Worst & most common DM mistakes

[Rackhir]

Don't feel like you have to have a grand over arching plot from day one. I know with my characters it always takes me a while to get a good "feel" for the character and for a "personality" to really develop for a character. In part because one of the things that defines a character is the interactions with other party members and that takes some time to really gell.

Also low level characters tend to be fairly limited in what they can do. So you can just do "dungeon-y" stuff for a couple of levels and once people have their characters more defined, start building a "story" for the campaign.

 

[Graybeard]

Absolutely. Let the plot grow over time. I started my current campaign with a few basic ideas and let the PCs go from there. The first thing that happened was they became involved in stopping an attack upon ordinary commoners. They soon discovered that to be a cover for child kidnapping. From there it grew into a bigger conspiracy with hints of a mastermind. My players love conspiracies. I've been gaming with some of them for about 8 years now as a player and a DM. Others I used to work with so I knew what they liked in a game from friendly conversation at work during lunch. I would have to agree with a previous poster who said that you must know what your players like in a game and tailor it to them. Without players, there is no game.

 

[pawsplay]

Worst - shameless favoritism.

Most Common - Confusing story with "plot." RPGs are definitely about stories, but they don't have future plots.

 

[Mallus]

So you can just do "dungeon-y" stuff for a couple of levels and once people have their characters more defined, start building a "story" for the campaign.

Excellent advice.

 

[Nellisir]

Worst? Pick one: DMPCs, railroading, ignoring the players in favor of the story (all of these are essentially the same thing).

Most common? Being too complicated, too complex, and holding too much back. The players never ever have all the information that you have. Complicated DM schemes never work. Also, don't hold stuff back. It's the surest way to make sure the campaign ends before you get there. If you have a cool idea, go with it. Make the game FUN for you AND the players. Make sure something happens every session.

 

[Storm Raven]

Most common? Being too complicated, too complex, and holding too much back. The players never ever have all the information that you have. Complicated DM schemes never work. Also, don't hold stuff back. It's the surest way to make sure the campaign ends before you get there. If you have a cool idea, go with it. Make the game FUN for you AND the players. Make sure something happens every session.

A corollary to this is an error I see a lot of DMs make (and which I have made in the past, but try to avoid now) - designing backstory and campaign material that never affects the players. This is not, in and of itself, a problem, but it is often accompanied by a lack of development in areas that do affect the players which is a problem. I think the problem stems from published adventures, where writers seem to relish in giving this sort of unnecessary detail.

"The farmer dislikes his neighbors" - that's nice, but who cares, the players aren't his neighbors, and unless there is something more, they won't care about this sort of village dispute.

"The orcs have recently elected a new chief" - great, why do the players care?

"The evil cult is framing a group of bandits, who don't appear in this adventure, and have all been killed and their bodies sunk to the bottom of the swamp, but here are their stats and personalities" - if they don't appear, why bother detailing them?

"A thousand years ago, this altar was used for sacrifices to the rat god, in rituals that . . . [insert three paragraph description of the rat god cult] . . . but no one knows anything about this cult any more, and the only thing remaining is this altar, which cannot be identified by anyone."

And so on.

And then you get incomplete material that could be useful:

"The curate is suspicious of the traveling priest" - Really? Why? If the players ask him about the priest, what will he say? Does he have specific things that make him suspicious? Did he see him do something odd, or hear him say something strange?

"The barkeep has heard rumors about the abandoned keep" Okay. What rumors? That is exists? That it houses an evil tribe of goblins? That is has pink bunnies living in it? Give something concrete.

What a DM needs to do is make sure that they prepare the information that will be of use to the players - "the shopkeep is suspicious of the traders next door" is not usually useful. "The shopkeep thinks the traders are up to something because he has seen them having late night meetings by the stables with people he doesn't recognize" is a better background.

 

[EATherrian]

A corollary to this is an error I see a lot of DMs make (and which I have made in the past, but try to avoid now) - designing backstory and campaign material that never affects the players. This is not, in and of itself, a problem, but it is often accompanied by a lack of development in areas that do affect the players which is a problem. I think the problem stems from published adventures, where writers seem to relish in giving this sort of unnecessary detail.

"The farmer dislikes his neighbors" - that's nice, but who cares, the players aren't his neighbors, and unless there is something more, they won't care about this sort of village dispute.

"The orcs have recently elected a new chief" - great, why do the players care?

"The evil cult is framing a group of bandits, who don't appear in this adventure, and have all been killed and their bodies sunk to the bottom of the swamp, but here are their stats and personalities" - if they don't appear, why bother detailing them?

"A thousand years ago, this altar was used for sacrifices to the rat god, in rituals that . . . [insert three paragraph description of the rat god cult] . . . but no one knows anything about this cult any more, and the only thing remaining is this altar, which cannot be identified by anyone."

And so on.

And then you get incomplete material that could be useful:

"The curate is suspicious of the traveling priest" - Really? Why? If the players ask him about the priest, what will he say? Does he have specific things that make him suspicious? Did he see him do something odd, or hear him say something strange?

"The barkeep has heard rumors about the abandoned keep" Okay. What rumors? That is exists? That it houses an evil tribe of goblins? That is has pink bunnies living in it? Give something concrete.

What a DM needs to do is make sure that they prepare the information that will be of use to the players - "the shopkeep is suspicious of the traders next door" is not usually useful. "The shopkeep thinks the traders are up to something because he has seen them having late night meetings by the stables with people he doesn't recognize" is a better background.

All of those have a hook that can be used for them. I agree that the things that the players will most likely focus on should be most developed, but who's to say that the player don't want to find out why the orcs have a new chief, or what is causing the feud between the farmers. I both agree and disagree with your point. I think any possible hook you throw out there should have enough detail with it that it can be used.

 

[Rackhir]

All of those have a hook that can be used for them. I agree that the things that the players will most likely focus on should be most developed, but who's to say that the player don't want to find out why the orcs have a new chief, or what is causing the feud between the farmers. I both agree and disagree with your point. I think any possible hook you throw out there should have enough detail with it that it can be used.

I think he's talking more about random background details (ie. the tree is green) more than actual plot hooks (ie. your sister has been kidnapped).

Also I think a good reason to avoid excessive background details is that there's a strong tendency to want to use stuff you've invested a lot of time and effort in creating, which can easily lead to one of the cardinal sins of DMing - Railroading your players. So that all of your hard work is used.

If the players take an interest in one of the aforementioned details, sure by all means expand upon it. Just don't try to detail every possible plot hook or at least no more than you would need to occupy the players until you get a chance to flesh out a plot line they pursue.

 

[EATherrian]

I think he's talking more about random background details (ie. the tree is green) more than actual plot hooks (ie. your sister has been kidnapped).

Also I think a good reason to avoid excessive background details is that there's a strong tendency to want to use stuff you've invested a lot of time and effort in creating, which can easily lead to one of the cardinal sins of DMing - Railroading your players. So that all of your hard work is used.

If the players take an interest in one of the aforementioned details, sure by all means expand upon it. Just don't try to detail every possible plot hook or at least no more than you would need to occupy the players until you get a chance to flesh out a plot line they pursue.

I can see your point. But those details sound pretty darned interesting. I don't know if I'm the only one, but I keep notes as my adventures go and mention these things to the DM if we ever find a slow patch. Plus I'm anti-railroading as a DM and see having most information you give as a possible hook to be the best anti-railroading device.

 

[Storm Raven]

I can see your point. But those details sound pretty darned interesting.

Yes, they do sound interesting - but the players will likely never know about a lot of them. "The orcs have recently elected a new chief" sounds cool, but it is usually what I would call false detail, because the characters will never know about it. They are going to track down the orcs and kill them all in a big battle. Orcs they encounter will probably just end up on the end of a sword, and if they capture any, they probably aren't going to ask questions that will lead to them finding out. In the end, they almost certainly aren't going to worry about orcish tribal politics on the way.

The problem with a lot of this type of information is that it is either (a) inaccessible to the players as a practical matter, (b) not relevant to the players, or (c) not fleshed out enough to be useful. Some of these types of background details are all three.

Unless information is accessible to the players it is always useless to include it. Unless information is relevant to the players, it is usually useless to include it. Unless information is useful to the players, it is often useless to include it. The problem with a lot of these tidbits of information is that they look good on paper when writing up the adventure scenario, but in actual play, they simply aren't useful in any meaningful way.