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!

 

[smbakeresq]

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.

If you TRY to get them killed then that's not a neutral statement, its a statement of intent. That's why.

The DM shouldn't be neutral, ever. Saying that you are being neutral means you view it as a competition, it isn't.

"Playing D&D is an exercise in collaborative creation."

" Together, the D M and the players create an exciting story of bold adventurers who confront deadly perils."


Its about what's good for the story and the collaborative creation, you as DM should be biased towards that, at all times.

 

[Nagol]

If you TRY to get them killed then that's not a neutral statement, its a statement of intent. That's why.

The DM shouldn't be neutral, ever. Saying that you are being neutral means you view it as a competition, it isn't.

"Playing D&D is an exercise in collaborative creation."

" Together, the D M and the players create an exciting story of bold adventurers who confront deadly perils."


Its about what's good for the story and the collaborative creation, you as DM should be biased towards that, at all times.

Not at my D&D table. My D&D table is more like "Let's see what this group of plucky protagonists can force from the dangerous and uncaring world." Other games with other precepts are adjudicated differently and often in more the style you advocate. But when I use D&D, at the table I am a neutral arbiter.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

Yep, what Nagol said.

 

[iserith]

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.

I imagine it has something to do with shared assumptions at their given tables. "Can I make a Religion check?" means something to them. It's shorthand for "try to recall lore about X by drawing upon Y." I don't want the shorthand in general because (1) assuming character action is not the DM's role and can lead to conflict and (2) this is a game about storytelling and I want the players to do their part to tell that story. (I also don't think it's very smart play to ask to make ability checks, but that's a whole other issue.) To anyone used to the shorthand, even just a few extra words may seem like it adds an unreasonable amount of time to the game.

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.

Totally agree. Focusing on the fundamentals creates a solid foundation for your game. Everything else flows so much smoother once you have it down. Everyone knows what they need to do and the game runs so fast.

 

[iserith]

Not at my D&D table. My D&D table is more like "Let's see what this group of plucky protagonists can force from the dangerous and uncaring world." Other games with other precepts are adjudicated differently and often in more the style you advocate. But when I use D&D, at the table I am a neutral arbiter.

Unless I'm missing something about the context of the discussion, I don't think your approach is in conflict with the goals of play outlined in the D&D Basic Rules (page 2) part of which [MENTION=28301]smbakeresq[/MENTION] cited. The DMG goes on to add that the DM is "impartial yet involved" with regard to everyone playing by the rules, is in the "referee role," and as such "acts as a mediator between the rules and the players." In some cases, "mediating the rules means setting limits."

If you are pursuing the goals of play as DM (which is how you aim at "winning" D&D), you're likely making choices that are fun for everyone at the table (which may include presenting challenges of significant difficulty) and creating an exciting, memorable story during play (which is emergent, based on the DM's and players' choices plus mechanical resolution). If you're making such choices, then arguably you're not "neutral" as smbakeresq suggests, but then I suppose that depends on how you define "neutral."

 

[sleypy]

It's probably been said, but I think not showing up, cancelling at the last minute or showing up and cancelling are the worst things the GM can do. This is assuming the GM doesn't have a good reason. Even if it is a good reason, I would probably suggest putting the game on hold or switching DM to take some the stress off them.

Constant Perception check is slightly annoying, but not really on its own. When it becomes the Worst Thing a DM Can Do it's when the DM lets perception or arcane checks replace other checks that have fewer applications. If the DM won't let Sense Motive be used for Perception then the alternative needs to also be true. Same for history and arcana.

 

[Nagol]

Unless I'm missing something about the context of the discussion, I don't think your approach is in conflict with the goals of play outlined in the D&D Basic Rules (page 2) part of which [MENTION=28301]smbakeresq[/MENTION] cited. The DMG goes on to add that the DM is "impartial yet involved" with regard to everyone playing by the rules, is in the "referee role," and as such "acts as a mediator between the rules and the players." In some cases, "mediating the rules means setting limits."

If you are pursuing the goals of play as DM (which is how you aim at "winning" D&D), you're likely making choices that are fun for everyone at the table (which may include presenting challenges of significant difficulty) and creating an exciting, memorable story during play (which is emergent, based on the DM's and players' choices plus mechanical resolution). If you're making such choices, then arguably you're not "neutral" as smbakeresq suggests, but then I suppose that depends on how you define "neutral."

I take no care in "creating an exciting, memorable story during play" as a DM or, frankly, as a player.

As a DM at the table, I present the situation fairly, adjudicate disinterestedly, and extrapolate plausibly. As a scenario designer for D&D, I design naturalistically and without regard to the capacities of the PCs. Sometimes the PCs steamroll the opposition; sometimes they get steamrolled by the opposition. Most often, they find a threat and reward level that was telegraphed to and accepted by the players. The roles I adopt when I GM and design for other games like CHAMPIONS, Conspiracy-X, Pendragon, or FATE vary considerably from the roles I adopt for D&D.

As a DM, I "win" at D&D when the players decide to return to my table. As a player, I "win" at D&D when my character can be played the next session.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Hmmm...first we had the combat-as-war vs combat-as-sport debate.

Do I detect an oncoming rules-as-law vs rules-as-guidelines debate?

 

[Lanefan]

If you TRY to get them killed then that's not a neutral statement, its a statement of intent. That's why.

The DM shouldn't be neutral, ever. Saying that you are being neutral means you view it as a competition, it isn't.

"Playing D&D is an exercise in collaborative creation."

" Together, the D M and the players create an exciting story of bold adventurers who confront deadly perils."


Its about what's good for the story and the collaborative creation, you as DM should be biased towards that, at all times.

Yeah, I've gotta go with Rya on this one - the DM should ideally be neutral, in knowledge that ideals and practice don't always line up.

As soon as a DM starts paying attention to "what's good for the story" she's put herself on a slippery slope towards heavy railroading and-or plot-protecting the PCs, neither of which are all that desireable.

For my part, I say play the game, let the chips fall where they may, and the story will almost certainly end up taking care of itself.

Lanefan

 

[Shasarak]

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.

Wouldnt using an action to use Passive Perception be an oxymoron?