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!

 

[iserith]

But you are aware that this may not be the most popular option? I actually agree, I would rather have my character die, but the players I GM for would not.

Sure, but I can only speak for myself. And I would add that this isn't even necessarily an issue that I want character death in the game. I'm quite fine with taking it off the table completely in favor of some other form of stakes for winning or losing. But when the dice are employed to determine the win or loss condition, I would rather they fall where they may.

 

[Benji]

No, my position is still the same.

The order of priorities is:
1. Rule is clear? Yes -> Use the rule
2. Sage Advice exists? Yes -> Use sage advice
3. Rule not clear and no sage advice? Discuss with your players.
4. Agreement -> Use agreement
5. No agreement -> DM decides

Ok, thanks for clarifying, the mistake in interpretation is likely mine. In that case, I'd disagree because I'd hate to be dm'ed by someone who stopped the action/play regularly to consult sage advice rather than just making a decision on the fly. But I'm aware that's a taste thing.

 

[pemerton]

once a DM starts concerning herself with what's good for the story ahead of concerning herself with just running the game, it's not a big leap from there for a DM to start deciding on her own what's good for the story and then forcing the story to go there; with player choice largely going out the window.

This is like saying that once you start doing pastel sketches in your spare time, it's not a big leap for you to start painting all over your living room walls and curtains - so beware the slippery slope!

As far as I'm concerned concerning myself with what is "good for the story (ie what might be engaging, or exciting, or create thematic or narrative pressure given what's come before) is part and parcel of "running the game". This is spelled out as part of the GM's job in every system I'm GMing at the moment (4e, Burning Wheel, Classic Traveller, Prince Valiant, Marvel Heroic RP/Cortex+ Heroic).

For as long as the game has been played GMs have placed creatures in dungeon based on aesthetic judgement as well as random rolls. The basic principle is no different.

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

There is another reason being suggested for GM-called for/deterined Perception-type checks, by @Jay Verkuilen, which is that they serve a metagame purpose of mixing things up and putting the players on edge. <snip> Unlike @Lanefan and others, Jay Verkuilen seems to want the metagame effect of the players knowing that something is afoot. But that said, I tend to sympathise more with @iserith in respect of this particular GMing technique: if I want to put the players on edge I'd normally try and do this via narration than by calling for checks (or rolling dice secretly "behind the screen", which was a popular technique at least back in the late 70s and early 80s).

I don't use this kind of thing all the time. Like any tool it can be overused but a little bit here and there does put the players on edge or push them in a direction that I'm fairly certain they wouldn't go. The vast majority of the time I'm pretty sure I just run things more or less from the "what do you do?" frame. I am, however, willing to depart from it.

But on the main issue, about the GM choosing the narration vs "letting the dice decide" so as to simulate the vagaries of "real life": the "let the dice decide" approach makes some sense, <snip> And in a system that measures PCs' perceptive skills, connecting that random chance to those perceptive skills also makes sense.

But as soon as we move even a little bit in the direction of "story driven" play, where the GM has some sort of affirmative responsibility to present the players with situations that are engaging in ways that go beyond simply "there's the dungeon, have at it!", then @iserith's approach seems more rational to me. And Gygax noticed this back in 1979

I feel I'm pretty intermediate, actually. There's a slippery slope, sure, but appeals to slippery slopes are generally fallacious for reasons that go beyond the thread, but of course one can read about it here.

What I'm doing is letting the dice help fill in intermediate details and suggest directions. The dice help keep me on my toes and also help me break loops of indecision or patterns. As I said elsewhere in this massive thread, I see them as being ways to encourage lateral thinking, both in myself and in my players, as well as putting more tension on in some circumstances.

Calling for the occasional roll that's not quite what the player expected is one tool, but like anything else it can be overused. A red herring is a good example. A few here and there might be OK. If you have many of them, though, it gets really old.

Someone who wanted it totally straight "what do you do?" with no deviations would, I fear, not like my game much.

Me starting my last Prince Valiant session by establishing a scene that was salient for both knight PCs, the squire PC and the travelling entertainer PC wasn't railroading anyone into anything.

Man, I hope you make your players get a bowl haircut or at least a wig....

 

[pemerton]

b) We do things the way I undrrstand iserith's stance - the players use their passive perception when the attack happens. The are keeping watch and being alert but the dm isn't going to ask for a perception check
c) We do it the way I'd do it - The skill example for perception on PG178 of the players handbooks suggests that you can make a perception roll to detect hidden creatures - we allow a roll

<snip>

In b) the dm allows passive perception. Given the assassin has a +11 in stealth, the DM will beat the highest perception on a roll of 7. or if the dm just wants to frame it as an 'Average challenge' There's a high chance the assassin does the same functional thing as example a) except the player this time said they were keeping watch but they functionally had no input in the ambush. the dm either rolled a dice or as I understand the way some people play it, eyeballed and average score for the assassin (21) and ruled a successful ambush. Players feel they had no agency.

c) players roll perception checks at DM's behest to spot the assassin in hiding. Their range of failure success on the highest party member is now between 9 and 28. they might succeed or fail but they felt like the fact they were keeping check had an in world effect. If they succeed, it's because they were allowed to roll against a 'gate'. if they failed they still feel like they had a chance to effect the outcome but understand they at least had a run at the gate.

As best I can tell, the difference between (b) and (c) is who rolls the dice. So you could easily enough preserve the probabilities while letting the players roll the dice ("Roll to see if my assassin's stealth sucks - on a 15+ it does!").

And of course when the GM told the players "You come to a room with columns" the player of the perceptive PC could have said "I look around because I'm a bit worried about lurkers behind those columns" - which would then allow an active check.

Stepping back a bit from 5e rules minutiae, the bigger issue for me in this scenario is the larger context of framing. Thinking of the situation you describe from my perspective as a GM, I can't tell what's "fair" or not until I know how it comes to be that the PCs find themselves in a columned room threatened by a sneaky drow assassin.

 

[Benji]

As best I can tell, the difference between (b) and (c) is who rolls the dice.

I guess so, but I'm trying to think about how 'who gets to roll dice' translates to a feeling of agency. Also, the probability of the group spotting in the second example is not only reliant on the GM rolling well, but the players in opposition to that roll. So if the GM rolls badl but the highest player also rolls bdly, maybe it's the poor guy with the low perception that flukely saves the group - that's a cool story dictated by the dice.

QUOTE=pemerton;7497675] - which would then allow an active check.[/QUOTE]

You see, I'm still not sure that in Iserith's example that this would grant an active check. Or weather this counts as 'Keeping Watch' and therefore, in Iserith's mind, is still passive.

As for the example 'with context', take the example in isolation for a moment. There's a few contextual factors that might change the needle here but I they also change the purity of the example, I guess. Whatframing do you think underides the mechanics as set out?

 

[iserith]

This is like saying that once you start doing pastel sketches in your spare time, it's not a big leap for you to start painting all over your living room walls and curtains - so beware the slippery slope!

As far as I'm concerned concerning myself with what is "good for the story (ie what might be engaging, or exciting, or create thematic or narrative pressure given what's come before) is part and parcel of "running the game". This is spelled out as part of the GM's job in every system I'm GMing at the moment (4e, Burning Wheel, Classic Traveller, Prince Valiant, Marvel Heroic RP/Cortex+ Heroic).

For as long as the game has been played GMs have placed creatures in dungeon based on aesthetic judgement as well as random rolls. The basic principle is no different.

Yes, very true. Even if you call yourself a "neutral DM" you're obviously making choices in terms of content that other people will find fun and that will generally lend itself to creating emergent stories that people will like. If you don't, people will tend not to play in your games.

I will add that D&D 5e spells this out specifically in its "win" conditions: Everyone wins if everyone had a good time and created a memorable story.

 

[Nagol]

This is like saying that once you start doing pastel sketches in your spare time, it's not a big leap for you to start painting all over your living room walls and curtains - so beware the slippery slope!

As far as I'm concerned concerning myself with what is "good for the story (ie what might be engaging, or exciting, or create thematic or narrative pressure given what's come before) is part and parcel of "running the game". This is spelled out as part of the GM's job in every system I'm GMing at the moment (4e, Burning Wheel, Classic Traveller, Prince Valiant, Marvel Heroic RP/Cortex+ Heroic).

For as long as the game has been played GMs have placed creatures in dungeon based on aesthetic judgement as well as random rolls. The basic principle is no different.

I don't recall much GM advice wrt classic Traveller let alone advice to maintain narrative pressure. Where did you find it?

The problems I have with concerning myself with the "good of the story" is twofold.

First, it's not my story; I have input, each player has input, and we allow random input. Ultimately, though, it is the players' story; they pick the challenges, they devise the stratagems, and act on them for good or ill.

Second, what I think makes a good engaging story is almost certainly at odds with the story each player wants and in all likelihood, they will have a hard time agreeing between themselves. I was originally drawn to RPGs because of the "But I would've done it differently!" cry I made when the protagonists did something I thought obviously foolish or did not do something I thought obviously sensible. It's sort of like pizza toppings. Everyone has their own favourites. D&D doesn't offer a lot of signs for players to signal what they want included in their story unlike so many other systems. -- including most of the ones you reference. The best signal a player can make as to what story they'd like to see is their action declarations. My best option is to react to those signals as plausibly as I can.

 

[iserith]

Right, I have an example. It has numbers and it's quite long but it serves to demonstrate my concerns with this. I'd like to say I think you're right some of this is just taste and framing but here's where I think it can become problematic. SO hang on with me and I think you'll see where I am coming from:

A group of five 5th level heroes are sneaking through a dungeon. They have a party member who is maxed out: has a wisdom of 20 and is proficent in perception. They have announced the are keeping watch. They enter a room with several column in it and behind one is an drow assassin - using the assassin statblock, which xanathar's says is 'balanced'. The group announce they are still keeping watch and moving through the room. there are a few ways to handle this -

a) The DM is a bit railroady and decides to frame the attack as a surprise without actually using any rules.
b) We do things the way I undrrstand iserith's stance - the players use their passive perception when the attack happens. The are keeping watch and being alert but the dm isn't going to ask for a perception check
c) We do it the way I'd do it - The skill example for perception on PG178 of the players handbooks suggests that you can make a perception roll to detect hidden creatures - we allow a roll
d) You want to frame this encounter but are a 'narrative' dm and want to avoid being the person from example a)

So let's run through this -

a) the assassin attacks and becuase no dice are rolled, it has surprise, uses it's abilities and sneak attacks/posions someone and kills them without the players having any agency. The feel railroaded.

In b) the dm allows passive perception. Given the assassin has a +11 in stealth, the DM will beat the highest perception on a roll of 7. or if the dm just wants to frame it as an 'Average challenge' There's a high chance the assassin does the same functional thing as example a) except the player this time said they were keeping watch but they functionally had no input in the ambush. the dm either rolled a dice or as I understand the way some people play it, eyeballed and average score for the assassin (21) and ruled a successful ambush. Players feel they had no agency.

c) players roll perception checks at DM's behest to spot the assassin in hiding. Their range of failure success on the highest party member is now between 9 and 28. they might succeed or fail but they felt like the fact they were keeping check had an in world effect. If they succeed, it's because they were allowed to roll against a 'gate'. if they failed they still feel like they had a chance to effect the outcome but understand they at least had a run at the gate.

d) the dm doesn't want the assassin to kill anyone and decides to frame it as no surprise or only a few people surprised. In this case, why both with stealth as a score? Why bother with these rules at all?

I think some of my problem comes with 'we have to stick to the rules. but if I feel like not using the rules and framing something pre-combat or socially instead, that's fine'. it's a double standard in my mind.

I would indeed run it as (b). It's no concern of mine per se that the drow assassin has a pretty good chance of surprising the PCs; however, I will have telegraphed this possibility at some point prior to this scene. (I'm pretty diligent about this.) The choice the players made to Keep Watch instead of, say, Draw a Map (which is worth gold in my games) or Track (which allows them to increase or decrease their chances of a wandering monster encounter), may be indicative of why the PCs are all Keeping Watch in this example. So, they made their informed choice and now we get to see the consequences of that choice play out. Their agency was in making the choice to Keep Watch based on the information they had when they made the decision. In my games, you'll quite frequently see the PCs change up their general tasks while exploring and traveling based on what information they've picked up. In some cases, you'll see some players are willing to Work Together with another PC to increase that PC's passive Perception (+5 due to advantage) rather than have a chance at avoiding surprise himself or herself. This is especially true if the PC who is Working Together has a poor passive Perception to begin with. He or she would rather someone in the party, typically a heavy hitter, not be surprised.

Here, the rules for Combat Step by Step apply to resolve this situation. The DM describes the environment, determines surprise, calls for initiative, and so on. I see no meaningful impact to agency here.

 

[iserith]

As best I can tell, the difference between (b) and (c) is who rolls the dice. So you could easily enough preserve the probabilities while letting the players roll the dice ("Roll to see if my assassin's stealth sucks - on a 15+ it does!").

And of course when the GM told the players "You come to a room with columns" the player of the perceptive PC could have said "I look around because I'm a bit worried about lurkers behind those columns" - which would then allow an active check.

Stepping back a bit from 5e rules minutiae, the bigger issue for me in this scenario is the larger context of framing. Thinking of the situation you describe from my perspective as a GM, I can't tell what's "fair" or not until I know how it comes to be that the PCs find themselves in a columned room threatened by a sneaky drow assassin.

Right, which is why I engage in liberal amounts of telegraphing so the players can make informed decisions that have some impact on their fate.

I guess so, but I'm trying to think about how 'who gets to roll dice' translates to a feeling of agency. Also, the probability of the group spotting in the second example is not only reliant on the GM rolling well, but the players in opposition to that roll. So if the GM rolls badl but the highest player also rolls bdly, maybe it's the poor guy with the low perception that flukely saves the group - that's a cool story dictated by the dice.

I'm not sure dice actually grant agency at least in this context. I would say reasonably informed choices that are fairly and consistently adjudicated and have an actual impact do. If a player has been told, in so many words, that monsters lurking in the shadows are known to kill adventurers in this part of the dungeon, they can make an informed choice to mitigate or eliminate their risk. Keep Watch, for example, or Don't Go There. Or perhaps send in the familiar with darkvision or tremorsense first or lob fireballs in all dark places before entering. Or whatever.

You see, I'm still not sure that in Iserith's example that this would grant an active check. Or weather this counts as 'Keeping Watch' and therefore, in Iserith's mind, is still passive.

Yes, it's a passive check which is used to determine surprise per the rules. I'll add as a point on terminology that there are no "active checks" in D&D 5e. I get what you mean by that but I think that muddles what these mechanics are meant to resolve. The characters in this example who are Keeping Watch are not being passive in the sense they aren't actively doing something - they are. Specifically, they are staying alert for hidden dangers instead of doing anything else of note. A passive check is just a special kind of ability check that resolves uncertainty as to the outcome of activities being repeated over time when those activities have a meaningful consequence of failure. When traveling the dungeon as in this example, it resolves whether they can spot traps (given the appropriate rank in the marching order) or avoid surprise.

Now, after combat breaks out, let's say the drow has some kind of ability to hide as a bonus action. He or she attacks the surprised PCs, then darts behind another pillar and hides. The DM rolls quite well on the Dexterity (Stealth) check. The initiative order indicates at least one PC goes in the second round before the drow does. The player may now decide to have the character perform the Search action to pinpoint the drow if he or she wants to. In this case, it would call for a Wisdom (Perception) check as an action with the DC being the drow's Dexterity (Stealth) check +1. Or, of course, the player may opt instead to just move to where he or she last saw the drow and, if that position allows for the PC to clearly see the drow, the drow is no longer hidden. This could be risky though because who knows if there are traps in between the drow and the PC? The good news is that, in combat, creatures are assumed to be alert to danger, and so the character at least has a chance to notice them (the trap's detection DC versus the PC's passive Perception score) as he or she moves toward the drow. And, if the DM is anything like me, the traps will have been telegraphed in some way when describing the environment.

To be clear, I'm sure you know all this. I'm just putting it out there to clarify my position and to offer up what the rules say to those who aren't familiar with this game.