Year 2.

Tne person suggested re-working the mechanics of the “Talon” concept, and I agree with them to an extent. I think the pluses and minuses of the concept are the correct way to go, but I could do it in a way that would both make the concept more attractive while still creating a trade off between a purely optimized character and a Talon. My intention is to drop the (Monk 2\something else X) requirement, but to require that Talons:

• Take Improved Unarmed Strike at 1st
• Acquire Evasion by level 7; and
• Come up with a distinct role for the Talon in the group

Obviously this benefits Monks (who don´t have to burn a feat on IUS) and Rangers, Rogues and Monks (who get Evasion naturally, an essential flavor characteristic for a party like this), but it also allows more flexibility in player choice.

It´s been pointed out a couple of times this year that we aren´t a very optimal party. So I am offering the opportunity for a one-time character revision for existing players. This includes:

• Rearranging your Feat selection to make your character eligible for PrCs, or swapping out a feat or two if it just isn´t working for you (Leadership, for example).
• Swapping out class levels for a PrC you meet the requirements for, but either the book wasn´t out or you didn´t know the PrC existed.

As DM, I´ll go over proposed changes on an individual basis as requested by players who want to swap stuff out.

Okay, that´s all for now. Still waiting for a couple of responses on PBEM, but we should be good to go July 1st.