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

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

View attachment 101478
Pictured sourced from Pixabay
​

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

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

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

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

 

[S'mon]

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

These rules are both in the PHB and Basic Rules.

It is very clear in the text that players DO NOT have to declare they are using Passive Perception. Having PP active is the default. You are not following the RAW when you require players to declare some kind of 'keeping watch action' before PP becomes applicable.
And those Actions prevent use of PP for noticing hidden threats - if someone is creeping up on you in the open but making some noise, they are not a hidden threat, and you could still hear them via PP. Indeed you might hear a noise while fast asleep.

 

[iserith]

It is very clear in the text that players DO NOT have to declare they are using Passive Perception. Having PP active is the default. You are not following the RAW when you require players to declare some kind of 'keeping watch action' before PP becomes applicable.
And those Actions prevent use of PP for noticing hidden threats - if someone is creeping up on you in the open but making some noise, they are not a hidden threat, and you could still hear them via PP. Indeed you might hear a noise while fast asleep.

It is only the default in combat as pointed out in the rules for Hiding (and even then it hedges by saying "most creatures"). Otherwise it follows the rules for any ability check which is that the player must describe an attempt at a task. You can't have an ability check, passive or otherwise, without the player establishing what he or she wants to do. Those are the rules for ability checks, and passive checks are just a subset of ability checks.

 

[S'mon]

It is only the default in combat as pointed out in the rules for Hiding (and even then it hedges by saying "most creatures"). Otherwise it follows the rules for any ability check which is that the player must describe an attempt at a task. You can't have an ability check, passive or otherwise, without the player establishing what he or she wants to do. Those are the rules for ability checks, and passive checks are just a subset of ability checks.

You are ignoring the wording in the very PHB section you referenced, and inserting a "Keep Watch Action", in order to create your own game. I don't have a huge problem with GMs personalising the game to their preference, but you claim to be doing the opposite. I hope you tell players they don't get to use PP without declaring an action, since there is nothing in the book telling them that.

 

[iserith]

You are ignoring the wording in the very PHB section you referenced, and inserting a "Keep Watch Action", in order to create your own game. I don't have a huge problem with GMs personalising the game to their preference, but you claim to be doing the opposite. I hope you tell players they don't get to use PP without declaring an action, since there is nothing in the book telling them that.

Well first, players don't get to "use PP." They get to describe what they want to do. If they're remaining alert for danger by some means - for which "Keep Watch" is my shorthand - then their passive Perception may apply for resolving whether they spot a trap or notice a monster. The exception is combat, where it is assumed the characters are alert to danger because it's combat. Passive Perception would apply if a monster tries to hide during the fight or if there are traps in the terrain.

I make players very much aware of when they are exposed to the threat of being surprised or the like when they undertake an action other than remaining alert to danger. I'm ignoring nothing of the rules under discussion and am, in fact, including the actual rules for ability checks and passive checks in my interpretations here. There is no check, passive or otherwise, without a player describing what he or she wants to do, with the exception being when the characters are in combat and the default is that they are alert to danger.

 

[Lanefan]

Er...guys...how did this turn into a rules argument specific to 5e when this is an all-editions discussion in General?

 

[cbwjm]

Er...guys...how did this turn into a rules argument specific to 5e when this is an all-editions discussion in General?

Honestly, it's surprising this didn't happen sooner.

 

[Aenghus]

Ignoring the clearly stated preferences of a player and attempting to change them into the player the DM (thinks s/he) wants.

Demanding trust from players while not giving them reason to trust him or her in return.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

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

Back then it was simply harder to figure out how RAI is. That doesn't change much about the situation, though. You should always try to abide by the rules. Plus it's a combined effort of players AND the DM to interpret the rules. The problem for me is only if the DM feels entitled to intentionally change them. Or if he doesn't listen to his players when they try to explain how the rule works.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

No. There as Rules as Written. RAW. Rules as Intented. RAI. And sage advice. While JC may have wanted passive perception to be always on. RAI. He did not write them that way. So Accept Dm variations.

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

 

[Rya.Reisender]

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

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

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

First of all: Realize I'm not saying what is valid behavior and what is not - I'm just saying it's the worst thing a DM can do from my perspective. Groups in which I'm not a player can do whatever they are happy with.

Second: The point where I start to disagree would be where you say that the DM is free to interpret unclear rules. I'd say if anything, it should be a combined effort of all players including the DM, where the DM maybe makes the final call if no agreement on the interpretation could be found. However, I also say if there's is Sage Advice available that explains already how the unclear rule was meant to be interpreted, then that should be used and save everyone the trouble of discussing it in the first place. That's also because it's an objective source.

Third: Trying to interpret rules correctly and failing to do so is still better than intentional house ruling or not listening to your players when they try to point out a mistake.