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!

 

[pogre]

The worst would be belittling a player in the real world - misogyny, racism, bigotry, etc.

Assuming social norms are in play, I would go with robbing players of their PC agency to fulfill the DM's own personal story goals.

 

[Lanefan]

DM Asking for Ability Checks When I Haven't Declared an Action. "Give me a Perception check, iserith." Why the heck are you asking for an ability check when I haven't described what I wanted to do? You're assuming or establishing what MY character is doing and that's not your role in this game. Describe the environment.

It's not establishing anything about what your character is doing beyond simply taking in the environment around it - which is always assumed unless conditions dictate otherwise - when I ask for a perception roll before (or during) describing that environment. The roll informs me whether or not you happen to notice, without intentionally trying to, some subtle or easy-to-miss element of the environment I'm about to describe. If you happen to notice whatever it is then the description includes it, if not, then it doesn't.

I probably do this ten times a session. Example, with the bolded part being the extra bits I'd include on a good initial perception roll:

"The door creaks open onto what seems to be some sort of shrine or temple chamber, about 20' wide and long enough that your light doesn't reach a far end. There is a series of dust-covered wooden benches or pews aligned to face away from the door with a central aisle running between them, giving enough seating for at least forty people. That said, the place appears currently unoccupied. There are rather hideous-looking carvings and decorations on the side walls, and the air smells a little foul and musty. At the very edge of your light is what appears to be an altar of some sort with a few things including a statue and a small bell on it. Thin wisps of smoke or steam are rising from the altar.

Ask what I want to do. If I say I'm looking about for something or whatever, THEN you can ask for that Perception check - don't just assume!

Unless your PC is blinded or otherwise unable to perecive its environment I'll always assume it is more or less looking at what's in front of it unless told otherwise. If you're specifically looking at the floor or ceiling, for example, you need to tell me.

What if I wanted to do something else? Or how about this: You don't need a player to make a Perception check to describe the environment! The roll always follows the description by the player for what the character is trying to do, when the DM finds that outcome uncertain and decides there's a meaningful consequence of failure. You're totally jumping the gun otherwise. So just describe the environment. You don't need the dice's permission to perform your role.

See above example.

Calling for a pre-emptive perception check simply takes into accout the reality that sometimes people notice subtle things and other times they don't.

Lan-"and sometimes they miss the obvious"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

The DM has the following jobs:
1. Telling the players what their PCs perceive.
2. Making sure everyone abides by the rules.
3. Use educational skills that help everyone getting along and having fun.

It's definitely not the DMs job to make up or change the rules (at least not if you play by a ruleset which was not created by the DM).

As an analogy, the DM is like the referee in a soccer game. He can decide if something was offside or not if it wasn't clear, but he cannot decide that the offside rule does no longer exist.

Since day 1 the game has allowed and even encouraged DMs to change, invent, or delete rules in order to make the game her own. TSR/WotC isn't FIFA, and at any given table a DM is free in fact to declare that there are no offsides. Within any campaign I expect these things to be precedent-based - if something is ruled to work in a certain way once then barring unusual circumstances I expect it to work the same way throughout that campaign.

That said, it's then on the DM to be consistent with her own house rules; and this consistency is far more important.

Common sense? Or rather, it's the usual case for all games. If I agree with a friend that we play a round of chess, I expect him to play by its rules and not suddenly make up "Hey I think it would be fun if the bishop could turn around 90° once while moving."

Ah, but D&D - and RPGs in general, for all that - isn't any other game; and one of the differentiators between D&D/RPGs and other games is in fact the malleability of the rules from one play-group to the next.

If a rule says that the DM decides it, then the DM deciding it is not changing the rule but abiding by it. Perfectly fine.

The DMG does not conflict with any of the rules. If any of the rule variants are used, I want to be informed before joining. The DMG also explains how to handle situation not covered in the PHB, those are just additional rules to abide by. The rest about "making up your own stuff" is basically agreed upon when joining a game. Like when I join a game that's supposed to be the Out of the Abyss campaign, then I want to play that campaign and not a setting the DM made up (I only join official adventure path games, meaning most of the DMG does not apply).

Ah - that you only join official AP games explains our different outlooks, in that I only play home games with friends.

Like with any game: How the creator of the ruleset intended it. Meaning if something is unclear, ask Jeremy Crawford.

Given some of the answers I've seen from that source you might be better off just making a ruling at the table and sticking with it.

Lanefan

 

[iserith]

It's not establishing anything about what your character is doing beyond simply taking in the environment around it - which is always assumed unless conditions dictate otherwise - when I ask for a perception roll before (or during) describing that environment. The roll informs me whether or not you happen to notice, without intentionally trying to, some subtle or easy-to-miss element of the environment I'm about to describe. If you happen to notice whatever it is then the description includes it, if not, then it doesn't.

I probably do this ten times a session.

I'd quit the game.

Example, with the bolded part being the extra bits I'd include on a good initial perception roll:

"The door creaks open onto what seems to be some sort of shrine or temple chamber, about 20' wide and long enough that your light doesn't reach a far end. There is a series of dust-covered wooden benches or pews aligned to face away from the door with a central aisle running between them, giving enough seating for at least forty people. That said, the place appears currently unoccupied. There are rather hideous-looking carvings and decorations on the side walls, and the air smells a little foul and musty. At the very edge of your light is what appears to be an altar of some sort with a few things including a statue and a small bell on it. Thin wisps of smoke or steam are rising from the altar.

Unless your PC is blinded or otherwise unable to perecive its environment I'll always assume it is more or less looking at what's in front of it unless told otherwise. If you're specifically looking at the floor or ceiling, for example, you need to tell me.

See above example.

Calling for a pre-emptive perception check simply takes into accout the reality that sometimes people notice subtle things and other times they don't.

Lan-"and sometimes they miss the obvious"-efan

So if we're talking about D&D 5e, I would say the way to do this according to my understanding of How To Play is: Describe the unbolded bit. Ask "What do you do?" The player then describe what he or she wants to do ("I draw closer to the altar and cast my light upon it to see it in more detail...") at which point the DM can perform his or her role of adjudicating the action into success, failure, or an ability check. This way, there is no assumption about what the character is doing.

Do it that way and I wouldn't quit the game.

 

[Lanefan]

Worst things a DM can do:

Not show up for her own game, or show up and suddenly decide we're playing board games instead.
Blatantly favour (a) certain player(s) over others.
Be inconsistent or flighty with her on-the-fly rulings and ignore established in-campaign precedent.
Give away too much in-game information too quickly. (though in fairness this is sometimes a system problem rather than a DM problem)

The Game Master running a PC in the game, I do not like that.

Fair enough, but this really limits the PC party's options for filling holes in the lineup. If your party doesn't have a sneak because nobody wants to play one, for example, you're still probably going to need one and thus the logical thing to do is go and recruit one - which almost always means adding an NPC (i.e. DMPC) to the party. A GM who allows this is to me doing a good job, not a bad one.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

I'd quit the game.

See ya.

So if we're talking about D&D 5e

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 would say the way to do this according to my understanding of How To Play is: Describe the unbolded bit. Ask "What do you do?" The player then describe what he or she wants to do ("I draw closer to the altar and cast my light upon it to see it in more detail...") at which point the DM can perform his or her role of adjudicating the action into success, failure, or an ability check. This way, there is no assumption about what the character is doing.

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.

Do it that way and I wouldn't quit the game.

Then siddown, shuddup, and pay attention!

Lanefan

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

Not show up for her own game, or show up and suddenly decide we're playing board games instead.
Blatantly favour (a) certain player(s) over others.
Be inconsistent or flighty with her on-the-fly rulings and ignore established in-campaign precedent.
Give away too much in-game information too quickly. (though in fairness this is sometimes a system problem rather than a DM problem)

I definitely agree with these.

<re the regular party NPC> Fair enough, but this really limits the PC party's options for filling holes in the lineup. If your party doesn't have a sneak because nobody wants to play one, for example, you're still probably going to need one and thus the logical thing to do is go and recruit one - which almost always means adding an NPC (i.e. DMPC) to the party. A GM who allows this is to me doing a good job, not a bad one.

Yeah, I agree. My favorite groups tend to be fairly small with only a few players. However, D&D really struggles with a very small group so a regular NPC can help fill those holes in the party that the players chose not to play. The main thing is that the DM needs to keep the fact that the PCs are the "main cast" and the NPCs are "supporting cast." This tends to mean that a group that's got primary combatants probably shouldn't have an NPC that's also a primary combatant. A character that resolves quickly and easily is helpful. I will often build an NPC without making them clearly dominant, too, either by making their stats not totally optimized or having them be a level or two back.

One thing I do in 5E is to have relevant NPCs aid another for PCs on skills the NPC is proficient in. So, for instance, there's a valor bard that often runs with the party in the 5E game I run. She was sent by her father, a now retired and disabled from his combat wounds paladin, to chronicle the group led by another paladin (both paladins were played by the same player). She won't make Persuade checks, but when she's around and can speak, the PCs make Persuade checks with Advantage. That helps me avoid talking to myself. It also means, that she's helpful to the party but the players still do the talking and can't just rely on her skills.

 

[iserith]

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.

This isn't the 5e forum. And since the question is directed at DMs, this means D&D which may include its many editions. There are some things that are universally applicable like not being a jerk. But otherwise, I strongly recommend DMs not drag their approaches from one game into another without examining whether they apply in the current game. That's the source of many a problem at the table in my experience including but not limited to asking players to make checks when they haven't described what they want to do (which is putting the cart before the horse in D&D 5e).

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.

You're still effectively describing what the player wants to do (via assumption) which isn't the DM's role in D&D 5e. You may want to save some time and your players may be fine with that, but playing my character for me via asking for checks based on assumed actions won't fly with me at all. I get one thing to do in D&D 5e - describe what I want to do. Please don't take that away from me.

If you engage the play procedure as prescribed in the rules, you also don't need to play dice games to "reduce the metagame." That's more appropriate to other games in my view, not D&D 5e, when played as prescribed. What you're doing is creating a problem by playing the game as if it's some other game, then coming up with a solution to the problem you created in the first place. Fine if that's what you're into, but not necessary at all.

 

[pemerton]

DM Asking for Ability Checks When I Haven't Declared an Action. "Give me a Perception check, iserith." Why the heck are you asking for an ability check when I haven't described what I wanted to do?

My understanding is that a referee is allowed to call for a saving throw prompted by something in the environment that is external to the character. I think a significant number of GMs use WIS/Perception checks as a type of saving throw against surprise, ambush and the like. It's similar to a referee calling for a surprise roll in classic D&D.

Just as there is a default assumption that PCs are trying to jump out of the way of fireballs, avoid falling down pits, and the like, so the WIS/Perception-check-as-saving-throw assumes that the PCs have an eye out for danger.

I don't think it's too outrageous.

 

[Hussar]

I'd quit the game.



So if we're talking about D&D 5e, I would say the way to do this according to my understanding of How To Play is: Describe the unbolded bit. Ask "What do you do?" The player then describe what he or she wants to do ("I draw closer to the altar and cast my light upon it to see it in more detail...") at which point the DM can perform his or her role of adjudicating the action into success, failure, or an ability check. This way, there is no assumption about what the character is doing.

Do it that way and I wouldn't quit the game.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

I mean, good grief, if the DM cannot make any assumptions at all, the game is going to grind to a mind numbing halt as every five seconds the DM has to stop and ask, "what are you doing?" because he cannot assume that during the dinner scene, you have to tell the DM every single time you take a bite of food.

And, of course, then the DM gets in the poop for things like, "Well, you didn't say that you were doing that..."

Sorry, mind reading is not part of the DM's job. And forcing the group to endure endless "what do you do" questions because I cannot make any assumptions is the fastest way for a player to suck all the fun out of a game.