D&D General What DM-skills are you bad at?

[Ruin Explorer]

For me my biggest weakness is accents. I'm SO bad at them, that I don't even try.

What's the DMing thing you're worst at?

I'm not terrible at accents but some must just never be attempted. Like the "Oirish" accent I can only begin to do by saying "T'Emeroild Oisle!" (The Emerald Isle). So I usually stick to vague US/UK regional accents. Northern Irish/Ian Paisley is fine. Oh and humblebrag but I have a "scary voice" I can do that I got banned from using because it scares one of the players too much (also it gives me a sore throat if I do it for more than like a few minutes).

My biggest issue in DMing is maps. It's not that I can't draw maps. I'm quite good at it. I used to enjoy it when I was much younger. But something snapped in me at some point in the very early '00s.

Now, it's that I don't want to draw maps. I hate drawing maps. Drawing maps makes me angry and frustrated for reasons I don't entirely understand. It feels like a huge waste of time to do anything but sketch-maps. I don't mind copying from a map to a battlemat says (I have a drawn-on battlemat), but I don't want to be the one who drew the map I'm copying from.

(I also utterly despise any map that isn't line-drawn, including full colour battlemat maps. This is an irrational and unreasonable thing. Obviously easy to avoid when I'm DMing though.)

My second biggest issue is, I think, judging whether "boss fights" will be one-sided beatdowns against the boss. I've got a bit better at this over the years, but an awful lot of times, my "epic" bossfight has been ended unceremoniously in like three-four rounds most of which the boss was CC'd for, because holy crap when my players sense someone is a boss, they pull everything out, like absolutely everything, stuff I haven't seen for years. They'll struggle on some moderately hard fight, but a boss? It's a curbstomping Jim, but not as we know it.

Hmm, so they're effectively asking for more uncertainty as to the outcome and meaningful consequences for failure so they can roll dice and potentially get some kind of payoff for their investment in these skill proficiencies. A bold strategy on their part. I'd be perfectly fine with getting the information without rolling. But then, knowing how you resolve social interaction, I'd probably not invest in those skills. No big deal.

Yeah I was thinking "Oh brother, his players have NOT thought this request through...".

 

[Blue]

Well I'm the perfect DM and do everything perfectly every time. If I had to come up with a flaw, it would be that I'm simply too modest.

Would you describe yourself as the most humblest?

 

[Puddles]

For me, it's doing stuff off the cuff.

I am at my best when I have fully prepped and so I prep extensively. As soon as we go far beyond my notes (or go too far sideways), I feel like I am running on empty and can feel the quality of the session deteriorating.

I think it'll get better over time, but for now, I prep almost everything I think my players will do so that I have some notes to draw upon no matter the path they choose. If I feel I am running out of steam, I end the session early so I can put some proper thought into the current situation the party are in, and kick start the next session with thought-out material.

 

[Blue]

Hmm, so they're effectively asking for more uncertainty as to the outcome and meaningful consequences for failure so they can roll dice and potentially get some kind of payoff for their investment in these skill proficiencies. A bold strategy on their part. I'd be perfectly fine with getting the information without rolling. But then, knowing how you resolve social interaction, I'd probably not invest in those skills. No big deal.

While you are describing the reality of it, it doesn't sound like they are asking for. They probably don't want to change the outcome - getting the information. What they want is that character features such as high social skills come into play. There's an opportunity cost to taking them over others, and they want to show off that aspect of their character. Much like the Ranger who's favored terrain type never shows up or a rogue if there are never locks or traps.

 

[robus]

I sometimes fall a little too much on the linear/rail side of things. I almost never force my players in a direction, but sometimes they'll be strongly hinted through social interactions. I'm often trying to hold back on it but it's an hold habit. No players ever complained about it though.

If your players are happy then you’re doing a good job. Plenty of players want a fun ride. My table certainly did.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

While you are describing the reality of it, it doesn't sound like they are asking for. They probably don't want to change the outcome - getting the information. What they want is that character features such as high social skills come into play. There's an opportunity cost to taking them over others, and they want to show off that aspect of their character. Much like the Ranger who's favored terrain type never shows up or a rogue if there are never locks or traps.

I suspect if the DM just handled the situation slightly differently would probably give the same effect - i.e. saying "You made the right arguments and your [insert social skill] is X, so I'm not going to roll for that...", or even coming back to it after the scene if they were doing naturalistic RP the whole time, and saying "I let that happen without rolls because...".

It's more like a Ranger whose favoured terrain is Forest, and a lot of the campaign is in a Forest, but the mechanical benefits of FT were just never coming into play because they haven't been needed.

 

[iserith]

While you are describing the reality of it, it doesn't sound like they are asking for. They probably don't want to change the outcome - getting the information. What they want is that character features such as high social skills come into play. There's an opportunity cost to taking them over others, and they want to show off that aspect of their character. Much like the Ranger who's favored terrain type never shows up or a rogue if there are never locks or traps.

Yes, I mention this in my post. But really if you have a DM that doesn't call for some skill proficiencies for whatever reason, why are you building characters with these skill proficiencies? They effectively don't exist in the game. You're better off putting that investment elsewhere rather than investing in it and getting miffed about something you already knew was going to happen.

(Note this isn't a criticism of the DM here. It's just the reality of the game being played at the table and how an informed player might design characters for that table.)

 

[Ruin Explorer]

But really if you have a DM that doesn't call for some skill proficiencies for whatever reason, why are you building characters with these skill proficiencies? They effectively don't exist in the game.

I suspect in most cases it isn't as absolute as that. I.e. a DM may relatively rarely call for a certain skill to be checked, or they may be unconsciously or simply without mentioning it be not asking for checks because skills are high. If they absolutely never do though sure it can inform things, eventually, once the players realize. Also some people build largely for verisimilitude, and will take the skills they think are right regardless of whether the DM makes much use of them. Bizarrely this can include people who are min-maxers in other areas of their character (I have one such in my group - he'll min-max the heck out of combat performance, but beyond taking Athletics for wrastlin', skill and tool wise he just goes with what logically his PC should have).

 

[Oofta]

Would you describe yourself as the most humblest?

Like the song says Oh Lord it's hard to be humble when you're perfect in every way.

 

[TheAlkaizer]

I suspect in most cases it isn't as absolute as that. I.e. a DM may relatively rarely call for a certain skill to be checked, or they may be unconsciously or simply without mentioning it be not asking for checks because skills are high. If they absolutely never do though sure it can inform things, eventually, once the players realize. Also some people build largely for verisimilitude, and will take the skills they think are right regardless of whether the DM makes much use of them. Bizarrely this can include people who are min-maxers in other areas of their character (I have one such in my group - he'll min-max the heck out of combat performance, but beyond taking Athletics for wrastlin', skill and tool wise he just goes with what logically his PC should have).

It's as @iserith described. I just really get involved in the social interactions and forget about the rules for a moment. My players will be roleplaying their argument, and then I'll decide on what degree of information the NPC is willing to part with depending solely on that. To there's still a degree of success. But I fully understand when a player with a character that has a high Persuasion skill feels a bit bad. Another character with a low charisma and persuasion could have reached the same result if the player argued effectively.

In my opinion, it's as bad as the opposite, which is to just ask them to make a roll and not to say a word. I like the mix of both. But once again, I just get excited and immersed in the social interaction and forget about it. So I do it as much as I can, but it's something I have to work on.

It's not exactly the same, but it'd be somewhat equivalent to the fighter telling me it doesn't feel great that the wizard with 8 strength can achieve the same result as him because I don't get them to roll an Athletics check and simply base the success off how they describe their character doing the athletic feat.