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!

 

[Numidius]

In my experience, a major sin of GMs I played with, has been to negate the players having a proper background, or goal, to start with, going also against the rules, for the purpose of railroad: in plain sight, or carefully hidden in a sandbox style game, negating players' agency all the way along.

We played an early version of Godbound, the gm forbid the use of background for the PCs (bg gives a straight +4 to rolls, when appropriate) and the campaign went really bad.
Not only the railroad was evident, it became embarassing by the end of the first (and only) narrative arc.
I've been told: "No, you can't do that in my game" (trying to influence Nobles NPCs considered 'evil', but actually just no more useful to the DM's plans)

In a recent Symbaroum game, another gm forbid goals for the PCs and the party as a whole, in the very char-gen, against RAW as well.
When I diverged from the main storyline, btw following his own clues on a major event going to happen, NPCs simply started to become generally unfriendly or uninterested in anything I had to say or do. The answer to that behaviour involved some kind of "realism" in the game, on his behalf, like some sort of distorted philosophy in making a proper sandbox.

Moreover, those games were really boring, after all.

As a corollary sin of the original one, I'd say the incapacity of considering advice, suggestion or critique from the people around the table

 

[Maxperson]

Or unless the players have by their own choice(s) put themselves out on the high seas and the GM is simply running with what she's been given. In a case like this Llolth will simply have to wait.

Or she could be out for a fun day in the sun, sailing on her yacht.

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

I guess so, but I'm trying to think about how 'who gets to roll dice' translates to a feeling of agency.

I don't know but it really tends to. For instance, players seem to prefer making attacks to forcing enemies to make saves. The only real difference in a lot of cases is that the player rolls the dice on the attack versus the enemy making the save. There's something about the physical action of who rolls the dice (or types in the command to run the macro, I guess) that seems to matter. A lot of things we do in life involve illusions of control.

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

Because one game tells you to change the rules to make it fun, and the other, like chess only works if everyone follows the rules to the letter.

To me at least D&D is more about the experience and everyone having fun than winning and following the rules, (since you can't win at D&D) where Chess is focused on playing and winning and thus the rules must be consistent and absolute.

Of course, there are tons of variants of chess, including allowing for handicapping and other similar things. The main thing is that in chess the rules are agreed upon by the players in advance and, presumably, not changed in chess. In addition, chess has a much more clear termination and is a "versus" game where the motivation of players is clearly in a zero-sum game. In D&D, consistency is not a bad thing and so we have things like "session zero" or other kinds of ways to get all the players on the same page. However, D&D or any other RPG is a vastly more open-ended game (in the broad sense of the term, not the narrow one that requires it to be versus) than chess is, so there are bound to be markedly more complicated situations that are unanticipated.

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

Because I think D&D 5e runs best in the context of a dungeon (or, more generally, a set location to be explored) where the DM does have some idea of the location of its contents, I generally prepare and run these sorts of adventures. Sometimes there's even a dragon in there.

D&D certainly runs best combat-wise in that kind of setting. It's not really heavy in the rules department for social type games or things that are pursuits or journeys, though one can certainly create that kind of adventure and many of us have. It could be hex crawling or more of a sequence of potential set pieces, which is more or less what hex crawling is when you get down to it. A lot depends on the players but I don't think I agree it needs to be a classic dungeon with a bunch of doors behind which critters lurk. However, all that said, given what I understand of your preferred style of GMing, it makes sense you prefer to set up a location and let the PCs wander around.

 

[iserith]

D&D certainly runs best combat-wise in that kind of setting. It's not really heavy in the rules department for social type games or things that are pursuits or journeys, though one can certainly create that kind of adventure and many of us have. It could be hex crawling or more of a sequence of potential set pieces, which is more or less what hex crawling is when you get down to it. A lot depends on the players but I don't think I agree it needs to be a classic dungeon with a bunch of doors behind which critters lurk. However, all that said, given what I understand of your preferred style of GMing, it makes sense you prefer to set up a location and let the PCs wander around.

I think the social interaction and exploration rules in D&D 5e are adequate and my games feature those types of challenges in addition to combat challenges as recommended by the Basic Rules (pages 4-5). To be clear, I am also not stating that D&D "needs to be a classic dungeon with a bunch of doors behind which critters lurk." But a location-based adventure, whatever form that location takes, does seem to work better in my experience than event-based adventures in D&D 5e. Though the DMG does suggest the latter are "more work" than a location-based adventure, I don't find that to be the case. I surmise that location-based adventures have somewhat fallen out of favor because the prep time for a dynamic location that offers a lot of meaningful choice tends to be greater than just stringing together enough scenes and set pieces to get through a play session.

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

I think the social interaction and exploration rules in D&D 5e are adequate and my games feature those types of challenges in addition to combat challenges as recommended by the Basic Rules (pages 4-5).

I don't think I've even looked at the Basic Rules, but given my proclivities I don't really care what they say anyhow.

I do think the social interaction rules are a bit weak. 4E was actually better in a lot of ways---they had some nifty powers that gave you a boost for a time and weren't "when this power runs out the target automatically knows something was used" which nearly all charm spells in 5E do.

To be clear, I am also not stating that D&D "needs to be a classic dungeon with a bunch of doors behind which critters lurk." But a location-based adventure, whatever form that location takes, does seem to work better in my experience than event-based adventures in D&D 5e. Though the DMG does suggest the latter are "more work" than a location-based adventure, I don't find that to be the case. I surmise that location-based adventures have somewhat fallen out of favor because the prep time for a dynamic location that offers a lot of meaningful choice tends to be greater than just stringing together enough scenes and set pieces to get through a play session.

Like a lot of things, I think an intermediate position works between a fully filled in dungeon with all the moving parts worked out and just several scenes and set pieces. For example, set out an area the PCs can explore that has a number of different potential events or encounters depending on what they do with maybe a few different set pieces or encounters that will show up. I find that seems to work in that it gives the players enough choices but not so many they either have too many or being on rails between preplanned set pieces and, of course, keep the DM's life sane.

I ran something in the spring where the PCs ended up in a town that had serious problems due to the town wizard having been messing around with planar portals he shouldn't have been (not that the PCs knew exactly what was up). Another wizard had been hired to take care of it by a merchants' guild the PCs have tangled with in the past, but he decided to take over the keep outside of town and set up shop as a necromancer (again, not something the PCs knew). When they got to town they were faced with a few different directions they could go. They chose to confront the gates first, figuring that that problem was more immediate and that the wizard could hang loose for a bit. So this led to a relatively small location, essentially a mini-dungeon they explored and finally confronted the problem in the laboratory. Having closed the gate and freed a potential ally (a storm sorceress who lives outside of town trapped in the gate), they rested and then went to deal with the wizard, which ended up involving them storming the keep, again a mini-dungeon, although due to the way things went down they had to take it in one go. I knew they'd do both of these areas, but let the players decide on their strategy.

 

[iserith]

I don't think I've even looked at the Basic Rules, but given my proclivities I don't really care what they say anyhow.

If you've read the PHB, then you've read the Basic Rules. I only reference Basic Rules rather than the PHB in case anyone reading is away from his or her books and wants to look up whatever craziness I'm spouting from the freely available PDF.

I do care what they have to say. It's the instruction manual for the game. Being familiar with them helps prevent me from running this game like it's some other game.

I do think the social interaction rules are a bit weak. 4E was actually better in a lot of ways---they had some nifty powers that gave you a boost for a time and weren't "when this power runs out the target automatically knows something was used" which nearly all charm spells in 5E do.

I recommend checking out the social interaction rules in the DMG. They can be used to structure challenges quite well.

Like a lot of things, I think an intermediate position works between a fully filled in dungeon with all the moving parts worked out and just several scenes and set pieces. For example, set out an area the PCs can explore that has a number of different potential events or encounters depending on what they do with maybe a few different set pieces or encounters that will show up. I find that seems to work in that it gives the players enough choices but not so many they either have too many or being on rails between preplanned set pieces and, of course, keep the DM's life sane.

I ran something in the spring where the PCs ended up in a town that had serious problems due to the town wizard having been messing around with planar portals he shouldn't have been (not that the PCs knew exactly what was up). Another wizard had been hired to take care of it by a merchants' guild the PCs have tangled with in the past, but he decided to take over the keep outside of town and set up shop as a necromancer (again, not something the PCs knew). When they got to town they were faced with a few different directions they could go. They chose to confront the gates first, figuring that that problem was more immediate and that the wizard could hang loose for a bit. So this led to a relatively small location, essentially a mini-dungeon they explored and finally confronted the problem in the laboratory. Having closed the gate and freed a potential ally (a storm sorceress who lives outside of town trapped in the gate), they rested and then went to deal with the wizard, which ended up involving them storming the keep, again a mini-dungeon, although due to the way things went down they had to take it in one go. I knew they'd do both of these areas, but let the players decide on their strategy.

Yes, that is the general format I see most people running for D&D 5e (and indeed other games) and is referred to as "event-based adventures" in the DMG. It's a lot less prep. Kind of like five-room dungeons strung together by a plot the PCs are expected to follow.

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

If you've read the PHB, then you've read the Basic Rules. I only reference Basic Rules rather than the PHB in case anyone reading is away from his or her books and wants to look up whatever craziness I'm spouting from the freely available PDF.

Ah.

I do care what they have to say. It's the instruction manual for the game. Being familiar with them helps prevent me from running this game like it's some other game.

Right, I think that's the part I don't care about. I run things the way I run them and wouldn't substantially change my style depending on the game, though obviously themes will shift. I'll certainly look at the rules but if the designers assume something I don't care for, I will usually change it or ignore, assuming it's possible. Sometimes things are just too embedded in the system to do that.

I recommend checking out the social interaction rules in the DMG. They can be used to structure challenges quite well.

They're fine as far as they go but there are very few meaningful powers (broadly speaking) that help social interaction and they are often highly costly to choose, especially for characters that would logically have them.

Yes, that is the general format I see most people running for D&D 5e (and indeed other games) and is referred to as "event-based adventures" in the DMG. It's a lot less prep. Kind of like five-room dungeons strung together by a plot the PCs are expected to follow.

Hmmm, the big difference between what I tend to do, assuming I have time to lay things out, is create an area with a basic set of conflicts and locations in which to explore them and then turn the PCs loose, filling in details as attention gets focused. It's very much like The Secret of Bone Hill, which is more of a small sandbox campaign setting, though that one didn't have any kind of larger story goal. "Mapping" a city by listing out the power groups and indicating pictorially what their relationships were was something that the original Vampire the Masquerade pioneered, and it works quite well. This just generalized the idea of a dungeon.

One thing that I've found as I've gotten older and the folks I play with have similarly is that pure sandbox gaming is too hard for us. We need to get pulled into the conflict more quickly. Still, I like to set up an area with possible directions and choices and do let the players guide things quite a bit, though I will throw them events and such to keep them going. This has become more relevant with the game being mostly online, too, because online systems are clunky for a lot of really large maps.

What I tend not to do, at least when I can, is give just one path. I try to give a few. So, yeah, once you've chosen to go on a particular path then it's going to be more linear or a sequence of events or a small dungeon or what have you, but which path you're choosing can vary quite a bit. I also have events happen to the PCs, for instance once setting up an adventure by having one of the PCs getting summoned and then presenting the rest of the group with the choice of what to do. They followed him via magic and then, having spent a good bit of time solving the problem posed by the summoners, got involved in conflicts there, which lead to various dungeons, social interaction, and so on. I didn't have that all designed and waiting for them, but had the rough overall outline of what was in that location. Had they not been further interested, I would have dropped it.

 

[Maxperson]

I do think the social interaction rules are a bit weak. 4E was actually better in a lot of ways---they had some nifty powers that gave you a boost for a time and weren't "when this power runs out the target automatically knows something was used" which nearly all charm spells in 5E do.

That's they way they have worked in pretty much every edition. In 1e when you walked in and charmed a stingy merchant into giving you a great deal, do you really think he's not going to be aware of how "off" his actions were when these particular strangers walked in this shop? He may or may not know it was a charm spell, but he is going to know that they messed with his mind somehow.

In my experience, most DMs don't think about the logical consequences of things like charm person and simply allowed a level 1 spell to be much more powerful than it should have been. Most charm/dominate spells are going to leave the target aware that their minds were messed with.