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!

 

[Rya.Reisender]

Sounds like a house rule.

What sounds like one?

 

[MNblockhead]

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

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

I think this is a reference to how in the early days of D&D players would call Gary Gygax at his home, day or night, and ask for rules clarifications. It is pretty cool that he took those calls, though I suspect it didn't last long.

Also, I thought WoTC used to take rules questions on their support hotline. I suspect Twitter has that function now.

 

[iserith]

I see the disagreement with Iserith.

I have never played with Iserith so I don’t know, but he/she is clearly rules intensive to a fault.

I don't think anyone who has played with me would say that though. I'm strict on "How to Play." Because, well, that's how to play and that's good for both the DM and the players since they each clearly know what to do for their particular roles and can focus on being the best they can be in that role (which improves the play experience for all). As for the rules, as I think I said in this thread or the other very similar one, the rules are used at the discretion of the DM. By that I mean the DM only brings the rules into play when they need to come into play. But when they do come into play, I strive to follow them.

What players in my games would say (and have said, even recently) is that my games are very consistent. The play loop (DM describes, player describes, DM narrates) is always there. You're always making reasonably informed decisions. You can always count on consistent rulings and, when the rules are brought into play, pretty good accuracy on implementation (I'm not perfect and frequently drunk). I highly value consistency so this was good feedback to hear.

 

[MNblockhead]

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

On rulings I prefer a more "first among equals" approach - I don't mind if a player queries a ruling, as maybe they've thought about it more clearly than I have! But if someone has to exercise veto power, then in the end - in a relatively traditional game - that is going to be the referee.

One reason that I prefer the term "judge" over "referee" is that that I think the role of the judge (at least in the Anglo-American common law) is more analogous to the role of DM than a referee. A referee closely monitors a game for rules violations and arbitrates on matters arising from play. But a referee is not a player in the game. A judge is a far more active participant. A judge runs the show, can ask questions, give instructions. Yes, a judge makes rulings on the law, but it is the lawyers who make the arguments. Lawyers have the primary burden of researching the law and arguing how to apply it to the facts of the case. They inform the judge, allowing the judge to make rulings.

"Rule lawyers" is a bad word for many gamers. But I think what people object to is someone who argues a rule, refusing to accept a GMs ruling, and disrupts the game with disagreements over minutia. That's not lawyering. Such behavior would get you sanctioned or even removed from court.

In my games, I am not only fine with players arguing rules, I expect them to. I will often lean on them when I come across an uncommon situation. Many of my players play much more than I do and have a firmer grasp of some of the rules, especially how spells work. If the RAW is unclear, I'll ask, how do you want to do this? They can disagree with my ruling and if they can quickly cite the rule, I'll be happy to change. But the important thing is that that we all agree that once I make a ruling we roll with it. We have a more detailed discussion after the game and may change things in future sessions, but it is my role to make a ruling and move on with running the game.

Too many players expect DMs to have an encyclopedic knowledge of the rules. In my opinion, these players are shirking their responsibilities as players and are not showing courtesy to the DM or other players. I expect players to have a working knowledge of the basic rules of play and a thorough understanding of their character's abilities and spells. I expect that players will have whatever published material they need to run their character, but I also have physical copies of all published rulebooks for 5e at the table and I have a DnD Beyond account, so all my players have access to all the rule books in a searchable format on their smartphones or tablets. Everyone at my table shares the responsibility for understanding and interpreting the rules of the game we are enjoying together.

 

[smbakeresq]

I'm not sure the rules do give the DM that kind of power (except for certain situations where it clearly states that the DM decides what to do). In any case, that's not a game I'd like to play, I want to play a game with fixed and clear rules.


Oh, but then your mindset it a bit different than mine. If I play a game, I do play it to win. Even P&P. However, I don't think it's necessarily Player vs. DM, but rather Player vs. Adventure, whereas the DM is supposed to be a neutral element not siding with either.

So instead of the games I mentioned earlier, think of single player / co-op board games. I want to beat them at default difficulty without anyone changing any of the rules.

Edit: By the way, as DM I don't go easy on my players at all. I do try to get them killed. But I still don't see myself in competition with them. I'm actually happy if they win even though I went all out.

So you are the win at all costs type, this type:

Gamesmanship

is the use of dubious (although not technically illegal) methods to win or gain a serious advantage in a game or sport. It has been described as "Pushing the rules to the limit without getting caught, using whatever dubious methods possible to achieve the desired end".​

^[1]

You say you want your DM "

whereas the DM is supposed to be a neutral element not siding with either" then state a DM "

I do try to get them killed." So you want it both ways depending on where you sit. I bet your a great guy at the table also ​

​

​

 

[smbakeresq]

I don't think anyone who has played with me would say that though. I'm strict on "How to Play." Because, well, that's how to play and that's good for both the DM and the players since they each clearly know what to do for their particular roles and can focus on being the best they can be in that role (which improves the play experience for all). As for the rules, as I think I said in this thread or the other very similar one, the rules are used at the discretion of the DM. By that I mean the DM only brings the rules into play when they need to come into play. But when they do come into play, I strive to follow them.

What players in my games would say (and have said, even recently) is that my games are very consistent. The play loop (DM describes, player describes, DM narrates) is always there. You're always making reasonably informed decisions. You can always count on consistent rulings and, when the rules are brought into play, pretty good accuracy on implementation (I'm not perfect and frequently drunk). I highly value consistency so this was good feedback to hear.

Ok, but does it take 3 hours to walk down one hallway into one room and have an encounter?

 

[MNblockhead]

But those worst ones all happened in the span of about 5 years, and are more recent than the good ones.
I have, however, decided that if anyone I've played RPGs with gets involved in a child related sex crime, I'm gonna find a new hobby and sell all my RPGs cheap, cos 3 times is too many.

Yeah...for THREE out of FIFTEEN DMs to have been involved with that, seems insane. The fact that they were in the same group together may make this more like one incident, rather than three separate, independent incidents but it would make me a bit paranoid and suspicious. I'd probably be looking for a completely different community to draw players from.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

You say you want your DM "whereas the DM is supposed to be a neutral element not siding with either" then state a DM "I do try to get them killed." So you want it both ways depending on where you sit. I bet your a great guy at the table also

Trying to get the players killed IS being a neutral element not siding with either. That's because the monsters do want the players to be killed. If I went easy on the players so they survive I'd side with them, I have to go all out, but without messing with what's given to me (no adding additional monsters that aren't there for example).

I dunno about great guy. So far I've only DMed myself (particularly because I have yet to find a DM I find acceptable) and usually get positive feedback. But of course when I recruit players I directly state that I'm a combat focused DM that does not go easy on the players, so obviously the people who join my games get what they want.

 

[iserith]

Ok, but does it take 3 hours to walk down one hallway into one room and have an encounter?

Haha, no. I've seen plenty of games like that though. Most people who play in my games, both regular and pickup players in one-shots marvel at how fast we go. We cover A LOT of content in one session.

When I was posting my transcripts of an entirely text-based Roll20 game a couple years ago on WotC forums, people were reporting that we got through more content in a 2-hour session than they did in in-person sessions that were twice as long. Which was... shocking.

 

[MNblockhead]

Haha, no. I've seen plenty of games like that though. Most people who play in my games, both regular and pickup players in one-shots marvel at how fast we go. We cover A LOT of content in one session.

When I was posting my transcripts of an entirely text-based Roll20 game a couple years ago on WotC forums, people were reporting that we got through more content in a 2-hour session than they did in in-person sessions that were twice as long. Which was... shocking.

Yeah, I believe it. I don't understand how folks are coming to the conclusion that a consistent play loop where the DM decides to describe the scene and decides when a roll is necessary means getting lost in the weeds of minutiae.

In my experience, take the time to think a bit deeper about rules, especially the play loop, makes it easier to be consistent, which in turn help you move along quickly in the game. You can start to focus more on engaging descriptions and listing to the players and the players will fall into the flow of the game an more naturally be ready for their turns.