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!

 

[Lanefan]

This isn't the 5e forum.

D'oh! You're right, it's General.

Refer to my earlier points about sometimes missing the obvious...

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).

You're still effectively describing what the player wants to do (via assumption) which isn't the DM's role in D&D 5e.

So do I then assume your PC is walking around with its eyes closed unless I'm told otherwise?

Of course not.

If I can't assume your PC is paying at least a modicum of attention to what's in front of it and on looking where it's going we're in a world of mess, which taken to its ridiculous extreme would have us take forever just to have the PCs walk down a hallway.

But if I can assume your PC is looking at what's in front of it then very often there's going to be some random chance involved as to what said PC happens to notice without intentionally trying to; much the same as when you have your PC intentionally look elsewhere e.g. at the ceiling. Now I as DM could always do the rolling for the unintentional stuff behind the screen, I suppose, but then I have to worry about the metagame aspect that arises when I do call for a roll.

And sometimes pre-emptive perception can be extremely important, in situations where success or failure to notice something before any opportunity for closer examination makes the difference between being hosed or not. An example might be as simple as on opening a door giving a pre-emptive perception check for whether or not anyone notices the faint smell of gas from the other side before the party's torches blow the room sky-high.

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.

How am I playing your character for you if I'm merely adjusting my description to suit your PC's random-at-the-moment level of perception?

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.

You're assuming I'm playing 5e, speaking of assumptions...

And in a broader sense I'm playing D&D as if it's D&D in any case. For this particular example (perception) edition is - or most certainly should be - almost irrelevant: I know I'd handle things like unintentional perception pretty much exactly the same in any edition, that being by a die roll as to whether you happen to notice something or not.

 

[iserith]

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.

Ability checks aren't saving throws.

But, yes, I'm not fond of saving throws either.

 

[iserith]

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.

I'm not asking for mind-reading. Just don't ask me to make a check before you ask me what I'm doing.

 

[iserith]

So do I then assume your PC is walking around with its eyes closed unless I'm told otherwise?

Of course not.

If I can't assume your PC is paying at least a modicum of attention to what's in front of it and on looking where it's going we're in a world of mess, which taken to its ridiculous extreme would have us take forever just to have the PCs walk down a hallway.

But if I can assume your PC is looking at what's in front of it then very often there's going to be some random chance involved as to what said PC happens to notice without intentionally trying to; much the same as when you have your PC intentionally look elsewhere e.g. at the ceiling. Now I as DM could always do the rolling for the unintentional stuff behind the screen, I suppose, but then I have to worry about the metagame aspect that arises when I do call for a roll.

And sometimes pre-emptive perception can be extremely important, in situations where success or failure to notice something before any opportunity for closer examination makes the difference between being hosed or not. An example might be as simple as on opening a door giving a pre-emptive perception check for whether or not anyone notices the faint smell of gas from the other side before the party's torches blow the room sky-high.

I've already shown how to do all this in accordance with what the rules say about How to Play D&D 5e.

How am I playing your character for you if I'm merely adjusting my description to suit your PC's random-at-the-moment level of perception?

You're assuming I'm playing 5e, speaking of assumptions...

And in a broader sense I'm playing D&D as if it's D&D in any case. For this particular example (perception) edition is - or most certainly should be - almost irrelevant: I know I'd handle things like unintentional perception pretty much exactly the same in any edition, that being by a die roll as to whether you happen to notice something or not.

Which is what I would object to. In D&D 5e. In other games, I might not care.

 

[pemerton]

Ability checks aren't saving throws.

No they're not, but if a group would like a "save vs ambush" type mechanic - which is not an uncommon thing in RPGs, including various versions of D&D - and the game doesn't offer a literal saving throw of that type, it's not a shock that they improvise with the nearest mechanic available.

But, yes, I'm not fond of saving throws either.

That makes sense. But I think their presence as an element of 5e - so that the resolution of "You duck down to avoid the dragon's breath" (probably a DEX save) is mechanically distinguished from "As I cross the corridor of doom, I duck low to avoid the scything blades" (probably a DEX check, assuming the GM takes the view that ducking is feasible but not automatically successful - cf a crawl) - does put a little bit of pressure on your claim about what is the canonical way to play 5e.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I had a DM one time who asked each player to playan NPC along with our PCs. It all started out okay, and each of the NPCs was kind of an unusual character with some dynamic mechanics to them, so they werekind of fun to play.

It wasn’t too long before it became very obvious that the DM had designed the entire game around the NPCs. Everything revolved around them...the backstory related to them, the treasure we found was suited to them, and so on. Our PCs were simply along for the ride.

That was an incredibly frustrating game. It didn’t last very long at all.

 

[Mercule]

GMPC. If you're GMing, you get NPCs. If you're rotating GMing responsibilities, have your character sit out while you're GMing. No good ever comes out of mixing those roles. It will kill your game as fast as any of the other options, but is often glossed over. So, I'll call it out as a bad thing.

Runner up: Adversarial GMing. You're running the game. Of course you can kill/beat the players. You haven't proven anything other than you're an abusive SOB. Your job is to run a game that's engaging and fun.

Side note: The worst thing a player can do is be adversarial. The GM isn't your enemy. Don't keep secrets from them. Don't try to "play" them.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm not asking for mind-reading. Just don't ask me to make a check before you ask me what I'm doing.

But that's just it. When I narrate that you're at one end of a familiar 40' hallway that has empty suits of armour every 10' along the walls (that you've already carefully examined on a previous visit here) and ask what you're doing, on which you tell me you're walking to the other end of the hallway, am I allowed to assume that you're looking where you're going so you don't crash into a suit of armour?

Or, using the same example, how do I and-or you mechanically determine whether or not you randomly and-or unintentionally happen to notice that something subtle has changed about one of the suits of armour - for some reason the gauntlets have been removed from the third suit on the left - since you were last here? Do I assume you're ignoring the armour completely unless told otherwise? Do I assume you're checking the armour carefully every time you pass it? Or do I ask whether you're examining it this time (as opposed to all the other times you've walked this hall except the first time) thus alerting you-as-player to the metagame realization that this time there might be something worth checking?

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

Runner up: Adversarial GMing. You're running the game. Of course you can kill/beat the players. You haven't proven anything other than you're an abusive SOB. Your job is to run a game that's engaging and fun.

Side note: The worst thing a player can do is be adversarial. The GM isn't your enemy. Don't keep secrets from them. Don't try to "play" them.

To an extent, I disagree with these.

A GM who just flattens the PCs without their having any chance is doing it wrong. But it's part of a GM's job to challenge the PCs (and, by extension, players), sometimes harshly, and to sometimes make it feel like the game world really is out to kill them dead. A completely non-adversarial GM would have, I think, an impossible time trying to make this convincing and-or believable. It's war, not sport, my friend.

As for the player side it's on the players to do what they need to, within the bounds of good-faith play, to ensure their PCs survive; and sometimes this can include springing surprises on the GM. Speaking as both GM and player, I've no problem with this.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

I had a DM one time who asked each player to playan NPC along with our PCs. It all started out okay, and each of the NPCs was kind of an unusual character with some dynamic mechanics to them, so they werekind of fun to play.

It wasn’t too long before it became very obvious that the DM had designed the entire game around the NPCs. Everything revolved around them...the backstory related to them, the treasure we found was suited to them, and so on. Our PCs were simply along for the ride.

That was an incredibly frustrating game. It didn’t last very long at all.

That's where having an Assassin as your PC comes in handy...along, of course, with the resolve to use said Assassin to do a little pruning of the party...