Worst & most common DM mistakes

[Celebrim]

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.

I agree with the general complaint, and it very much matches what I said earlier about not knowing what your scope is and trying to do too much. But at the same time, you aren't always able to know what information will be available, relevant, and useful to the players.

Consider the second module in the sinister secret of Saltmarsh series - U2. It contains a wealth of information about the tribal politics of the Lizardman tribe. But if the PC's end up killing off the Lizardmen in an efficient commando blitz, most of that information is inaccessible, irrelevant, and largely useless to the players. I don't think you can argue though that the information about the tribal politics of U2 isn't important.

The problem with your list is, without a lot of context, we can't tell if such information is useful or not. One thing we can certainly say though, is that if such information isn't available then the adventure only supports one style of play and if the party deviates from that style of play, then the DM has to invent the detail on the spot. If the information isn't there, most new DMs won't invent the information on the spot - they'll just simply say 'no'.

Take the example of: "The orcs have recently elected a new chief"

Most parties may approach the orc problem as having a single solution - 'Kill the Orcs'. But if a party intends a more subtle approach, if information like 'The orcs have recently elected a new chief' isn't available, the neophyte DM is likely to look at the available information, whether self-created or provided by a published work, and decide that the orcs aren't meant to be approached by any solution but 'Kill the Orcs' and narrate the response to any contrary proposition as, in some form or the other, "The orcs resist all attempts at negotiation, attack immediately, and fight to the death."

 

[Storm Raven]

I agree with the general complaint, and it very much matches what I said earlier about not knowing what your scope is and trying to do too much. But at the same time, you aren't always able to know what information will be available, relevant, and useful to the players.

Yes, but U2 also provides ways for the players to obtain that information - in other words, the information has been developed.

Most of the examples I gave are from background created by DMs in adventures I've seen. Some are from old published adventures - the curate example is from B2, and that's about all the information it gives about the curates' thoughts on the "evil priest". That's poorly designed background.

Here's one from T1: a particular family is from out of town and will be considered outsiders "until their hair turns gray". Well, that's a neat little detail, but so what? Why will the characters care about the thinking of the village concerning a carpenter they probably won't meet more than cursorially? In the meantime, the bulk of the NPCs in the village aren't even named, being listed as "goodwife" or "leatherworker". Which do you think is more likely to come up in play: (a) the name of the leatherworker they might buy boots and armor from, or (b) that people in the village are outsiders until they become grey-haired?

 

[pr1]

Most Common:
Don't let the player die if he didn't make a mistake. Noone likes to fail for no good reason.

In one situation, one stupid PC was bashing in doors in dungeon, ignoring stealth completely. He bursts into the obviously marked (the only fancy door with an obsidian skull decoration) bedroom of a sleeping (now woken) BBEG. The BBEG's first action is to fire a ray at the door, hitting both Smashy McAxeinhand and a PC who's been telling him how stupid he's being the whole time.

So, he rolls enough damage to kill them both in one shot. This wasn't intended to be a straight fight. However, I fudge the numbers so that neither die. Next round, he kills the PC who made the mistake. Everyone else survives.

I totally disagree. I think the far more common problem is characters don't die enough for stupid things that they do.

The scenario you talked about? Well, not to get too personal, but it's tricky. As you explained it, I would have let the two die. Big whoop. Sometimes you make mistakes, and there are consequences to others for your actions. I might question why there was a guy who could so easily kill party members from bed if stealth wasn't used to sneak up on him, but there's a place for that sort of thing, too.

A big problem I see is that characters take so long to write and are so tediously fleshed out (or the attempt is made to do so, at least), that you really feel like you're doing something bad to the players in letting their characters get killed. It's D&D. Every game I ever had fun in, character death was a real threat, and there wasn't some high & mighty story or multi-step module to have its solvency threatened because of it.

 

[Rackhir]

Don't let the player die if he didn't make a mistake.

I totally disagree. I think the far more common problem is characters don't die enough for stupid things that they do.

The scenario you talked about? Well, not to get too personal, but it's tricky. As you explained it, I would have let the two die. Big whoop. Sometimes you make mistakes, and there are consequences to others for your actions. I might question why there was a guy who could so easily kill party members from bed if stealth wasn't used to sneak up on him, but there's a place for that sort of thing, too.

A big problem I see is that characters take so long to write and are so tediously fleshed out (or the attempt is made to do so, at least), that you really feel like you're doing something bad to the players in letting their characters get killed. It's D&D. Every game I ever had fun in, character death was a real threat, and there wasn't some high & mighty story or multi-step module to have its solvency threatened because of it.

Well I don't believe you should ever let a PLAYER die and you might be liable for some sort of manslaughter charge if you did, irregardless of if they made a mistake.

Legal advice aside, it's perfectly possible to run a terrific campaign where character death is essentially banned, you really only need to have consequences for failure. Often players would far prefer to have the characters die if it meant succeeding.

Besides once you get past low levels, it's a rare party/campaign where they can't get characters raised one way or another. So character death is really more of a penalty than a permanent condition.

Lastly, if you kill the characters then the suffering stops...

 

[Afrodyte]

Legal advice aside, it's perfectly possible to run a terrific campaign where character death is essentially banned, you really only need to have consequences for failure.

(snip)

...if you kill the characters then the suffering stops...

Precisely.

 

[Grazzt]

I totally disagree. I think the far more common problem is characters don't die enough for stupid things that they do.

The scenario you talked about? Well, not to get too personal, but it's tricky. As you explained it, I would have let the two die. Big whoop. Sometimes you make mistakes, and there are consequences to others for your actions. I might question why there was a guy who could so easily kill party members from bed if stealth wasn't used to sneak up on him, but there's a place for that sort of thing, too.

A big problem I see is that characters take so long to write and are so tediously fleshed out (or the attempt is made to do so, at least), that you really feel like you're doing something bad to the players in letting their characters get killed. It's D&D. Every game I ever had fun in, character death was a real threat, and there wasn't some high & mighty story or multi-step module to have its solvency threatened because of it.

Yep. I would've let them die as well....definitely the one bashing down the door for sure. No question about it.

 

[Reynard]

Most Common:
Don't let the player die if he didn't make a mistake. Noone likes to fail for no good reason.

In one situation, one stupid PC was bashing in doors in dungeon, ignoring stealth completely. He bursts into the obviously marked (the only fancy door with an obsidian skull decoration) bedroom of a sleeping (now woken) BBEG. The BBEG's first action is to fire a ray at the door, hitting both Smashy McAxeinhand and a PC who's been telling him how stupid he's being the whole time.

So, he rolls enough damage to kill them both in one shot. This wasn't intended to be a straight fight. However, I fudge the numbers so that neither die. Next round, he kills the PC who made the mistake. Everyone else survives.

This is a big fat no-no in my book: do not fudge the dice. The uncertainty of the dice is not only a huge part of the fun of the game -- otherwise we'd be playing Amber -- but by doing so you are arbitrarily rewarding and punishing players, doubly so if you only save the one who didn't screw it up. Let the players enjoy the rewards and suffer the consequences of their choices, their actions and the dice..

Now, that said, one big mistake that I used to make is overusing the dice. it is easy to call for a check, even an easy one, when a player asks to do something. however, if it is an easy or natural thing for the PC to do, asking for a roll is just asking for complications if the dice turn up low. "I want to find a seedy bar so we can stake out those warf burglars we heard about." "Make a Gather Info check." Crap, I got a 7." "Um..." Just tell the character he finds the place and get on with it. Mostly because if you give it to him with the 7, players don't know what to expect as a "good roll" and when they roll a 7 for something else and don't succeed, they'll wonder what's going on and why you're being inconsistent.

 

[Reynard]

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.

I disagree. Those kinds of details provide the DM with context for his antoganists and the world in which the PCs live and allow the DM to run the world with a level of internal consistency that the players will appreciate, even if they don't realize it. The one piece of advice in the 4E DMG that I really wish they hadn't put in there was telling DMs not to bother detailing backgrounds or setting details beyond a simple sketch -- it makes for very shallow worlds and very cardboard NPCs and villains.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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.

Whilst I agree completely, and your points are well-made (also the dead bandits with stats/personalities scenario seems awfully familiar), I do think in a PUBLISHED adventure there is something to be said for amusing/interesting the DM with this sort of info, sometimes. Especially if it's useless in a direct fashion but provokes ideas and unveils concepts to the DM. Thus an adventure can sometimes provide more than just the adventure, but ideas for entirely unrelated adventures inspired by the useless information.

 

[Reynard]

Whilst I agree completely, and your points are well-made (also the dead bandits with stats/personalities scenario seems awfully familiar), I do think in a PUBLISHED adventure there is something to be said for amusing/interesting the DM with this sort of info, sometimes. Especially if it's useless in a direct fashion but provokes ideas and unveils concepts to the DM. Thus an adventure can sometimes provide more than just the adventure, but ideas for entirely unrelated adventures inspired by the useless information.

If it is true for published scenarios, it is true for homemade adventures. The only difference is a simple logistical one: if the DM is heavily pressed for time, then it is probably not the most efficient use of that time. However, if the DM has the time, it can only enhance the game.