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!

 

[Benji]

I never assume there will be an ability check. I can't determine whether an ability check is required without the players first describing a reasonably specific goal and approach. I also never assume the players will look for it. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. Maybe they do and I have to call for a check (because their approach to the goal has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence of failure). Maybe they do and I don't have to call for a check (because their approach to the goal succeeds or fails outright, no roll).

If, however, I need them to have some kind of information, then there's simply no reason to put that behind a check. If I need them to have it, why leave it up to chance? (Truly though, I try not to ever need anything in this regard.)

Ok, I get what you're saying and it's good advice for dm's to never assume a point of reference. But if the the 'gloves' example, the gloves are instead just a clue the players can gather to make the solving of a mystery easier (they don't need it, but it might help) then it's a slightly different discussion. Then the 'meaningful failure' is 'we don't find clue'.

Here's where we differ, I think. I view perception (and other skills) as a fundamentally different player resource than you. You use it to determine if a player has suceeded at and action, which is fine but I also view it (and I'm not saying my way is the only way) as a way to differentiate characters from each other. Players who have higher passive perception scores are generally more alert individuals and therefore I tend to describe a scene in basic and then say to players who have a high score things like 'but you notice'. Just the same if a player has higher arcana I'd tell them a few things about magical items on a table that other players might not know. This means players who have higher perception get to be the scouts of the group, sensing stuff before anyone else. They feel like the choice to have perception as a proficent skill was worthwhile. That said, I think it'd only be in the area of passive perception we differ and where that becomes real perception role. This is getting off topic but if you say that players who are actively taking watch use their passive perception, when do they get to actually roll a perception check? Do they have to be stood attention not talking to anyone to get the good numbers?

I would also note that I've had players tell me they aren't paying attention in a scene and want to take a disadvantage or straight up fail. I've never had a problem with that.

 

[iserith]

Ok, I get what you're saying and it's good advice for dm's to never assume a point of reference. But if the the 'gloves' example, the gloves are instead just a clue the players can gather to make the solving of a mystery easier (they don't need it, but it might help) then it's a slightly different discussion. Then the 'meaningful failure' is 'we don't find clue'.

To call for a check, the DM needs three things (again, in D&D 5e): A player to describe something that isn't impossible or trivially easy, an uncertain outcome, and a meaningful consequence of failure. So here, you'd still be missing the player's description. I'll grant you the uncertain outcome.

Here's where we differ, I think. I view perception (and other skills) as a fundamentally different player resource than you. You use it to determine if a player has suceeded at and action, which is fine but I also view it (and I'm not saying my way is the only way) as a way to differentiate characters from each other. Players who have higher passive perception scores are generally more alert individuals and therefore I tend to describe a scene in basic and then say to players who have a high score things like 'but you notice'. Just the same if a player has higher arcana I'd tell them a few things about magical items on a table that other players might not know. This means players who have higher perception get to be the scouts of the group, sensing stuff before anyone else.

I'm not sure I've seen any support for this approach in the D&D 5e rules. When did you first start thinking about it this way out of curiosity?

They feel like the choice to have perception as a proficent skill was worthwhile.

It's almost always worthwhile to have Perception as a skill proficiency. You will notice that every time you've opted to Keep Watch and the DM determines surprise - you'll have a better chance of not sitting there in the first round of combat while the orcs or whatever hit you with axes. Further, you will feel any skill was worthwhile when you undertake tasks in which you have a supporting skill proficiency and have to roll to achieve success. (Ideally, you should be trying to achieve success without rolling.) I don't think that one need describe the environment differently based on who has what skill proficiency. That will work itself out when the players begin describing what they want to do.

That said, I think it'd only be in the area of passive perception we differ and where that becomes real perception role. This is getting off topic but if you say that players who are actively taking watch use their passive perception, when do they get to actually roll a perception check? Do they have to be stood attention not talking to anyone to get the good numbers?

I would also note that I've had players tell me they aren't paying attention in a scene and want to take a disadvantage or straight up fail. I've never had a problem with that.

Keeping Watch while traveling the dungeon, for example, means the character is on guard for any hidden dangers as he or she moves about. He or she therefore has a chance to avoid hidden traps (if he or she is in the appropriate rank of the marching order) or avoid surprise if sneaky monsters come calling. If the player decides to have the character in any task that is at least as distracting as drawing a map, navigating, foraging, or tracking, the character is not Keeping Watch and has no chance to avoid traps or surprise. Passive Perception no longer applies.

A player might make a Wisdom (Perception) check when trying to find a trap, a secret door, when taking the Search action in combat to find a hidden creature, or listen to something happening on the other side of a door. Again, only if the description the player offered isn't impossible or trivially easy, has an uncertain outcome, and a meaningful consequence of failure. So, a good strategy as a player is to try to remove any uncertainty as to the outcome or the meaningful consequence of failure. Then the player doesn't need to roll and leave his or her fate up to a fickle d20.

 

[Benji]

I'm not sure I've seen any support for this approach in the D&D 5e rules. When did you first start thinking about it this way out of curiosity?

Mainly through observation of players. They value those distinctions, so I play to them. I'd say that there probably isn't any support for it in the D&D rules - but also the rules as written get an effective challenge ratings very wrong, so I don't hold that much stock in them -that's sort of another point we so clearly differ on, I'm not sure I want to get into because it belabours worthwhile discussion.

I don't think that one need describe the environment differently based on who has what skill proficiency. That will work itself out when the players begin describing what they want to do.

I tend to find that describing it differently depending on different passive skills tends to stop information required for educated action hiding behind any kind of role or set of prescriptive instruction set. That way I'm heightening agency. In my mind anyway.

Keeping Watch while traveling the dungeon, for example....

Sorry, didn't make myself clear. How would this play out to your mind if the characters are setting watch in a wood at night? what stages do they get perception, passive perception and nothing? Is passive in your game 'I'm now keeping watch' or does that count as a proper-full blooded check if enemies approach? What about to spot the fact that someone slipped poison into their drink at a banquet, when would that check happen? I include these two because I think discussion of perception in a dungeon environment is a bit of a weird bottle environment. I think in a dungeon, the rulings are clearer. It's outside of that environment that I think the discussion of perception in play becomes more fruitful.

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

I think saving throws are at odds with the design of the game, but figure they made it that way for nostalgia. I'd rather it be more like how Dungeon World handles it. The player describe what he or she does to avoid the effect and the appropriate check is made. Or how D&D 4e does it with attacks versus defenses. But the rules are what they are and I follow them.

Given your preferences I can definitely see you not liking saving throws. I agree they kind of messed them up in 5E, in particular the fact that six of them makes it pretty hard to balance them out. Initially only three seemed to really matter, Con, Dex, and Wis. Later on they have slowly added things that affect the other saves, but in general many of them are rather weak sauce.

Also, there are times when I'm pretty sure they would have been better off with a save but decided to make it an opposed roll. For example, avoiding being knocked down by a Push attack. I think if I were doing it all over I'd make Push an attack of some sort with a nominal amount of damage and a Strength save to avoid being moved or proned.

4E style defenses were a pretty good idea, too, or making proficiency being something like Body, Mind, and Spirit, keyed to Str and Con, Dex and Int, and Wis and Cha, respectively. Then give one strong, one medium, and one weak proficiency in Body, Mind, and Spirit.

One bennie of having things that require saves is that they can be used when you're affected by something that imposes disadvantage, such as using a ranged ability in melee, and saves can also be made by characters that are, say, unconscious. But still, I agree, the 5E save system is messy.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

No. Jeremy Crawford is the creator, so he makes the rules. Not the DM, that's what I explained in my last something posts.

Jeremy Crawford was the creator. (Among others.) He (and they) made the rules.

As it stands, right now, the official Rules-As-Written are just what's in the book; and the official Rules-As-Intended are that the individual DM is free to interpret wherever the rules are unclear. Individual DMs are also empowered to ask Jeremy Crawford for his perspective, if they want some advice or insight on how they could address such things, but Twitter does not constitute official errata. This isn't Fourth Edition.

I'm not saying you can't do your own best to figure out what he would have done, when you're the DM. The DM is allowed to use any criteria they feel like, when interpreting unclear rules. But just because you choose that one method does not mean that any other DM's interpretation is less valid. Fifth Edition is explicitly not written to those standards.

 

[Lanefan]

I never assume there will be an ability check. I can't determine whether an ability check is required without the players first describing a reasonably specific goal and approach. I also never assume the players will look for it. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. Maybe they do and I have to call for a check (because their approach to the goal has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence of failure). Maybe they do and I don't have to call for a check (because their approach to the goal succeeds or fails outright, no roll).

If, however, I need them to have some kind of information, then there's simply no reason to put that behind a check. If I need them to have it, why leave it up to chance? (Truly though, I try not to ever need anything in this regard.)

Going back to the silly missing-gauntlets example for a moment, maybe there's something that'll play out differently if the gauntlets are noticed missing sooner rather than later. Notice it today and it's relatively easy to track them down and disrupt whatever whoever took them is doing with them. Notice it next week and the trail's colder, harder to follow and the gauntlets may have - pun intended - changed hands a few times. Notice it next month and it's a mystery - when were they taken, why were they taken, who took them, and where are they now?

Another, perhaps more obvious example. The princess, unhappy with her upcoming forced marriage, takes elaborate steps to hide her departure and make it look like she's still in the palace and elopes a month before her scheduled wedding day.

If she's noticed missing tonight she'll be easy to find, she can't have got far.
If she's noticed missing tomorrow it'll be a bit harder to find her but still not too bad.
If it takes three days before anyone notices she's missing she's got a good head start and tracking her down could be difficult.
If it takes five days before anyone notices she's missing she could have made it to the coast and now be on a ship for anywhere.

How would you handle this, assuming for these purposes you or a player is trying to determine whether - and, randomly, when - her absence is noticed on a day-by-day basis?

And [MENTION=6793743]Benji[/MENTION] , my concerns aren't so much gamist as they are realist - it's possible in real life to sometimes notice something subtle amongst the obvious but it's not going to happen every time; and pre-emptive perception checks (or equivalent) can nicely reflect this in the mechanics.

Lanefan

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

Allow me to engage in a bit of setting of perspective...

The *worst* things a GM can do have nothing to do with amending rules, or fudging... they have nothing to do with play. The worst things the GM can do are more around being a horrible person.

This is certainly true and I think way upthread folks made that point. IMO it's very important because, well, people can be jerks (or worse), but this is hard to have much of a discussion on. Not too many people will argue "hey, let's hang out with my thieving, drug-addicted, sexually harassing DM."

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

Going back to the silly missing-gauntlets example for a moment, maybe there's something that'll play out differently if the gauntlets are noticed missing sooner rather than later. Notice it today and it's relatively easy to track them down and disrupt whatever whoever took them is doing with them. Notice it next week and the trail's colder, harder to follow and the gauntlets may have - pun intended - changed hands a few times. Notice it next month and it's a mystery - when were they taken, why were they taken, who took them, and where are they now? <snip>

Good examples and very much how I approach things.

And @Benji , my concerns aren't so much gamist as they are realist - it's possible in real life to sometimes notice something subtle amongst the obvious but it's not going to happen every time; and pre-emptive perception checks (or equivalent) can nicely reflect this in the mechanics.

Yeah, this is very much how I think of pre-emptive informational rolls, as a way to simulate exactly this kind of situation. I consider uncertain tasks to be something for which I can assign a probability and then, having done that, check to see what happens. Of course, I'm a statistician IRL so I am fairly comfortable thinking this way.

 

[Shasarak]

So, the basic conversation of the game as laid out in D&D 5e is a loop. The DM describes the environment. The player describes what he or she wants to do. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions. Then it starts again. If you're the DM, how you describe the environment is up to you. How you narrate the results of my actions are up to you. But you don't get to describe my actions for me either directly or indirectly by calling for a check for actions I haven't taken. It's really very simple: Your call for a check follows me describing what I'd like to do. It does not precede it.

I can see how an initial description of an environment could call for a check before a player gets to decide how their character is going to react. I guess a player could choose to not make a check and on the other hand I have never seen that happen.

 

[Shasarak]

Back in the day you couldn't just contact the writers and ask their opinion - you just compromised. Who writes the rules then? Does that mean all D&D played before twitter didn't count?

In Knights of the Dinner Table, the RPG company Hard 8 Enterprises runs a phone line that you can ring to get official rulings.