DMs: what have you learned from PLAYING that has made you a better DM?

[Jeff Wilder]

As a player, I disengage when there's little or no description of the game world as seen through the eyes of the PCs. Both of my DMs have a weakness in this area. (Lately I've been more assertive about it. DM: "Make a Reflex save." Me: "Okay, but what do we see? What's happening that we're saving against?")

I've been trying for many sessions now to be more descriptive, including as many senses as I can. Not to the point of novelization, but just so that the players can get a somewhat more visceral idea of what's happening around their PCs. It is difficult to keep in mind, especially in combat situations.

[Toben the Many]

Going all the way back to the OP - Ydars - what made you learn lessons as a player this time around as opposed to all of the other times? Just curious.

For myself, I've learned the most about DM from being a player.

Many people have said this and even the OP, but I'll reiterate it for emphasis - nerfing character abilities sucks. Telling players, "Well, that Feat doesn't work like that." Or, "that spell doesn't work like that" is pretty crappy.

I especially dislike the nerfing of abilities for the sake of plot. For example, let's say we are investigating something. My survival skill is +17 and I try to Track where the killer's gone off to. Then, the DM tells me, no matter how well I roll that the tracks lead off in X direction, but then disappear.

What? So my Tracking ability told me...nothing? Let least give me a bone. Tell me how tall the killer was, whether it was a man or woman, perhaps if they were human, elf, or dwarf. But so many times, I've seen DMs completely nerf "plot breaking" abilities for the sake of their story.

When I run a game, if you've hit a high DC, I will try to at least give you something. Some kind of information.

Another thing that is related to this is loosey-goosey dice rolling. I personally hate that. When a DM tells you to make a roll. And you do so. If you happen to roll "high" on the d20, you succeed. If you happen to roll "low" on the d20, you fail - even if your skill makes a low roll high.

For example, if I try to track and roll a 6 on the d20 roll, but have +21 to my roll, it's still a decent roll. But I know so many DMs who might tell me - "Yeah, so you fail." "But I have a +21 to track stuff. That gives me a 27." "Yeah, you barely missed it."

The reason I hate this sort of thing is that when a DM does this, it makes me feel like I put all of those points and character development into my skill for nothing.

So, to combat this in my own games, I try to give my players the DC before they roll. This way, they know that know I'm not BS'ing them and it keeps me honest.

But the #1 thing that being a player cured me of is "pure whim storytelling". I know that many people love this. And, in fact, I used to be that kind of GM. However, when I'm sitting across the table from a GM who's making it up all on the fly, I can tell. And it seriously hurts my enjoyment of the game. Suddenly, I can see all the strings on the puppets. I can see all of the camera crews and special effects guys. Also, GMs who do it all 100% on the fly tend to be pretty loosey-goosey with their dice rolls. Often times, if what you're attempting sounds cool to the GM, he'll let you do it. If it doesn't sound cool to him, then he won't let you do it.

[Ydars]

Hi Toben!

The answer to your question is complex:

First, I played for a LONG time without DMing and had to adapt to just getting my jollies from playing. I also played across a much wider range of levels than I ever have before 1-13: I don't think I have had a character gain more than 3-4 levels before. This seemed to change my playstyle a little.

I am usually a hard-core roleplayer, who enjoys solving problems through the use of clever use of my wits as well as in-character interactions. So for me, dice are often the means of last resort to solve a problem, which I suspect is quite "old skool".

In this last campaign, I played 3 different characters as well, because I managed to get the first two killed. I discovered that it was REALLY satisfying exploring the different "landscapes" of the various feats and spells available to different classes and this taught me to love mechanics far more and also had me playing different types of characters than I had ever played in the past. So for some of the time I was quite a "hack n slash" merchant, which I have only ever played in one-shot games in the past.

But the major thing was what I said in my original post: always before I was a DM playing. This time I became a player and thought and acted like one the whole time. I was not thinking of ideas for my next campaign or waiting to take over, or getting bored. I think, after my second character that I became a GOOD player as well: one a DM can rely on to pull the party out of trouble if it looks like going bad but who won't spoil someone else's fun just because my character was often the most well built.

So I really now understand players from their perspective and that is why I learned something.

[SilvercatMoonpaw2]

Originally Posted by Toben the Many

But the #1 thing that being a player cured me of is "pure whim storytelling". I know that many people love this. And, in fact, I used to be that kind of GM. However, when I'm sitting across the table from a GM who's making it up all on the fly, I can tell. And it seriously hurts my enjoyment of the game. Suddenly, I can see all the strings on the puppets. I can see all of the camera crews and special effects guys. Also, GMs who do it all 100% on the fly tend to be pretty loosey-goosey with their dice rolls. Often times, if what you're attempting sounds cool to the GM, he'll let you do it. If it doesn't sound cool to him, then he won't let you do it.

Huh, that kinda the opposite from me: one thing I've learned from playing is to not plan. Okay, you can have some ideas of what you want to do. But if you plan something'll happen to make your plan to wonky to use.

[CharlesRyan]

Great thread! I've been GMing for 30 years, and I still love to learn (and sometimes relearn) ways to improve.

Here are a couple of things I've learned in recent years:

Keith ran really, really exciting encounters in his Red Hand of Doom campaign. (This was 3.5, so while the tactical maps were somewhat diverse, there wasn't the emphasis on terrain or large numbers of foes you see in 4E.) It took me a while to figure out why, but then I realized: his bad guys always had a plan to win. They were never there as speed bumps or XP pellets or just the next routine fight. They attacked and fought not just with intelligence, but with a strategy and a goal. It was as though they actually expected they could win--and sometimes they almost did!

Chris ran a yearlong Vampire: Dark Ages campaign that came together with such a profound and fitting finale that he seemed like a master novelist. For ages I wondered how he could possibly have the foresight to lay down all those relevant details in the first months of the campaign, so that they all came together in the climax. I eventually realized that his plan was not that detailed--he filled the early campaign with details and factions and well-crafted NPCs and locations. When the end approached, he had a broad toolbox of options to weave in and make it seem like it was all headed that way from the beginning.

The one has had a profound effect on my campaign design, the other a profound effect on how I make sure I show my players a good time every session.

[Toben the Many]

Originally Posted by SilvercatMoonpaw2

Huh, that kinda the opposite from me: one thing I've learned from playing is to not plan. Okay, you can have some ideas of what you want to do. But if you plan something'll happen to make your plan to wonky to use.

We probably agree. I believe in a middle ground between planing and going-with-the-flow. I just don't like 110% off-the-cuff style DMing.

[underthumb]

Originally Posted by Toben the Many

But the #1 thing that being a player cured me of is "pure whim storytelling". I know that many people love this. And, in fact, I used to be that kind of GM. However, when I'm sitting across the table from a GM who's making it up all on the fly, I can tell. And it seriously hurts my enjoyment of the game. Suddenly, I can see all the strings on the puppets. I can see all of the camera crews and special effects guys. Also, GMs who do it all 100% on the fly tend to be pretty loosey-goosey with their dice rolls. Often times, if what you're attempting sounds cool to the GM, he'll let you do it. If it doesn't sound cool to him, then he won't let you do it.

I think your point is good one and I've noticed the same thing: "on the fly" adventures are often punitively arbitrary. I think there's a definite sentiment at EN World which is effectively anti-preparation (as preparation breeds outcome attachment), but I believe careful preparation to be almost always preferable to copious "on the fly" decision making.

Improvisation, like a spice, can help flavor an adventure, but it doesn't make for a good adventure by itself. Unless you have a very simple setup, there's just no way to maintain coherence in the face of the usual litany of PC questions and actions.

To expand on your point, this is also why I like rules-heavy RPG systems like GURPS: they allow for the neutral adjudication of a host of complex situations in a way that is context-independent. This helps keep both players and GMs honest, and reduces bickering about whether this or that skill modifier is fair or punitive.

[ki11erDM]

Shorter/faster and more interesting combat encounters with more role playing.

[Lonely Tylenol]

I like to let the players win. All the time. They like it too.

For example, when a player takes a tiefling character, and gets fire resistance as a racial feature, the DM might be tempted to avoid targeting that character with fire attacks. The wizard uses Ray of Frost on the tiefling instead of Scorching Burst. The fire resistance becomes worthless, and the player loses. If the DM hits him with a Scorching Burst, suddenly the player is winning in a small way. He is pleased with his choice of character, and feels good about reaping the advantages he has sown.

The fighter has an ability that only works when something shifts next to him. If I never make anything shift, because I know about the ability, then his ability is much less fun.

The party is looking for a secret mind flayer lair under the city. The DM had planned for them to go back into the sewers where the illithid's minions had attacked them and track them back to the lair. However, the party gets the charismatic rogue to ask around among the lowlife thugs at bars to find out if they know anything. Do they know anything?

I sometimes play a game called Donjon, in which a successful roll allows the player to narrate the outcome. The standard example is a "find secret doors" roll. If you're in a room, and you succeed at that roll, there is a secret door. It's up to the GM to figure out where the door leads to.

I use this strategy extensively. On a successful Streetwise check, they can dig up the information. I didn't know that the thugs knew anything about the mind flayer, but I can improvise on their roll to fill in the story. The player who chose Streetwise as a skill wins. When they get to the lair, they might try to find a back way in, to avoid the guards. On a successful Dungeoneering roll, they discover that there's a collapsed tunnel that they could dig out, granting them the chance for a surprise raid. I didn't put the tunnel there until they made the roll. The guy who took Dungeoneering wins.

I tend to give players narrative control without the players even realizing they had it. When they attempt something unexpected, I try to roll with it, by giving it a chance of success.

DMing advice columns always try to tell you to put in things for every character to do. If you have a bunch of combat monkeys, put in big, tough things for them to fight. If you have a sneaky group, let them sneak. But I can't always think of everything. So if someone wants to try to use their abilities to do something cool, I let them do it.

I also agree about "gotcha" abilities. It's no fun when you move next to a monster only to find out that doing so was a really, really bad idea. Does it have threatening reach? Does it have an aura? These things should be obvious. This is not to say that monsters shouldn't have surprising abilities. If you have an attack that makes a zone of flickering black energy, you don't need to say what will happen if you enter the zone. It's obvious that it will suck. But when the bugbear strangler grabs a PC, you should mention that he's holding him up like a human shield, so that the other players know what will happen if they try to hit him. Or what will happen if they don't attack the paladin that marked them.

Likewise, you should point out that a creature has resistance, but not necessarily what kind of resistance. And if a creature has a vulnerability, don't bother to mention it until it takes that kind of damage unless, of course, the PCs figure it out with a skill check.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Originally Posted by Toben the Many

Another thing that is related to this is loosey-goosey dice rolling. I personally hate that. When a DM tells you to make a roll. And you do so. If you happen to roll "high" on the d20, you succeed. If you happen to roll "low" on the d20, you fail - even if your skill makes a low roll high.

For example, if I try to track and roll a 6 on the d20 roll, but have +21 to my roll, it's still a decent roll. But I know so many DMs who might tell me - "Yeah, so you fail." "But I have a +21 to track stuff. That gives me a 27." "Yeah, you barely missed it."

The reason I hate this sort of thing is that when a DM does this, it makes me feel like I put all of those points and character development into my skill for nothing.

So, to combat this in my own games, I try to give my players the DC before they roll. This way, they know that know I'm not BS'ing them and it keeps me honest.

This is exactly why I love, love, love the by-level skill DCs in 4E. I think that Mike Mearls points out in one of his Design & Development articles that in a lot of cases skill rolls go like this:

Player: I want to do this thing.
DM: Roll for it
Player: I get a 25.
DM: (thinking) Hmm... is a 25 a fail or a success? I hadn't really set a DC for that before he rolled. If I set it higher than 25, it's a fail, but if I set it lower, it's a success. I guess I just need to decide whether he should succeed or fail...

In 4E, the DM needs to ask himself, "is this easy, hard, or average difficulty?" That's a pretty easy question to answer. And he can do it after the roll is made:

Player: I want to do this other thing.
DM: Roll for it.
Player: I get a 25.
DM: (thinking) Is that a failure or a success? Well, he was trying to do something wickedly difficult, so I'll set a hard DC. (checks to see whether a 25 beats a hard DC at that level)

It takes a lot of the arbitrariness out of adjudication, and helps to solve the problem of the DM who always says no, or who just makes things up on the fly all the time.

[Nai_Calus]

I'm DMing my first campaign, and I'm still getting a feel for it, but there's a lot of things I've learned from playing that I'm trying to keep in mind:

The players are not the characters. This cannot be emphasised enough. Social skills, Knowledge checks, this stuff is in the game for a reason. Sometimes the guy who has 8 CHA IRL wants to be the charismatic guy. As long as he makes an actual effort and doesn't say anything horribly stupid, let him use Diplomacy, etc to back up his words. The characters are well above average intelligence but they're not getting your puzzle? Let them make knowledge or intelligence checks to figure something out about it.

Don't rely on puzzles that involve players noticing positions of things on battlegrids as a primary method of solving it. Battlegrids that they don't seem to be on. Especially if you're doing it online and one of the players *can't see the tokens* on the other map due to loading errors... Similarly, any puzzle that has to be primarily metagamed, don't do. Nothing takes me out of the game faster than being forced to metagame and my character's abilities suddenly meaning nothing.

Be consistent. Making things up on the fly is good, but not when it completely disregards the rules and previous encounters.

Don't shut it down when the players try to think of other ways to solve the puzzle when they're not seeing your One True Solution. At least provide reasons other than 'why would you want to do that?'.

Don't use totally unbelievable obstacles. If I'm in a freaking half-full magma chamber, jumping around on platforms 10 feet above the surface of the lava... Uh, I'm not jumping, actually. I'm dead. It's going to be several hundred degrees in there and possibly a thousand or more.

Know what your players are capable of, what your monsters are capable of, and ensure that their gear and capabilities actually give them a chance. If you're not using WBL guidelines for characters created above 1st level, make damned sure you give them enemies to fight that they can actually deal with.

The players can tell when you're singling them out for being picked upon. Don't do it. If you have a problem with them, talk to them, don't try to screw over their characters at every turn. Listen to them when they have problems with you as well and don't dismiss it as 'whining'. Trust between the players and DMs is important. Once that trust is shattered it stops being fun. If you don't trust your DM to not screw you over...

Do not under any circumstances let a player shut down another, especially in a group where the players involved are the only ones really RPing and the other guy(s) are just there to fight.

If a new character will clash with another existing character in a way that absolutely cannot be resolved without ludicrously tortured logic, it probably shouldn't be allowed. No sane person is going to run around in potentially deadly situations trusting their lives to someone who has poisoned them for literally no reason, or who has attacked them for subdual damage with the promise to not use the flat of the blade next time. The profession is too dangerous and the world too large to stupidly stay with people you know will harm you. If you can't enjoy a character that doesn't have Dramatic Physical Conflict with another character, I don't want you in my game anyway.

Never mock your players' characters or their traits. If you hate the character that much you should have vetoed it at character creation. Mocking it OOC when a character brings up in-game that he keeps a journal just makes the player feel like they shouldn't even bother RPing.

Now if I can just get past the problems of combat being long and boring due to the nature of online playing and us not being able to use voice chat for talking. It just simply takes too long to type out a description of what you're doing in combat, then move your token, then roll your dice and usually having to mention some modifier it takes too long to find in Fantasy Grounds. Same with describing rooms and such. The players get bored waiting for me to type and then having to read what I typed, instead of me just being able to say things. Urgh.

[SilvercatMoonpaw2]

Originally Posted by underthumb

I think your point is good one and I've noticed the same thing: "on the fly" adventures are often punitively arbitrary. I think there's a definite sentiment at EN World which is effectively anti-preparation (as preparation breeds outcome attachment), but I believe careful preparation to be almost always preferable to copious "on the fly" decision making.

Improvisation, like a spice, can help flavor an adventure, but it doesn't make for a good adventure by itself. Unless you have a very simple setup, there's just no way to maintain coherence in the face of the usual litany of PC questions and actions.

To expand on your point, this is also why I like rules-heavy RPG systems like GURPS: they allow for the neutral adjudication of a host of complex situations in a way that is context-independent. This helps keep both players and GMs honest, and reduces bickering about whether this or that skill modifier is fair or punitive.

I can't speak for anyone else, but from my experience the reason someone may not like the idea of much preparation is because it's easier to let yourself go if you haven't built up as much expectation in yourself about how things are going to happen. It's not that you're stuck to an idea, it's that the idea has acquired inertia and if you stop it moving there's a longer delay in adjusting.

Also sometimes it's just too much work to do much more than simple prep.

[SilvercatMoonpaw2]

Originally Posted by Nai_Calus

Don't use totally unbelievable obstacles. If I'm in a freaking half-full magma chamber, jumping around on platforms 10 feet above the surface of the lava... Uh, I'm not jumping, actually. I'm dead. It's going to be several hundred degrees in there and possibly a thousand or more.

"Unbelievable" is relative. I read that situation and don't have any problem believing it, even when you say it's impossible. Sometimes it's possible to suspend your sense of reality.

[Parduz]

Man! Reading all these suggestion with my poor English knowledge is really an hard task... but i rolled high, so i want to thank you for all your though. I'm learning.

I think that i should try to share my experience, as i'm an "unusual" DM (more about this later) and an happy player.

I play RPGs only occasionally, and i've one of the best Master i know: he play his own version of Gurps, often in a Sci-fi set. He is a true talent in storytelling and acting NPCs, making noises and explosions and waving hands all the time. We never feel forced to "follow the plot" (we die a lot for this reason, 'cause the plots are always smart and if you do not make the right, logical choices you go in a sea of troubles), and my characters really start to think to suicide....
Another friend like to Master D&D: i truly hate him as a DM. He TRY to tell you what happens, but you get bored very soon.... then the whole adventure become a "Fight-rest-fight-rest-fight-cure-fight-rest"

The lesson for me as DM is: be critical about yourself. If you're a good actor, act, otherwise use another talent. As a DM you have to do what you know you have talents for. If you try to be different, you fail.

About me as DM: i am the DM for 15 consecutive days in a year, when i go to sea with my family in the summer holidays.
My players are my 2 sons (9 and 11 years old, right now) and a cousin 14 years old.
We started to play D&D 3 years ago...
DMing for a so young audience can be a pleasure and a curse in the same time:
The PROs are many:
1) They don't try to max the character, they instead took the skills and the feats that sounds COOL. Feats tree have no meanings, for them. My son, the younger, is an elf archer ranger (Legolas of the LOTR trilogy is the model he follow) and he WANTED a fellow horse. So he spend his skills in handle animals and similar things, even if he never fight mounted 'cause he did not want to risk that horse. My daughter is the halfling thief, but she never stole anything. She just want to be agile, cute and hidden. The cousin is the Monk, the "Anime" version of it
Is a party that NEEDS a cleric and a "tank", but they feel happy with theyr PCs, they never build up them thinking at power playing, and i think this is fantastic.
2) The never do "metagaming".... just because they can't
3) I NEVER use battle grids. Instead i keep the imagination running: they describe what they want to do, and if it is believable i tell to roll something. They want to be the "hollywood/anime style" heroes, and i like to see what these young brains can imagine

The CONS?
1) You have to take care of what happens: gore is not really a problem (the kid always tell me how much he splat the enemies ) but he (in RL) fears to be alone in the dark, and so his Hero... so i learned to never let the party split.
2) The party is weak: if they don't kill the bads in few rounds, they can really die, so i have to cheat some roll, or to tune down the bads due to the party low power
3) a PC dead is a NIGHTMARE: my son dead for a bad roll, and (obviously) he start to be angry and crying at the same time... so i told him a "lesson" about winning or loosing (we also play boardgames, so he already know how to loose.... but he loves his PC too much to be calm ), then the friends bring back his dead body to the town, where a cleric resurrect it

Finally, right now i'm DMing the Red HAnd of Doom with my friends, testing the adventure for my kids for this incoming summer.
What i've learned from my young players is still valid, just need to be transposed for an adult audience: let them choose the PC they like, tell the story, let the players do what they like to do, with a description of the actions. Give prizes for some very cool or lucky combat: i use "cool points", an house rule found in the WotC forum. In this manner the player will love the character, and will start to fear for the dead while the adventure become harder. I'm not a good actor, but i can imagine and then describe well what the players see... so i go for it.
Every player "fears" something: to be not enough smart, or to be not so powerfull in combat... use these fears against the players: they will be more concentrated on what they do and why.

I hope that you can understand this long post. Writing so much in english is a hard task for me, i hope you find in this post something useful.

[MadLordOfMilk]

Parduz, your post was easy to read There are some grammar errors, of course, but your English is pretty good for it being a second language!

Originally Posted by Parduz

The lesson for me as DM is: be critical about yourself. If you're a good actor, act, otherwise use another talent. As a DM you have to do what you know you have talents for. If you try to be different, you fail.

True, you should try and play to your strengths; however, I think DMing is also a great way to expand your skills!

Originally Posted by Parduz

1) They don't try to max the character, they instead took the skills and the feats that sounds COOL.

I like this I am all for people optimizing their characters, but sometimes people need to take a step back and look at the "awesomeness" of an ability more.

Originally Posted by Parduz

3) I NEVER use battle grids. Instead i keep the imagination running: they describe what they want to do, and if it is believable i tell to roll something.

Sometimes I use a battle grid, sometimes I don't. I think running a game without a battle grid is useful, because it helps some players visualize things more; however, the strategic aspect of combat really shines with a battle grid! It depends a lot on your players, but mixing it up a bit works well for me.

Originally Posted by Parduz

3) a PC dead is a NIGHTMARE: my son dead for a bad roll, and (obviously) he start to be angry and crying at the same time... so i told him a "lesson" about winning or loosing (we also play boardgames, so he already know how to loose.... but he loves his PC too much to be calm ), then the friends bring back his dead body to the town, where a cleric resurrect it

One thing I've noticed about younger players is that they usually take things that happen to their characters much more harshly than older players. The important thing is that you teach them to be mature about it. Bad things will happen to your character, but that's part of the game's excitement!

[Parduz]

Originally Posted by MadLordOfMilk

Parduz, your post was easy to read There are some grammar errors, of course, but your English is pretty good for it being a second language!

Thanks. I'm really worried about writing a lot and having no one understanding what i mean

Originally Posted by MadLordOfMilk

Sometimes I use a battle grid, sometimes I don't. I think running a game without a battle grid is useful, because it helps some players visualize things more; however, the strategic aspect of combat really shines with a battle grid! It depends a lot on your players, but mixing it up a bit works well for me.

At the beginning of my "story" I was worried about the how much the PC sheet was complex, so i bought the D&D Basic Game box. It contains some minis, a reduced pre-made character sheet for the iconic heroes (7 skills, a couple of feats for each), and some tiles to build the dungeon. The kids learned the game mechanics and "how to role play". Then we start the real thing... they both told me that "it is much better without the grid". I think they have too much imagination to be forced in a square grid They're blaming me right now 'cause i've bought the RHoD book instead of writing the campaign myself

Originally Posted by MadLordOfMilk

One thing I've noticed about younger players is that they usually take things that happen to their characters much more harshly than older players. The important thing is that you teach them to be mature about it. Bad things will happen to your character, but that's part of the game's excitement!

Yeah. They feel the character as a "true person", an extension of them in another world. This is what i think is great: they'll remember these early PC forever

[SilvercatMoonpaw2]

Originally Posted by Parduz

Yeah. They feel the character as a "true person", an extension of them in another world. This is what i think is great: they'll remember these early PC forever

Hey, I'm like this at 26, and I didn't start playing till I was maybe 18 or 19. You don't have to be a kid on the outside.

[Hereticus]

The number one lesson I learned is to MAKE THE GAME ABOUT THE CHARACTERS !!!

Do not create powerful NPCs to save the day, that leads to resentment.

Allow the characters to make choices and influence the direction of the campaign.

As they gain a few levels, allow them to obtain positions of power in the community and make decisions.

And include situations in as many adventures as possible that tie into their backgrounds and interests.

[Nai_Calus]

Originally Posted by SilvercatMoonpaw2

"Unbelievable" is relative. I read that situation and don't have any problem believing it, even when you say it's impossible. Sometimes it's possible to suspend your sense of reality.

Sure. When it's plausible and sensible. Epic-level character with fire resistance out the arse? Hell, lower-level character with fire resistance? Adventuring on the Paraelemental Plane of Magma where you've prepared for, well, running around a bunch of sodding lava? Sure.

Random mountain interior designed to be a test for warriors? Uhh... Level 9 Bard 4/Swashbuckler 5 wearing the standard Studded Leather armor a L1 character would have, whose only magical item was a cold iron longsword which was presumably the stock +1, who doesn't have resistance to anything? Umm... Nope. Not plausible at all. Total and complete pull out of the game. Heat your oven to 500 degrees and stick your head in it and tell me how nice that feels. Do not actually do this. Just opening the door with your face near it should be enough. It's going to be hotter than that in a room filled with lava. Holding your hand above a candle will get you burned.

It's for this exact reason that I can't watch volcano movies. Someone invariably has a flow of molten lava come within an inch of their shoes before they make a dramatic escape. Except, you know, the heat already killed them long before that.

Some concepts in some situations are simply so patently ludicrous that they simply cannot be handwaved.

This particular puzzle was a glorious example of really bad design. Room slowly flooding with lava due to cannons shooting holes in the wall. This was something that had supposedly been used before by the local population for testing warriors. Uh... Right. They reset it how? How are they planning to reset it after this? Why can't I jump on the cannons? Are they greased? 1 inch wide? They're not really cannons if they are now are they, more like guns. I've got a +10 Balance mod and a +9 Jump mod, I like my odds. I've got 83 HP, why can't I jump through that wall of fire and just soak up some fire damage? I'll use some cure spells on myself later. What, you mean later on in the puzzle after I've solved it much to your chagrin by accident I have to convince this NPC with me to jump through a wall... Of the same kind of fire? That he takes no damage from? What the hell was stopping me then? And this is on top of, yeah, magic antireality lava that does no damage until you're in it. (And no, it wasn't actually magic lava) Nevermind that a wall of stone thin enough to be shot through by a cannon likely wouldn't hold back molten magma very well...

Yes, yes, complaining about realism or the lack thereof in D&D is pointless/etc, but some things are just too much. Selectively hot lava. Any dragon living in a cave with tunnels smaller than it is. Some things just plain are stupid.

Unrealistic lava is also one of my pet peeves, so.

[Ycore Rixle]

Pacing is the biggest thing I have learned from sitting on the player's side of the table. Always, always, keep things moving.