D&D General worst (real) advice for DMs

Honestly, any advice that pushes a playstyle before the group has found its preferred playstyle is a problem. Railroads are fine, for people who like them. Similarly, sandboxes are fine, for those who like them. Put a player who isn't suited for them in either, and it isn't fun.

The last point is very true, I've seen a very experienced group totally at a loss when dropped in a complete sandbox by surprise, and not enjoying the situation at all. They just preferred having a compromise where, while still having lots of freedom, they were pursuing epic goals, so when deprived of those, they simply could not agree about what to do, in particular as a group, to continue having the kind of adventures that they liked.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

There was a local GM I used to have to play with before.

Not only was he the GM trope who's trying to write the Great American Novel at the table, but his idea for encounters, to make them feel heroic, the PCs should (out of six encounters) lose 3, stalemate 2 and win 1 outright. He once complained about people not interacting with his 'oceans of plot' and my friend said 'Yeah, you have an ocean of plot, but at most you let a couple characters ride around on jet skis on it while most of the others just sit in the train you're railroading over the ocean'
 

The last point is very true, I've seen a very experienced group totally at a loss when dropped in a complete sandbox by surprise, and not enjoying the situation at all. They just preferred having a compromise where, while still having lots of freedom, they were pursuing epic goals, so when deprived of those, they simply could not agree about what to do, in particular as a group, to continue having the kind of adventures that they liked.
This reminds me of Matt Colville saying he believes there are no Bad Players - the players you feel are bad players just aren't right for the table/group/game they're at, but will be perfectly fine with others who share the same ideas.
 

A lot of this boils down to style. I am not a fan of balancing encounters, even most if the time, around parties. But that is a common preference. It is about what you want at the table. For the wrong group, advising balanced encounters is the worst advice, for another group it is the best
 


This reminds me of Matt Colville saying he believes there are no Bad Players - the players you feel are bad players just aren't right for the table/group/game they're at, but will be perfectly fine with others who share the same ideas.

I completely subscribe to this point of view, with one caveat, for me there are bad players, it's those who don't come to the table to play with (and even better for) others, but to play for themselves (And you get many types of those, from extreme roleplayers who don't care that their character is extremely annoying or plot destroying to powergamers who have to turn everything into a context to show how powerful they are), disrespecting other players and/or the DM.
 

I completely subscribe to this point of view, with one caveat, for me there are bad players, it's those who don't come to the table to play with (and even better for) others, but to play for themselves (And you get many types of those, from extreme roleplayers who don't care that their character is extremely annoying or plot destroying to powergamers who have to turn everything into a context to show how powerful they are), disrespecting other players and/or the DM.
I've been DMing for a long time for a lot of people and luckily I've only had 1 or 2 people that I think simply shouldn't play D&D. They're rare but the "I have fun by making the DM miserable" person does exist.
 



"If you're DMing a published adventure and you discover that a player has read it and is using their meta-game knowledge to overcome all the challenges, it's your responsibility to change and re-write everything rather than the player's responsibility to stop being a jerk."
 

Remove ads

Top