D&D 5e

It's absolutely acceptable, and in fact it's often a good idea to skip over unimportant conversations by summarising them in 3rd person narration.

Some people are really into roleplaying games for the improv theater aspect, but just as many aren't too comfortable with it and would rather approach the fiction as setup and framing for the real gameplay.

>>54968408
>However, doing voices and acting isn't natural for me.
Fuck voices. If you're really good at them, they can be awesome, but very few people are. Most of the time they end up sounding silly and are therefore a distraction. Not only that, but they sometimes take the GM's focus away from other, more important stuff.

I've been GMing off and on for something like three decades now, and I don't do voices. I mean, if somebody's angry, I'll raise my voice a bit, or if they're agitated, I'll convey that by being a bit twitchy or something, but I'm not doing Shakespeare. Really, all I'm trying to do is give people enough of a hint that they know what to imagine in their heads.

I suspect that you've set your goalposts too high, and that is tripping you up. I'd fall flat on my face if I tried to be a master thespian. When you're first learning to juggle, you shouldn't start with chainsaws. And really, even most people who are experienced jugglers should also stay the hell away from chainsaws.

>>54968544
With that said, there really is no "right" way to GM. I'd encourage you not to give up on something too easily just because it's a bit tricky at first, but ultimately you shouldn't feel obligated to play a certain way. And different groups have different styles of play.

>>54968480
>in fact it's often a good idea to skip over unimportant conversations by summarising them in 3rd person narration.
This is true. GMs can control the pacing of a game by deciding when to role-playing something out in detail, when to just role-play a bit or do a skeletal back-and-forth in 3rd person, or when to just summarize and move on.

>>54968408
This is something from when I was taking improv classes, but it's helped my DMing a lot.
When the players want to do something, saying "yes AND" leads to a lot more fun than "no".
If they want to go off the rails and you feel comfortable as a DM, let them. Try to have a setting, villain, and a good number of NPCs fleshed out, and let the players solve a problem however they can. And no matter what they do, have everything react to their actions as consistently as possible.
The most fun happens when players don't think their actions all the way through (read:always), and rather than saying "no, that's stupid", you have the realistic outcome happen.
They want to kill the king and take his place? Sure, but they'll have to get past his bodyguards, and once they do, they'll have to deal with all the nobles trying to fill the power vacuum. Using magic to impersonate him? Make sure they've got enough intel on his friends and family to reliably pass as him.
This isn't trying to nullify everything they do. Making them think their actions through, plan wisely, and react to complex problems makes the payoff so much sweeter when they actually pull it off.

>>54968643
Also, this isn't an acting thing. You don't have to BE any of these characters, just make them react to things like people.

If you constantly use stupid voices at my table you aren't invited back. I find it ridiculously silly and it usually comes off as childish as fuck because as another anon said: most folks just can't do good voices.

File: 1414390029229.jpg (74KB, 831x445px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 831x445px

Play a better fucking game.

>playing D&D 5e
How does it feel being a cuck of the kikes?