D&D General worst (real) advice for DMs

[reelo]

I mean, imagine playing in a campaign where the PCs lose roughly half their combat encounters.

Players should absolutely lose half of the fights, POTENTIALLY. As the saying goes, in the OSR: "If the PCs find themselves in a "fair fight", it means their planning sucked."
Combat should ALWAYS be a last resort.

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.

Building the setting around the PCs!?! That's putting the cart before the horses! I can't imagine any of those settings being concise, or making any sense at all.

 

[Greg Benage]

Part of me thinks all advice is bad, because it suggests to the fledgling DM that this is some super-serious, intimidating task that requires advice.

When the ensuing discussion (ahem) inevitably and immediately devolves into a swirling melee of nerd argument, it only reinforces that impression and probably puts many off the idea altogether.

“Just wing it” was called out as bad advice, and maybe it is, but “overthink the elf-game in the myriad, conflicting ways with which we will now collectively batter you about the head” is even worse.

 

[Thunderfoot]

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.

whew, thanks. lol

 

[Thunderfoot]

<SNIP>
“Just wing it” was called out as bad advice, and maybe it is, but “overthink the elf-game in the myriad, conflicting ways with which we will now collectively batter you about the head” is even worse.

There is an old quote by Gen Eisenhower that ended up as a series of quotes in the Laws of Murphy...

The First Law of Combat: Never enter a battle without a proper plan of action.
Murphy's Corollary of the First Law: No plan of action survives first contact.
Comment on the corollary: Good plan? Good Luck!

 

[jmartkdr2]

Part of me thinks all advice is bad, because it suggests to the fledgling DM that this is some super-serious, intimidating task that requires advice.

When the ensuing discussion (ahem) inevitably and immediately devolves into a swirling melee of nerd argument, it only reinforces that impression and probably puts many off the idea altogether.

“Just wing it” was called out as bad advice, and maybe it is, but “overthink the elf-game in the myriad, conflicting ways with which we will now collectively batter you about the head” is even worse.

My usual actual advice to new dm's: relax. You'll make mistakes but so long as you're trying everyone will probably have fun. The rest comes with time and practice.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Players should absolutely lose half of the fights, POTENTIALLY. As the saying goes, in the OSR: "If the PCs find themselves in a "fair fight", it means their planning sucked."
Combat should ALWAYS be a last resort.

This is only true if you're playing for elements that do not strongly involve combat. This is far from universal.

 

[Scott Christian]

"It's a medieval setting. It has to have racism and sexism to be realistic!"

If there's real racism and sexism in your game, it's because YOU want it to be there.

I have never heard this advice - ever. In thirty years never ever heard a DM utter to another DM this as advice.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Players should absolutely lose half of the fights, POTENTIALLY. As the saying goes, in the OSR: "If the PCs find themselves in a "fair fight", it means their planning sucked."
Combat should ALWAYS be a last resort.

Depends on what you want from the game. I’ve played in a very Black Company inspired game where every mission involved combat or at the very least the strong possibility there of. I mean, it was a military themed campaign. Sometimes, combat is the mission.

And this is before we start to look at other genres, games, or settings beyond the general D&D default.

Building the setting around the PCs!?! That's putting the cart before the horses! I can't imagine any of those settings being concise, or making any sense at all.

And yet they can.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I have never heard this advice - ever. In thirty years never ever heard a DM utter to another DM this as advice.

I have heard it very often…right here on EN World and other places…but not usually framed as advice so much as simple expectation. Like the kind of quasi-medieval proto-setting of D&D can depart from actual medieval practices and elements in significant ways….but when it comes to gender roles and the like, oh no, that’s simply how the world was, so we need to maintain that fidelity. Even though there are pixies and beholders and lord knows what else.

So it usually is presented as an expectation of play more than as advice, but yeah, it comes up pretty often.

 

[Seramus]

I have never heard this advice - ever. In thirty years never ever heard a DM utter to another DM this as advice.

Count yourself lucky! I've run across it at least 5-6 times in some variation, sometimes from really repugnant people, but others from seemingly innocent places.

One I like to tell was a Victorian Werewolf game where the ST repeatedly had the NPCs talk down to and tut-tut a female player. She had to stop the game and ask what was up. The ST explained to her that women were treated that way in Victorian times, and it was realistic!

She told him if she can be a hulking werewolf who could cross the gauntlet into a realm of spirits, she could also be treated like a normal person in our game of escapist fiction.

Luckily, he was a good guy in general and ran a great game after a day to cool off and think.