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!

 

[David Corgan]

1. Railroad
(a campaign on rails I understand, but invisible walls, dismissal of alternate solutions, and simply ignoring player requests I do not abide)
2. Not know the setting, or simply fail to bring it to life
(if the DM asks the players what they know of the area, or "wings it" simply because they haven't prepared, when tons of source material was available beforehand. When we go to Anauroch, you better know it's a desert, and Vecna better not be a housewife from the Flaeness. Don't get me wrong, I love homebrew, but if the sign says "published campaign", I'm gonna want at least the broad strokes to be as advertised.)
3. Not challenge the PCs
(My basic beef with all League or, even worse, Society play. I get that it is for newcomers and vets alike, but there is no consequence for failure, cause you can't ever fail at anything. That sucks all the joy out of success for me...)
4. Ignore basic realism
(This might mean "house ruling" or tossing aside normally used rules, but I don't care what the encumbrance rules are, you aren't carrying multiple 10' poles)
5. Favor certain players
(My plan is simpler, has numerical advantage, and is in character - but your wife is a fellow PC, so I might as well shut up)

 

[Hussar]

My problem with "basic realism" is that one person's "basic realism" is very, very different from another's. To use the above example - no carrying multiple 10' poles, umm, why not? Bundle them together and you can carry a bunch of them. Not really a problem. I remember one DM I had that just hated the idea that my character was carrying a pole arm. Not even a really big one, something like 10 feet long or something like that.

He kept arguing that there would be no way to get it around corners. In a 10 foot wide corridor. When I pointed out that there is actually more space at the corners (Pythagoras and all that), he just refused to budge. Nope, you cannot turn the corner of a 10 foot wide corridor with a 10 foot pole.



Yeah, one person's "realism" can be pretty darn far from what is actually realistic.

 

[Lanefan]

Heh. I haven't played in a group with only a single DM in forever. My current group of six has four of us that DM regularly. The notion that no DM=no game hasn't occurred to me in a very long time. I sometimes forget that for some groups that DM isn't easily replaceable.

In our crew there's three of us (with any luck, soon to be four) that DM; but we each DM our own game, each have a different group of players with varying amounts of overlap with the other games, and each have at least one player unique to that game who is in no other game. What this means is that if any one of us can't run his-her game on its scheduled night then no matter what happens there's going to be at least one player without a game that night; though the much more usual outcome is no game that night at all because a game can't really sail without its DM.

But, yeah, I'll stand by what I said - every really bad DM decision boils down to ego issues.

Still can't agree.

Some really bad DM decisions boil down to stupid; as in the DM simply wasn't thinking, or read one thing where the words clearly said another.
Some really bad DM decisions boil down to personalities; e.g. the DM is in love (or hate) with one or more of the players out-of-game and lets this infuence the run of play.
Some really bad DM decisions boil down to lack of foresight; as in what could possibly go wrong? <three weeks later> Oh, that? And that? That, too? Oops....

What happens after these bad decisions are realized or exposed or challenged, however - now that's where ego can come into it.

 

[David Corgan]

Deleted Post Because I Posted In the Wrong Place

 

[David Corgan]

I don't think so. You are stating that it is possible to carry multiples, even in a 10' corridor...not in dispute. But of course the PC was in the tavern, walked through a shop, and likely traversed the woods on the way. Plus they may have to fight or make tactical movements in said corridor. Again, all this is possible, but would require effort on the part of the PC to achieve (they would have to keep one hand free to guide the poles at all times).

Anyone that puts multiple 10' poles in their inventory, without so much as a mention to the DM or in play, is ignoring basic realism.

But more unforgivable than that, you straight up admit that you argued with your DM's ruling. Every other rule is a far distant second to that which you have broken with nary a thought: The DM's ruling is always right in the moment. If you must challenge a ruling for your own enjoyment to continue, and I stress must, because it should never be done lightly, make a note and challenge it later, away from other players.

When you attempt to argue with the DM, usually they will dig in their heels and all you will accomplish is ill will. At best you have disrupted the game, shattered suspension of disbelief, screwed up pacing, and brought doubt to the efficacy of your DM. In my game the handful of times this has happened, in the 30+ years I've been behind the screen, it was always because of unseen or unknown forces changing circumstances in a way the characters couldn't perceive (why wasn't the spell turned? It was an epic level version. Why didn't my ghost touch weapon kill it? It was a sophisticated illusion. etc.).

So in summary, no, I don't think anyone has a drastically different view of what is realistic, and what is a Peasant Railgun.

 

[5ekyu]

See ya.

Though it's in the 5e forum I'd say this discussion applies equally to all editions, and maybe most if not all RPGs in general.

I don't find the assumption that a PC is looking where it's going and paying attention to what's in front of it to be the least bit game-breaking.

I'm just trying to be a tiny bit more efficient and save, on a good pre-emptive roll, one of those "what do you do" steps. I also find it a bit more realistic in that sometimes on first glance someone will notice something subtle where other times they won't.

A third aspect is that regularly calling for pre-emptive rolls can help hide the rolls that matter among the rolls that don't matter, thus reducing the metagame "He called for a roll, there must be something here" business.

Then siddown, shuddup, and pay attention!

Lanefan

FWIW, i would view the "make a perception check" a part of whatever action the player described that gave him access to the description of the room.

Am i mistaken?

Are you saying that your "make a perception check" is some new task? Or is it just a roll to determine what they see at first blush - allowing for different outcomes of "how much do we notice?"

I use(d) perception checks for "what you see" as well as knowledge checks for "what you recognize )if needed.)" as part of the describe room process with more serious investigation being possible rhru more specofic action later on.

For instance, looking in a room might show an altar etc etc etc, a crearure and holy symbols... And unless its a very common one the results on a religion check might tell you if your character recognized it on the spot or not. So only some characters would start the event with that knowledge, others might not.

But it wasnt a separate action - just a recognize or no.

 

[Mallus]

4. Ignore basic realism

This one also belongs on the list of *BEST THINGS* a DM can do.

I'll keep it short...

1. Fail to read the room. Failing that, fail to err on the side of caution over what's socially acceptable and/or funny in the all-over-the-map-when-it-comes-to-politeness society gamers tend to inhabit. Note: I'm guilty of this one, at least once, prolly quite a bit more.

2. Negate player actions. Which is not the same as railroading. Railroads can be fun, desirable even, for some folks. Negative consequences can be a blast. But straight-up negation, not being able to affect the immediate action - rarely fun.

 

[Nagol]

I don't think so. You are stating that it is possible to carry multiples, even in a 10' corridor...not in dispute. But of course the PC was in the tavern, walked through a shop, and likely traversed the woods on the way. Plus they may have to fight or make tactical movements in said corridor. Again, all this is possible, but would require effort on the part of the PC to achieve (they would have to keep one hand free to guide the poles at all times).

Anyone that puts multiple 10' poles in their inventory, without so much as a mention to the DM or in play, is ignoring basic realism.

But more unforgivable than that, you straight up admit that you argued with your DM's ruling. Every other rule is a far distant second to that which you have broken with nary a thought: The DM's ruling is always right in the moment. If you must challenge a ruling for your own enjoyment to continue, and I stress must, because it should never be done lightly, make a note and challenge it later, away from other players.

When you attempt to argue with the DM, usually they will dig in their heels and all you will accomplish is ill will. At best you have disrupted the game, shattered suspension of disbelief, screwed up pacing, and brought doubt to the efficacy of your DM. In my game the handful of times this has happened, in the 30+ years I've been behind the screen, it was always because of unseen or unknown forces changing circumstances in a way the characters couldn't perceive (why wasn't the spell turned? It was an epic level version. Why didn't my ghost touch weapon kill it? It was a sophisticated illusion. etc.).

So in summary, no, I don't think anyone has a drastically different view of what is realistic, and what is a Peasant Railgun.

Hmm. Let's see, some of the more egregious common sense errors I've seen:

Radio communication is slower than light (since nothing is faster than light QED), the ship obviously cannot call for help to arrive in time to fight the raider seen through the telescope. (GM call in a Traveller campaign).
Obviously, shooting at a lock on a door will have ricochets bouncing around and hitting people. What a stupid way to open a lock (GM call in a game based on TV detective shows like Magnum PI and Simon and Simon).
Fire is obviously very deadly. We should add it to the game such that a normal human is left dying in under 4 seconds of exposure to a camp fire and kill in another 4 seconds. Most deaths occur from smoke inhalation so smoke should knock out a human in about 2 seconds and kill about 5 seconds later. (Hero games designers).

There are so many it's hard to separate out the really good ones.

 

[MNblockhead]

Obviously, shooting at a lock on a door will have ricochets bouncing around and hitting people. What a stupid way to open a lock (GM call in a game based on TV detective shows like Magnum PI and Simon and Simon).

Well, if it was a handgun, that is probably true, but Shot Guns can be used to breach doors. There are special breaching shotguns and ammo specifically for this purpose, but you can use your basic hunting shotgun with buckshot or birdshot without too high a risk of ricochet.

But I suspect I would be annoyed playing any old west or modern RPG setting. Most people will want to play a cinematic style of game--including the ridiculous use of guns that would strain my eyes from over-rolling.

But I've learned that unless I'm playing with some old friend I know very well, to just roll with it. But my good friends and I in our home games will have no problems ridiculing each other over things like this. Hell, I'll allow certain things just to trigger my engineer friends. I give myself free inspiration any time a friend yells "THAT'S NOT HOW _______ WORKS!!!!"

 

[Nagol]

Well, if it was a handgun, that is probably true, but Shot Guns can be used to breach doors. There are special breaching shotguns and ammo specifically for this purpose, but you can use your basic hunting shotgun with buckshot or birdshot without too high a risk of ricochet.

But I suspect I would be annoyed playing any old west or modern RPG setting. Most people will want to play a cinematic style of game--including the ridiculous use of guns that would strain my eyes from over-rolling.

But I've learned that unless I'm playing with some old friend I know very well, to just roll with it. But my good friends and I in our home games will have no problems ridiculing each other over things like this. Hell, I'll allow certain things just to trigger my engineer friends. I give myself free inspiration any time a friend yells "THAT'S NOT HOW _______ WORKS!!!!"

Mythbusters did a segment on shooting locks with handguns. The bullet punches right through. Much more importantly, it was a genre-appropriate tactic that backfired spectacularly, because "common sense".