Guys,
I run a weekly game which I put a lot of effort in. I also participate in a bi-weekly game where another person DMs, and honestly, I find him to be a pretty crummy DM and I'm not sure if I'm just being arrogant or what but what would you call a DM who:
1) In the months that we've played together has never once tried to relate the environment to the characters, he has never taken interest in our characters personality and goals, and just runs his adventure completely stock out of the book (it's a pre-written adventure).
2) Despite the fact that it's a pre-written adventure, he never comes prepared in the sense that he must read the details of the dungeon rooms and encounters as they occur and we all need to sit there patiently for minutes at a time for him to finish reading and then be greeted with "hmm, wonder what they mean by this..." or "Hmm, oh okay they're refering to this page". And he will read the room descriptions directly off the book with little to no emotion in his voice.
3) Despite the fact that our party is clearly overpowered, has never adjusted the battles to increase the challenge. We have hence never once had what I could call a tense fight. We always finish all fights in two rounds or less, and with barely any damage.
Is it just me or does he just not care all that much or maybe has poor taste in what makes a good game? And being faced with this situation, I have difficulty imagining the situation where I would come up to him and tell him to up his game, and hence since I am hosting the game at my house, I'm just tempted to either cancel the whole campaign and/or try to change the DM, both things which are pretty damn politically uncomfortable and are bound to ruffle more than a few feathers and cause people to leave (we're not particularly close friends outside the campaign).
What would you guys do?
This is a tricky situation, and I've been there before. Sometimes the best thing to do, is to discuss it openly with the group. Try to keep it none hostile. You can also talk to just him in private, and offer to assist him with DM'ing. It's fine to have two DM's. Tell him the problems you have with his way of running the campaign. And offer to help him out with it. You need not terminate the campaign completely, but maybe some of it can be salvaged.
How experienced is he as a DM? Those are all things I sometimes experience when I a DM, although I hope I'm getting 'better'. I'm quite up-front about this with my group - I struggle with some aspects of DMing, most notably improvisation and RPing conversations with NPCs - and ask them to bear with me through those parts of the adventures. I use pre-written adventures as a 'safety net', but some practice has given me more confidence to change things and try to work in the characters' backstories etc. So far, my players have been willing to go with it, as they know that I won't get better without practice.
What I'm trying to say DMing is hard, and it's harder for some people than others, so I would tend to be generous with a DM. Unless the game is intolerable to sit through, try to enjoy their sessions for what they are, rather than what you wish they could be. In the meantime, rather than telling them directly that their DMing is not very good, perhaps you could share links to blogs or other sites with good DMing advice - more of a "Hey, I found this helpful for the game I run, maybe you will too" and hope they pick up a few things. It might also be helpful if you talk to some of the other players outside the game, and see if they share your concerns.
DateOfLies wrote:
I wouldn't make this a group discussion. He could easily get butthurt. If he respects your ability as a DM, he might be receptive to your feedback...in private.
If you aren't having fun, and he's unwilling to change, then it doesn't matter whether you're right or wrong about his DMing capability. The reality then simply becomes that you're not having fun and that fact is unlikely to change. It now becomes necessary to move on.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
DMing is a job that no one gets training for, yet requires you to ab-lib writing a story, creating a fictional world and making on-the fly writing in real time.
it's amazing so many people pull it off.
Sadly, sometimes it deosn't work.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
DateOfLies wrote:
It is difficult to play under a DM who is far weaker than you. It might not be politically correct to say so, but it's true that not all DMs are created equal. I've only known 2 that were superior than I am now (specifically DMs I've played under more than once), and one of which I still play under every other week. I've played under DMs that were a bit weaker than me, but that can usually be handled easily, as often it can be a difference of style. When you play in a game where the DM is just bad... it's hard to put up with it. Hell, there was one game at a convention that I knew the setting and rules of far better than the DM (who was actually an employee of the company producing the game 
), and by the end of the game, the other players wanted me to take over! You pretty much have three options: suck it up, quit, or help them become a better DM.
When I first wanted to be a DM (oh so many years ago), my DM made me read the entire PHB, then quized me on things. He then had me read the DMG, and quized me on that. FInally, he had me write up an adventure to review (I failed... twice). After that, he let me take over for a session, after which there was a review and discussion. All in all, I spent about 6 months training to be a DM, studying for hours each day (sadly allowing my grades to lag). In the end, I felt confident enough to take over the campaign when the DM had to leave suddenly (he moved out of state).
This kind of training just doesn't happen any more. 3E and 4E were designed to make the rules more important than the interpreter of said rules. 5E is going back to an AD&D style, where there is going to be a huge learning curve to become a good DM. If you want to enjoy the game more, you should take the DM under your wing and mentor them on good DM tips and tricks. Assuming the DM isn't hyper-sensitive, you should be able to talk to him (away from the rest of the group) and help him improve. This should enhance your enjoyment as well.
Noon wrote:
Frankly that sounds a bit extreme to me. I have never learned the DMG by heart, and we look things up all the time. I've never really trained to be a DM. I think what matters is that you are a good player, with a broad imagination, and some feeling for what makes for fun game play. Those are all ingredients for a good DM, and it is something you can learn, or teach to others.
Where in your list of things you think need to happen is "Do what I can do to meet the guy halfway?" I told you how you can adjust certain things that are under your control to change. Or is this a case where the other guy has to change and you don't have to do squat?
Imaculata wrote:
Thats a good idea, I second that notion. Just tell him its the module, and encourage him to make his own campaign. Offer to help him with it, if he feels that is a bit too challenging.
Bell curve. Some DMs will be terribad. Most will be okay. Some will be excellent. Nobody moves up this particular curve lackadaisically. You have to want to and you have to put the effort.
Theres no fix here. All you can do is lead this horse to water. A player you can train, but a DM? It's very difficult. They kind of have to train themselves, and all you can really do is make sure what they want to find is there.
DateOfLies wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Nah it's easy to DM. Just do it. It's hard to move from mediocre to good.
bawylie wrote:
Well i have been DMing for a few games now. But my players give me pointers every game what to work on and thats really usefull.
First i started by rushing through a quest not really giving time for roleplay cause i was to excited and anxious about the quest (almost killed the part with a random encounter tihi)
But everybody was like meh this is not our best adventure.
Then i worked on that (there is still room for improvment) but its going a lot better the players are having more fun with their characters and being happy about what they can do with them.
Asside from that my players really help a lot i am still a nab in the game compared to most of the players.
I tend to stick to the story line and when needed they help me with small things like how to level up an example encounter properly to the party.
It's a little back and forth but they tossed the help ball up and i gladly accepted.
So who knows some constructive critisim can be good. But do point out the things your DM does well i mean it cant be that everything is wrong or bad right or am i missing something here?
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Shiroiken wrote:
DMing isn't hard, but figuring out how to juggle what is important to 3+ different individuals can be.
I'll throw in my hat here. One of the first times I tried to DM I used one of the 3.5 basic game sets. Even though I read it ahead of time I still found myself needing to read(albeit more quickly than my first read through) the scenario we were about to play out. I also had a hard time connecting to the "story" while also juggling the adjucation of the game.
Then I tried something different. I started another campaign with very little leg work outside of a few ideas. I had a couple of monsters in mind, a couple of npc encounters, and a loose overarching storyline. I proceeded to wing pretty much everything we did based on what the players wanted to do. I kept refreshing a few ideas before every session, but the story largerly played out based on what happened and not something elaborate I had written up or some deep setting I created. We created most of that stuff on the fly as we played.
So that was it. I found my DMing style. I was very good at improvisation and very poor(being the hardcore slacker I am) at preparation. I was your DM at first. I was bad. I knew the session was bad. I knew something had to change.
So the problem here is your DM may be a slacker, and/or he may just need to keep refreshing himself on the situation at hand. He may feel no connection to what he is running. It's hard to get up for something you don't have feelings towards.
Now I don't know how well your DM can improvise, but it does sound like he would be better served trying to run his own encounters and using his own story. He would know it a lot better than a module and have a better connection to it. You can even give him tips such as at least starting with a few simple ideas in mind(a few monsters, npcs, a basic story), keeping things looser rather than worrying about all of the finer points(that can come with time), and giving the npcs a quirk or two(maybe he doesn't like doing voices, but imaging somone with a raspy voice, an akward limp, a kid that never leaves his side, and other such things can help him feel connected to the character more).
And as a DM yourself you have plenty of your own tips you can offer him, especially if this is a new DM.
Also, bookmarks(or sheets of paper used as bookmarks). Get some monsters in mind and bookmark those pages. Same with specific rules you think may come up. Traveling? Bookmark that page. Even though it may not take too long flipping through, it just feels better and faster opening to the exact page you need.
sleypy wrote:
Me: What do you want to eat?
Wife: Whatever. What do you want to eat?
Me: Pizza.
Wife: NO! I don't want pizza.
Me: I say pizza every time. How about you pick.
Wife: But I picked last time.
Me: Okay I pick pizza.
Wife: NO! How about applebees?
Me: Ok.
Moral of the story: Just say what you want because I'm gonna pick pizza everytime.
Edit:
Also, the cursing and some of the back and forth may have been removed for brevity.
bonethug0108 wrote:
I'm not that nice. I'll just say I'll keep driving until I get a heading.
iserith wrote:
Being a good DM is about as easy as figuring out how to sit around a table and have fun with a group of people.
How easy is that? You tell me. YMMV. There's no single right answer, I believe.