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!

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

You don't need dice for permission on how much detail to give. You could just say that the armor is now missing some element. Or not.

Much as I said about players, I often use dice to push me out of my own defaults as DM, too. If I haven't thought of an answer, I may have the players roll. If they roll very well, they'll get some extra information or insight that helps them going forward but that I might not have thought of initially: "This suit of armor has some recently repaired battle damage that suggests it was used for practice by knights". If they don't, they see "it's a suit of armor". I'll use them for reaction checks for NPCs---sometimes someone who you think is going to be uncooperative isn't, or vice versa. I often use a "1 in 20 well-conceived plans has a serious flaw" to help me decide if there's a hole in the plan that the players laid out or whether things go the way they go until combat starts. The dice both help inspire me to go in a direction I didn't foresee and keep me honest. This also helps break up patterns I might fall into unconsciously.

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

Maybe it's not one of the worst things, but I consider it one of the things that distinguishes a good DM from a passable DM. As the article indicates, it's especially bad if there's long texts being read in a monotonous voice. In fact it's almost ensured the players are going to miss important hints hidden in the text, because they're lulled to sleep!

I remember when boxed text first appeared. It was clearly done as an aid to noob DMs. However, I think good DMs would learn to transcend it fairly quickly and rephrase it in their own words. (Or read it in a monotonous style for effect!) A passable to mediocre DM uses it as a crutch and never gets past it.

 

[iserith]

Much as I said about players, I often use dice to push me out of my own defaults as DM, too. If I haven't thought of an answer, I may have the players roll. If they roll very well, they'll get some extra information or insight that helps them going forward but that I might not have thought of initially: "This suit of armor has some recently repaired battle damage that suggests it was used for practice by knights". If they don't, they see "it's a suit of armor". I'll use them for reaction checks for NPCs---sometimes someone who you think is going to be uncooperative isn't, or vice versa. I often use a "1 in 20 well-conceived plans has a serious flaw" to help me decide if there's a hole in the plan that the players laid out or whether things go the way they go until combat starts. The dice both help inspire me to go in a direction I didn't foresee and keep me honest. This also helps break up patterns I might fall into unconsciously.

Personally, I don't care if the DM uses the dice to help him or her decide things. Just don't ask me to roll dice to resolve actions I have not declared for my character. That falls into the category of "Worst Things a DM Can Do" for me at least where D&D 5e is concerned (if not other games, depending on the rules).

With reference to boxed text you said in a subsequent post: "A passable to mediocre DM uses it as a crutch and never gets past it." Do you think the approach you describe that I quoted above is the same? If you do not, why don't you?

 

[Caliban]

If you asked Jeremy Crawford he would reply what 99% of all board game creators would reply: They just state how the rules where intended to be, but you are free to change them if you think that's more fun for your group.

But that's not what I want. If I want to play chess I want to play by the chess rules. If I want to play Settlers of Catan, I want to play who play by the Settlers of Catan rules. If I want to play Magic: The Gathering, I want to play by Magic: The Gathering rules. And if I want to play D&D 5e, I want to play by the D&D 5e rules.

People who are like "hey, let's change this rule for fun" are disturbances for my enjoyment.

That's great...if Jeremy Crawford is your DM.

If he's not, then you are playing the game the DM is running. If you don't like it, don't play.

I prefer the DM be consistent - if they want to house rule certain things, that's fine - as long as it's stated up front and they stick to it. Having rules change from session to session due to the whim or poor memory of the DM is not something I enjoy. And I have dropped out of games because of it - it's not my place to dictate how they run their game, but I don't have to play if I'm not enjoying it either.

I've also quit a game because the DM effectively turned my Noble background character into his NPC puppet by having the king send him on ridiculous missions that required the character to do morally questionable things in order to succeed. My character would have done them because he was loyal to the king and it made a certain degree of sense within the culture of the campaign...but I as a player chose to quit the game because I found them personally upsetting and didn't see things getting any better, only worse.

But I think the worst thing a DM can do (for me personally) is be adversarial towards the players. I play for cooperative enjoyment, and if I feel the DM is targeting certain players or deliberately making things harder for them out of spite or personal issues ...I'm out. I just don't like that energy, it brings out the worst in me.

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

Personally, I don't care if the DM uses the dice to help him or her decide things. Just don't ask me to roll dice to resolve actions I have not declared for my character. That falls into the category of "Worst Things a DM Can Do" for me at least where D&D 5e is concerned (if not other games, depending on the rules).

So, you don't much care for having Perception checks when there's possible surprise? Or do you demand to say "Nattick starts swimming for the bank against the current" when dumped into a fast river before being asked to make an Athletics check? I tend to default to the notion that the PCs are actively looking/doing unless it's fairly obvious they aren't, so I'll call for check when there's potentially something to be seen or done that they might see or do. My players know this and react accordingly. If they would clearly notice or do something, I'll just say that.

However, if the DM is calling for checks constantly to do anything, that is definitely annoying at minimum.

With reference to boxed text you said in a subsequent post: "A passable to mediocre DM uses it as a crutch and never gets past it." Do you think the approach you describe that I quoted above is the same? If you do not, why don't you?

I feel this is much more of a mature DMing style for me. I'v played a lot of improvisational music and using chance is frequently done to push a player out of ruts. For instance, taking a lead sheet and marking out parts where the player should rest or play can be very helpful. Another would be to determine a metronome speed and/or time signature randomly and then try to establish a groove at that tempo. There are other examples, such as drawing cards with a few descriptive words and then having to figure out a scene in improv. Brian Eno and Peter Schmidt even made "oblique strategies" to help break out of ruts.

I don't think I'm using it as a crutch (in the way reading the boxed text is), I'm using it to help prod me to think of things I wouldn't have otherwise or as a way to prod the players to look in surprising directions or to help fill in the world. A successful check can be fun, but a failed one can also build tension if used right, and, as I said, it can help push a particular character out of their strength, which is also useful. It's one reason I like some light personality mechanics that involve rolls (although I haven't implemented any in 5E). I am often unsure how a character should react. A check helps push me in a direction, sometimes not in the one I'd have preferred or thought of. IMO that helps make the world feel much less on rails and more organic.

For example, in my planes-hopping game, the PCs had met some galeb duhr as a random encounter on their way to deal with some rogue Modrons, which was a planned encounter. This led to some negotiation. It turned out the galeb duhr had a Hammer of Thunderbolts which they were willing to trade for a large sum of gems (galeb duhr really like gems). The PCs didn't have any at the time. The fact that they had an item of power was something determined by a roll that the PC wizard noticed---I can't recall if the player asked for that or not. I hadn't decided that but rolled the treasure and, rather than rejecting it, thought WTF... it sounds fun and wasn't what I'd planned but, cool. Well when they went back to try to cut a deal with the galeb duhr, it turned out they were in the middle of a fight with a horde of minotaurs, who had got the help of a goristro demon! This was also the result of a random encounter, though interpreted through the lens of the campaign. The fact that the galeb duhr had had conflict with minotaurs had already been established (minotaurs also really like gems... we're all a bunch of Heroes III nuts here), and it's not crazy something big showed up for the Hammer of Thunderbolts first. So, what started as a random encounter has escalated into a fairly big fight!

I'm not a slave to the dice, though: If the story is going a particular way, I don't usually roll to see what's happening outside of the usual mechanics of the rules.

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

Again, if the ability check follows an action declaration, I'm fine with it though I would say your example has some issues.

First, searching for hidden objects calls for a Wisdom (Perception) check in D&D 5e (which is the edition I'm referencing) if the outcome is uncertain and there's a meaningful consequence of failure.

I said the trap was discharged for a reason, and assumed it was found fairly easily. The meaningful consequence of failure is the information, not the trap.

The fact that the check was History, not Perception, is done to build tension. The player won't expect to be asked to make that check, which will leave them guessing, when otherwise it would simply have been a ho-hum trap in yet another dungeon.

Something worth asking yourself is: What happens if Nattick's player fails the History check? You're right back where you started. This is not a good approach in my view. Simply following the basic conversation of the game as laid out in the rules resolves these issues.

It depends on what you think the History check is doing. In this case, the check is probably providing information that's optional but useful. I'm cool with the outcome either way. So I'm using it more for foreshadowing or a way to provide a contingent piece of information. If it's a success, the check gives some information immediately, e.g., the Dwarven runes are actually a code, which can lead to them trying to decipher it. If it fails they learn that someone's using Dwarven but they probably should look for more information down the line.

 

[iserith]

So, you don't much care for having Perception checks when there's possible surprise? Or do you demand to say "Nattick starts swimming for the bank against the current" when dumped into a fast river before being asked to make an Athletics check? I tend to default to the notion that the PCs are actively looking/doing unless it's fairly obvious they aren't, so I'll call for check when there's potentially something to be seen or done that they might see or do. My players know this and react accordingly. If they would clearly notice or do something, I'll just say that.

However, if the DM is calling for checks constantly to do anything, that is definitely annoying at minimum.

I addressed determining surprise upthread. In D&D 5e, passive Perception applies only when the character is Keeping Watch, so this is necessarily something the player must declare at some point prior to the passive check. It cannot be assumed since there are other activities the player could choose to do that does not allow for the character to Keep Watch. (Rangers in favored terrain have a nice benefit here in that they can Keep Watch and perform another task.) Now, not a lot of DMs do this, which I think is unfortunate, but that's the rules.

As for the your river example, yes, I have the right to describe what I want to do. That's also the rules. You don't get to tell me I'm swimming against the current or whatever by asking for an Athletics check. I may want to cast water walk instead. So please just describe the environment, then ask me what I want to do. If I do something that draws upon Strength and/or Athletics that has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequences of failure, then by all means ask for the ability check and then narrate the results of the adventurer's action. Then the loop starts again by describing the environment.

 

[iserith]

I said the trap was discharged for a reason, and assumed it was found fairly easily. The meaningful consequence of failure is the information, not the trap.

That raises the question of why the player was searching for a trap when a discharged trap was already apparent when the DM described the environment. Unless the DM didn't describe it in the environment. Which raises the question of why he or she didn't. There's just a lot going on here that is not being presented or adjudicated well in my view.

The fact that the check was History, not Perception, is done to build tension. The player won't expect to be asked to make that check, which will leave them guessing, when otherwise it would simply have been a ho-hum trap in yet another dungeon.

It would just leave me annoyed, not guessing. I didn't say I was trying to recall lore about the discharged trap. I (if I'm playing the role of the player in your example) said I was searching for traps. Again, for some reason that is unclear given that you implied the discharged trap was found fairly easily.

It depends on what you think the History check is doing. In this case, the check is probably providing information that's optional but useful. I'm cool with the outcome either way. So I'm using it more for foreshadowing or a way to provide a contingent piece of information. If it's a success, the check gives some information immediately, e.g., the Dwarven runes are actually a code, which can lead to them trying to decipher it. If it fails they learn that someone's using Dwarven but they probably should look for more information down the line.

There is no call for a History check in my view (based on what I understand of the rules) unless the player says he or she is trying to recall lore about some aspect of the discharged trap, and that action has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence of failure.

I've otherwise laid out how I think this example is best presented and adjudicated in accordance with D&D 5e's prescription on How to Play in the post you've quoted.

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

I addressed determining surprise upthread. In D&D 5e, passive Perception applies only when the character is Keeping Watch, so this is necessarily something the player must declare at some point prior to the passive check. It cannot be assumed since there are other activities the player could choose to do that does not allow for the character to Keep Watch. (Rangers in favored terrain have a nice benefit here in that they can Keep Watch and perform another task.) Now, not a lot of DMs do this, which I think is unfortunate, but that's the rules.

From Googling, this doesn't seem to be nearly so cut and dried given how much question and debate there is. For example here. Even Jeremy Crawford thinks that Passive Perception is always "switched on" so I don't know I buy your interpretation as being what RAI is. I tend to assume that unless you declare you're clearly not watching it would apply and use it to determine an adversary's Stealth DC accordingly.

As for the your river example, yes, I have the right to describe what I want to do. That's also the rules. You don't get to tell me I'm swimming against the current or whatever by asking for an Athletics check. I may want to cast water walk instead.

Ah, what I would mean by "roll for Athletics" would be "roll for Athletics, unless you want to do something else instead" with the latter implied. My players know this so if they say "I want to cast Water Walk instead" or "I'm going to dive into the water and ride the current instead" my answer would be "sure, go ahead."

Basically, my call for a check isn't to make that particular check specifically (in general) but to make that or offer an alternative.

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

That raises the question of why the player was searching for a trap when a discharged trap was already apparent when the DM described the environment. Unless the DM didn't describe it in the environment. Which raises the question of why he or she didn't. There's just a lot going on here that is not being presented or adjudicated well in my view. <...>

It would just leave me annoyed, not guessing. I didn't say I was trying to recall lore about the discharged trap. I (if I'm playing the role of the player in your example) said I was searching for traps. Again, for some reason that is unclear given that you implied the discharged trap was found fairly easily.

Nope, what I did there was a dramatic turn. The player ends up getting asked to do something that wasn't expected.

There is no call for a History check in my view (based on what I understand of the rules) unless the player says he or she is trying to recall lore about some aspect of the discharged trap, and that action has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence of failure.

I've otherwise laid out how I think this example is best presented and adjudicated in accordance with D&D 5e's prescription on How to Play in the post you've quoted.

Yep, and I am saying that I guess don't much care for prescriptive interpretation of the rules provided by WotC. Those are suggestions IMO... evidently they run a much more free wheeling game at their own tables, though I suspect I wouldn't be happy with the way they make a lot of calls either. That's just the way things work.

I think you want a DM who's much more of a neutral arbiter of the rules and presenter of the world. I tend to use rolls to anticipate and generate tension and release and often to inspire myself, though as I said, if the player wants to suggest something else that's plausible, they're free to do so.

Suffice it to say I think we'd find each other's styles incredibly frustrating. Which is, of course, totally fine as we aren't at each other's tables.