D&D General worst (real) advice for DMs

[Thomas Shey]

I would assume this variance of challenges to be the default long-term outcome as the campaign goes on. If it isn't, the DM might want to shake up the adventure selection a bit.

Absolutely true, but some people fall into ruts and don't even realize they've done it.

That said...

...sometimes the character you bring to the party just isn't going to be the right tool for this particular job, either by bad luck or bad management. Most of the time, one of two situations is in play:

--- the party have enough info to give them a vague idea what they're up against, and can tweak their resources (including their lineup!) to suit
--- the party have little or no advance info and thus cannot tweak their resources to suit, instead they have to try to be ready for anything.

In the first instance, if the party learn they're up against a trap-laden adventure and have a bunch of tanks but no Thief or Rogue in their lineup, maybe someone might want to swap out their tank and bring in a sneak? Failing that, at the very least the party might want to recruit an NPC for the job?

Not having the tool for the job is one thing; as you say, if necessary getting an NPC to cover it can do it, at least short term.

The more severe problem, however, is when a PC is a useless tool, not only for a given situation, but because of how the GM runs things, most or all of the time. At the very least the GM should be aware that a player has generated a character that is going to be mostly useless, he can point it out early, if he's not willing to adjust things to put in more things that will make the character functional.

More broadly, I see it as very much - perhaps entirely - on the players/PCs to adapt to what the setting throws at them, rather than on the DM to adapt the setting to suit the PCs. The setting is, neutrally and without prejudice, exactly what it is; without regard for who/what the players decide to play in it.

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with that, but its not the way some groups roll; in some the game is all about the PCs, and the setting is built around them. If that's going to be the case (and its very much how some people prefer) then it behooves the GM to be aware what he's crafting the game for.

 

[Lanefan]

Absolutely true, but some people fall into ruts and don't even realize they've done it.

Indeed; and guilty as charged a few times in the past.

Not having the tool for the job is one thing; as you say, if necessary getting an NPC to cover it can do it, at least short term.

The more severe problem, however, is when a PC is a useless tool, not only for a given situation, but because of how the GM runs things, most or all of the time. At the very least the GM should be aware that a player has generated a character that is going to be mostly useless, he can point it out early, if he's not willing to adjust things to put in more things that will make the character functional.

Fair enough, provided the DM can know in advance that the PC won't be of much use long-term. This isn't always the case, particularly if the players/PCs are determining their own course after the first adventure or two.

I mean, I can look at characters in my own game and just by their class realize there's going to be some adventures in which they're simply not going to be of much use (the classic being Illusionists vs undead). Here, while I-as-DM can try to ensure that there's a variety of adventure types and that undead aren't the focus of every one, I can't stop the players if they decide their party is going after undead whenever they hear about them. (hopefully the Illusionist's player would - in character - pipe up somewhere along here and ask for a different focus; but this again is on the player, not the DM)

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with that, but its not the way some groups roll; in some the game is all about the PCs, and the setting is built around them. If that's going to be the case (and its very much how some people prefer) then it behooves the GM to be aware what he's crafting the game for.

Which is fine until-unless those PCs die or their players choose (as is their right, IMO) to retire them/swap them out, at which point the setting and the PCs become a mismatch.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Indeed; and guilty as charged a few times in the past.

Anyone can, honestly.

Fair enough, provided the DM can know in advance that the PC won't be of much use long-term. This isn't always the case, particularly if the players/PCs are determining their own course after the first adventure or two.

Well, its one thing if the players are diligently avoiding anything that would make character X useful (though I think it behooves a GM at that point to at least point out they're doing that); but it can be another if they're not clear what they're doing will do that (if they're chasing a collection of threads and things that's going to constantly have them in cities they may not realize that, and it might be nice to point it out before the ranger is constantly left out to dry).

I mean, I can look at characters in my own game and just by their class realize there's going to be some adventures in which they're simply not going to be of much use (the classic being Illusionists vs undead). Here, while I-as-DM can try to ensure that there's a variety of adventure types and that undead aren't the focus of every one, I can't stop the players if they decide their party is going after undead whenever they hear about them. (hopefully the Illusionist's player would - in character - pipe up somewhere along here and ask for a different focus; but this again is on the player, not the DM)

Eh. In theory it should be, but I think enough people are non-confrontational enough its a legitimate part of the GM's job to at least point that out to everyone else. Far as that goes, I don't think it should be limited to the player noting it in character; its not only in-character its going to be a problem, after all.

Which is fine until-unless those PCs die or their players choose (as is their right, IMO) to retire them/swap them out, at which point the setting and the PCs become a mismatch.

You're assuming much longer term lifespan for most campaigns than I suspect is even vaguely typical. You're also assuming what I'm talking about has far more broad impact on the setting because you assume sandbox style play.

 

[renbot]

I actually had a player say to me once when I was DMing "You aren't supposed to be having fun, your job is to make sure the PLAYERS are having fun."

Really? Because I'm part of this gaming group also and I'm putting a LOT more time into making it happen than you are. Maybe, just maybe, if they were paying me I would consider this. But then I find making money to be fun so I guess it wouldn't apply there either...

 

[Thunderfoot]

Reddit is a breeding ground for terrible advice. Of the ones already mentioned, I'd like to add:
"Combat taking too long? Use a 60-second timer! If the time is up and they haven't called their action, they lose their turn."

This is actually leftover from old war gaming rules where there WERE timers at the table. It's not bad advice...per se. But the time should be adjusted. If simeone take 20 minutes to decide if they want to attack or drink a potion, eh... yeah it's good to light a fire under their butt. But as a 'general' rule of thumb.. no.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I actually had a player say to me once when I was DMing "You aren't supposed to be having fun, your job is to make sure the PLAYERS are having fun."

Really? Because I'm part of this gaming group also and I'm putting a LOT more time into making it happen than you are. Maybe, just maybe, if they were paying me I would consider this. But then I find making money to be fun so I guess it wouldn't apply there either...

What the... ????

If the DM ain't having fun... game over, man.

 

[Thunderfoot]

But - but, but - killing player agency is how DMs earn experience points!

Wait.. then why have I been tracking my TPK's. I thought THAT was the way. I'm like level 30 now .. lmao

 

[Guest 7034872]

I actually had a player say to me once when I was DMing "You aren't supposed to be having fun, your job is to make sure the PLAYERS are having fun."

Really? Because I'm part of this gaming group also and I'm putting a LOT more time into making it happen than you are. Maybe, just maybe, if they were paying me I would consider this. But then I find making money to be fun so I guess it wouldn't apply there either...

Wow.

And so did they also propose a contract for your payment in exchange for such services? I mean, something more than Mountain Dew from the fridge and some Cheezdoodles?

 

[jmartkdr2]

Wait.. then why have I been tracking my TPK's. I thought THAT was the way. I'm like level 30 now .. lmao

Ain't got no agency when you're dead.

 

[Lanefan]

Wait.. then why have I been tracking my TPK's. I thought THAT was the way. I'm like level 30 now .. lmao

TPKs are an excellent means of killing player agency and thus earning those tasty xp - it's hard for a player to have any agency without a character.