Dungeon Mastering Don'ts

DM is hostile to the players

I think perhaps one of the most important aspects of a good DM, is that the DM feels fair, and not out "to get" the players. I often refer to this as "soft-DM-ing". What I mean, is that the DM allows the players to succeed, and best his npc's and foes, and doesn't throw unfair obstructions when ever they derail his intentions. This also applies to skill checks, where a fumble doesn't immediately result in a broken or dropped weapon, and a failed climb check doesn't immediately result in falling to your death. A good DM also makes sure there is a decent balance of trustworthy characters in his story, to balance out the bad guys. If it seems that no one can be trusted, then the players will be highly paranoid of anyone they meet. In my campaign, the players feel comfortable with trusting certain characters they've met. Someone who seems good at first, probably is, although you can never be 100% sure. The players also feel confident with climbing a rope, knowing that the skill checks will not be unfairly high, and will not result in an instant death.

Soft-DM-ing however, doesn't mean that the fights are easy, or that you cannot die. But it means that the DM doesn't seem hostile to the players, or their actions. And I have been in campaigns where the DM did feel hostile. Where any attempt to step off the beaten path, instantly resulted in all sorts of unforeseen complications, and law enforcement instantly arresting the players.

The uber npc problem


(Epically poking the boss with needles, while the npc does all the heroic stuff. Thanks for that LOTR The Third Age.)


I've also been in DnD groups where the DM introduced invincible super npc's, that did all of the cool stuff, while the players tagged along. I hate that. It's like the super npc is Gandalf, and the players are following him around as he defeats the Balrog for them. So boring. Or alternatively, the DM introduced a big villain, who always gets away, despite all logic. This sort of rail roading just utterly destroys the fun, and the immersion.
For example, we did a Star Wars rpg session, and the DM introduced an old jedi who followed us around, who couldn't die (unless part of the plot), and saved the day whenever things went south (no matter how bad the players screwed it up). This is bad DM'ing.
When it comes to important npc's, I expose them to death ALL THE TIME. Many npc's that I intended to die, have survived so far, due to actions from the players. In fact, during one campaign I had an npc that was supposed to die during the very first session, and he survived the entire campaign (and even became an important character to the plot later on). And recently in my pirate campaign, an npc pirate captain became trapped in the realm of the dead, and sure to die due to the bitter cold. Only he didn't, because the players intervened.
What's also interesting, is not just exposing the players to dangerous monsters, but putting them in a situation where they have to defend other people. The players know that they can handle most monsters, but what if there is an innocent unarmed npc in the same room with them? Encounters such as these allow the players to feel all powerful, which is important, since they are the heroes after all.

Unavoidable failure

Another frustration of mine, is related to the uber npc problem, and that is the situation from which no escape is possible. I hate it when a chain of events is entirely rail roaded. For example, a burglary that always goes wrong, because an npc always rings the alarm, and everyone gets arrested. What you should do instead, is offer the players choices to save their butts. Instead of having that npc instantly activate the alarm, allow the player to tackle him before he reaches it. When the player succeeds, it is very exciting and fun. It turns it into an epic action scene.

I do this in regular DnD sessions: A player fails a balance check and tumbles into a hole. So I offer his party members a reflex check to quickly grab his hand. Then I let both of them roll strength checks to pull the unlucky player out of the pit. This doesn't mean that I never let players get hurt by traps. But in the case of imminent death, I try to include some back up solutions to survive by the skin of your teeth.

More on unavoidable failure

An example of unavoidable failure, would be for example that the players fail a stealth check, and the entire enemy camp is instantly aware of them, and captures them. A good DM allows the players to intervene in some way, by for example taking out the one guard that was alerted, before he can alert his buddies.

I also remember a mechwarrior campaign, where me and another player were trying to escape the cops. And there literally was no way to escape them. We raced through the streets, but the driving checks were unfairly high, so the motorcycle crashed. The other player flipped an entire police car, but the police were not intimidated or scared. We ran through dozens of streets, and found a house in an alley to take shelter in, but the police found the house anyway. We fled out through the back door, but the police had the place surrounded, and they had a helicopter. This is awful, because the players literally get no lucky breaks from the DM.

Here is how I would have handled that: The players race through the streets, and then suddenly a stranger waves to them, and opens an old garage door. They head inside, and meet with a group of resistance fighters. They make new allies, and it takes the story into a new interesting situation. The players now have a crime record, but they've also gained new allies, and access to different missions.

The player wants the story to progress obviously, but he also wants to feel that he has the freedom to make meaningful decisions. Not everything in the world should be against the players. The same can be said about situations where the player visits a tavern, and every drink is spiked, and every npc is a thug out to kill the player. This sort of thing makes the player feel so paranoid, that it seems anything outside the regular story line is strictly forbidden. It feels as if there is giant hand of the DM hovering over the players at all times, and that shouldn't be the case.


Unfair surprises

I think it is also important to be very clear to your players what they are getting into. For example, the players head into the shady part of town. Do they know that this is the shady part of town? If not, it might be important to make that clear. Are all of the npc's there armed thugs? Then maybe the DM should tell the players that they suspect many of the people around them might be carrying concealed weapons, or be up to no good.

Before the players get mugged by bandits in an alley, why not let them roll a spot check? Then tell them a couple of shady characters have been following them through town, and are consistently looking away when ever the players look their way.

The players are about to enter the lair of a dragon. Maybe tell them of the countless corpses outside the den, or the giant footprints on the ground. Do not just drop a bad situation on them. Give them enough information to deal with what is about to come. Maybe with enough information, the players might vote against entering that lair.

Another example, one of the players heads into a jungle on his own, which is infested with cannibals. The last thing you want the players to say after being overwhelmed by cannibals is "Well if I had known that there would be cannibals, I wouldn't have done that". And obviously the PC's aren't psychic. But as a DM you are first and fore most a storyteller. If the players are about to make a crucial error that could get them killed, tell them that they have a feeling of dread. Tell them that it is unnaturally quiet, and that they feel like they are being watched. This actually builds atmosphere and suspense, but it is also a way of keeping the game fair.

Everything is dangerous

This point also ties into the unavoidable failure thing. Not everything in the game should be super deadly, or the players will get incredibly paranoid. I try to encourage the players not to be afraid of going for a swim, for example. Not every pool is filled with deadly piranhas or sharks. Not every cave contains a monster. Not every tomb is infested with undead. A lot of DM's go completely overboard. They think that every encounter should result in the obvious. But you don't need a monster to make exploring a cave exciting. In fact, just the anticipation of a monster is enough. And my players have crossed many jungles without running into armies of cannibals, or hungry tigers. Sometimes they make wonderful discoveries, like a new landmark, or an unoccupied watchtower.

In fact, I used the watchtower as a way of informing the players that they were in cannibal-occupied territory. And I told them that it looked as if the watchtower simply wasn't being used during the day, but it might be occupied at night. This builds suspense. The players now have the choice to either wait till nightfall and surprise the cannibals, or to use the watchtower now and scout the surrounding area, or to get as far away from it as possible before night falls.

The party used the watchtower to scout the area, and then chose to get as far away from it as they could before nightfall. When the party returned to the watchtower the next day, they noticed that it had been marked with charms to warn them not to return. It seemed the cannibals had noticed that someone had visited their watchtower. The charms were not magical, but were simply intended to scare the players. They obviously weren't scared, but this gave them some insight into the tribal beliefs of their enemies.

Not everything should be a trap. There are other ways to make encounters exciting, and it all comes down to storytelling. The DM should mix moments of quiet, with moments of peril. Because if there is no distinction between the two, then the excitement falls flat.

This reminds me of a throne room in the campaign of a close friend of mine. The rogue in the party wanted to check the door to the throne room for traps. The rest of the party joked about how silly that would be, and how that would have to be one paranoid king. He wouldn't even be able to call for a servant, without the servant falling dead into the throne room due to springing the trap. Sometimes a room should be just a room (and in this case, there was no trap, it was just a throne room).

Splitting the party

It's always annoying when this happens, but it is also often unavoidable. You can't always force the players to stick together. You can only encourage them to do so in subtle ways. The worst thing a DM can do when the party splits, is to either force them not to split (which tends to anger the players), or to leave the other players out of the game for a prolonged duration. When the party does split, I often allow the players that are not present at the event, to participate in some other way. For example, you can let the players that are not present, take control of the monsters, or of npc's. In a recent example, almost the entire party except one decided to take part in a dream-like test. So all of the party fell asleep, and experienced this test. I allowed the missing party member to be present as a sort of helpful spirit. He wasn't really there, and his character would not remember anything that happened in the dream, but he would be there to assist in solving some of the puzzles. This allowed him to still take part in the fun, rather than having to wait for all this to play out.

Another way to handle party splits, is to simply take turns in managing the different players. But this only works as long as no combat is involved. As soon as you start getting into big battles, you are leaving the other players out of the game for a very long time, and I highly encourage any DM to then find a creative way to involve those players, even if their characters are not there.


The unforgiving DM

This happens a lot, and it can be quite frustrating to the players. The DM should always assume that the player characters are not completely stupid, and provide them with the necessary information to make reasonable decisions. It is extremely unfair to instantly punish the players for taking a simple action. For example: a player decides to swim to the other side of a canal, but the player is immediately attacked by sharks. Obviously the DM should have informed the player that there are sharks swimming around. After all, wouldn't you be able to see some movement in the water? It's quite annoying if the players have to argue with the DM that they want to take back their action, due to sudden new information that puts their life at risk. Rather than immediately having the sharks attack, the DM should simply tell the player that they see a shape of a large marine creature underwater, and ask them if they want to reconsider their action.


Another example: The party discovers a pit, and one of the players decides to drop down to explore it. It turns out the pit was filled with deadly spikes, and the DM rolls for damage. Don't do that! Instead, tell the player that just as he is about to drop down, his eyes spot what seems like razor shark spikes at the bottom of the pit. The player can now reconsider, and the DM doesn't annoy his players.

The undescriptive DM

Don't tell the players that they are entering just "a town", with "a town square". Be descriptive! What color are the houses and roofs? Are the houses made of stone or wood? What does the town smell like? What kind of characters do they see, and how do people in town respond to the players? And if the players meet a new npc, describe what he/she looks like! The players need to be immersed in the atmosphere of your world, so as a DM you have to make them feel something. When the players enter a harbor, it's never just "a harbor". There are merchants selling exotic goods, sailors rolling barrels to a nearby warehouse, prostitutes trying to make a few coins, and a man selling apples that don't look all that good. The air is thick with the smell of fish and shrimp, and there are small vessels hauling their nets into the harbor, full of freshly caught fish. There are a few city guard about, inspecting the goods of new arrivals, and they have distinctive armor and cloaks. There are so many details to describe, and the more descriptive the DM is, the more the players have to work with.


Characters have no names!

I've met my share of dungeon masters that could not come up with names for their npc's. Often the players would run into a random merchant, and suddenly they ask him for his name, and the DM panics. As a DM, be prepared! Make a list of possible random names, or simply have a list ready of every npc in town. What is the local tavern called, and who work there? What are their stories? Not every npc needs a complicated back story, but it sure helps if they have some story to them. When the players are hunting for clues to a mystery, they may chat up with a common vagrant. But what is his name, and how did he end up so down on his luck? Its not difficult to prepare these sorts of things before running a campaign. In my pirate campaign, every ship has a name, with a captain who also has a name and a backstory. And that captain also has a crew, and they all have names too. Make sure you are prepared.

DM_Craig said:

Hey, great thread!
As a DM, I have a lot of fun with my group. The players know that ultimately I actually want them to succeed rather than fail. The goal of DMing isn't to go on a power trip, but to create a fun, interesting, exciting and yes, challenging, adventure for the players to get in to.


I strongly encourage everyone in my group to be as creative as they possibly can be, and will often houserule certain rolls to create fun scenarios rather than simply say "Nope, you can't do that." If the players come up with a way to beat a challenge I've presented that I didn't think of, rather than punishing them, I reward them, and so long as it falls within the realm of possibility, I'll let them do it. I'll cheer them on and congratulate them on their success!


Here's one I would add to your list:


Ridiculous Rules



I used to play with a DM that took his role way too seriously, and tried to control everything that happened in our sessions, both in game and out of game. We had to speak as our characters the entire time, and if we wanted to speak out-of-character (OOC), we had to place one hand on our head so that everyone knew it was us speaking and not our character. If anyone left the table -oh, say to use the bathroom or grab a drink - without first going OOC and declaring they were leaving, that player's character would end up punished somehow in the encounter, due to them being 'distracted'. One by one, players left the group, myself included, because it wasn't fun.

Click to expand...

Oh dear, that is terrible. Yes, fortunately my groups have always agreed that a certain amount of OC banter is perfectly fine. It can be pretty dreadful if a DM insists on such extreme rules.

DM_Craig said:

I'd like to add another one, if I may?


Must Fight Everything!


A good DM will always remember that every encounter doesn't need to be a fight, or even a fight to the death, so to speak. There are many ways (or should be) for PCs to get past an encounter. If stuck in a cavern fighting a bunch of orcs, it might not take killing every one of them for the party to pass. Maybe they just need to kill the chief, or half the group and the others will flee. Maybe the enemy can be tricked into letting the party pass, or the PCs could offer a bribe, etc.
A good campaign has a proper balance of combat and non-combat encounters, but even within each of those types of encounters, there needs to be options.
I crafted an encounter for one of my old groups that gave them a quick way to defeat the kobolds they were facing. The setting was a crumbling temple, and I made sure to let the players know that their characters could tell upon entering the main chapel that it was in rough shape. Furthermore, I moved the kobolds around cautiously. Two of the players picked up on this, and started looking around and doing checks to see if they could use the environment to their advantage. Long story short, they ended up collapsing half of the vaulted ceiling, burying and killing a number of the kobolds (including two of their casters) and causing the rest to flee. instead of a potentially long, drawn out battle where both sides were tip-toeing around everything, the outcome was decided swiftly, the party had fun picturing the scene, and the quest moved on.

Click to expand...

That is a great example. I remember a friend of mine, who did a session that lasted several days, where he made his players fight an army of undead. He literally had them fight each and every undead, one by one. That must have been terrible to sit through.

One of the ways to encourage the players to explore other options, is to also give full exp for any enemy that surrenders, or flees. Often players will feel like they are missing out on exp, simply because an enemy is running away, but that should not be the case. Enemies can be defeated in many ways, and not only by having their hitpoints reach zero.

In my pirate campaign, we've had a few instances where multiple pirate ships were involved in a fight. Obviously we would play out what ever fight the ship of the players was involved in. But I would take care of the other battles off-screen. So by the time the players finished fighting, the other ships finished fighting as well, or they would join them halfway into their battle as reinforcements. Soon we might be coming up to a crucial part of the campaign, where the players want to rid a particular island of cannibals. Obviously I'm not going to have them march through every inch of the island, to take out each and every cannibal. Instead, I'll allow them to hire mercenaries, that would each comb a particular part of the island (during down time). And I'll allow them to send out scouts, that would try and find the main village of the cannibals. These groups of npc's would then later report back with their findings, and report their casualties (which I could roll for).

The final battle would then be just the party and their allies, against that one village (instead of every single cannibal on the island). And all they really need to do, is take out the tribe elder that is leading them all. Once his/her head rolls, the cannibals are done for. I think thats a good way to handle these massive battles. In the future there wil possibly be far larger battles, and I'll have to come up with some way to simplify the battle. It would be more about strategic movements of the ships, rather than rolling dice for each and every ship.

Timpookie said:

This is a really good thread for explaining what things DMs commonly do wrong! I sincerely thank you, and I will attempt to take these words (Err... Paragraphs) of advice to heart as I DM for my campaign. However, there's one other type of DM that I find irksome, although not exactly impossible to play with.


No Comic Relief Allowed


The name says it all - A DM that wants the campaign to be super-serious, without the characters even being able to make a light joke at all during the campaign. Sure, this can be good for some parts of the game, such as when you want suspense to build up, but after the main baddie for the adventure was slain and the heroes are in the local tavern boasting of their triumph? I think that that should be a time for celebration, not solemnly drinking as they await their next super-serious adventure.


Besides, making things too dark eventually makes it less fun, though not impossible, to play. D&D, and all games, for that matter, were designed for fun, and therefore lighthearted joking should be allowed, at least from time to time!

Click to expand...

Timpookie said:

This is a really good thread for explaining what things DMs commonly do wrong! I sincerely thank you, and I will attempt to take these words (Err... Paragraphs) of advice to heart as I DM for my campaign. However, there's one other type of DM that I find irksome, although not exactly impossible to play with.


No Comic Relief Allowed


The name says it all - A DM that wants the campaign to be super-serious, without the characters even being able to make a light joke at all during the campaign. Sure, this can be good for some parts of the game, such as when you want suspense to build up, but after the main baddie for the adventure was slain and the heroes are in the local tavern boasting of their triumph? I think that that should be a time for celebration, not solemnly drinking as they await their next super-serious adventure.


Besides, making things too dark eventually makes it less fun, though not impossible, to play. D&D, and all games, for that matter, were designed for fun, and therefore lighthearted joking should be allowed, at least from time to time!

DM_Craig said:

Timpookie wrote:
No Comic Relief Allowed


Besides, making things too dark eventually makes it less fun, though not impossible, to play.



​

I couldn't agree more. Some of my favourite moments playing D&D have been when the entire table was bent over in laughter! I encourage my players to even think about what kind of sense of humour (or lack thereof) their characters have when they are fleshing them out. Let the players enjoy themselves and really have fun, or what's the point of even playing?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I agree entirely. Even when I run my Cthulhu campaign, and things are supposed to be super suspenseful, humor is a great way to break up the tension. The party will be into the suspense if you introduce it to them the right way, and establish the mood. But you can't force them to always be super serious. I also try to make sure that my npc's are a lot of fun too. You need to mix the laughter with the darker stuff.

For example, in my pirate campaign we have an npc crew member who is a notorious drunk, and has the nick name "Rummy". During our last session, the players put some rotting fish in his rum bottle, to teach him a lesson (he had hazed one of the new crew members by putting rotting fish in his bed, so this seemed appropriate). I stretched out the punchline of the joke for a while, to make sure that Rummy would drink from the bottle at THE WORST moment, for maximum comic relief. Which was during an opera for the rich upper class, while he was out with his girlfriend, while wearing a ghastly outfit, and sitting on an exclusive balcony seat. And there was much laughter and "Nooooooo" from the party.


Bad dungeons

One topic we haven't addressed yet, is the topic of designing dungeons. I love creating dungeons. But I have seen quite my share of dungeons that were just terrible. Here's a few points that dungeon masters should perhaps pay attention to when designing a dungeon:

* The dungeon is way too big. Dungeons that are endless mazes, filled with nothing but empty corridors and crossroads. Dungeons where the only choices for the players are, do we go left, or do we go right, or straight ahead, Instead, I encourage dungeon masters to limit their dungeons to just a selection of functional, and purposeful rooms.

* Dungeons are invulnerable. Walls have hardness and should break, given enough force. As should doors, by the way. A bad DM makes his dungeon absolutely inpenetrable, with invulnerable walls and doors. Don't be afraid to allow your players to improvise, and find other ways around your carefully constructed obstacles. This leads into our next point by the way.

* The dungeon is linear. If the dungeon is basically just a long corridor with a couple of rooms, thats not very compelling. Add some alternate routes. Make sure the players can at least take 2 different roads to reach the same end goal.

* The dungeon forces the players to visit each and every room. It is okay if the players miss something really cool that you thought of. It's okay, just let it go. You can reuse the idea some other time in a different dungeon. You don't have to force the players to visit that one room that they've skipped.

* The dungeon contains nothing but monsters and treasures, for no real reason. This may have worked for first edition, but I really consider it a no-no. Nowadays we ask our selves logical questions. Why are there monsters in this underground labyrinth? Don't they have other things to do with their life? And who built it? Why is this dungeon here, and what is its purpose? Give your dungeon a backstory. Maybe its an ancient ruin of some sort of city, and maybe the place is haunted by its former residents. Or maybe it is crawling with giant vermin that have made it their home. Maybe its a tomb for some ancient civilisation, and the players are really just robbing their graves. Any building could be turned into a dungeon. In fact, buildings probably make the best dungeons.

* Everything is trapped! If the dungeon happens to be a building that sees a lot of visitors, would it make sense for there to be a trap? Why would the king trap his own throneroom? Don't go nuts with the traps, or the players will be yelling "I check for traps" at every room.

* How does the trap work? This is one of the reasons why I rarely have magical traps in my campaigns, they are not very compelling. I think players deserve an explanation what a trap looks like, and how it works. Don't just tell them that they disable the trap because they succeeded at their skillcheck. Tell them HOW they disable it. What was the trap supposed to do? And maybe there are multiple ways to disarm it, and it is up to the players to choose how they want to approach it. Also, not all traps are deadly. Some traps simply serve to alarm enemies for example.

* The dungeon is flat. This isn't always a bad thing, but not every dungeon needs to be a one-story 2D labyrinth. Dungeons can contain multiple levels. Apart from stairs and ladders, there can also be moats, balconies, bridges, and multiple floors.

* Every room is a blank slate, lacking any details. Many dungeon masters make the mistake of thinking that a dungeon is just a bunch of rooms and corridors, with monsters and treasure. But rooms can differ wildly in shape, and height. A small corridor can force the players to pass through single file. A collapsed tunnel might even force them to shimmy their way through sideways, or crawl on hands and knees. If a room has a function, then it should probably contain fitting furniture. It could contain furniture that the players can search for valuables, rather than it containing a treasure chest, as if it were some video game. Another reason to include details, is to immerse the players, and to allow them to improvise. Because if there is furniture, then they can use it to block a door, and make a barricade. Clever construction of rooms can also encourage a lot of strategy. Enemies can be positioned at vantage points, and encourage the players to do more than just charge them blindly.

* Include secret doors. Sometimes players play an elf, purely to detect hidden doors. And why not? Because detecting secret doors is fun... if there are any that is. So don't forget to include some occasionally, if it makes sense.

* This dungeon will self destruct in 5 seconds. This is a bit of an Indiana Jones cliche, but don't always destroy the dungeon right after the boss has been defeated. Perhaps the dungeon can serve some purpose in the story later on? Maybe the players can make it their new home? But do make sure that you don't include any features that the players might turn against you. If the dungeon contains a giant statue leaking liquid gold.... ehhhh... you might want to reconsider that, unless you want the players to destroy the local economy.

* Treasure! Not all treasure is gold and gems. The players can find valuable information from just the dungeon alone. Maybe it contains ancient wall carvings, and drawings that depict events from hundreds of years ago. Dungeons are a great moment for exposition, and to explain some of the lore. And even if the players do stumble upon some riches, try and think of how it fits into the setting. Do the players find a treasure chest filled with golden coins? That is maybe a bit too convenient. Or do they find a tomb with a golden idol, with an omnious warning written on the stone lid?

* Just nothing but walking! Dungeons can contain swimming sections, climbing sections, and obstacles that require skill checks. Maybe a tunnel is partially flooded, and players wil have to hold their breath? Maybe a floor has collapsed, and they have to find a safe way down to the floor below? Maybe the floor is extremely slippery, or the dungeon is unstable. Maybe the players can't make too much noise, or the ceiling might cave in. Maybe the players need to use a bit of stealth while moving through the dungeon. Or maybe there are minecarts they can use.

DM_Craig said:

Imaculata wrote:

Bad dungeons

Awesome list! Especially the 'everything is trapped' part. Traps need to be useful, and also need to not be an inconvenience to the people that built them. There are times when I'll tell my players straight up, "this room is safe to explore". Why? Because I didn't put any traps in there, and I don't want them spending the next ten minutes checking everything for traps that don't exist. They don't want to do that either. A good question I always keep in mind is "Trap, or hazard?" Sometimes you do want the group to be wary of a room, but maybe it's not a trap. Maybe there's a leak in the wall that could lead to a flood. Maybe the ceiling might collapse in part of the dungeon. Maybe the room they've entered is flammable under the right conditions. These aren't traps, but can still add that tension or excitement to an otherwise 'bland' location.


Loving this thread

Click to expand...

That is a great example. I love including hazards in my dungeons. It also allows for more creative use of knowledge skills. You can ask your players to do a "knowledge dungeoneering-check" to see if that ceiling is about to collapse. And a dwarf-character might be able to tell automatically, which makes the players feel like their race-choice matters. I know a lot of my players love gearing up for adventures, so it's great when the dungeons make use of those tools. Plus, not every hazard needs to be life-threatening either. Same as with traps, a hazard can also just complicate the dungeon-exploring experience. If a tunnel partially floods, this slows the movement of the players. You can't really run in waist-high water, plus there might be foes hidden underwater. Loose rocks can make it difficult to climb a steep slope. A strong draft can cause any uncovered light sources to go out. If the players need to shimmy along a thin ledge, then a strong draft can be even more dangerous. Hazards can also cause players to reconsider how much force they use. You don't want to be throwing around explosives and fireballs, when the ceiling of the dungeon looks unstable.

DM_Craig said:

Imaculata wrote:

Bad dungeons

Awesome list! Especially the 'everything is trapped' part. Traps need to be useful, and also need to not be an inconvenience to the people that built them. There are times when I'll tell my players straight up, "this room is safe to explore". Why? Because I didn't put any traps in there, and I don't want them spending the next ten minutes checking everything for traps that don't exist. They don't want to do that either. A good question I always keep in mind is "Trap, or hazard?" Sometimes you do want the group to be wary of a room, but maybe it's not a trap. Maybe there's a leak in the wall that could lead to a flood. Maybe the ceiling might collapse in part of the dungeon. Maybe the room they've entered is flammable under the right conditions. These aren't traps, but can still add that tension or excitement to an otherwise 'bland' location.


Loving this thread

Timpookie said:

Imaculata wrote:

That is a great example. I love including hazards in my dungeons. It also allows for more creative use of knowledge skills. You can ask your players to do a "knowledge dungeoneering-check" to see if that ceiling is about to collapse. And a dwarf-character might be able to tell automatically, which makes the players feel like their race-choice matters.

This just reminded me of another type of DM that I hate...


Race and Class only effect the mechanical side of the game, not the roleplaying side of the game

This one's pretty self explanitory, but I'll just begin describing how this might work for those who have never experienced this kind of DM before. All the races live in peace, at least when they're around the PCs, just to prevent racism. schools of arcane practice and clerics that can channel the powers of their gods are just as commonplace as soldiers, and thus wizards are treated the same as a soldier, not with awe, respect or superstition, and likewise with clerics. Nobody cares about if your powers come directly from the gods, or if you're just a damn good swordfighter - Not even those who trained you. And nobody cares about your races history because, surprise surprise, it's no different than the general history of this world, because all the races are always allies (excluding criminals and when seperate kingdoms go to war).

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Yes, if races and classes are that unimportant, it can really make a setting rather dull. Everyone is just one big happy family. In my own setting, dwarves do not take kindly to people calling them dwarves. They are a proud culture of people, and they consider the term "dwarf" an insult. Elves are a rare sight, and attract a lot of attention. Wizards are treated with more courtesy than some simple adventurer. In my setting the arcane arts are exclusive to the upper class and the learned. Wizards even wear wigs and flamboyant clothing, just to show the difference in status. Other magic users, such as the notorious Speakers of the Dead, dress as frightening as possible. They wear dark make up, blacken their teeth and nails, and wear bones and long black dresses. They bare names that remind people of poison, vermin and death. They use their status and appearance to put fear in the hearts of other pirates. And people would never dare anger a wizard, because they can do horrible things. Priests are generally among the most trusted in my setting, and are given proper respect. They are especially appreciated by the poor, the homeless and the hungry.

Another thing that can be annoying:

Npc's instantly know the class of a player

Can an npc instantly tell that someone is a wizard, a priest, or a rogue? Especially a rogue is generally someone a bit lawless, so would they proudly advertize that they are a rogue? Of course not. And unless someone dresses as Gandalf, or casts spells in public, can you really know that someone is a wizard? I think it's reasonable to assume that anyone carrying a sword is probably a fighter, soldier or mercenary, at least from the point of view of an npc (even if that isn't the case). A bard might be easy to recognize, because generally they would know a lot of people, and been to many places.

I'll give an example. I took part in a lord of the rings roleplaying session once, and I played a wizard. But not just any wizard. A wizard who chose not to broadly advertize that he was one (he looked like an ordinary traveler with a simple wooden staff). The party was set upon by bandits, and my character simply surrendered. The DM kind of seemed to want to force all the players to fight the bandits, but I simply refused. They can have my money if they want to, I do not wish to fight them. But the bandits attacked anyway, thus forcing my wizard to use spells. This does not make sense. They are bandits! If an old man surrenders and hands over his money willingly, why would they attack him anyway? I suppose its not impossible for the bandits to be just complete murderous monsters, but considering they announced their robbery, it seemed odd that they would respond with hostility to a surrender. And of course some players fought back, and you'd think the heavily armed characters would be the one and only focus of the bandits. After all, why focus on a defenseless old man, when you have three more armed and armored foes in front of you?

And the bandits did not seem the least bit surprised when eventually they were being attacked with magic. None of them were frightened or intimidated by it. In fact, much like in most dnd campaigns, it seemed like the most normal thing in the world to them.

But this campaign became even more bizarre. Other npc's insisted to know "what it was" that my character could do. To which I replied, I'm a traveler. I travel. But they persisted. Can you wield a sword, or that staff you have in your hands? Do you have any magic? I answered that I was just an old man with a walking stick, on his way to the nearest town. The npc's seemed reluctant to believe me, even though they had not seen me fight, or cast any magic. Did these npc's have some of a radar for character classes? Did they need to know my class, so that they could hand out a quest? From the point of view of my character, none of this behavior made any sense. He was just an old man on the road, not looking for any quests at all, just a meal and a place to stay.

Timpookie said:

I 100% agree with you. In fact, I'd go one step further and say that most NPCs shouldn't even be able to infer the class without being directly told. Here's an example from my current campaign, which includes a party of 2 wizards, 1 fighter, 1 rogue and 1 warlock:

The party was in the tavern, with their new friend the barkeeper, when a guard captain walked in and told of how the barkeeper earlier mentioned that a band of heroes fought off some kobolds. He inferred that the party was the heroes because they had free drinks and were wearing their armor (It's a status symbol as well as a functionality in these dark times) and wizard's robes (Just because wizards robes are cool). However, the rogue, a recent addition to the party, was sitting in the back of the tavern by himself and the guard captain thought him an ordinary civilian until he chimed in when the rest of the party mentioned that they had hunted down the kobolds and captured one of them to interrogate him for information. Also, I should mention, the guard captain didn't find it off that there was a warlock in the room, not because warlocks are commonplace (in fact, in everywhere other than the one city-state ruled by an insane Eladrin queen, making pacts in exchange for Eldritch powers is illegal and punishable by death) but because he had simply assumed that "a friend of the guys who are attacking the kobolds must be a good person, probably a wizard due to the staff and the robes."

In fact, in other campaigns of mine, even when someone uses a weapon, NPCs don't easily guess their class. Let's say they use a sword. (Assuming 4e class proficiencies): Is it a rogue? A fighter? A paladin? Perhaps a warlord? Or a ranger? And that's just from the PHB.

Click to expand...

I agree. The whole idea of "character class" is a meta-game concept anyway. It shouldn't really pop up in ordinary npc interactions at all. The players are just people with swords and armor, nothing more. I think it's also a good idea to always ask the players what they are dressed like. Are the priest and wizard clearly dressed as such? Is the priest openly carrying his holy symbol in clear sight of everyone?

Some more that a friend (and fellow DM brought up)

The DM enforces chess rules

This happens occasionally, where a DM does not allow a player to take back their action. "You said you were going to do it, so thats what happens". Often a player might choose a course of action that is not so clever, but he may have forgotten about certain details, and his fellow players will remind him of those things. Hearing those things, the player reconsiders, but the DM does not allow him to reconsider. That is bad. In any DnD campaign you can be playing up to several hours, and you won't always be 100% focused and at the top of your game. There can be mix ups, you can forget about things that your character would logically know about. There may be details in the environment that the DM described, but you missed, because you (the player) were distracted or just not paying attention. DnD is not a game of chess. You are not in any hurry, and the actions during a round can be discussed and reconsidered for as long as the players want to. Allow your players to reconsider if they believe they've made a mistake, and if no dice have been rolled yet. Ask them if they are happy with their choice, before moving on to the next character/player/enemy.

The DM is a stick in the mud regarding appointments

This is less about running the campaign, and more about getting together and having a nice session in general. DnD often makes great demands on people's free time. You need everyone to be available on the same day, for several hours. And more often than not, people will not always be available. Its great if you can meet up on the same day, at the same time, every single week. But that is not always a reality. The DM (and the group in general) should be reasonable regarding these appointments. Is it really a big problem to move the session from saturday to sunday? Does it really matter if the players come in at 3 or 4 o clock? Is it really a big issue to skip the session this week, and move it to the next?

When I run my campaigns, I tell my friends that they are welcome to show up on my doorstep from a certain hour, or later. And I'll wait and see how late they show up exactly. If they show up later, we start the session a bit later. If they want to have dinner first, then thats what we do, and they are welcome to bring what ever food to my house and eat it there. Make clear agreements regarding what is acceptible, and don't be too fuzzy about the time. If you don't want your players to leave a mess, then ask them if they would be so kind to bring any left over junk with them. Sometimes people will suddenly have to work on that saturday that was supposed to be our DnD night. So be it! We move it to sunday. As long as everyone is informed, I don't see what the big problem is. And if someone isn't free on sunday, well then we move it up a week. Also not a problem.

Players are more occupied by their phone than the game

This is a tricky one. Occasionally you will have players that are paying more attention to what ever gadget they have on them, than the game itself. And it can be really bothersome if the DM is trying to tell a story, and that one player is checking out his phone. Getting mad about it is obviously not the right way to go about it. But I do think that as a DM you should bring it up, and make clear agreements about it with the players. You can't force the players to pay attention, but it is not unreasonable to ask them to be involved with the game they came over to play.

Timpookie said:

This one, I noticed, is amplified tenfold on my roll20 campaign than on other campaigns due to the fact that there are some extreme timezone differences in my roll20 group, up to 14 hours at times, which makes things a bit difficult.

Click to expand...

DM_Craig said:

The Over-Creative DM



You might think, "how is this possible?"
This is the DM that tells too much story, and hinges everything on that story. For example, a friend of mine was in a campaign where the DM had crafted an elaborate political scene in which the PCs were caught between two rivals to the throne, and had to choose which side to support. The lead-up story was great and set the scene up perfectly, but the players felt that the actual encounter was too scripted. It was clear that the DM had put a lot of time into the details of the script and how things were playing out, but it ended up leaving little room for the players to have creative input into how the encounter played out. If somebody suggested something that meant the DM had to change what he had written, he got upset about it.
Storytelling and details are great, but flexibility is almost more important. The players aren't reading a novel, they're playing one out, meaning they have creative input as well, not just the DM.

Click to expand...

Oh that is very recognizable. I remember a Star Wars campaign that all lead up to an epic confrontation between our Jedi party member, and a Sith. Of course the first thing we did as a party, was to all open fire on the Sith together. This was of course not according to the plan of the DM (but seriously, would anyone in any real world scenario have any time for personal duels?). And this takes us to yet another common problem in campaigns.

One party member is the hero

In any given party, everyone is supposed to be the hero. You can't have one of the party members be the chosen one, the jedi, or what not. That doesn't mean that you can't have personalized quests that focus on a single party member. But you can never make one party member the entire center of the campaign, it just doesn't work. Because if one player is the hero with all sorts of super powers, how do you scale the battles for the other players? You'll end up with enemies that are either way too easy for the hero, or way too hard for the rest of the party. And then they'll work together to find some way to defeat the bad guy anyway, and you can forget all about scripted duels at that point. Just don't do it. Don't single out one player as the big hero. Treat your players as a party of adventurers who all get to be the hero at some points in the campaign.

Introducing famous characters

Don't introduce celebrities ever. Don't have Darth Vader pop up in your Star Wars campaign, or Gandalf show up in your Lord of the Rings campaign. I know how tempting it is to introduce these well loved characters, but there is a huge risk that you will not do them justice, or that some harm will come to them. If you're fine with Gandalf being killed in his sleep by the players, then by all means. But if that is not part of your plan, then resist the urge to introduce him in the first place. DnD by its very nature is an open none-linear game, where players make their own choices. Many well established characters already have their own journey, and this will often get in the way of telling a none-linear story. And following them around on a linear path isn't all that much fun either. Besides, players are notorious for messing up well crafted plans, and if they meet Frodo they will attempt to steal the ring. You can count on it. Instead, try to create your own heroes and villains. Use those famous characters as inspiration for characters of your own.

RalofTyr said:

Every Orc or Gob my players encounter, will have a name and a backstory. A hobgob is not just a one-dimensional creature. Everything came from something. I have always like Tolkien's Orcs as corrupted Elves concept. It brings a sense of pity to the beast; well, except when the orc they think is a one-HD creature turns to be a tortured and corrupted 1,000 year-old Elf that starts using spells.

Click to expand...

dafrca said:

Imaculata, nice thread. It was a blast to read.


Don't force the game, enjoy it.


I have seen some DMs that insist the players fill specific roles, classes, races, etc because the game "needs them" to. I was told once I had to play a cleric because the party needed one,. A good DM learns to just make it work. A player(s) who is forced into a class or role is often less engaged and has less fun. I was also told once I couldn't play a fighter because "you have played one already at my table. You need to get out of your comfort zone." The odd thing was I played one fighter and two wizards and one cleric in various games with this DM. It is not the DMs job to "foce someone out of their comfort zone". Offer guidance, but let the chips fall where they may as long as the characters are within the agreed "rules" for the table/campaign.




In any case, thanks again.

Click to expand...

That's a great one, thanks Dafrca. Yes, I never understood why a party would "need" to have a cleric. Why not make a party without one? Make the players reliant on healing potions and npc's to receive healing. If anything, it encourages the DM to be creative with his encounters, and balance them around the fact that they don't have a healer. As a matter of fact, my current group of players doesn't have a dedicated healer either. They have one druid who can do a little bit of healing, but they are mostly reliant on bringing their own healing. And that makes battles more exciting.

And regarding playing the same class, it is pretty bad if the DM wants to decide for other players what they should play. I have a friend who always plays wizards and sorcerers, but he likes to try different specializations, multiclasses and prestige classes. Thus making every wizard he plays still different. But even if they were all the same, what would it matter? I would be more worried if a player kept playing the same character, with the same personality. But even if this is the case, and your player isn't such good at roleplaying, you can always come up with tricks to help your players a little in fleshing out their character. One such method is one that I proposed in the House-rules thread, the idea of letting players pick an interesting character background fact from a list that the DM makes, and can then work into the story. So even if players are bad at writing backgrounds for their characters, they would at least have this simple outlne to fall back on. It gives them a simple foundation to build the rest of their character around, and it's not mandetory either, it is entirely optional.

Dreadnought12 said:

DM_Craig wrote:

I'd like to add another one, if I may?


Must Fight Everything!


A good DM will always remember that every encounter doesn't need to be a fight, or even a fight to the death, so to speak. There are many ways (or should be) for PCs to get past an encounter. If stuck in a cavern fighting a bunch of orcs, it might not take killing every one of them for the party to pass. Maybe they just need to kill the chief, or half the group and the others will flee. Maybe the enemy can be tricked into letting the party pass, or the PCs could offer a bribe, etc.
A good campaign has a proper balance of combat and non-combat encounters, but even within each of those types of encounters, there needs to be options.
I crafted an encounter for one of my old groups that gave them a quick way to defeat the kobolds they were facing. The setting was a crumbling temple, and I made sure to let the players know that their characters could tell upon entering the main chapel that it was in rough shape. Furthermore, I moved the kobolds around cautiously. Two of the players picked up on this, and started looking around and doing checks to see if they could use the environment to their advantage. Long story short, they ended up collapsing half of the vaulted ceiling, burying and killing a number of the kobolds (including two of their casters) and causing the rest to flee. instead of a potentially long, drawn out battle where both sides were tip-toeing around everything, the outcome was decided swiftly, the party had fun picturing the scene, and the quest moved on.




​

Amen to that brother. Most of my encounters are intended to be solveable without combat. Many of them are intended to be solved WITHOUT combat. Sometimes being too quick to enter thr fray is the wrong way to go. I had a player once who treated every single encounter like a combat situation. Miss a skill check and dont get a good price on the goods? Just smack the merchant around and take it. Then you go back to your Inn and the city guards pay you a visit. You are forced to return the items and the merchant is nice and foregoes a jail sentence in exchange for a hefty fine and having you thrown out of the city. You miss your meeting with an important NPC and must now find some other way to get the info you needed.
Very few combaats will be resolved onlly when the last member of the opposing force is dead. Kill the commander and the rank and file will often cease to act as a unit. some may continue to fight but many if not most will flee a losing battle. If its a professional army some will flee so that they can inform the main force of what the opposition has to throw at them.
Some combats can be won much easier with skill checks. Is the character skilled in the lore and customs of local cultures? Let them make a skill check. They succeed. You notice that the Guard on duty is wearing Varnis Livery but has a locket that is worn by the Gretim (a disaffected minority that is treated poorly by the Varnis). Send your smooth talker up to him and using knowledge of his background and a small bribe you convince him to go to the bathroom while you sneak into the camp and kill the Commander while he sleeps and get a map that shows troop placements in the surrounding area allowing the party to get to the border without having to fight the handful of garrisons that have been set to stop the party from getting away. In such a situation I would give the party far more XP than just a single kill would warrant. I would give them XP for fighting some (but probably not ALL) of the garrisons they would have encountered without having gotten the map. Using skills to avoid combat can in some cases be treated like winning the combat.
I also tend to get a little testy with those who want to stab every situation. Did you come across 2 groups fighting on the road. One group is ragged and dirty with their clothes in tatters. The other has a few warriors who look capable but there are also women, children and old people. Things look grim for the non-raggedy group. I tell the party that something doesnt seem quite right about the situation, but instead of taking that as a cue to be a bit more observant the party rushes in in defense of the women adn children group. They quickly find out that the raggedy group is far more skilled in combat than a bunch of dirty bandits would be expected to be. Their swords are all very well made and, they soon discover quite sharp. Wiith the help of their new firends however the party succeeds in killing the attackers, only to find that their friends are now attacking them. The party succeeds in retreating and discovers that not only have they helped a group of slavers escape with their innocent victims, but they have killed 5 members of the Elite Rangers in service of the Local Duke. To make matters worse one of the Rangers was the Duke's Eldest son. Even worse, one of the Rangers is missing and so is one of the party member's portrait locket which has a picture of her face and that of her lover (another party member) in it. Did the missing ranger get it and is he heading back to inform his Lord of this terrible deed? Did the Slavers get it and do they now know who the party is? If they had taken a quick local lore check they would have realized that those raggedy guys have very distinctive markings on their swords and those markings show them to be in service of the Duke, who is known to be a just ruler and unlikely to be sending men to attack a group with women and children in it.

Click to expand...

Dreadnought12 said:

Imaculata wrote:
I agree. The whole idea of "character class" is a meta-game concept anyway. It shouldn't really pop up in ordinary npc interactions at all. The players are just people with swords and armor, nothing more. I think it's also a good idea to always ask the players what they are dressed like. Are the priest and wizard clearly dressed as such? Is the priest openly carrying his holy symbol in clear sight of everyone?



​

I do usually follow this rule but there are exceptions. A cleric of most gods in my realm would never dream of concealing their identity. Their orders have distinctive styles and modes of dress so that folks can know exactly which diety has helped them (or hurt them in some cases). Magic Users tend to have some distinctive features due to the nature of their lives. They carry around books in mostly illiterate societies, they often have ink stains on their fingers and clothing (this was something that was actually historical. Scribes were recognizeable by these tell tale signs). Most Magic users actually learn skills to hide these features from cursory inspection (they definitely dont want folks to know who they are if they arent in the employ of some lord or other). Fighters and those who focus on physical activities tend to be much more fit than your average citizen (not necessarily out of the norm, but noticeable), they also tend to have heavily calloused hands that can be acquired in few ways but the combative arts. Rogues and Bards tend to be the least noticeable. If a bard is working acrowd you will recognize them, but very few would be openly carrying around their precious, and expensive, instruments when just sitting around a bar. Rogues often learn how to disguise themselves as other than rogues (they learn to wear clothing that is identified with other occupations etc). In most areas these people wont be sitting around a Tavern wearing their adventuring gear (its bulking, often uncomfortable, sweaty from recent activity etc.), most cities are not the Wild West, wearing weapons in public is a privelage only given to the appointed authorities. So you take away weapons and armor and most 'class' identifiers arent that visible. In fact if someone wants to do a quick inspection for tell tale signs I make them do Skill check. And no NPC would ever say you are a Fighter or you are a Rogue. Those are game mechs not applied to role playing. they might ask the big guy with the heavy callouses if he is in service of Lord such and such but never you are a fighter.
Wizards take pains to hide themselves in my world and its only if the NPC has a good reason to do so that they will be given the chance to Roll to notice that this person is a magic User. Guards and such may size up the group to determine the level of threat they might pose to the city, but usually once past the Customs House at the City Gates noone will really know what you are capable of. Your average city guard or citizen is simply not that observant. Inn Keepers may be but not most other folks.

Click to expand...

↵

Dreadnought12 said:

DM_Craig wrote:
The Over-Creative DM
You might think, "how is this possible?"
This is the DM that tells too much story, and hinges everything on that story. For example, a friend of mine was in a campaign where the DM had crafted an elaborate political scene in which the PCs were caught between two rivals to the throne, and had to choose which side to support. The lead-up story was great and set the scene up perfectly, but the players felt that the actual encounter was too scripted. It was clear that the DM had put a lot of time into the details of the script and how things were playing out, but it ended up leaving little room for the players to have creative input into how the encounter played out. If somebody suggested something that meant the DM had to change what he had written, he got upset about it.
Storytelling and details are great, but flexibility is almost more important. The players aren't reading a novel, they're playing one out, meaning they have creative input as well, not just the DM.



​

I have always thought of it as Cooperative story telling. The DM sets the background but the players have the ability to alter the script. I tend to create alot of background and very little specific sccript. If I have a detailed background on the situation then I can usually not even lose a step when the players do something unexpected.

Click to expand...

That is how I approach it as well Dreadnought. I create a sort of sandbox for my players to play around in. Kind of like being in Disneyland, and seeing all sorts of magical things. I have a few rough plot points that I weave into the story, depending on what the players choose to do. For example, my players have currently accepted the daughter of an influential Marquis as part of their pirate crew. This is an excellent opportunity for one of my villains, to hatch a devious scheme, where the party is accused of kidnapping the daughter. I'll try and slowly set that up, and I hope the players walk right into it. Everything that happens in the campaign is a direct result of the actions of the players.

For example, when my players returned to the city of Vertesaux, I informed them that a local dwarven captain was imprisoned, for starting riots among the dwarven population (they want justice, after one of their ships was destroyed). This was a set up, because I knew the players would need to go through the Captain of the Guards (who is an impossible man) to get to this dwarf. And since they are trying to recruit all the pirate factions in my campaign, I knew that a dwarven pirate captain would draw their attention.

But here is the twist. I knew that they would soon meet with the leader of the local thieves guild, who would offer to set up a meeting between the party and one of his informants. This informant is none other than the captain of the guards in disguise, playing two sides. He wants the players to investigate a fanatical group of knights, and in return he'll do what ever he can for them. Of course they ask him to break the dwarf out of jail, to which he replies: "DONE! He'll be a free man come morning."

This is a simple way in which you can move the plot along, without railroading the party. The party did not have to meet with the informant, to get the dwarf out. maybe they could have bribed the guards and have a talk with him. Maybe they could have blackmailed the captain of the guards, or simply broken the dwarf out the old fashioned way. Even without meeting with the informant or the Thieves Guild, they would have run into the fanatical knights in one way or another. Getting the dwarf out was not even important to the story.... yet. But maybe as I further expand on the story, that his role gains more importance. For now, I just wanted to establish the fanatical knights as new enemies, and slowly reveal how they are spreading their influence.

But its even more clever than that. I first establish the Captain of the Guards as an unlikable douche, so the players hate him. And then later on I let him be a good guy, and help the players, while sharing a common enemy. The anger of the dwarves is also a plot point that ties into the main plot, because the dwarves think that their vessel was destroyed by the crown. In fact, it was destroyed by a foreign country who is sending a fleet of pirate hunters their way. The party will eventually have to fight this fleet, but for that they need to recuit more pirate captains to their cause. So its all part of a bigger whole, but it doesn't hinge on just one plot point.

The fanatical knights are also not so black and white. During yesterdays session, one of the players was saved by one of these knight that they so despise. Unknown to the players, this particular knight is having doubts about whether his order is truly dealing out justice. The order has been rather harsh towards criminals, severing the hands of thieves and such (even children that stole something). They may be able to pursuate him to abandon the order, or to be their inside man.

Dreadnought12 said:

This is what makes DMing so much fun. I enjoy it when the players do something counter to what I expected them to do (and they enjoy doing things counter to what I thought they would do

If, however I have done my part of the bargain we made when we started playing then I have enough points of departure built in that nothing really derails the possibilities they can take. They may have decided not to take a path I thought they would. A path which I had roughly plotted for several game sesssions, but I usually have enough background that I can make it through that game session without them even noticing a hiccup (I probably have to work like crazy before the next session but if I didnt enjoy those things I wouldnt do it). After a while of playing in the same setting the process almost takes on a life of its own. NPCs have history that the players know and they can plan on them acting certain ways. Knowing the tendencies of a particular NPC gives you a good idea of what those around them are like as well.
Your example of the Douchie NPC who later turns out to be a big help reminds me of a NPC I used during one particular party's adventures. He at first seemed to be their enemy, and even at one point killed one member and trapped her essence in a sword that another player had spent alot of time and effort acquiring. A sword which he was now worried about using for fear of harming his friend. Eventually they began to discover that the things he had done to them were useful later in the story. Eventually there was no choice but to use the sword and striking the oppoonent actually transfered the Soul of the companion into her body. Thus giving her a body and getting them access to the Villianesses stronghold and her most prized possession which was necessary for a later adventure. The magical sword he so wanted was now exactly what he wanted plus having the ability to act as a temporary abode for someone who died without a cleric handy to heal or resurect them. The NPC was testing them for a task that he set before them even later on in the story. Even when they learned how to benefit from his seemingly malicious actions they still hated him. Eventually they unknowingly helped him ascend to Godhood... and they still hated him. It was cool because for the 12 or so game sessions that she was trapped in the sword the Player refused to write up another character and actually roleplayed the character trapped in the sword. I hadnt really intended to kill her and I expected that they would eventually find a way to release her but her demand to continue playing her character altered the plot a great deal and ended up being incredibly enjoyable for everyone involved.
To this day every time the Player hears the name of her old Nemesis (and now God) she cant help but curse. She never brings that into character, but its kind of cool to know that I played a part in creating something that she still has such an emotional response to years later.

Click to expand...

Dreadnought12 said:

How about this for a Don't :


Never allow your players to play NPC's that use to be their active characters.

Since I have several Players who have played with me for years in the same setting, from time to time they have retired Characters who take on important roles in the Larger world. They get offered a postiion with a Lord that they can't refuse, They become the head of a Thieves Guild, they return home with the power to assist their homeland in a War that is going badly. Many different reasons have led numerous players to retire beloved characters because it fits well with the established story they have created for that character. Of course Anju is going to take the position as the Master of Assassins for Emperor Logan. He has been helping to create a new homeland for his people for the last 10 years and this is a far better way of helping that cause along than following his friends on a quest for a magic sword to slay the Demon Lord plaguing a village. Its usually a difficult choice but I 'reward' them for giving up a character they spent so much time and effort building. I usually give them an XP bonus on the new character they create. From time to time I will tell them of significant things that their retired char has to deal with. How would they handle so and so, or deal with such and such. I keep in mind the way they played the character, but I learned long ago : NEVER let them actually play the character when the current party interacts with it. They have a right to veto any action I might take as being out of character, but they better a very good reason why they think I played it wrong. When I did let them play them during such interactions they wanted to be those uber powerful NPCs who either do all the work due to their vastly higher XP lvl or eclipse the current Chars, or give away far too valuable of items or money to the Chars.
My players enjoy the fact that their retired chars are still out there and having an impact, but letting them actually play them is a BAD idea.

To this day every time the Player hears the name of her old Nemesis (and now God) she cant help but curse. She never brings that into character, but its kind of cool to know that I played a part in creating something that she still has such an emotional response to years later.

Click to expand...

Dreadnought12 said:

NEVER HAVE A PARTY BABY WITHOUT IT BEING A HUGE PLOT POINT
For some reasons people always think it would be awesome if their players had babies and still went adventuring. Dealing with the day to day necessities of child rearing is not something that lends itself well to cinematic adventuring. If you even think you are going to bring that baby with you AS you adventure you have stepped into really annoying realms. You better come up with good reasons for needing to do so, and you better tell me exactly what provisions you are taking to make sure that you are actually caring for the child, but dont expect to derail too much game time going through and telling us what you are doing that particular day. Do the entire group a favor and make all the characters sterile while adventuring unless it moves the plot along. If they want to adventure while being pregnant then they will almost definitely lose said child. Children of the Party members should be left at home (they can be the grist for story lines and even future PCs), but should only play an active role when it is part of the story.

Click to expand...

Dreadnought12 said:

Imaculata wrote:
Bad dungeons




* The dungeon contains nothing but monsters and treasures, for no real reason. This may have worked for first edition, but I really consider it a no-no. Nowadays we ask our selves logical questions. Why are there monsters in this underground labyrinth? Don't they have other things to do with their life? And who built it? Why is this dungeon here, and what is its purpose? Give your dungeon a backstory. Maybe its an ancient ruin of some sort of city, and maybe the place is haunted by its former residents. Or maybe it is crawling with giant vermin that have made it their home. Maybe its a tomb for some ancient civilisation, and the players are really just robbing their graves. Any building could be turned into a dungeon. In fact, buildings probably make the best dungeons.





​

This one is so necessary for believability. Who actually ever sat down and said 'I'm going to build a dungeon' Very few people probably ever planned any building to be some labrynthine structure that prevents anyone without the cartography skill from being able to navigate it. Almost every 'dungeon' I use is either old ruins or has been repurposed from an existing structure. If there are occupants they always have a reason for being there and this also means that not everything is made to be inaccessible. A 'dungeon' in my mind is just a dangerous building that sometimes serves as a hidey hole for bad guys. If there are non-intelligent creatures in rooms that dont seem to be able to get out then why the heck are they there, who put them there and how are they being kept alive? I like to keep in mind the whole concept of secret doors as well. If every door is trapped yet there are inhabitants then there are probably alot of secret passages that the inhabitants use to get around. If you find them then the only hazards you are likely to encounter are ones hastily erected by the inhabitants since you found their secret passages and the inhabitants themselves. Tombs and Necropolises are an exception to this. Historically most were not intended to be accessible and were constructed with the idea of preventing grave robbing. Those might actually be uber trapped to protect those laid to rest in them, but someone, somewhen had ways of getting around them especially if they were in use over extended periods of time. I even have several 'dungeons' that are like Al Capone's vault. Everything has been stripped and they are empty of all but a few traps and some guardian creatures and vermin who have infested them. If its old and if it beckoned to you to come and loot it then its likely that someone else at some point also heard its siren song, I always make sure that the players dont feel cheated by giving them a few token items that escaped the notice of previous looters, or gaining information or knowledge that proves important, but simply put... sometimes all the tales about the loot inside that building that has been taken over by Orcs is just a way to get adventurors to go in there and try to clear them out. Or maybe the rumors are true but the party finds that the Orcs have already taken possession of those things and know how to use them.

Click to expand...

dafrca said:

Imaculata wrote:
Bad dungeons
[snip great points]



​

I wanted to comment on this. There was a time when we played dungeons that violated most of these great points. We had a blast. We laughed. We gloried in the treasure no matter how silly. We made new characters every time our characters hit about sixth level so we could keep playing those silly dungeons. And life was great.... when we were 12 and in Jr. High.


I think it is a natural progression for most gamers to start in the low end dungeon zone because just the idea of being an elf with a great box skill using a +2 longbow is enough to feed our fantasy needs. But as we grow older and hopefully more mature, we begin to want more than just an elvish sounding name and a pile of gold pieces. We want to know more about the dungeon. We begin to ask questions like who built it and why? And we begin to understand the relationships between various things in the real world, so we begin to ask why would the tribe or orcs live next door to the demons? Things we wanted at 12 just do not satisfy us now. But this does not make those old silly dungeon crawls bad. Just no longer satisfying. I know I will always remember those days with fondness. Using mom's finger nail polish to paint our character's initials onto bottle caps and trying to find out how many gold pieces could our three mules carry out of yet another dungeon.


What I think makes these things Imaculata listed as "bad" is trying to use then now when they no longer fit our need, the things that were good enough for us at 12. I don't think Jack In The Box hamburgers are the top end of the food industry, nor do I think a set of puka shells as a high end fashion statement, and I no longer want a dungeon that can't answer some basic questions. I want more now, I demand more now out of my game sessions. So I agree with Imaculata that if today, as a DM, I were to pull some of these things I should expect unhappy players. Imaculata is right, today these things would make a bad dungeon. But that is because of where I am in my progression.

Click to expand...

I suspect many of us have started somewhere along those lines too. My first steps in the world of D&D started with playing Hero Quest, and a sort of simplified home brew version of 2nd edition, which we called Elemental Quest. We had pointless labyrinths all the time. But as we matured as players, we started realizing that if you really think about all these questions, the details really provide so much more role playing fun.


For example, if your dungeon is some sort of tomb, then there probably are traps. But what effect would this have on the inhabitants of the dungeon? Maybe giant centipedes have made this their hunting ground, and maybe the players encounter one of these monsters lying dead in one of the traps. This is a great way to build suspense, and perhaps the centipede stuck in the trap isn't quite dead yet. And how do these creatures get around, if the place is basically completely sealed? Well maybe there are cracks in the walls, that are too tight for the players to crawl through, but provide easy access for the various vermin that inhabit the dungeon. This is also a great way to build suspense. Once the players learn how these creatures navigate the dungeon, they'll be cautious of any large cracks in the wall. This is also a great and logical way for the DM to set up an ambush. Allowing yourself to ask critical questions regarding the dungeon can improve the dungeon itself.

cowleymen said:

IDK if this has come up before, but one of my old groups could totally derail my plans, all in good nature. They just always managed to have a surprise action that i wasn't expecting. The moral of this


[h=2]Be Ready to Improvise!!!![/h]

IDK how many times I had to quickly not only come up with good story to back them up, and also what could get done that night. The party had a goal, and I thought about a few ideas that I thought they might come to as a group for completing it, so I had to think up the results of their actions in the world. It was quite fun,

Click to expand...

The DM does not allow improvisation


Players will often stack up on tons of tools and random item throughout their adventures, but how frustrating is it when you are not allowed to use them? Occasionally you'll have DM's that do not allow you to solve encounters in an unorthodox way. For example, a group of monsters are about to charge into a room, and the players decide to block the door with random tables and chairs, but everything is nailed down. Or the player is in a prison cell, and tries to use a small tool to try and free one of the bricks in the wall, but the wall is invulnerable to any such attempts. Or the players face a steep wall, and try to use vines to make an improvised rope, but they are not allowed to use it. Or maybe there's a fight in a kitchen, and a player decides to throw a cauldron filled with boiling water onto his enemies. He is then punished for not simply attacking with his sword.


Don't be that DM. If the players come up with something that sounds cool, just roll with it. When the players knock over that cauldron of boiling hot water, have the first line of enemies scream in agony, and retreat. Maybe the steam blinds them, allowing the rest of the party some free shots? Don't make the player who improvises feel like he is holding back the party by not attacking in the conventional way. If the players are set upon by bandits, and one player tries to strike a bargain instead of fighting the bandits, consider it as a DM. Maybe with a good diplomacy or bluff, the player is able to convince the bandit that attacking him is not in his best interests. If the players try to smash a door right in the face of a monster, maybe its arms gets caught in between the door, and he drops his weapon because of it? Make it a narrative experience, and don't always force the players to just roll damage, and nothing else. If a player tries to scare a monster by using the echo of a tunnel to imitate the sound of a howling beast, roll for bluff or perform, and then roll for the sense motive of the monster, or for its listen check. Or do a morale check on the monster, and perhaps it works. Don't make your clever players feel stupid for daring to step off the beaten path, and for daring to come up with a unique solution to a problem.

Timpookie said:

The Party can't converse amongst itself without NPCs nearby


I only just came across this one this week when I was DMing my campaign, and I'll admit that I never actually encountered this, I can just imagine how awful it would be. So the party began a conversation as they were exploring the sewers of Winterpond in search of where the kobolds have set up their "town" about pretty much their mutual hatred of kobolds. And I sat and waited patiently for an hour, taking notes of everything that was said. Now, if the PCs aren't allowed to have conversations with each other in-character, there's not all that much... Well, character to the characters. An hour of idle conversation from the character's perspectives shouldn't happen every week, but once every level or two I think is fine and should be encouraged if the characters are ever to learn anything of each other.

Click to expand...

On the other hand, there is also another extreme:

Everything the players say is audible to the npc's

It can be quite frustrating when the DM insists that whenever the players talk about something, it is immediately considered as ingame banter, even when it clearly isn't. Sometimes the players want to discuss whether that guard they are talking to can be trusted, without the guard immediately hearing that apparently they do not trust him. I think a DM should be fair, and simply ask a player if their character actually says that. If the DM insists that the players cannot exchange certain information without their character actually telling each other in-game, then the DM can aways ask the players to do so through other means. Such as innuendo, hand signals, or magic.

DM_Craig said:

I always let my players talk around the table about strategy and such, and then ask, "Okay, so what exactly are your characters going to do? How are they going to communicate the plan?" If anything comes up in their conversation or plan that defies what their characters actually know, I'll tell them. This is the trick, right? Balancing between metagame talk and what the PCs actually know and will do.
For example, our current group has a half-elf Psion with a Scholar background. She's fluent in a bunch of languages. The party is in the midst of a negotiation with foreign dignitaries from a neighbouring kingdom. They know that one of the visitors is an imposter, and they're trying to determine who without letting on that they know. The Dragonborn fighter in the group whispers something short to her in draconic, and she relays it to the elf ranger and eladrin avenger in the group in elven, and to the dwarf cleric in dwarven. The players took some time talking about what was actually going to be said and how they were going to do it. During the conversation, one of the players asked me, "Do any of the visitors speak elven?", to which I replied that her character doesn't know that, so her character will have to act accordingly. Once they determined what their characters knew, how they would act in the situation, and what they would say, the encounter proceeded. The "out of character" talk really helped the players figure out the situation.

Click to expand...

dafrca said:

Don't punish me for not being my character.


I have played under two DMs who would punish the player for not saying what their character was going to do even though their character would have done it. Let me give an example: In an old game of Traveller my Scout character landed our ship on th eplanet the GM wanted us to go to. We were told we could see some settlement buildings about 500 yards from where we landed. So I said my character was going to go out the door and wait out in th eopen for a few minutes so anyone there could see me and I hoped see me as not a threat. The DM then said "Ok, your character is dead. The atmosphere here is poison." Now to be fair, I have never been a space scout and thus didn't think about checking the air. But there is no way a 12 year vet of the scout system would not have checked. The GM punished me for not being my character.


As a DM, you sometimes have to help the player with info their character would know even if the player didn't. "You see the crest and know it is the King's Personal Guards" or "You realize the coins are not from any local kingdom.". The player and Dm together help keep the character true to what they are.

Click to expand...

DM_Craig said:

dafrca wrote:
Don't punish me for not being my character.


I have played under two DMs who would punish the player for not saying what their character was going to do even though their character would have done it. Let me give an example: In an old game of Traveller my Scout character landed our ship on th eplanet the GM wanted us to go to. We were told we could see some settlement buildings about 500 yards from where we landed. So I said my character was going to go out the door and wait out in th eopen for a few minutes so anyone there could see me and I hoped see me as not a threat. The DM then said "Ok, your character is dead. The atmosphere here is poison." Now to be fair, I have never been a space scout and thus didn't think about checking the air. But there is no way a 12 year vet of the scout system would not have checked. The GM punished me for not being my character.


As a DM, you sometimes have to help the player with info their character would know even if the player didn't. "You see the crest and know it is the King's Personal Guards" or "You realize the coins are not from any local kingdom.". The player and Dm together help keep the character true to what they are.



​

Oh, this is so crucial! The DM keeping inside knowledge, that the characters know, hidden from the players is a surefire way to anger the players quickly. This goes right along with the mentality that the DM is against the players, when it reality it's the DM's job to make the game enjoyable and exciting for the group.
Once players know they're playing with a DM that doesn't share info, they are likely going to spend a big huge chunk of time looking at every possible item in a room and asking endless questions that could have easily been answered in one quick sentence from the DM.

Click to expand...

I agree entirely. This fits seemlessly with one of my earlier points about the DM being hostile to the players, or the DM not giving all the necessary information to the players. Like for example not telling the players that there are countless scorched corpses outside a cave, that turns out to be the lair of a dragon.

I'll give an example of a much better way to handle this as a DM. The party was exploring an ancient underground city, but a heavy stone door was blocking their way. Fortunately there was a small hole in the door, allowing a small animal to pass through. So the druid of the party transformed into a little animal, and scouted ahead. In the room beyond the door he noticed a giant centipede waiting on the ceiling. I told him that his druid would logically know much about these animals, and I then proceeded to tell him all he needed to know to make a well reasoned decission. For example, I told him that the creature could be calmed with a succesful Animal Empathy check, and would remain so as long as there weren't any loud noises or vibrations. It was then all up to the player to decide how much of this information he was going to share with the rest of the party.

DM_Craig said:

Unbeatable Bosses


I was part of a campaign many years ago where our party stumbled upon a necromancer operating right under the noses of the ctiy guard, in a city where necromancy was illegal. A big fight followed, but when the guy was close to death, our DM had him mysteriously vanish without explanation. A few levels later, he returned to get revenge on the party, and another epic fight broke out. It looked like we would finish him this time, until once again, he managed to escape.
This happened two more times, until the final fight with him ended up being so ridiculously hard that two of our characters died. The whole story frustrated me for many reasons. First of all, his escapes were entirely implausible if not impossible. Second, he seemed to get way too powerful too quickly.


While it can be fun to have a villain escape once in order to set up another encounter with them, don't create a villain that the party can't beat. Nothing steals the fun out of a campaign like overpowered enemies who always seem to have the upper hand no matter what the characters do.

Click to expand...

I've certainly been in a few campaigns where the DM would set up villains that would always magically get away. And its especially painful when the players suspect that he really should be out of HP by now. And even though they may chase after him, he'd some how disappear through some secret door that the players are unable to find, as if it instantly magically disappears into the wall after the villain has passed through it. Or the villain would some how be moving faster than the players, and be invulnerable to any movement impairing actions from the players. The following is a good rule for DM's everywhere: "If you introduce a villain, be prepared to have him/her die that very same session."
In fact, I use the same for my friendly npc's. All of them should be able to die, without the plot coming to a screeching halt. I'm reminded of the game Skyrim, in which all the critical npc's are all invincible, but you wouldn't know who is a crucial npc and who isn't, until you started fighting them. That should never happen in a game, and certainly not in one as dynamic and interactive as DnD. Even if you are playing through a prewritten campaign, make sure you are flexible, and can continue the story if one of the main characters dies unexpectedly.

DM_Craig said:

Imaculata wrote:
I'm reminded of the game Skyrim, in which all the critical npc's are all invincible, but you wouldn't know who is a crucial npc and who isn't, until you started fighting them.



​

I hated that about Skyrim! In one of Bethesda's earlier games - Morrowind - you could actually kill main characters, and you'd get a message telling you that you just broke the story and couldn't complete it. Some people saw this as a nuisance, but I thought it was much more realistic. Everybody could die. No npcs were invincible, period.

Click to expand...

DM_Craig said:

Limited Quest Options


Sometimes, if time in the game permits or if the main quest isn't super urgent, a group of players might want to do a little bit of side questing to level up, look for treasure, explore the world, etc. Nothing kills a love for the game like a DM who is always telling the players "No" and insists that the players can only do what the DM has layed out for them to do.
D&D is supposed to be a game about options, about characters living in a vast, fantastical world that is begging to be explored. A good DM is always ready to help the group satisfy their need for adventure.
For example, let's say the players have a map of the campaign world, and they spot an interesting location that they want to go and explore. The party is unanimous. As the DM, you likely weren't prepared for this, but there are a couple of ways you can respond:
Bad DM: "Well, your characters don't even know about that location, so no." "That's not part of the campaign plot." etc.
Good DM: "Alright, well let's figure out what your characters know about the place first. Let's say your heroes are looking at the map, or they've heard a rumour about this place from a traveller. Let's roll some knowledge checks to see what they know. Now I'll be honest, I don't have a map laid out for that location yet, but... it'll likely take some time for the party to travel there." The DM then helps the players organize and sets the stage for their side adventure. Perhaps by the next session, the DM has everything ready to go.


If your players want to check something out, let them. Even if it's not right that second, work it into the story. Let them have fun exploring!

Click to expand...

Thats exactly how I run my campaign. If the party wants to go somewhere, it usually takes them a while, and they encounter many things along the way. I prepare according to where they are going. And I have plenty of random tables to keep them busy, where ever they go. They are not restricted in any way, even if I'm not prepared. If needs be, I'll improvize. I have a general idea what every place is like. So if they decide to head into Shantytown, and I don't have a map yet of the place, then I'll make it up. Or they may suddenly go to an unexplored island, which is even better. I have random tables for what can happen at sea, what the weather will be like, what they can encounter by the coast, and what they can encounter on the island itself.

Timpookie said:

I sometimes have entire levels of just sidequesting to make the players get a feel for the world and to get to know the friendly NPCs so that when the Lich King or Necromancer or Githyanki that took the wrong left in Sigil arrive in the basetown and kill the Baron or King or Prince, the players - Not just their characters - Feel a drive to punish the villains who did this.

Click to expand...

Timpookie said:

The Invincible Innkeeper


The city is under seige. A mad necromancer, the apprentice to a lich that the PCs slew a few months earlier, knows the tavern that the PCs frequent. The kobolds are constantly raiding the food supply. And yet, somehow, despite all of this, the innkeeper always manages to stay at the sidelines of battles in his inn, and always manages to have enough food for everyone. This isn't exclusive to innkeepers, though, any frequent patron of the PCs who has an established base of operations, such as a noble in his palace, an old wizard in her tower or, as previously mentioned, an innkeeper in his tavern, seems to be both invincible and have an invincible base no matter what happens. I absolutely hate it when this happens. It doesn't really interfere with gameplay, but it just feels cheap.

Click to expand...

I see what you mean. This can really undermine the severity of a situation in any campaign. If a village is undersiege, then logically all npc's in that village should be in danger. It's perhaps even worse if the innkeeper is in the middle of a big battle, yet enemies simply ignore him. Vulnerable npc's are an excellent opportunity for drama and suspense. Players will feel the need to protect him, if they like the npc, and they feel sad if they fail to keep him alive.

But I have been in my share of campaigns where the enemies seemed to have a magical gift to instantly tell who is a player character, and who is an npc.



Enemies are exempt from obstacles and traps

This happens a lot in campaigns, You have a situation where the players must roll balance or jumps checks, but none of the enemies have to do the same. If there is a condition that affects everyone, then the enemies should not be exempt from that. If the ship suddenly tilts, everyone on that ship (including enemies) must roll for balance, and not just the players. The DM should never favor the enemies in a way that hurts believability.

Enemy respawns

This is a minor point, but try and be fair regarding your encounter sizes. If you notice that the players are easily taking out your group of enemies (perhaps because you misjudged the difficulty), don't have reinforcements just pop up out of nowhere for no apparent reason. DM's often make errors regarding the difficulty of an encounter, it happens. But when you literally have new enemies spawn out of nowhere, then it becomes blatantly obvious to your players that you are just drawing out the fight.

Goober4473 said:

Shoehorning Backgrounds


It's alays nice to have the players feel like they're part of the world, but it's easy to take it too far. You don't need to include every NPC mentioned in every PC's backstory in the first adventure. Every trinket on ever character doesn't need to turn out to be an important magical object. Feeling included is great, but immersion into a world requires restraint, too. Barring some sort of conspiracy, not everyone the PCs have ever met needs to show up, and certainly not right away. Similarly, not every character point or conflict needs to be resolved immediately. Save that introspective moment where a PC has to own up to their flaws as part of a magical visionquest for a big moment later on. It's okay to have a conflict brewing for a while before it's fully touched on.


Not Just Giving Them The Information


It can be a pretty boring game when the players don't even really know what the plot is, or when every enemy is a complete mystery. Let the players learn stuff, and don't be cagey with monster lore. Similar to earlier advice in this thread, try to avoid traps that have no way but a Perception check to learn about, and don't design puzzles or other situations that punish players for making decisions when they have no way of knowing the outcome. Let those villain monolog for some exposition. Present the players with real choices, instead of forcing them to rely on blind luck. Which brings me to:


The Illusion of Choice


"Do you go left or right" is not a choice. "Which of these identical doors do you open" is not a choice. Try to avoid situations where the players have to choose, but that choice is actually irrelevant. Describe those hallways in a way that makes them distinct, and make sure that the direction chosen matters. If they have to go both ways eventually anyways, you may as well make it linear and roll some dice to see which area comes first.

Click to expand...

Totally agree. A good example might be a dungeon of mine inside an old cliffside city, which I introduced early on in my current pirate campaign. The first hall the players entered had a door to the left and to the right, and a flooded corridor straight ahead. Both doors were heavy stone doors, that would either require a lot of strength to lift, or heavy explosives, or magic to open them. But the door to the right was different, because it had a hole in it, small enough for a small animal to fit through. So the players had an actual choice here:

1. Swim through a flooded corridor and hold their breath, not knowing where it leads.
2. Send the druid through the door to the right, because he can shape shift into something smaller, and scout ahead. Maybe there's a switch on the other side?
3. Open the door to the left with force, which could be dangerous in an old ruined city, and would alert any hostile creatures of their presence.
4. Climb along the outside of the cliff, and enter adjacent rooms through the windows. This is an option the players didn't even consider.

All three corridors would eventually lead down to a lower floor, so they would reach their goal either way, but they would encounter other things along the way. This is what an actual choice looks like.

DM_Craig said:

Then there's the opposite: no choice.


Many years ago in my early D&D days I played with a DM who ran a fairly lifeless, straight-lined campaign. The group really didn't have much say in what would happen next. The transitions between areas was more often told to us, such as "after dispatching the ogre you take the door to the right and head down the tunnel to another small chamber". I remember our thief asking if we could check out the other door in the room first, and our DM replying that it led nowhere of importance. Says who? This was metagaming in the worst way by the DM, not the players. Tell me what group of adventurers in a chamber with two doors other than the one they came in - in a dungeon they weren't familiar with - would automatically know to take one door and leave the other alone? A couple of us argued the point that the group would, in fact, check out the door, but in the end we had no choice but to go in the direction the DM steered us.
Don't give the illusion of choice, and don't remove choice completely. Give the party real choice in what they do. A good DM knows how to think on the fly when players come up with things you haven't thought of, so let them do it.

Click to expand...