D&D General worst (real) advice for DMs

[uzirath]

"Just wing it--you'll be fine."

While that may be too glib and doesn't provide any specific advice, I applaud the general "less is more" sentiment. The only problem I see with "winging it" is when the winger doesn't understand what makes the game fun for their players. If the game starts to feel like an endless array of random encounters with no particular stakes, then that's not going to work for me as a player. But if you're putting pressure on my character, building off of previous plot threads, following your players' lead, and introducing meaningful stakes, you don't need to spend hours starting up NPCs and monsters and drawing meticulous maps. I'll be having so much fun that I won't notice (or care) if you whiff some details.

Meticulous planning might be fun, rewarding work, but it is certainly not necessary.

 

[hawkeyefan]

While that may be too glib and doesn't provide any specific advice, I applaud the general "less is more" sentiment. The only problem I see with "winging it" is when the winger doesn't understand what makes the game fun for their players. If the game starts to feel like an endless array of random encounters with no particular stakes, then that's not going to work for me as a player. But if you're putting pressure on my character, building off of previous plot threads, following your players' lead, and introducing meaningful stakes, you don't need to spend hours starting up NPCs and monsters and drawing meticulous maps. I'll be having so much fun that I won't notice (or care) if you whiff some details.

Meticulous planning might be fun, rewarding work, but it is certainly not necessary.

Yeah, that's another. "The entire world must be built before you begin." I don't know if it's as common advice as it once was, but it still comes up. While there are plenty of people for whom such an approach works quite well, it's not something I'd ever consider general advice.

"Just wing it" is a bit too far in the other direction, but of the two, I think that the more useful extreme. Or perhaps, the less harmful.

 

[CleverNickName]

Another one:

"Don't worry about tracking hit points. Just have the monster(s) die whenever you think they should."

I mean, why settle for killing imaginary monsters and NPCs, when you can kill player agency instead?

 

[Stormonu]

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."

Unfortunately, there have been players I have had to put a timer on so everyone at the table doesn't nod off while they hem and haw - and then do nothing of value (or even better, make the situation worse for everyone).

 

[Lord Shark]

"If the players disagree with you, have them hit by lightning bolts, reduce their Charisma, or have them attacked by an invisible ethereal mummy" -- as suggested in the 1E DMG.

 

[Fifth Element]

"If the players disagree with you, have them hit by lightning bolts, reduce their Charisma, or have them attacked by an invisible ethereal mummy" -- as suggested in the 1E DMG.

I've recently realized my biggest issue with the 1E DMG is how much it presents the DM-player relationship as adversarial. There's a whole lot of bad DM advice in that book.

 

[Guest 85555]

It's especially harsh because most players that take long on their turn do it with good intentions for the whole group. Usually, they're considering things like getting rid of a threat that could kill a PC or positioning themselves or their effects so that it doesn't hurt an ally.

I think this one goes into the stylistic differences between groups. Some players see the point of combat as more like a turn based strategy approach, and others see it more like something happening in the moment (and turn based combat rounds are just there for convenience). Some play more patiently, some want things to keep moving. If you have a player in a group who is taking a long time to decide on what to do, it can create very big problems if the group overall prefers things to speed along (and by the same token if your group prefers people to think through their moves and make good tactical decisions even if it takes more time, it is going to be an issue if someone is blazing through combat). I have seen both happen and usually the other players eventually come to the GM and ask them to do something to speed things up. The 60 second timer is a fair way to speed things up without singling out that other player.

 

[Oofta]

I have actually used a timer in combat with large groups and it's effective. 60 seconds is too short. But if you have 7+ players and people are taking 5 minutes on their turn it is an issue.

We used to play with a guy we called "the analyzer". Good guy and all but he was playing a paladin and when it came to his turn he'd double check the status of everything, discuss strategy for a minute or two. Then he'd sit, staring at the minis on the table for a few minutes in silence before finally throwing up his hands and proclaiming "I guess I'll just attack". Then he'd roll one dice at a time that he had to, for some reason, he always had to retrieve from his overstuffed dice bag.

We seriously thought about starting to use a timer. On the other hand, it gave me time for a quick bathroom break if I needed it.

 

[jasper]

Only Smart people play D&D so you should allow anyone to play at your table.
Fellow Nerds play D&D so you should allow anyone to play at your table.
x is in your other hobby so you should allow x to play at your table.

 

[Guest 7034872]

I've recently realized my biggest issue with the 1E DMG is how much it presents the DM-player relationship as adversarial. There's a whole lot of bad DM advice in that book.

The original relationship was pretty adversarial, yeah. I remember it well: DMs generally regarded it as their job to find clever ways of killing off players while keeping survival possible as a matter of principle.