How do you determine a "Real Bad Dungeon Master"

[Majoru Oakheart]

OK, I think I understand this now. Thanks all for replying. I'm still concerned that railroading is in certain cases unavoidable, such as when you're playing one-shot adventures over a PbP medium. As such, many attempts at alternatives to a solution may result in players spending months posting through it while as DM you know it was a bad idea or wouldn't result in anything different and as such you're almost forced to railroad it to save time rather than let players slog through 3 months of posts to get the same conclusion. It's certainly given me food for thought in the PbP, one-shot adventure, scenario. Thanks all!

Yes, I agree with you. I'm not of the opinion that ALL railroading is bad. Sometimes to actually have a plot in your game, you need to change things.

So, if your general plot is "Ok, the players are looking for the kidnapper, so they will wander around looking for clues and eventually they will stumble upon the bloody dress in the tailor's shop." and the players suddenly pick up on something you had NO idea they'd even think was a clue, you are fully justified in having an NPC run up and say "I found something in the tailor shop". Railroading? Perhaps. A more interesting story? Likely instead of the players chasing red herrings for a bunch of game time.

The big thing is that you have to do it in such a way that the players don't think they are being railroaded. If they believe they made all the choices themselves, then they won't care. So, if you need to run an encounter and the players leave town, and you have the enemies in the next town they come into instead, they have no way of knowing they were supposed to be in the first town and won't care. Unless you tell them, of course, then they may be annoyed.

 

[WizarDru]

So, if your general plot is "Ok, the players are looking for the kidnapper, so they will wander around looking for clues and eventually they will stumble upon the bloody dress in the tailor's shop." and the players suddenly pick up on something you had NO idea they'd even think was a clue, you are fully justified in having an NPC run up and say "I found something in the tailor shop". Railroading? Perhaps. A more interesting story? Likely instead of the players chasing red herrings for a bunch of game time.

But see, I don't define THAT as railroading. Placing a piece of cake in the road in front of a hungry man is not the same as grabing that man by the collar and telling him that, even though he sees the cake in the road and he's starving, he'll pass the cake up to follow that obscure clue he heard about near the tavern.

The other case is just an example of remembering that it's a game, not a reality simulation. There's nothing wrong with saying "hey guys...I really wasn't prepared for you guys to follow that, and I'll be honest...it's a dead end. Why don't we say that you spent 4 hours investigating that lead and find that it's not relevant, and move on?" Sometimes you just have to recognize that you're playing a game to have fun, and it's not a huge sin to admit that you didn't prepare for their decision. Some DMs can accomadate the PCs going off in unanticipated directions, others can't. There's nothing wrong with that; different DMs have different strengths. But it's a far lesser sin to save the players an hour's worth of wasted effort with a simple sentence, enhancing everyone's fun. If the DMs ego can't handle that admission and he's not skilled enough to gently nudge the players in the right direction...well, he reaps what he sows. It's NOT an indictment that you haven't devloped your entire world down to the Nth degree...although some DMs desire completeness or at least the illusion of it.

 

[kenobi65]

I've actually been considering putting a well-thought-out "mary sue" in my next game. I'm not worried about it being a problem or anything for one simple reason. The character will not be an idealized version of me. It will be real-life me, statted for d20 and transplanted into a fantasy setting. A first level expert, even if I were to fudge the dice in his favor, is not likely to drastically affect the PCs... especially if they're starting at 6th level.

I'd argue that that wouldn't be a Mary Sue. Having yourself as a background character who is, overall, a substantially less effective character than the PCs is one thing; having yourself as the hero of the story, overshadowing the PCs...now *that* would be a Mary Sue.

 

[Immak Antunel]

I'd argue that that wouldn't be a Mary Sue. Having yourself as a background character who is, overall, a substantially less effective character than the PCs is one thing; having yourself as the hero of the story, overshadowing the PCs...now *that* would be a Mary Sue.

Seems fair. Unless, of course, I actually named my NPC alter-ego Mary Sue just to make myself technically correct. Which I might have to do now...

 

[kanithardm]

Could we please differentiate between a Rat Bastard DM (RBDM), which I aspire to become in the next ten years, and a really sucky DM (rsDM), which I aspire not to be anymore in ten years?

Why can't we be both?

 

[WizarDru]

Why can't we be both?

Because the two are mutually exclusive in my book and in the books of many others.

 

[LordVyreth]

You tend to find the Mary Sue syndrome a lot in video games, though the term sometimes is used slightly different. The idea that they're perfectly nice, beautiful, loved, etc. remains, but while some retain the "can do no wrong" trait as well, others possess some extraordinary supernatural ability that makes them necessary to save the world and helps justify the "loved by everyone" trait, but they are unable to do anything mundane to save their life and have to be frequently rescued by the actual main heroes.

 

[helium3]

Things I've seen that are the hallmarks of a bad DM:

(1) Creating scenarios that are designed to pit players against other plays. Mind you, I'm not confusing players and characters here. This one DM I know would design scenarios that would create major conflicts between characters that were clearly intended to foster actual animosity between players.

(2) Crafting a plot that involves the heavy use of a large number of very powerful NPC's that are impossible to oppose and are destined to release an unbeatable foe (IE a GOD). Essentially, the party spent two years playing a campaign not knowing that the final outcome of the game was predetermined from the start. When we finally did realize what was going, it was very near the end and we all just went along with what we knew the DM wanted, even though we knew it was a hopeless situation that our character would never really have participated in. In this case, it was worse than railroading since our actions had no effect on anything in the end.

(3) Holding some players to a higher standard of game play simply because they had a better strategic sense than others. In essence, some players got the benefit of "do-overs" and strategic help from the DM because they were more likely to get themselves killed by making dumb decisions. Players that weren't likely to do this got less "assistance" and were subsequently more likely to die, since their deaths were from random criticals and the like and not subject to "do-overs."

(4) Another DM I played for was seriously under-prepared for any kind of encounter. He had a list of NPC's and monsters we would interact with during his games, but when it came time for combat, he'd have to roll up their stats, hit points, etc. He was a big fan of e-tools, but his idea about being able to use them on the fly to create encounters was seriously wrong. We'd literally have 30 to 45 minute breaks in play in order for him to prepare encounters.

(5) The same DM would make relatively significant changes to the way a character class worked only after a player started playing said class. After my first character died, my new sorcerer discovered that magic worked via ley lines, and I'd have to take a bunch of feats if I didn't want to suddenly "run out of magic" after travelling off of the lines. A player running a ranger suddenly discovered that the nature god was neutral good, when his animal companion abandoned him for committing an evil act against another nature oriented character. The same player running a cleric suddenly discovered that the cleric spell list had been trimmed back to about five spells available per level.

(6) This DM also had a problem with the opposite of rail-roading. He wanted us to feel free to take any actions we wanted, but provided us with very little material related to the plot. Our characters never had any clue what was going on around us, and we'd encounter all these weird random attacks that we figured were related. Unfortunately, we'd never get anywhere. As soon as we were about to capture someone and beat some answers out of them, they'd just barely manage to get away. It was like he didn't want us to succeed at anything we tried to do.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Things I've seen that are the hallmarks of a bad DM:

(1) Creating scenarios that are designed to pit players against other plays. Mind you, I'm not confusing players and characters here. This one DM I know would design scenarios that would create major conflicts between characters that were clearly intended to foster actual animosity between players.

This depends very much on the game and the expectations of the players. For Vampireit can be okay, and for Paranoia it is downright required!

(2) Crafting a plot that involves the heavy use of a large number of very powerful NPC's that are impossible to oppose and are destined to release an unbeatable foe (IE a GOD). Essentially, the party spent two years playing a campaign not knowing that the final outcome of the game was predetermined from the start. When we finally did realize what was going, it was very near the end and we all just went along with what we knew the DM wanted, even though we knew it was a hopeless situation that our character would never really have participated in. In this case, it was worse than railroading since our actions had no effect on anything in the end.

No, that is exactly like railroading, just an extreme case. (I have been in a similar game, then the GM wondered why no one wanted him to run anymore...)

(3) Holding some players to a higher standard of game play simply because they had a better strategic sense than others. In essence, some players got the benefit of "do-overs" and strategic help from the DM because they were more likely to get themselves killed by making dumb decisions. Players that weren't likely to do this got less "assistance" and were subsequently more likely to die, since their deaths were from random criticals and the like and not subject to "do-overs."

Acceptable for new players, not otherwise.

(4) Another DM I played for was seriously under-prepared for any kind of encounter. He had a list of NPC's and monsters we would interact with during his games, but when it came time for combat, he'd have to roll up their stats, hit points, etc. He was a big fan of e-tools, but his idea about being able to use them on the fly to create encounters was seriously wrong. We'd literally have 30 to 45 minute breaks in play in order for him to prepare encounters.

Secretly abduct him, cover him with tissue paper flowers, hang him from the ceiling, then tell the other players that he is a pinata. I have had a GM like that, and hated it.

(5) The same DM would make relatively significant changes to the way a character class worked only after a player started playing said class. After my first character died, my new sorcerer discovered that magic worked via ley lines, and I'd have to take a bunch of feats if I didn't want to suddenly "run out of magic" after travelling off of the lines. A player running a ranger suddenly discovered that the nature god was neutral good, when his animal companion abandoned him for committing an evil act against another nature oriented character. The same player running a cleric suddenly discovered that the cleric spell list had been trimmed back to about five spells available per level.

And give the other players spiked baseball bats to hit the 'pinata' with.

(6) This DM also had a problem with the opposite of rail-roading. He wanted us to feel free to take any actions we wanted, but provided us with very little material related to the plot. Our characters never had any clue what was going on around us, and we'd encounter all these weird random attacks that we figured were related. Unfortunately, we'd never get anywhere. As soon as we were about to capture someone and beat some answers out of them, they'd just barely manage to get away. It was like he didn't want us to succeed at anything we tried to do.

Then use the 'pinata' for chumming in shark infested water. If inland then toss the remains in a hog trough.

The Auld Grump

 

[Hussar]

^ Wot he said.

I've run into a DM who loved #4 above. Had a wizzie in 2e who was going to specialize in creating new spells. Spent every available coin on creating a safe lab, building a library etc. When I finally gathered enough to start researching, he declares that the chances for creating a new spell have now been "house ruled" over the Complete Wizards book and the chances for success are now about one tenth the listed chances. Worked out to about a 3 per cent chance of success per attempt. I, predictably, went bezerk!

In the former, I'd relish the chance to build a story. In the latter, I'd knock the player on the head and send him home. Was the player trying to build a story, or was he trying to abuse the DM and his game?

Well, considering he spent about 3 game sessions and several in game weeks planning the heist, the DM could hardly complain that she didn't have fair warning. He outright told her this is what he was planning and then spent much of his time in game and a fair bit of time outside of the game, working out a "perfect crime". What more could a DM possibly ask for from a player than that? To be that engaged in the game that he spent that much time doing something only to have her pull the rug out at the 11th hour? That's a BAD DM.

Any of the things I listed could be perfectly acceptable and realistic consequences of his actions. If he had problems with those consequences, that doesn't make me a bad DM, that makes him a bad player. If the consequences of the actions are realistic and consistent, isn't that the hallmark of a GOOD DM? If the player looks at perfectly realistic answers and whines about them, then that's not the DM's problem, that's the player's problem.

The comment about not trusting the players I think hits the nail quite well. Far too many DM's figure that the players are going to take a mile if they give an inch. I may be guilty of that myself from time to time since I tend to be pretty stingy when it comes to using non core material. But, the best thing to do is to look at things from a long term context.

Sure, the low level party has lots of cash right now. That's fine. Yup, they buy lots of phat lewt and gear up. Cool. The next few encounters they have don't have any cash. They gain a level and suddenly they're balanced again. No more problems.