Burning Questions: What's the Worst Thing a DM Can Do?

In this column, we take common D & D questions posed on Quora and attempt to answer them in a friendly, practical and informative way. Today's question: “As a D & D player, what is the worst thing your DM could do to take the fun out of playing?”

View attachment 101478
Pictured sourced from Pixabay
​

I regularly DM my games—I can count on one hand the number of times I've played as PC—but the one thing that always brought me out of a game was a boring DM or a DM who was so focused on the rules, they didn't make it very fun for the players. In this case, “boring” can mean a number of different things:

1. A major emphasis or strict adherence to specific rules. I love the mechanics of D & D as much as the next guy, but an over emphasis on rules can render an otherwise fun adventure tedious.
2. The DM insists upon railroading the players and not accounting for their ingenuity. Yeah, it sucks that on occasion, the players will completely bypass that insane dragon encounter you spent all afternoon building, but you have the ability as a DM to improvise right along with them and figure out a way to work that encounter back into a new path. As a DM, always has a contingency plan for unexpected player action. It doesn’t always work, but at least we have fun.
3. A lack of energy in the game. Simply reading the box text of an adventure, without emotion or flair, puts me to sleep. The DM’s job is to engage the players. Without engagement, the game is boring and easily
4. The DM gives special treatment to another player. This has ruined far too many games in my own experience. The party is a team with each member possessing their own strengths and flaws and I’ve always had more fun when the party functions as a team, rather than individual units.

While this probably isn’t unique to my own experience, it does seem to be a common concern around my FLGS. This is a bit of an experiment and we’d love to know what our readers think about this topic in the comments. We’ll be back with another RPG Quora Question soon.

This article was contributed by David J. Buck (Nostalgia Ward) as part of ENWorld's User-Generated Content (UGC) program. When he isn’t learning to play or writing about RPGs, he can be found on Patreon or Twitter. We are always on the lookout for freelance columnists! If you have a pitch, please contact us!

 

[Rya.Reisender]

No, Mike Mearls is listed before Jeremy Crawford under Lead Designers in the PHB, so Mearls
makes the rules! Mearls trumps Crawford! IA IA MEARLS FTHAGGN!!

For me the decision was made when Mike Mearls said: "Jeremy is the rules guy."

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

On rulings I prefer a more "first among equals" approach - I don't mind if a player queries a ruling, as maybe they've thought about it more clearly than I have! But if someone has to exercise veto power, then in the end - in a relatively traditional game - that is going to be the referee.

I agree. One guy I play with has a propensity for misreading rules. He's generally fairly good as DM but there have been some doozies where his interpretation was... off and we've had to consult the books and then decide what we're doing. I won't claim I always read a particular rule clearly either. There are a lot of rules and it's easy to not be super familiar with a part. The DM has final say but in general we try to stick to the rules as intended. One big "keep the game going" thing that helps is to make a ruling in the moment that's good enough but not setting any precedent and then visit it offline out of the session, which gives time to reread the rules, consult Sage Advice (for what its worth), etc.

I am more pro customization than many other folks I know, but I'd note that WotC themselves presumed a fairly substantial amount of customization themselves.

 

[belphanor]

gonna have to put a trigger warning here, some kinda mature stuff. sorry in advance.

I can't imagine letting the same DM say both. Very shortly after saying either, he wouldn't be my DM.

well, the rest of the group read him the riot act and said they wouldn't play with him as GM if he did the first bit again. The other, well...

Arrrrr...


Can we please pool our resources and make sure belphanor gets a good GM next time?

ok, so to be honest these are 3 separate events spread out over like 5 years, and only with one GM. Many of the other GMs I've had were much better as GMs. I was just going with what the worst things a GM has done AS A GM, not as a person.
The guy who said all those things? Verbally abusive to everyone in the group, both in and out of the game. Physically abusive towards me. When he was threatened to be kicked from the group he said that we were his only friends and without us he would kill himself, so you can add emotional blackmail as well.

2 different GMs (who admittedly were roommates, were brought up on charges of possession of child pornography. Apparently someone had broken into their apartment, and while ransacking the place, while they were at a con, the bugler found their stashes, and called the cops. this was just weeks after one of their very good friends, who got them into the hobby (they say the hobby in question is RPGs, but I'm not so sure) was caught in an FBI sting that had him charged with 37 counts of possession of child porn. Those two went on to open an RPG / anime / manga store that would hold My Little Pony viewing parties that were advertised in the local paper as 'pony parties'. and yes, they were aware of the other meaning of that phrase. (the store crashed and burned in no small part to one of them being charged with sexual harassment by a customer, but the lack of ANY business skills on the part of the two other than working the counter at fast food restaurants was probably a factor as well.)

and the number 1 worst GM that I've ever had would be the guy who raped his 8 year old stepdaughter. None of us in the group saw that coming. I mean how can you think that one of your friends would be a monster like that? After something like that, having an abusive GM (while still bad) doesn't seem like that big a deal you know?

Now, those are 4 GMs out of probably around 15 or so regular GMs I've had, and this is the thread for the WORST. I've also had GMs who were open with creative solutions to problems, especially solutions that they hadn't thought of. I've had GMs who were willing to scrap their entire campaign because the PCs wanted to go off in a different direction. I've had GMs who felt that the players deserved to have some input on the creation of the world that they had built.

But those worst ones all happened in the span of about 5 years, and are more recent than the good ones.
I have, however, decided that if anyone I've played RPGs with gets involved in a child related sex crime, I'm gonna find a new hobby and sell all my RPGs cheap, cos 3 times is too many.

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

Just to be extra clear, I don't have a preference one way or another per se. If the game is fun enough to play as-is, I play it. But I do play by the way I understand the game to work based on the rules. So when it comes to ability checks, in D&D 5e they follow a task described by the player. They do not precede it. In some other game, they might precede it because that's what the rules say and that's okay by me as long as the game is fun enough to play as-is.

Saving throws in D&D 5e just seem to go against that design so I would say it's inelegant. I can live with it though.

I think the really big difference here is "as-is". My general mindset is that the game designers lay out a framework and it's up to me to interpret that or alter to suit my needs. I do know a number of folks who are much more "as-is" players, though.

In my view, the designers lay out different levels of rule. Many things they lay out are primarily just suggestions or basic guidance. The general "the DM asks 'what do you do?' and the player calls for something" is basic guidance. Most of the time it's a good idea. In your case you consider it something the DM should do all the time; I'm willing to violate it in some cases when I think it heightens tension or moves the game along faster, though from thinking about it most of the time I'm probably in the 'what do you do?' camp. I'm also a user of things like informational rolls, which, while not directly listed in the rules, aren't a massive stretch from them. Other things the designers write are much more binding, such as how a particular power works. I would obviously think more carefully about an outright rule change, such as something that shifts the math or would markedly alter the power level of a character type.

Some things fall into the "live with it" category. (Even Mike Mearls said he considers cyclic initiative a "live with it" for him.) You've indicated that the way saves work in 5E is like that for you. I too dislike them and have, at the current time, chosen to live with them rather than fix them up to be more to my liking. Partly this is because the people I play with haven't been enamored of a substantial change.

By contrast, I think your choice is really about whether you like the game as written or not. I don't actually much care about that. If I don't like something or want it to shift, I change it.

My favorite game is the heavily house ruled 2E I've played for many years. It's recognizably build on the 2E chassis, but it's definitely its own thing, having borrowed ideas from later editions (e.g., 4E movement rules or delay and ready). Of course, I'm not running this in any kind of organized play and have run it with a fairly small group of players, all of whom know how things go from long use.

Anyway, interesting discussion.

 

[Caliban]

RAW, RAI and Sage Advice do not conflict with each other. RAI / Sage Advice are just an additional explanations for those who didn't understand what was meant by reading the rules. They all should take priority over what the DM says.

I generally prefer to play by the rules as written and I do give a lot of weight to Jeremy Crawford's opinions - but the DM is the final arbiter at their table. Not Jeremy Crawford.

This is especially true in Adventure League (where the DM is explicitly allowed to use or ignore sage advice as they see fit), but it also holds true any regular game.

You may not like it, but that is the way it is, despite your preference to the contrary.

And if you were a player in my game and tried to pull this BS about some twitter or Facebook post taking priority over my ruling at a game I'm running...well, let's just say you wouldn't be happy with the result.

 

[iserith]

I think the really big difference here is "as-is". My general mindset is that the game designers lay out a framework and it's up to me to interpret that or alter to suit my needs. I do know a number of folks who are much more "as-is" players, though.

In my view, the designers lay out different levels of rule. Many things they lay out are primarily just suggestions or basic guidance. The general "the DM asks 'what do you do?' and the player calls for something" is basic guidance. Most of the time it's a good idea. In your case you consider it something the DM should do all the time; I'm willing to violate it in some cases when I think it heightens tension or moves the game along faster, though from thinking about it most of the time I'm probably in the 'what do you do?' camp. I'm also a user of things like informational rolls, which, while not directly listed in the rules, aren't a massive stretch from them. Other things the designers write are much more binding, such as how a particular power works. I would obviously think more carefully about an outright rule change, such as something that shifts the math or would markedly alter the power level of a character type.

Some things fall into the "live with it" category. (Even Mike Mearls said he considers cyclic initiative a "live with it" for him.) You've indicated that the way saves work in 5E is like that for you. I too dislike them and have, at the current time, chosen to live with them rather than fix them up to be more to my liking. Partly this is because the people I play with haven't been enamored of a substantial change.

By contrast, I think your choice is really about whether you like the game as written or not. I don't actually much care about that. If I don't like something or want it to shift, I change it.

My favorite game is the heavily house ruled 2E I've played for many years. It's recognizably build on the 2E chassis, but it's definitely its own thing, having borrowed ideas from later editions (e.g., 4E movement rules or delay and ready). Of course, I'm not running this in any kind of organized play and have run it with a fairly small group of players, all of whom know how things go from long use.

Anyway, interesting discussion.

For the record, I do make changes to the game, just not to the core rules surrounding ability checks, saving throws, and attack rolls. My changes vary by campaign according to the desired play experience and are mostly centered on the inclusion of official variant rules (like encumbrance) or my house rule for Inspiration.

 

[smbakeresq]

If you asked Jeremy Crawford he would reply what 99% of all board game creators would reply: They just state how the rules where intended to be, but you are free to change them if you think that's more fun for your group.

But that's not what I want. If I want to play chess I want to play by the chess rules. If I want to play Settlers of Catan, I want to play who play by the Settlers of Catan rules. If I want to play Magic: The Gathering, I want to play by Magic: The Gathering rules. And if I want to play D&D 5e, I want to play by the D&D 5e rules.

People who are like "hey, let's change this rule for fun" are disturbances for my enjoyment.

I get what you are saying but the rule book also gives the DM unilateral power to change any rule as he sees it. All editions have.

When you play the games you mentioned you are in direct competition with the players, and those rules sets are set for fairness to all. The DM is NOT in competition with anyone, the ruleset is written as a framework and guide for the players to participate in and the DM to narrate, direct and adjudicate a fantasy improv play.

This is an overriding issue. In another thread about MC the argument is essentially players who want to MC hexblade believing RAW descriptive text in all the books is irrelevant and DM who disagree with them are railroading them. What those players essentially believe is they are in direct individual competition with the DM and they need to get every advantage they can to “win” because that is the goal. They always say the DM must slavishly follow only RAW at all times, otherwise the DM is cheating them out of their advantages so the DM can “win.”

You see this all the time. If you play out a situation wrong like “DM that’s a ranged attack against a prone creature so it’s disadvantage” that’s fine for a player to correct. But if the DM says this creature attacks with advantage for some reason the DM determines “Hey that’s not in rules, that’s not allowed, it’s unfair.” I had a player quit because he thought it was unfair the mindflayer in his lair ambushed the 10th level group with his mind blast through a peephole, arguing the cone effect wouldn’t fit through the peephole according to the rules and since his PC couldn’t be surprised he can’t be ambushed either. He might have stayed if he made his saving throw but I don’t know.

As a DM I am not out to “win.” In only think of the terms win/lose as a DM I always lose. When all my creatures and nefarious plots are beaten by the sly, tricky, guidance spamming players, I am beaten. If the players all die is a fair fight I “lost” as the group is now dead and we have to start over. Worse is if I miscalculated something and just TPKed everyone then I really lost, we start over and the players say “What the hell was that?” The DM only “wins” when the players are happy they got a real run for the money, when you hear through someone else “So and So said you really had them going the another night.”

The DM who believes he is in competition with the others players for “victory” is the worst kind of DM. Running the Tomb of Horrors and killing everyone is only fun for the DM because everyone knows going in it’s essentially a giant railroad and everyone is in on it.



Jeremy Crawford rules decisions sometimes make no sense and to me reflect little knowledge on the current state of the game and how it’s being played. This makes sense though, I doubt he actually has time to read these forums and all others and probably wants to get away from the game after work closes. Sometimes the problems are long running, say beast master ranger, which many would like to play but is just terrible and worse unwieldy at the table. But let’s appreciate what he has done since 5e is a great edition to the game.

 

[smbakeresq]

This answer neatly sidesteps all the questions I asked in the post you quoted, so I'll take a different tack and try again...

Not entirely. Some of the description is sometimes driven by random chance: that randomness being whether you by accident happen to notice something or not. And because of this there needs to be some means of resolving this random chance, hm? For this, wouldn't pre-emptive perception checks (or system equivalent) fit the bill perfectly?

In the example I used - which isn't the best but it'll do for these purposes - the stated action is walking down a familiar hallway that has empty suits of armour standing every 10' along the walls.

But that seemingly simple action involves by extension a whole lot of sub-actions that aren't usually referenced during play:
- that you are looking where you're going so as to avoid crashing into a suit of armour
- that you are paying general attention to your surroundings
- that you are not paying specific attention to anything in particular (if you were, it would have been stated as part of your action)
- that you continue breathing (thus able both to use your sense of smell and to not pass out from lack of oxygen) and hearing (thus able to notice any unusual sounds and-or converse with your comrades)

Given this, how are we to mechanically determine whether you notice the newly-missing gauntlets from the third suit of armour on the left, preferably without a) having to constantly reference all the sub-actions and b) provoking metagame concerns?

Lanefan

I see the disagreement with Iserith.

I have never played with Iserith so I don’t know, but he/she is clearly rules intensive to a fault. You however appear to be less strict rules oriented and more “flow of play oriented.”

I am more along the flow of play group. If you tell me you opened the door I won’t ask if you touched the handle, that’s how doors open. In the example of the hallway if a PC states “walking down the hallway keeping an eye out” that’s good enough to notice the gauntlets missing. If they have a high passive I would just let them know anyway. If they are specifically distracted “as we walk down the hallway we talk to the minister” maybe have them make a check, it depends.

There is a balance in the middle that each group will choose.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

I get what you are saying but the rule book also gives the DM unilateral power to change any rule as he sees it. All editions have.

I'm not sure the rules do give the DM that kind of power (except for certain situations where it clearly states that the DM decides what to do). In any case, that's not a game I'd like to play, I want to play a game with fixed and clear rules.

When you play the games you mentioned you are in direct competition with the players, and those rules sets are set for fairness to all. The DM is NOT in competition with anyone, the ruleset is written as a framework and guide for the players to participate in and the DM to narrate, direct and adjudicate a fantasy improv play.[...]

Oh, but then your mindset it a bit different than mine. If I play a game, I do play it to win. Even P&P. However, I don't think it's necessarily Player vs. DM, but rather Player vs. Adventure, whereas the DM is supposed to be a neutral element not siding with either.

So instead of the games I mentioned earlier, think of single player / co-op board games. I want to beat them at default difficulty without anyone changing any of the rules.

Edit: By the way, as DM I don't go easy on my players at all. I do try to get them killed. But I still don't see myself in competition with them. I'm actually happy if they win even though I went all out.

 

[cmad1977]

In D&D 5e I'd apply passive perception to determine that. In other rulesets, it would probably be hidden rolls then? Rather than asking.

(Note: In my opinion, the description of the environment can vary depending on how perceptive the PC is.)

Sounds like a house rule.