D&D Gamemaster Survey Results

Wait... 0% of Facebook plebs use the encounter building UAs!? What!?

That thing is 1000% more intuitive than the CR guidelines or the DMG suggestions, you can even build entirely improvised encounters much faster using those tables.

If the game you're playing uses dice mechanics in a way that regularly produces results no-one likes, then that is a poorly designed game.

I never said regularly, but shit happens sometimes, and when it does, I usually shift the results to favor a character.
I had a fighter who should've got instakilled in the first encounter with some goblins due to some fucked up lucky rolls on my part. But then he'd have to make a new character about 10 minutes after he finished making this one, so i fudged it.

I am a grognard and none of that surprises me.

>Only 20% of GMs claim to have had to deal with "disruptive players" at the table

>80% of GMs are liars

This

I can see your case, but it depends on the type of player. If you do run the dice just as they roll, players have to learn to be prepared for when shit happens and to play smarter.

But not all players want that kind of play experience where they have to be careful and work hard to earn their prizes, and that's okay.

This.
I set up encounters where the party has some sort of viable escape option, or where losing could have a powerfully negative consequence aside from TPK.

But really if you are playing 5e, you're not really likely to TPK the group at and after 5th level.

Most likely they'll be forced to retreat/rest/regroup.

Heavily corrupted data, poor sample group, and laced with lies.

Fudging rolls is railroading.

Grog here. None of that surprises me at all and I do all of the same shit myself.

Combat did not use to be the main focus of RPGs, not even D&D. Exploration was. Your time in a dungeon was 90% skulking around like a thief, sniffing for traps, looking for valuables, and 10% fighting.

One of the main reasons I loathe 4e is because it shifted that balance extremely heavily in combat's favor.

You'd be surprised how much it helps if you only play with your actual friends instead of random jackoffs.

>One of the main reasons I loathe 4e is because it shifted that balance extremely heavily in combat's favor.
D&D has been combat focused since 3.PF, and even 5e assumes that you're fighting 5-8 encounters between each short rest. Hell, most people don't even bother hiding in most instances because unless you just throw a monster at them that deal more than 50% of their total HP in damage a round, they're not going to die before the enemy does.

It is 4-6 encounters, which means situations in which they have to use resources, and it is every long rest not short rest.

And I hate it, combat is not short. And this only makes it so you have to throw fillers before they face the real challenge.

From personal experience, if you're not getting into 5-8 encounters between long rests, you're never going to level up.

Also, with how many classes operate off of short rests, you're going to end up taking just as many long rests as you would long rests, in quantity if not quality.

>you're going to end up taking just as many short rests as you would long rests,
Don't know how I made this mistake.

This is why using monster XP and not milestone is utter shit.

As a DM you have to pressure your players into not taking long rests so they limit their abilities, if you do not then a wizard will blow up everything every fight and it will be super OP.

I have my party under pressure right now and the martial classes are actually out performing the casters because of this, they are in a place where they cannot take a long rest and the balance is shinning more.

This all seems reasonable to me.

Combat is fun, but it's not as fun as good RP. If you just want combat, there are plenty of games for that.

Disruptive players aren't a thing if you've got a friend group you've been playing with for years. Hell, they're pretty rare in general, most people have basic social skills.

I stick to the dice most of the time, but sometimes I'm sleep-deprived. I don't wanna end the campaign because I wasn't at 100% when I was planning an encounter. So I fudge sometimes to keep dumb or boring stuff from happening, or to cover my own mistakes.

How often are they taking short rests though?

Because if your party is able to take 3+ short rests throughout the campaign then you might as well let them use a long rest.

>70% of GMs say they adjust enemy hit points on the fly during combat
In the last 15 games I've done it once because I didnt want the NPC who was travelling with the party to take the killing strike, which thinking back is not a big deal and I don't think adults care that much about it but I've read so many posts in plebbit about the NPC taking the last hit and making them salty that I avoided it

>59% of GMs claim NPC interaction is their favorite part of running a game, while only 14% favor running combat
Yes, combat can be boring, the line between challenging and easy is thin, monster with cool abilities are usually swingy and combat interactions results are most of the time binary (you defeat them or you lose) while NPC interactions have more nuance and a variety of possible results

>70% of GMs hide their rolls
Yes I do mostly so they don't know armor and exact damage so it causes less metagame, except when fate is on the balance. When I say this might kill you I make the player roll it or when the player might kill the monster I tell him the exact AC and the damage he needs, I tried this once and players love it, creates tension.

>94% enjoy preparing for session
Daydreaming is fun

>Only 20% of GMs claim to have had to deal with "disruptive players" at the table
Only as a player (and as a DM on roll20) I've had to play with disruptive players, nowaday I don't because I am an adult who plays with his friends.

Is not the same, one is 8 hours and the others are 1 hour. But in this dungeon they have taken 2, and now they are going for the third as the session was ending. It will be the last one because they are 3 rooms away from the end... unless they take a right turn deeper into the complex which makes no sense but my players might do it.

I mean they are going for something specific in the dungeon but who knows, maybe theyll want to explore more.

I like clearing the dungeon out because the two characters I play both have the opinion that skeletons, zombies and goblins should be killed.

They forced a powerful mindflayer who was hunting them to shift planes to scape, I hinted at them that as spellcasters they know that the mindflayer might comeback after a long or short rest depending on how it recovers it spells... that's what it is keeping them from doing a long rest, the fear of the brain eating creature coming back.

I have planned for it to come back with an inquisition if they do a long rest, and I have no idea how 4 lvl 6 will survive a really buffed mindflayer and two normal ones.

But there is promise of untold treasures if they go to the other part of the dungeon.... I wonder what will happen.

>70% of GMs say they adjust enemy hit points on the fly during combat
God I fucking hate stupid shit like this. Yeah, sometimes I've set up a dumb-ass encounter and the enemies used dumb-ass tactics and the characters easily outsmarted them and beat the shit of them. Don't fucking stretch just to wank your DM dick in their face. I hate DMs like that.
>59% of GMs claim NPC interaction is their favorite part of running a game, while only 14% favor running combat
I like both equally.
>70% of GMs hide their rolls
Good....
>94% enjoy preparing for session
Also good....
>Only 20% of GMs claim to have had to deal with "disruptive players" at the table
Well, that's likely due to the huge number of Critical Roll watchers invading our hobby. Most of them are tumblrite faux-nerd snowflakes with ADHD. If you don't believe me, go to the FLGS and just observe, don't even necessarily play in, an Adventurer League game. You will see so much autism it's unbelievable. I had to see some skinny autistic kicked out because he kept playing meme videos on his phone.

This is the future of our hobby, Veeky Forums.

>59% of GMs claim NPC interaction is their favorite part of running a game, while only 14% favor running combat

This doesn't surprise me in the slightest. Combat in DnD (all editions except 4e) sucks ass.

>You say that, but rolling behind the screen and making adjustments on the fly to make battles better has been a thing since Basic.
Yeah and it's a shit thing.
>You should try GM'ing sometimes, you learn shit.
Yeah, you should. I'm sure you think you're hot shit because you've run a pre-packaged 5e module for a couple friends, but you're nothing. One day perhaps you'll learn that the "messiness" of an RPG combat is what makes it compelling. Otherwise you're just doing freeform wankery. Might as well burn the books and be honest about it.

>doesn't like fudging rolls and HP adjustment
>NORMIES REEEEEE
>autistically complains about other people being autistic.

Yeah, checks out.

>That would kill your character... But whav, you survive because fuck the rules

The most disruptive players I've played with WERE my friends.

Actually, most of us are surprised that the number of GMs that had to deal with disruptive players is so low. Now maybe it's just because most GMs that took this survey have actually way lower standards for what in considered disruptive (or maybe they are disruptive themselves) but contrary to what you think, 20% is very low.

>I thought so too, until I actually ran a game.
No one fucking cares.
>Before, I thought that fudging meant treating your players as children who need to be lied to for their own good.
No, it's for ass-pulling to make the game go the way you want.
>Now I know that players actually are children who need to be lied to for their own good.
Nice. I'm sure that that condescending attitude gets you far in life. Lie to them with your GMing, not cheating on the dice like a shitty DM who needs to change everything to make it fit his gay-ass railroad.

>actual friends
Tomokoface.png

You DM is really bad at DMing then. Managing resources is why you have encounters, and not for an XP mill. You need to drain a few fireballs to avoid only utility spells being used, you keep HP low to keep the PCs more cautious, you make them use consumable items, you put them at a tactical disadvantage for the long fights.

5-8 fights just to grind XP is probably the dumbest way to play.

>I'm not saying don't challenge them or be afraid to kill them
That's exactly what you're saying.
If you're at 1 hp, you should fucking run away and your teammates should cover you.
If they can't do that, then they deserve to have a PC die.

>Like if an NPC would get a kill against an important villain, so that the next player gets the kill. I've done the reverse too - a player gets and villain to 3HP and I just let the villain die.
Both of those are fucking retarded.

The real problem is players that blow their load every fight then take a long rest to recharge. Eventually you can't even justify wandering monsters because it's a small fucking dungeon and they've taken a week to clear it out.

>I don't think adults care that much about it but I've read so many posts in plebbit about the NPC taking the last hit and making them salty that I avoided it
Well there's your issue. No one on plebbit is an adult. So you cheated just to avoid triggering people who, if they triggered over that, are literal children. Nice going.

I do believe that saying what people want to hear can get someone far in life.

>70% of GMs say they adjust enemy hit points on the fly during combat

Absolutely disgusting. I hate this type of GMing.

>59% of GMs claim NPC interaction is their favorite part of running a game, while only 14% favor running combat

Acceptable. Combat is only fun if you have a group that actually gets into it. Nothing is more boring than "I roll. I hit. I do x damage." "Okay, next."

>70% of GMs hide their rolls

Acceptable. I like the genuine surprised reactions I get when I start describing something happening, only to reveal that it was an awful miss, failed skill check, ect.

>94% enjoy preparing for session

I'd guess most of this is because they only prepare for one "epic story" and push their players towards that narrative. Then again, I leave everything open and enjoy that setting that up a lot.

>Only 20% of GMs claim to have had to deal with "disruptive players" at the table

I'd guess this is because most people play with people they've known for some time.

I'd be interested to see a result on people who admit to fudging dice. As far as I know guys who don't are a dying breed.

>doesn't like fudging rolls and HP adjustment
No because it's fucking bullshit, and it's usually so obvious when a DM does it, too. Play in a few games and you will notice. They all have a clear tell when they are cheating. Also had a DM outright change the rules in front of everyone because he didn't want an NPC cohort getting one-shotted. So he just halved the damage. I was like... fucking hell.

The simple fact of the matter is, that number used to be, like, 5% or less. But you weren't around back then so you'll just argue against me because you played with autistic spergs.

% of GMs claim NPC interaction is their favorite part of running a game, while only 14% favor running combat
what the flying fuck
this means more than half of the "game" is something that's berely even covered by the rules
this means that all the multiple hundreds of $ worth of shit in OP's image is practically unused
this means that most people's idea of what a "D&D experience" is essentially mindgames with another human being with zero standard or baseline

Reddit spacing aside, I agree with you. If I found out a GM was fudging hp numbers in combat just to make the story go his way, I would quit the group pronto.

>I do believe that saying what people want to hear can get someone far in life.
Yeah. It also makes you a pathetic cocksucker.

I wouldn't have to adjust monster HP if every fucking monster in the monster manual had 13 AC and 109 HP whilst a 5th level fighter can nova for 200+ damage like they've learned what it means to go further beyond super saiyan

Just stay in reddit, please.

>the huge number of Critical Roll watchers invading our hobby. Most of them are tumblrite faux-nerd snowflakes with ADHD

Okay, let's say that lots of "normies" are attracted to the hobby because of Critical Role. What's the harm? Some of them may be painfully antisocial, but it's not like the stereotypical core audiance hasn't also been blighted by a minority of poorly socialised fat manchildren who reek of body odour.

I'd say generally that this new audience does have a shortcoming, it's that GMs pull punches so that it's often quite rare for PCs to die unless they are really, really stupid. Almost like players want a playground where they can get beaten up a bit but not suffer permanent consequences for failure.

Something something kids these days, participation trophies and such. Everybody has won, and all must have prizes.

>The simple fact of the matter is, that number used to be, like, 5% or less.
You're the only one in the whole thread that believes 20% is too high. All other fa/tg/uys in this threads are pleasantly surprised by this low figure.
Maybe you're right and all of Veeky Forums is also rampant with "Critical Roll watchers" as you say, but at least backup your claim with proof. 5% is extremely low in my opinion.

Not the guy you are talking to, but I have been playing TTP for 15 years, maybe 16.

And I can tell you that this numbers will vary wildly depending on where you get your players from. IRL I've had 2 majorly disruptive players in hundreds of games, in roll20 I've played 3 games and more than HALF the players in each game were what I'd consider majorly disruptive.

I assume that the people in Veeky Forums who think 20% is too low are people who have no friends to play with IRL so they play with randos on roll20 or go to the LGS and join a random table.

>Yeah and it's a shit thing.
Your opinion falls in the face of something that has worked for more than 40 years successfully, user.
>rest of your meme post
user, being a good GM means knowing how to control pacing, read the mood, direct flow and manipulate the players. A good GM also knows that the dice can and will shit on the build up of the mood, the pacing and flow of the game, and the GM's primary duty is to run a good game, not play servant to the dice.
This crop of dice purists so eager to howl about how much better they are and how you are awful if you don't do exactly as they say come across as sorta silly to me.
I've really only had a single player that was so disruptive I had to stop the game, out of maybe 30 players total.

>D&D players
None of that is at all surprising. I feel like all of those people are missing the point.

% of GMs hide their rolls
What the actual fuck, this is unbelievable, I've literally never witnesses this IRL.

what did you think the DM screen was for for the last 30 years?

Sounds like you've never had a real DM.

I never allow the players to see my rolls, or their own rolls, in any game. I roll everything under the screen and don't tell any numbers to them. Only exception is hit point roll upon level-up, that's a special treat.

>or their own rolls
bait

This thread might be the biggest proof I've ever seen that Veeky Forums is full of autist retards who haven't actually played a game in their life.

Nope. And neither is this: I don't allow the players to know the rules of any game I run. They're not allowed to read the rulebook, and if it looks like somebody has taken a peek and knows too much, I change the rule without telling them. No cheating.

There's a reason for this of course. It is to get the players out of the metagame mindset and to force them to address situations in the game using nothing but their common sense and real-world logic. Which they do, since they're denied access to any other possible tool.

I used to not even allow them to see their own character sheets, but that got kind of awkward since I had to update all their inventories.

You should kidnap strangers, take them blindfolded to a dark room, waterboard them, and administer brain shock therapy beforehand to ensure that they are unaware that they are even playing a game.

That way they have more fun.

Just remember, user, as far as the autists are concerned, the important part of being a GM isn't actually in the running of the game itself, it's in the obsessive preparation beforehand. Skills that actually relate to the running of a game session aren't as important to them.

Oh by the way, I just read the survey.

OP is massive faggot and misrepresented the results. It never said:

>Only 20% of GMs claim to have had to deal with "disruptive players" at the table

It actually says:

>"Do you regularly have to deal with disruptive players?"

Holy shit that 20% then is huge. It is completely different "Have had to deal with" compared to "regularly having to deal with disruptive players".

TIL virtually every DM except me is cancer tier.

Good to know.

>OP baits responses by misrepresenting a poll
Big fucking surprise.
What else?
>almost half of all responders do not use modules or adventure paths at all
>more than half only do half their prep time before the game, and improv the rest
These.

>almost half of all responders do not use modules or adventure paths at all
This fact plus that they like rping with npcs rather than actual combat makes me think that Hasbro is really shitting the bed with all these useless published hardbound books with worlds and monsters and classes and game mechanics, when realworld gamers would rather playact improv theater like on Critical Role and bullshit the dice roll just for fun.

Heck if they did 6th edition, just rip off FATE and have characters be described as important thematic and distinctive traits, since that is what players really care about instead of all those useless numbers on their character sheets.

>Like if an NPC would get a kill against an important villain
but user that's a chance for interesting dynamic story progression

Rule of thumb for NPCs, never have two npcs talk to each other or attack each other. It's just boring for the players.

I second this. As long as the players get the appropriate EXP/loot/rewards etc AND it makes sense within the narrative, it doesn't really matter.

The only time I adjust HP is to make boring combat more interesting. If a hyped up fight would clearly end too soon, I buff up the HP to the max dice values on the first round so it lasts a little longer. If things are really dragging or the session needs to end soon, I cut the enemy HP to make it end sooner.

Changing HP for any other reason is fucking stupid.

>70% of GMs say they adjust enemy hit points on the fly during combat
That's concerning.

>What's the harm?
Because Matthew Mercer is contributing more to the downfall of the D&D community than anyone else in history. Not even Monte Cook, not even Lorraine Williams, not even Micheal Merals, not even Gary Gygax himself have done as much damage to D&D. Mercer has made the game palatable to the kind of person who spends his Friday nights playing Cards Against Humanity while slobbering microbrews all over his beard while his wife's son is sleeping in the next room. The kind of moron who thinks mirthful laughter is the end goal of everything, and fails to understand the potential that RPGs have as a fulfilling hobby. Instead, he shits on that creative potential by turning the entire game into a joke, refusing to take anything seriously and making gimmick characters, bringing along his fat girlfriend to make a shitty elf druid character that she hardly roleplays, screeching autistically whenever she rolls a natural 20 because that is the only aspect of the game that her tiny female brain can comprehend, taking copious pictures of the game and posting them to Snapchat and Instagram to show what a geek she is, before getting tired at 11 and tugging at her cuck boyfriend's shoulder so that they both leave and disrupt the immersion even further, because the game doesn't matter to these people at all. It is a mode of entertainment, nothing else. And by entertainment, I mean they consider it nothing more than a Netflix special that they can pause at any time, because it is meant entirely to pander to their enjoyment and make them laugh to cover up how empty their soulless lives are. This hobby used to be full of passionate people who cared about the game and weren't afraid to show it. Now the hobby is being diluted by hordes of casuals who couldn't give a fuck.

Most DMs hide tro

>Your opinion falls in the face of something that has worked for more than 40 years successfully, user.
Define success. You've been a hack this entire time. Also unless you timestamp your face I highly doubt you're 50+, but whatever. Doesn't matter how long you've used it, it's still a crock of shit. You are a cheater, and a bad DM, no amount of years of experience will change that, you fucking cunt.

>The only time I adjust HP is to make boring combat more interesting.
That's not an excuse. If your combat is boring, make a better combat next time. Hell, combat in D&D is pretty fucking boring in general, so it might just be that. But, sure, punish your players for making a good plan and using good tactics, so that the battle lasts just the right amount of time (2 fucking hours) to be fun for you. Cause god forbid that absolute fucking shitslog that D&D combat is, gets over with quickly.

I've had to do it because I had a minmaxing asshole in a group of more well-rounded characters, and without adjust hit points he would just end every fight before anyone else got to do anything.

>when realworld gamers would rather playact improv theater like on Critical Role and bullshit the dice roll just for fun.
Those aren't real gamers. Those are retards who want to play Cards Against Humanity and cackle hysterical when they roll a natural20. That's all. It's like roulette to them. I wish they'd play russian roulette and all fucking die so we can stop dealing with their obnoxious presence in the D&D community, but even they aren't that stupid.

The DM chooses their encounters in the first place. If it's obvious that a mistake has been made, why not correct it?

Or take it like a man. Not every battle has to be some carefully crafted 1 hour drama. Sometimes a fight is over quickly. Sterilized CR = party level over-prepped encounters are part of why D&D is, and forever will be, the RPG of choice for drooling fucking retards without an ounce of creativity.

So you punish your players for their character creation decisions?

You sound like you would be asked to leave the table, and that you would throw a tantrum.

You need to get laid, bro.

>Is not the same
It is if they're taking a short rest after every other encounter though.

Expectation
>You need to drain a few fireballs to avoid only utility spells being used
>you keep HP low to keep the PCs more cautious
>you make them use consumable items
>you put them at a tactical disadvantage for the long fights.
Reality
>Players will focus on basic attacks (or cantrips) until they get a chance to rest
>Martials will end up running out of HP long before the Mages run out of spells after Level 5
>they will never use consumable items or limited use abilities because "well, what if we need it later?"
>Players will have so much HP, they can easily trade blows until one side dies, turning every combat into a game to see who can maintain the most aggro without losing all their HP.

Yes.

Not him, but either you're punishing the min-maxing fucktard for bringing an optimized build to a mid-level campaign or you're punishing the rest of the party because they literally cannot do anything because the min-maxing fucktard threw off the curve.

Personally, I'd rather the min-maxing fucktard be mad because it took 2 turns to end an encounter instead of one, than the rest of the party suffer because they no longer have any input in how their characters can participate in combat.

Party is meant to take a short rest every other encounter if you play 5e.

Not him, but even if he does, it's not affecting you and his players don't mind, so why do you care?

% of GMs say they adjust enemy hit points on the fly during combat
I've definitley done this before. Not constantly though.

Sometimes you meant for that ogre to be more threatening. Or that small party of goblins not to be a party wipe.

I'd honestly rather adjust NPC stats on the fly than fudge dice.

Buffing HP to lengthen an encounter is something I have only very rarely had to do. Usually it's reducing HP to make an ending deadline.

Cool. Do you also fudge DCs in social encounters to punish players who minmax their social stats?

Why didn't you establish at character creation that everybody should be building characters for a mid-powered campaign and you didn't want anybody minmaxing? That way you wouldn't have to do either?

this guy gets it.

>Do you also fudge DCs in social encounters to punish players who minmax their social stats?
I would if they were optimized beyond the capabilities of the rest of the party.
>Why didn't you establish at character creation that everybody should be building characters for a mid-powered campaign
Ideally you do. I assume this is some bizarro world where you're forced to play with turbo autists by some sort of Orwellian government.

>You are a cheater
Not even in Synnibarr can GMs cheat.

>I assume this is some bizarro world where you're forced to play with turbo autists by some sort of Orwellian government.
Roll20 LFG?

>Why didn't you establish at character creation that everybody should be building characters for a mid-powered campaign and you didn't want anybody minmaxing?
As if that's going to stop most of the min-maxing fucktards from trying, especially with a newer DM who doesn't realize how easily people can break the game.

>be me
>prep maze for group
>first encounter is a huge amount of skeletons
>this will be fun and silly
>skellys proceed to crit on druid, doing max damage and reducing him to 2hp
>tone of battle against worthless mobs changes dramatically
>five or six rooms later, bone naga with minotaurs to aggro
>this was the big fight
>PCs enter room with terrain advantage and option to play smart
>still licking wounds from skellys
>proceed to strategize and absolutely destroy the boss fight
>not one dice roll in secret
>PCs have healthy fear of the dice and play accordingly

im not dicefagging like the rest of this lot, but personally ive had better results rolling out in the open. i find fudging rolls to be difficult to make a system for that i feel confident to use as a gm. imho the dice ruining the tone and the flow of the game has more to do with knowing when and when not to call for them to be rolled in the first place. i realize there will be tons of examples to follow proving me wrong and telling me what an idiot i am but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯