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

Rya.Reisender said:

Sure a good DM is a great roleplayer. I'm not, but I tell my players that ahead of time (when recruiting them). I definitely read all box text of an adventure by the word. I find that's important because it might contain hints that I as DM didn't even recognize but my players might.
I don't think that's one of the worst things a DM can do.

Click to expand...

Maybe it's not one of the worst things, but I consider it one of the things that distinguishes a good DM from a passable DM. As the article indicates, it's especially bad if there's long texts being read in a monotonous voice. In fact it's almost ensured the players are going to miss important hints hidden in the text, because they're lulled to sleep!

Personally, I never read boxed texts. I either ignore them or paraphrase them in my own words. Imho, very few published modules have good text boxes. How often have you seen long, super-detailed room descriptions that end by mentioning there also happens to be a huge dragon in the center, as if it was an afterthought?
Or even better (i.e. worse) texts telling the characters how they feel or implying they take certain actions?

Imho, describing locations is really easy if you remember to think about the characters' different senses and describing the most obvious things first: What are the defining features, if any? Save the detailed descriptions for later if a character actually chooses to inspect something carefully.

iserith said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

If you're the DM, how you describe the environment is up to you.

Click to expand...

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?

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.

Click to expand...

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

Jhaelen said:

Personally, I never read boxed texts. I either ignore them or paraphrase them in my own words. Imho, very few published modules have good text boxes. How often have you seen long, super-detailed room descriptions that end by mentioning there also happens to be a huge dragon in the center, as if it was an afterthought?

Click to expand...

This isn't always a bad thing in one respect: if you mentioned the dragon first you'd never get to the rest of the description because the players would be interrupting all over the place.

Or even better (i.e. worse) texts telling the characters how they feel or implying they take certain actions?

Click to expand...

Worse yet are the boxed descriptions that always assume entry through a particular door and thus describe things as seen from that viewpoint, even though there's three other doors the party could come in through.

Imho, describing locations is really easy if you remember to think about the characters' different senses and describing the most obvious things first: What are the defining features, if any? Save the detailed descriptions for later if a character actually chooses to inspect something carefully.

Click to expand...

Good advice for when there's only one or two key features, or one feature whose importance overshadows everything else e.g. your dragon example. But when there's lots of detail and nothing really stands out - e.g. the party enters a study full of fancy books and scrawled-on papers and shelves with interesting contents and a desk and a cabinet and a fancy mirror and a small table with a smoking bottle on it - it's probably better just to describe everything.

Ath-kethin said:

Does Jeremy Crawford know that his Twitter feed is absolute law?

Click to expand...

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.

Lanefan said:

A GM who just flattens the PCs without their having any chance is doing it wrong. But it's part of a GM's job to challenge the PCs (and, by extension, players), sometimes harshly, and to sometimes make it feel like the game world really is out to kill them dead. A completely non-adversarial GM would have, I think, an impossible time trying to make this convincing and-or believable. It's war, not sport, my friend.

Click to expand...

The important piece is that there is a line. Where that line gets drawn may vary by group, but there's a line. Part of the GM's job is to challenge the players and their characters. I'm talking about a combination of GMs who intentionally create encounters they don't think the PCs can survive, set up traps/puzzles that show how much smarter than the players they are, etc. I'm absolutely willing to kill off a PC or two. In fact, I think a very real chance of PC death is part of what makes the game interesting. I just keep it in the "challenge" window, rather than the "did you see what I did to you?" window.

As for the player side it's on the players to do what they need to, within the bounds of good-faith play, to ensure their PCs survive; and sometimes this can include springing surprises on the GM. Speaking as both GM and player, I've no problem with this.

Click to expand...

I think I'm talking about the "good-faith play" thing, here. I once had a player ask me to leave the table so the group could plan how to sneak into a castle (or some such) without tipping their hand to me. My response was something along the lines of "Can you use this mini to show me where your last GM touched you?" I was totally floored by the request and found it highly inappropriate. We aren't playing Fortress America. My tactics are already largely set, other than as reactions. Just go ahead and plan. Also, if you do come up with something totally unexpected, I'd like to have a bit of a heads-up to figure out what the logical outcome is, rather than stammering and stuttering -- you're going to wait on my decision, either way. Creativity is awesome and I generally reward it, even if it means the BBEG turns into a non-event.

Just don't explicitly try to turn the game into a competition with the GM. The GM is the referee and final arbiter of the rules. The GM builds the setting, including being the keeper of house rules. The GM creates the adventures. Even if using published settings and adventures, the GM has the final word on how to interpret and/or when to ignore any given line. There's, literally, no way to beat the GM if it's an actual competition. The GM needs to take that responsibility seriously and both sides need to not ratchet it above the level of a game.

As a note, while I suspect almost ever GM has spent some time discovering where that line is, my objection isn't from anything that's specifically happened at any table I've sat at regularly. I have had a couple of really off one-shots where the GM came off as a bit of an ass-hat. Mostly, though, my thoughts come from having experienced players show up at my table almost having some sort of gamer PTSD. I don't know what their prior GMs did, but they sure looked like victims of abuse.

Connorsrpg said:

As a player, railroading is my biggest issue.

So that is a problem with these all-encompassing long-term adventure paths. As a DM I can't stick to them either.

Click to expand...

I totally agree. I do like some of the big modules and will steal from them but in general I don't like how on rails they are either as a player or DM.

iserith said:

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.

Click to expand...

I think this often depends on the table. Folks I've played with for many years will often call for checks where there's something that the player seems to be missing and it is possible the character might know something. I'll also call for checks from out of seeming left field to stimulate the player or push them in a different direction than they're looking. For example:

Nattick Nimblefingers' player: "Search for traps."
DM: "Make a History check."
Nattick's player: <huh? what's going on?> "OK... uh... D20+1... 13...?"
DM: "You notice a discharged trap done in the style of the Umpetfrotz Guild. There's some writing on it that you can't read, but you think it's written in Dwarf runes."
Nattick's player: <to dwarf fighter's player> "Axebeard, get your face out of that mug of ale, stop leaning on your axe, and help me read what this says."
DM: <to Axbeard's player> "The runes don't seem to say anything in Dwarven you recognize, but you can make a History check with advantage."
Axbeard's player: <huh? what's going on?> "Why are ye chatterin' at me, gnome, can't ye see I'm drinkin' some strong Dwarven ale?" <rolls> "OK, max(D20,D20)-1... 18!"
etc.

This may not be a skill the player thinks to ask for either or the character is strong in. Again, this is a way to lay out the world, which is indeed the DM's job, but in a way that leaves it contingent based on the character's abilities. It can also be used to push characters out of their comfort zone, which is very helpful.

Rya.Reisender said:

The DM has the following jobs:
...3. Use educational skills that help everyone getting along and having fun.
....

Click to expand...

Now I have to use EDUCATIONAL SKILLZ!

I really should not. Do it! Do it. No I should not! Do it. Ok evil little jasper in my head.
Homework.
Lanefan I feel you not are engaging with the group. Read Getting Along
https://www.amazon.com/Getting-Alon...swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1537361722&sr=8-1
I want 500 words on how it applies to a 5 person homebrew and 8 person AL table. MFLA format.
Ray Reisender. I need a list of all school supply stores in the greater New York City, New York and London England. Only include those who sell dice which can be used in D&D. Exclude those who only sell % dice which die within die.
Jay Verkuilen using Chicago Style of documentation. Compare and Contrast the Weapon chart in the 5E PHB against the weapon chart on the 1E DM Screen. The 4 page and 2 page psionic version. Min 20 words per weapon.
Maxperson. You brought devil cheese pizza. I hate cheese pizza. Detention report to Walston on Saturday.
Everyone Read Chapters 4 -8 Of Saga of the Old City https://www.amazon.com/Saga-Old-Cit...TF8&qid=1537362606&sr=8-6&keywords=gary+gygax Be prepared to give a 100 essay.
All this is due MONDAY. Now give me an “ARRRRRGH”. Class and game dismiss. Have fun!

Lanefan said:

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

Click to expand...

I can't be any clearer and your questions and examples only serve to muddy the waters of what is outlined in the rules which you are free to read on your own time.

Lanefan said:

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?

Click to expand...

No, how you describe the environment is entirely up to you as DM. Ability checks come after Step 2: Players describe what they want to do. If they are needed at all. They frequently aren't.

Lanefan said:

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?

Click to expand...

Again, you describe the environment how you want - you're the DM! You don't need dice for permission on how much detail to give. You could just say that the armor is now missing some element. Or not. If you don't and if the player does not establish that the character is examining the armor, then you needn't provide any additional detail about that armor. If the player does describe the character as examining the armor, you can then decide an ability check is necessary if the outcome is uncertain and there's a meaningful chance of failure. Or you may decide no check is necessary and give the information after the player's action declaration.

You don't need to take my word on this. I encourage you to read the rules on "How to Play," Basic Rules page 3, and "Ability Checks," Basic Rules page 58. All the answers you seek are there.

Jay Verkuilen said:

I think this often depends on the table. For example, folks I've played with for many years will often call for checks where there's something that the player seems to be missing and it is possible the character might know something. I'll also call for checks from out of seeming left field to stimulate the player or push them in a different direction than they're looking:

Nattick Nimblefingers' player: "Search for traps."
DM: "Make a History check."
Nattick's player: <huh? what's going on?> "OK... uh... D20+3... 13"
DM: "You notice a discharged trap done in the style of the Umpetfrotz Guild. There's some writing on it that you can't read, but you think it's written in Dwarf runes."
Nattick's player: "Axebeard, get your face out of that mug of ale, stop leaning on your axe, and help me read what this says."

This may not be a skill the player thinks to ask for either or the character is strong in. Again, this is a way to lay out the world, which is indeed the DM's job, but in a way that leaves it contingent based on the character's abilities.

Click to expand...

Again, if the ability check follows an action declaration, I'm fine with it though I would say your example has some issues.

First, searching for hidden objects calls for a Wisdom (Perception) check in D&D 5e (which is the edition I'm referencing) if the outcome is uncertain and there's a meaningful consequence of failure. Second, after the trap is found, additional details can be revealed when the DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actons or when he or she loops back around to describe the environment. No check is required. The DM might say, for example, "There is a discharged trap here with dwarvish runes inscribed upon it." The player can then try to have the character read the runes or enlist the help of an ally who speaks dwarvish. Subsequent examination by the characters (after they have declared it!) of the discharged trap and/or any attempt at deducing clues or recalling lore about the information revealed might call for an Intelligence (Investigation) or Intelligence (History) check, again, only if the DM finds there is an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence of failure.

Something worth asking yourself is: What happens if Nattick's player fails the History check? You're right back where you started. This is not a good approach in my view. Simply following the basic conversation of the game as laid out in the rules resolves these issues.