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!

 

[iserith]

Often, no. But sometimes yes, and it's those sometimes I'm trying to discuss here.

You basically say "just tell them" but that's not always the answer. Sometimes the "when" something is learned or noticed becomes important, and that "when" is a random element. Sometimes the specific "what" that gets noticed is important, and whether it gets noticed now, later, or not at all is also a random element.

It strikes me as making something simple more complicated than it needs to be for absolutely no benefit and possibly to some detriment.

In this particular example I'd probably just have them roll every so often as they move about the castle in general, rather than each time someone walks down the specific hallway, in order to not point attention at that particular hallway.

Which strikes me as a kludge to fix something that went awry which you could have avoided in the first place.

I could just arbitrarily decide which PC notices them missing, and when; but having the players roll takes that decision somewhat out of my hands - which in this case I don't mind. It puts the "when" aspect into the realm of sheer luck, which is realistic - the missing gauntlets might be noticed almost immediately or they might not be noticed for ages.

You don't even need to decide which PC notices it. You can just describe it in the environment. If the PCs investigate it further, great. If they don't, no big deal. I mean, you don't need for them to succeed, right? "So what?" you said.

As for what is and isn't "realistic," I find that people can be oddly choosy about what they consider realistic in their games about elves and dragons. It doesn't hold up to very much scrutiny.

Without examples, discussion becomes rather pointless.

With examples, discussions often become muddled and full of goalpost-moving until it loses the thread.

 

[Benji]

As I mentioned in another similar thread, I don't want to get bogged down in examples because they usually serve to muddle the discussion rather than clarify,

I actually feel that in providing the answers to the examples I have given, you've clarified your playstyle for me: I understand you rpoint of view now and have found it more favourable than I thought.

I roll for a random encounter and a stealthy, hostile monster is indicated. Because we are both (1) dealing with a declared task that is being performed over time (however long the watch is), (2) the monster is trying to be stealthy, and (3) we are shortly going to be in combat, we use passive Perception to resolve whether the characters Keeping Watch are surprised per the rules for hiding and determining surprise, then follow the remaining rules for Combat Step by Step. Those PCs who are not Keeping Watch are surprised automatically without reference to ability checks, passive or otherwise.

But this example means that you never use an actual skill check for players who are purposefully keeping watch, meaning that they will only ever stand sentry as if they had rolled a ten - meaning access to those higher rolls aren't happening. Your groups are getting surprised a lot more easily than my groups by the same foes. Becuase, I believe, you are using passive perception wrong. But then I don't necessarily think you are doing it wrong with regard to the rules. I think the rules are badly written and need tobe intereprted. The fact we both get very different ideas about this shows they aren't well defined.

Now we have the banquet and someone is trying to poison the PCs' drinks. As with telegraphing the danger of the wilderness, here I would also telegraph the potential danger at the banquet at some point beforehand. An NPC warns the PCs of a dire plot that may be unfolding against them, but has little in the way of details. Or perhaps word on the street is that the duke throwing the banquet was suspects of poisoning his rivals to amass more power. And so on. In the abstract this may sound a little clunky and obvious, but as I say above, in the appropriate context of the play session this information is imparted with subtlety while describing the environment. If the players pick up on that take the appropriate precautions, such as putting their keenest eye or observer of human nature out there to watch for potential poisoners while other PCs set about interacting with the gathered nobles for favor (or whatever their goal is), then they may be able to notice the plot unfolding before it's too late. A passive Perception check or passive Insight check might be used (depending on what the players declare their characters are trying to do) to resolve any uncertainty as to the outcome since these are tasks that are presumably taking place over a span of time and that's appropriate for a passive check. Drinking some antitoxin before Happy Hour is probably a good idea, too, in case all else fails.

In my mind, their are so many things wrong with the way you describe DMing this situation but 1) it's largely a taste thing, the situation would play out differently in my game as the way you're describing it and I don' think I can get you to see it 2) I can see you are fed up of discussing examples and I think it could get recursive from here on in. Agree to disagree?

 

[S'mon]

I addressed determining surprise upthread. In D&D 5e, passive Perception applies only when the character is Keeping Watch, so this is necessarily something the player must declare at some point prior to the passive check. It cannot be assumed since there are other activities the player could choose to do that does not allow for the character to Keep Watch.

From the SRD - sorry for formatting but I wanted a direct C/P:

Passive Checks
Passive Checks
A
passive
check
is
a
special
kind
of
ability
check
that
doesn’t
involve
any
die
rolls.
Such
a
check
can
represent
the
average
result
for
a
task
done
repeatedly,
such
as
searching
for
secret
doors
over
and
over
again,
or
can
be
used
when
the
GM
wants
to
secretly
determine
whether
the
characters
succeed
at
something
without
rolling
dice,
such
as
noticing
a
hidden
monster.

Passive
Perception. When
you
hide,
there’s
a
chance
someone
will
notice
you
even
if
they
aren’t
searching.
To
determine
whether
such
a
creature
notices
you,
the
GM
compares
your
Dexterity
(Stealth)
check
with
that
creature’s
passive
Wisdom
(Perception)
score,
which
equals
10
+
the
creature’s
Wisdom
modifier,
as
well
as
any
other
bonuses
or
penalties.
If
the
creature
has
advantage,
add
5.
For
disadvantage,
subtract
5.
For
example,
if
a
1st-­‐level
character
(with
a
proficiency
bonus
of
+2)
has
a
Wisdom
of
15
(a
+2
modifier)
and
proficiency
in
Perception,
he
or
she
has
a
passive
Wisdom
(Perception)
of
14.

Perception.
Your
Wisdom
(Perception)
check
lets
you
spot,
hear,
or
otherwise
detect
the
presence
of
something.
It
measures
your
general
awareness
of
your
surroundings
and
the
keenness
of
your
senses.
For
example,
you
might
try
to
hear
a
conversation
through
a
closed
door,
eavesdrop
under
an
open
window,
or
hear
monsters
moving
stealthily
in
the
forest.
Or
you
might
try
to
spot
things
that
are
obscured
or
easy
to
miss,
whether
they
are
orcs
lying
in
ambush
on
a
road,
thugs
hiding
in
the
shadows
of
an
alley,
or
candlelight
under
a
closed
secret
door.


So this "Only when Keeping Watch" thing is not true at all and completely unsupported in the text. It sounds as if you are playing a different game.

 

[Benji]

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

Knights of the Dinner Table is a parody. This is a parody of a certain type of gamer. Can you guess who falls under that type here?

 

[S'mon]

No. Jeremy Crawford is the creator, so he makes the rules.

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!!

 

[iserith]

I actually feel that in providing the answers to the examples I have given, you've clarified your playstyle for me: I understand you rpoint of view now and have found it more favourable than I thought.

I'm not so sure it has.

But this example means that you never use an actual skill check for players who are purposefully keeping watch, meaning that they will only ever stand sentry as if they had rolled a ten - meaning access to those higher rolls aren't happening. Your groups are getting surprised a lot more easily than my groups by the same foes. Becuase, I believe, you are using passive perception wrong. But then I don't necessarily think you are doing it wrong with regard to the rules. I think the rules are badly written and need tobe intereprted. The fact we both get very different ideas about this shows they aren't well defined.

I think the misunderstanding here is - correct me if I'm wrong - you see passive checks as resolving the characters acting passively which is not actually true. It means they are performing a task repeatedly, such as keeping watch for danger over time. "Passive" refers to there being no dice, not that the characters aren't "purposefully" doing something. To that end, I would say my ruling is correct and based on the rules as written, especially as it relates to the rules for passive checks, hiding, and determining surprise (q.v.). I think these rules are as well defined as they can be given the design paradigm. I think a lot of DMs think of them as if they were the rules in other games though. I can't say that's the case with you for sure but it's been my experience more often than not. It leads to a lot of dissatisfaction with passive checks. I've written more posts on how to handle passive checks than almost any other on these forums, I bet.

In my mind, their are so many things wrong with the way you describe DMing this situation but 1) it's largely a taste thing, the situation would play out differently in my game as the way you're describing it and I don' think I can get you to see it 2) I can see you are fed up of discussing examples and I think it could get recursive from here on in. Agree to disagree?

In all likelihood, we're imagining the banquet entirely differently. Such is the problem with examples without all the context that we'd have at the table.

 

[pemerton]

I read the question to be what is the worst thing that a DM can do in the context of the game mechanics and role of the DM that would turn you off on that game, rather than what kinds of terrible people would you not want as a GM.

Agreed. We don't need to list all the things that can make a person an unpleasant person to spend time with.

I understand my part of the social contract. I have a responsibility as a player to abide by the GMs ruling and let the DM run the game and to actively engage in the game, pay attention, and come prepared. One thing that kinda bothers me about this thread is that we are heaping so much responsibility for a games fun on a GM.

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 certainly agree with you about players actively engaging, paying attention, etc. As a GM I don't see my job as being one of providing entertainment to an audience - I want to be an audience being entertained by the players just as much! (If an individual player is tired from work and nods off on the couch, or has to go and wrangle kids, or whatever, of course that's fine - I'll just engage with the other players until that player returns to the game.)

When I read comments citing not using a DM screen as a dealbreaker, I have to scratch my head. Really, THAT is what controls your ability to have fun?

I found that one weird too. I've used a GM screen once in 35 years of GMing - when I got one as part of some 4e boxed set (Essentials DM Kit?) I thought I'd try it to see how it worked. It just got in the way, and was folded up and put away before the end of the session.

Sometimes I might write something down that I'd rather the players not read, but I just rely on the fact that it's on a bit of paper in front of me and so not readable by them as long as they don't try.

 

[iserith]

From the SRD So this "Only when Keeping Watch" thing is not true at all and completely unsupported in the text. It sounds as if you are playing a different game.

The rules for Hiding establish that characters are keeping watch for danger when in combat. Outside of combat, such as when traveling in a dungeon or wilderness (anywhere between feet per minute or miles per day), characters must keep watch to avoid hidden danger. Character who turn their attention to other tasks do not contribute their passive Perception to noticing hidden threats. That's in the rules for Activities While Traveling. Only rangers in favored terrain can both Keep Watch and perform some other task as noted in the class entry.

 

[S'mon]

The rules for Hiding establish that characters are keeping watch for danger when in combat. Outside of combat, such as when traveling in a dungeon or wilderness (anywhere between feet per minute or miles per day), characters must keep watch to avoid hidden danger. Character who turn their attention to other tasks do not contribute their passive Perception to noticing hidden threats. That's in the rules for Activities While Traveling. Only rangers in favored terrain can both Keep Watch and perform some other task as noted in the class entry.

OK I have just reread the section in the PHB (it's not in the SRD afaict). There is no Keeping Watch Action - you just made that up. There is default use of Passive Perception - "Use the passive Wisdom (Perception) scores of the characters to determine whether anyone in the group notices a hidden threat". Then there are specific activities characters can attempt which prevent a character from using their Passive Perception, as you note.

 

[iserith]

OK I have just reread the section in the PHB (it's not in the SRD afaict). There is no Keeping Watch Action - you just made that up. There is default use of Passive Perception - "Use the passive Wisdom (Perception) scores of the characters to determine whether anyone in the group notices a hidden threat". Then there are specific activities characters can attempt which prevent a character from using their Passive Perception, as you note.

"Keep Watch" is my shorthand for "remain alert to danger," "watching for danger," or "notice hidden threats" which are referenced in this section and the ranger entry. It's what you can choose to do if you're not doing those other listed activities or an activity that is at least as distracting as the ones in that section, as determined by the DM.

These rules are both in the PHB and Basic Rules.