When I was first thinking about becoming a DM, I thought it would be a good idea to play a campaign as a Bard first. That would give me the best chance to practice social interactions and portraying an engaging character.
It turned out I couldn't wait that long. But I still think it would be a good idea to play a Bard or other charisma-based face man character if you're thinking about trying your hand at running the game.
On the other hand, maybe that's just the skill I needed to develop most. If you feel like you need to master the intricacies of the rules, Wizard might be good. After learning the intricacies of all those spells and their interpretations and interactions, the basic rules will be child's play. And using the Wish spell will give you a taste of creating a world.
Maybe being a party leader like a Paladin will give you a taste of what it's like to wrangle a bunch of players who have conflicting schedules and personalities.
What are ways in which the experience of playing other classes prepares you to sit behind the screen?
Playing a character to identify your own qualities(or possible ones) is just a focus point of Psychological projection. It is defined as: A defense mechanism in which the ego defends itself against unconscious impulses or qualities by denying their existence in themselves and attributing them to others.
In this case, it isn't a bad thing, it's a tool to get in touch with ideas you may feel you can't directly relate to. Obviously, you can because no matter what intermediary process you use to relate still stems from you consciously or not. It's not an uncommon tool, take method acting for example.
All characters I play are simply avatars of some aspect of self(as will be the case with most people) just exaggerated or diluted from what makes me function as I do. It's not hard to imagine shifts to reflect a witty Bard or a studious Wizard. Trying to play something you can't relate to is basically no good, you won't be convincing or understand the motivations that drive a character. That said, I don't feel it is necessary to play any classes in order to learn how to DM, it probably has more to do with being in touch with stepping away from your standard way of thinking and how you perceive yourself and the world. Now imagine the world of D&D and how you might behave if it were real. This is harder for some people than others.
Honestly, you should play a very suboptimal character and prepare yourself for failure lol
The one thing I think every GM must know is how to handle its own mistakes and how to improvise on adverse situations.
And I think that you should, also, play against character expectations to avoid making yourself (and your story) predictable. Play a lawful good rogue, a shy bard, a pacifist barb... etc...
I think there are many concepts interesting to play as a GM to be. But, above all else, a GM should know what's to be a player and how it feels be the one subjected to a game, instead of the one building. On D&D empathy is a skill that is somewhat underrated, but is key when you put in perspective of how much the game rely on bilateral trust.
And I think that you should, also, play against character expectations to avoid making yourself (and your story) predictable. Play a lawful good rogue, a shy bard, a pacifist barb... etc...
I would certainly disagree with that. Nothing derails a campaign into endless indecision quite like the players having to second guess everything and everyone. I've got a DM who can't find it within himself to let an innocent child not be a spy, or to let a bandit posse not have sympathetic motives, etc. We spend most of our sessions planning to try to avoid ruination at the hands of hidden information. Which is to say, we don't get anything done.
By playing into your archetype, you can get a feel for the "normal" mode of play. Play your Paladin as a brave leader, play your Rogue as a morally dubious layabout. Going against type only feels cool if you do it extremely sparingly, and there's a reason the classics are classics. Your players being able to recognize your NPCs in their genre roles isn't a bad thing at all.
And I think that you should, also, play against character expectations to avoid making yourself (and your story) predictable. Play a lawful good rogue, a shy bard, a pacifist barb... etc...
I would certainly disagree with that. Nothing derails a campaign into endless indecision quite like the players having to second guess everything and everyone. I've got a DM who can't find it within himself to let an innocent child not be a spy, or to let a bandit posse not have sympathetic motives, etc. We spend most of our sessions planning to try to avoid ruination at the hands of hidden information. Which is to say, we don't get anything done.
By playing into your archetype, you can get a feel for the "normal" mode of play. Play your Paladin as a brave leader, play your Rogue as a morally dubious layabout. Going against type only feels cool if you do it extremely sparingly, and there's a reason the classics are classics. Your players being able to recognize your NPCs in their genre roles isn't a bad thing at all.
You absolutely misunderstood me based on your current experience. What I am saying is that's important to know how to play against expectations, not that you should play always against expectations.
A DM needs to have this on their toolkit, but if they are hyper playing the subvert expectations trope, he is essentially building his own predictability in play.
My suggestion is to build this skill, as it is easier to play into expectations, but hard to do the other way around. I am never ever suggesting someone should overuse this trope (as with any trope).
And I think that you should, also, play against character expectations to avoid making yourself (and your story) predictable. Play a lawful good rogue, a shy bard, a pacifist barb... etc...
I would certainly disagree with that. Nothing derails a campaign into endless indecision quite like the players having to second guess everything and everyone. I've got a DM who can't find it within himself to let an innocent child not be a spy, or to let a bandit posse not have sympathetic motives, etc. We spend most of our sessions planning to try to avoid ruination at the hands of hidden information. Which is to say, we don't get anything done.
By playing into your archetype, you can get a feel for the "normal" mode of play. Play your Paladin as a brave leader, play your Rogue as a morally dubious layabout. Going against type only feels cool if you do it extremely sparingly, and there's a reason the classics are classics. Your players being able to recognize your NPCs in their genre roles isn't a bad thing at all.
Welcome to... life and reality as it is, I suppose? :p
Not saying the DM probably shouldn't avoid overkill with the moral greys and the sudden but inevitable betrayals but whether it plays out like that once in ten scenarios or nine times in ten scenarios, you're going to have to be prepared for the possibility every time. Otherwise, what's really happening is the players getting lulled into a misleading sense of confidence and set up for a rude awakening.
On topic though, the suggestion was for the DM to play the character they'd play as a regular player in another campaign against type - I don't think anything was implied about doing the same with NPCs.
Playing any characters will give someone potential insight that can help them DM. It’s better if one doesn’t keep playing the same stuff over and over, but even then a person can still learn if they pay attention to everyone else at the table and consider it critically. I can honestly say that all of the countless hours I have spent in front of the screen have helped me be better behind the screen too.
And not just this edition or even just D&D either, playing in general is still opportunity to learn. My time playing 2e & 3/3.5, Shadowrun 2e & 3e, WoD (whatever edition it was, we played for most of a decade), have all helped me become a better GM. Look around and see everyone disengaged? Why? What is the GM doing? Is Player X struggling? Why? What with? What is it about this situation that makes us all feel so unhappy right now? What happened narratively and what did that change that we feel this way. The other side is true too: “why are we so happy;” “what makes this so easy to understand;” “okay hy are we so engrossed?” But those are the times when things are moving and one is typically paying more attention to the adventure than the table. Learning from what doesn’t work is easier than learning from what went off without a hitch.
As to things more specific to D&D, and 5e in particular:
Wanna learn about action economy? Barbarian, Fighter, Ranger, and Rogue have very different lessons to for us. Wanna learn about resource management, short rests compared to long, and how that all interacts with the “adventuring day?” Sorcerer, Monk, Paladin and Warlock each have a different lesson to teach. Wanna learn about the intricacies of spellcasters? Wiz for days sure, but that lesson is amplified by comparing it to the Sorcerer and Warlock. How about CR? Druid and Cleric, in different ways for different reasons. Feel lessons could be learned about the ins and outs of combining features to better effect? Warlock again and Artificer for the win. The importance of matching challenges to skill sets? Rogue, Bard and Artificer gotcha covered. The ebb and flow of health, damage and healing? Cleric of course, but then compare it to Paladin.
Heck, wanna go for a 201 level education start comparing subclasses. An Eldritch Knight has different lessons about action economy than the Battle Master does, different lessons about Spellcasting, and different lessons about feature combinations. Arcane Trickster too, but wholly different lessons. Beast Master and Battle Smith also have different lessons about action economy. Wanna understand the importance of non combat features? Play a Champion and compare it to, well… anything else really. (Except maybe the PDK.) Want to go deeper into resource management? Try a Berserker.
And if you really, really wanna start getting into stuff, really pay attention to how the party all fits together. Try playing an Artificer in a party with two Fighters, a Barbarian, and a Hexblade who’s entire catalog of “utility” spells is limited to lightning lure (it moves people), scrying, [Tooltip Not Found], and a single casting per day each of pass without trace (earth Genasi) and summon fiend (it can scout). When you have to be the skill monkey, support caster, and healer with no skill expertise, only a 6/10 caster progression, and the only available healing being cure wounds. *Woofta*
And I think that you should, also, play against character expectations to avoid making yourself (and your story) predictable. Play a lawful good rogue, a shy bard, a pacifist barb... etc...
I would certainly disagree with that. Nothing derails a campaign into endless indecision quite like the players having to second guess everything and everyone. I've got a DM who can't find it within himself to let an innocent child not be a spy, or to let a bandit posse not have sympathetic motives, etc. We spend most of our sessions planning to try to avoid ruination at the hands of hidden information. Which is to say, we don't get anything done.
By playing into your archetype, you can get a feel for the "normal" mode of play. Play your Paladin as a brave leader, play your Rogue as a morally dubious layabout. Going against type only feels cool if you do it extremely sparingly, and there's a reason the classics are classics. Your players being able to recognize your NPCs in their genre roles isn't a bad thing at all.
Welcome to... life and reality as it is, I suppose? :p
Not saying the DM probably shouldn't avoid overkill with the moral greys and the sudden but inevitable betrayals but whether it plays out like that once in ten scenarios or nine times in ten scenarios, you're going to have to be prepared for the possibility every time. Otherwise, what's really happening is the players getting lulled into a misleading sense of confidence and set up for a rude awakening.
On topic though, the suggestion was for the DM to play the character they'd play as a regular player in another campaign against type - I don't think anything was implied about doing the same with NPCs.
My point is that an aspiring DM would gain more from playing to type than against. They're gonna be doing the former a lot more in their DM role than the latter. It's like telling an aspiring driver to practice doing wheelies. Yes, it'll be very memorable if they can learn it, but they clearly can't do it all the time, so I think they're much better served practicing ordinary driving to begin with, yes?
And I think that you should, also, play against character expectations to avoid making yourself (and your story) predictable. Play a lawful good rogue, a shy bard, a pacifist barb... etc...
I would certainly disagree with that. Nothing derails a campaign into endless indecision quite like the players having to second guess everything and everyone. I've got a DM who can't find it within himself to let an innocent child not be a spy, or to let a bandit posse not have sympathetic motives, etc. We spend most of our sessions planning to try to avoid ruination at the hands of hidden information. Which is to say, we don't get anything done.
By playing into your archetype, you can get a feel for the "normal" mode of play. Play your Paladin as a brave leader, play your Rogue as a morally dubious layabout. Going against type only feels cool if you do it extremely sparingly, and there's a reason the classics are classics. Your players being able to recognize your NPCs in their genre roles isn't a bad thing at all.
Welcome to... life and reality as it is, I suppose? :p
Not saying the DM probably shouldn't avoid overkill with the moral greys and the sudden but inevitable betrayals but whether it plays out like that once in ten scenarios or nine times in ten scenarios, you're going to have to be prepared for the possibility every time. Otherwise, what's really happening is the players getting lulled into a misleading sense of confidence and set up for a rude awakening.
On topic though, the suggestion was for the DM to play the character they'd play as a regular player in another campaign against type - I don't think anything was implied about doing the same with NPCs.
My point is that an aspiring DM would gain more from playing to type than against. They're gonna be doing the former a lot more in their DM role than the latter. It's like telling an aspiring driver to practice doing wheelies. Yes, it'll be very memorable if they can learn it, but they clearly can't do it all the time, so I think they're much better served practicing ordinary driving to begin with, yes?
Personally I don't think it matters all that much, to be honest. If they learn to portray a character they're golden, whether it's a stereotype or a quirky anomaly. I don't think one's harder than the other in practice.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
And I think that you should, also, play against character expectations to avoid making yourself (and your story) predictable. Play a lawful good rogue, a shy bard, a pacifist barb... etc...
I would certainly disagree with that. Nothing derails a campaign into endless indecision quite like the players having to second guess everything and everyone. I've got a DM who can't find it within himself to let an innocent child not be a spy, or to let a bandit posse not have sympathetic motives, etc. We spend most of our sessions planning to try to avoid ruination at the hands of hidden information. Which is to say, we don't get anything done.
By playing into your archetype, you can get a feel for the "normal" mode of play. Play your Paladin as a brave leader, play your Rogue as a morally dubious layabout. Going against type only feels cool if you do it extremely sparingly, and there's a reason the classics are classics. Your players being able to recognize your NPCs in their genre roles isn't a bad thing at all.
I won’t disagree with you, but I will say this, I learn more from what goes wrong than from what goes right. Even if the lessons to be learned from the experience of playing against type are exactly what you describe. Then I personally would still call that a valuable learning opportunity. Ne?
This hits the nail on the head for the question that was actually asked. The rest of it is going to be about just how you handle social situations. One of the things the DM is doing is constantly leading the conversation, whereas a player character you don't have this opportunity often if you aren't the Party Face. A good party face also kind of gets their party together behind the scenes, but that isn't always the dynamic. A good DM always keeps their table on track. That skill to me somewhat translates from the party face concept.
Besides the generic advice that is always given on these forums about being a new DM about:
Don't be afraid to fail
Adjudicate in the moment, provide clarity and research later
Don't attack players, attack characters
Go in with realistic expectations
At the end its ok to DM as someone who knows jack shit about D&D. Just have to admit your shortcomings when they happen and be flexible. Just like the Cleric has to be when healing the same person for the 6th time who keeps just running back into Combat carelessly. Or the fighter has to be when he is holding the line and their supports aren't working on the enemy supports, but instead dealing with some other issue.
And I think that you should, also, play against character expectations to avoid making yourself (and your story) predictable. Play a lawful good rogue, a shy bard, a pacifist barb... etc...
I would certainly disagree with that. Nothing derails a campaign into endless indecision quite like the players having to second guess everything and everyone. I've got a DM who can't find it within himself to let an innocent child not be a spy, or to let a bandit posse not have sympathetic motives, etc. We spend most of our sessions planning to try to avoid ruination at the hands of hidden information. Which is to say, we don't get anything done.
By playing into your archetype, you can get a feel for the "normal" mode of play. Play your Paladin as a brave leader, play your Rogue as a morally dubious layabout. Going against type only feels cool if you do it extremely sparingly, and there's a reason the classics are classics. Your players being able to recognize your NPCs in their genre roles isn't a bad thing at all.
I won’t disagree with you, but I will say this, I learn more from what goes wrong than from what goes right. Even if the lessons to be learned from the experience of playing against type are exactly what you describe. Then I personally would still call that a valuable learning opportunity. Ne?
I mean, with the right mindset you can learn from just about anything. Some things will teach you more than others, though.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
When I was first thinking about becoming a DM, I thought it would be a good idea to play a campaign as a Bard first. That would give me the best chance to practice social interactions and portraying an engaging character.
It turned out I couldn't wait that long. But I still think it would be a good idea to play a Bard or other charisma-based face man character if you're thinking about trying your hand at running the game.
On the other hand, maybe that's just the skill I needed to develop most. If you feel like you need to master the intricacies of the rules, Wizard might be good. After learning the intricacies of all those spells and their interpretations and interactions, the basic rules will be child's play. And using the Wish spell will give you a taste of creating a world.
Maybe being a party leader like a Paladin will give you a taste of what it's like to wrangle a bunch of players who have conflicting schedules and personalities.
What are ways in which the experience of playing other classes prepares you to sit behind the screen?
Playing a character to identify your own qualities(or possible ones) is just a focus point of Psychological projection. It is defined as: A defense mechanism in which the ego defends itself against unconscious impulses or qualities by denying their existence in themselves and attributing them to others.
In this case, it isn't a bad thing, it's a tool to get in touch with ideas you may feel you can't directly relate to. Obviously, you can because no matter what intermediary process you use to relate still stems from you consciously or not. It's not an uncommon tool, take method acting for example.
All characters I play are simply avatars of some aspect of self(as will be the case with most people) just exaggerated or diluted from what makes me function as I do. It's not hard to imagine shifts to reflect a witty Bard or a studious Wizard. Trying to play something you can't relate to is basically no good, you won't be convincing or understand the motivations that drive a character. That said, I don't feel it is necessary to play any classes in order to learn how to DM, it probably has more to do with being in touch with stepping away from your standard way of thinking and how you perceive yourself and the world. Now imagine the world of D&D and how you might behave if it were real. This is harder for some people than others.
Honestly, you should play a very suboptimal character and prepare yourself for failure lol
The one thing I think every GM must know is how to handle its own mistakes and how to improvise on adverse situations.
And I think that you should, also, play against character expectations to avoid making yourself (and your story) predictable. Play a lawful good rogue, a shy bard, a pacifist barb... etc...
I think there are many concepts interesting to play as a GM to be. But, above all else, a GM should know what's to be a player and how it feels be the one subjected to a game, instead of the one building. On D&D empathy is a skill that is somewhat underrated, but is key when you put in perspective of how much the game rely on bilateral trust.
I would certainly disagree with that. Nothing derails a campaign into endless indecision quite like the players having to second guess everything and everyone. I've got a DM who can't find it within himself to let an innocent child not be a spy, or to let a bandit posse not have sympathetic motives, etc. We spend most of our sessions planning to try to avoid ruination at the hands of hidden information. Which is to say, we don't get anything done.
By playing into your archetype, you can get a feel for the "normal" mode of play. Play your Paladin as a brave leader, play your Rogue as a morally dubious layabout. Going against type only feels cool if you do it extremely sparingly, and there's a reason the classics are classics. Your players being able to recognize your NPCs in their genre roles isn't a bad thing at all.
You absolutely misunderstood me based on your current experience. What I am saying is that's important to know how to play against expectations, not that you should play always against expectations.
A DM needs to have this on their toolkit, but if they are hyper playing the subvert expectations trope, he is essentially building his own predictability in play.
My suggestion is to build this skill, as it is easier to play into expectations, but hard to do the other way around. I am never ever suggesting someone should overuse this trope (as with any trope).
Welcome to... life and reality as it is, I suppose? :p
Not saying the DM probably shouldn't avoid overkill with the moral greys and the sudden but inevitable betrayals but whether it plays out like that once in ten scenarios or nine times in ten scenarios, you're going to have to be prepared for the possibility every time. Otherwise, what's really happening is the players getting lulled into a misleading sense of confidence and set up for a rude awakening.
On topic though, the suggestion was for the DM to play the character they'd play as a regular player in another campaign against type - I don't think anything was implied about doing the same with NPCs.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Playing any characters will give someone potential insight that can help them DM. It’s better if one doesn’t keep playing the same stuff over and over, but even then a person can still learn if they pay attention to everyone else at the table and consider it critically. I can honestly say that all of the countless hours I have spent in front of the screen have helped me be better behind the screen too.
And not just this edition or even just D&D either, playing in general is still opportunity to learn. My time playing 2e & 3/3.5, Shadowrun 2e & 3e, WoD (whatever edition it was, we played for most of a decade), have all helped me become a better GM. Look around and see everyone disengaged? Why? What is the GM doing? Is Player X struggling? Why? What with? What is it about this situation that makes us all feel so unhappy right now? What happened narratively and what did that change that we feel this way.
The other side is true too: “why are we so happy;” “what makes this so easy to understand;” “okay hy are we so engrossed?” But those are the times when things are moving and one is typically paying more attention to the adventure than the table. Learning from what doesn’t work is easier than learning from what went off without a hitch.
As to things more specific to D&D, and 5e in particular:
Wanna learn about action economy? Barbarian, Fighter, Ranger, and Rogue have very different lessons to for us. Wanna learn about resource management, short rests compared to long, and how that all interacts with the “adventuring day?” Sorcerer, Monk, Paladin and Warlock each have a different lesson to teach. Wanna learn about the intricacies of spellcasters? Wiz for days sure, but that lesson is amplified by comparing it to the Sorcerer and Warlock. How about CR? Druid and Cleric, in different ways for different reasons. Feel lessons could be learned about the ins and outs of combining features to better effect? Warlock again and Artificer for the win. The importance of matching challenges to skill sets? Rogue, Bard and Artificer gotcha covered. The ebb and flow of health, damage and healing? Cleric of course, but then compare it to Paladin.
Heck, wanna go for a 201 level education start comparing subclasses. An Eldritch Knight has different lessons about action economy than the Battle Master does, different lessons about Spellcasting, and different lessons about feature combinations. Arcane Trickster too, but wholly different lessons. Beast Master and Battle Smith also have different lessons about action economy. Wanna understand the importance of non combat features? Play a Champion and compare it to, well… anything else really. (Except maybe the PDK.) Want to go deeper into resource management? Try a Berserker.
And if you really, really wanna start getting into stuff, really pay attention to how the party all fits together. Try playing an Artificer in a party with two Fighters, a Barbarian, and a Hexblade who’s entire catalog of “utility” spells is limited to lightning lure (it moves people), scrying, [Tooltip Not Found], and a single casting per day each of pass without trace (earth Genasi) and summon fiend (it can scout). When you have to be the skill monkey, support caster, and healer with no skill expertise, only a 6/10 caster progression, and the only available healing being cure wounds. *Woofta*
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
My point is that an aspiring DM would gain more from playing to type than against. They're gonna be doing the former a lot more in their DM role than the latter. It's like telling an aspiring driver to practice doing wheelies. Yes, it'll be very memorable if they can learn it, but they clearly can't do it all the time, so I think they're much better served practicing ordinary driving to begin with, yes?
Personally I don't think it matters all that much, to be honest. If they learn to portray a character they're golden, whether it's a stereotype or a quirky anomaly. I don't think one's harder than the other in practice.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I won’t disagree with you, but I will say this, I learn more from what goes wrong than from what goes right. Even if the lessons to be learned from the experience of playing against type are exactly what you describe. Then I personally would still call that a valuable learning opportunity. Ne?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Besides the generic advice that is always given on these forums about being a new DM about:
At the end its ok to DM as someone who knows jack shit about D&D. Just have to admit your shortcomings when they happen and be flexible. Just like the Cleric has to be when healing the same person for the 6th time who keeps just running back into Combat carelessly. Or the fighter has to be when he is holding the line and their supports aren't working on the enemy supports, but instead dealing with some other issue.
I mean, with the right mindset you can learn from just about anything. Some things will teach you more than others, though.