[D&D Any] DM Traps: The Other Side of System Mastery

[Tequila Sunrise]

We all know about system mastery from a player's PoV: every edition's had it to varying degrees, from 3e's Toughness/Batman to 4e's Starlock/Expertise. But system mastery is a problem for DMs too: sometimes the rules lead a DM to believe the game must work in a particular way, while in fact it does not. The result can be anything from a simple learning curve to quitting players. What DM 'trap' ideas would you put on a list for new DMs to avoid? I'll start:

1. Players must fight a monster in mortal combat and reduce it to 0 hp in order to earn full XP. Often this idea is a result of not reading the rules carefully, or having a very strict idea of what 'defeat' means, but I think it warrants note.

2. Alignment restrictions are an important part of class balance, and so must be enforced. Many game restrictions actually imply importance to a new DM, from 2e's level limits to 3e's plethora of prereqs for feats and PrCs, but alignment causes the most frustration.

[Raiki]

Wow, I was definately not expecting this thread to be about new DM mistakes. I was picturing more of a "So all my players are system masters, what traps can I set that they will walk right into because of this".

Anyway, to add to the list:

3: Multiclassing XP penalties. It's just a bad idea. It stifles creativity and punishes players who want to play interesting characters. The worst part is that it punishes melee characters much more than casters, since casters are less likely to multiclass.

~R~

[Gralamin]

Heres three common traps.

4. Players should be required to have a feat to do something interesting but not covered by the rules.

5. Basic 3.5 traps are balanced - This is completely completely wrong. Its far better to throw those traps out and use the Encounter Traps from Dungeonscape.

6. Fluff must not be changed

[Runestar]

7) Core is balanced.

8) Multiclassing/dipping is inherently bad. (Case in point: druid20). Or PRCs must somehow be special and have to be taken all the way (they could simply be an extension of your training).

9) Fighters don't/shouldn't get nice things.

[Tequila Sunrise]

Great stuff! What about stuff like That Damned Crab and the Needlefang Drake Swarm?

10. "Monster HD/CR/level is a precise gauge of a monster's effectiveness."

[Knaight]

11) The DMG advice on city population distribution is worth following.

12) The DMG advice on having absurd amounts of preparation done before hand is worth following. (I'm not saying improvise everything, but the extent to which they suggest prep work is obscene.)

12.5) Have everything statted up beforehand, just in case.

13) You should use modules.

[PersonMan]

12) The DMG advice on having absurd amounts of preparation done before hand is worth following. (I'm not saying improvise everything, but the extent to which they suggest prep work is obscene.)

12.5) Have everything statted up beforehand, just in case.

Your forgot

12.75) Be prepared for every possible thing the PCs will do.

This caused my first...quasi-adventure to be a huge block of text pages long describing how things would happen.

I never used it.

[Swordgleam]

14. If the system doesn't have explicit rules for it, the system doesn't support/allow it.

15. The rules are more important than the players' fun.

16. If you mess up, ever, you suck as a DM.

[sonofzeal]

On the other side of things...

17) If it's part of the game, and legal by the rules, it's therefor the player's right to do even it makes other players uncomfortable or makes the game less fun.

[Dire Moose]

12) The DMG advice on having absurd amounts of preparation done before hand is worth following. (I'm not saying improvise everything, but the extent to which they suggest prep work is obscene.)


I've never written up a description of any rooms or areas in my campaign, and generally just have a basic sketch of the dungeon layout with labels identifying where the monsters, traps, and plot-central stuff go.

And we've never had a problem with this arrangement.

[Apropos]

That is preparation. Very minimal preparation, but preparation nonetheless.

[Flickerdart]

Just have the walls oozing with something, that's all the description you need. If the players press on, the floor is completely covered with the bones of previous victims. Continue in that vein until the PCs bolt in terror and you don't have to describe anything else. :smallbiggrin:

[JaronK]

17: Your story is more important than the player's fun.

[Tequila Sunrise]

Ah, I think we're starting to lose focus here: I'd like these ideas to be ideas that actually go through new DMs' heads. (No DM thinks 'my story is more important than fun,' although s/he might often think 'my story is fun!')

[Kylarra]

18. There is only one right answer to the problem, aka railroading and/or a lack of adaptability.

[Knaight]

I've never written up a description of any rooms or areas in my campaign, and generally just have a basic sketch of the dungeon layout with labels identifying where the monsters, traps, and plot-central stuff go.

And we've never had a problem with this arrangement.

I actually do just improvise everything, the closest I come to preparation is answering questions about settings. Still, if I were to prepare, I certainly wouldn't make name list after name list, note every house in a city and the stats of every inhabitant, build random encounter tables for every area, etc, which is what the DMG asks you to do. Well, a small part of that anyways.

[Swordgleam]

Ah, I think we're starting to lose focus here: I'd like these ideas to be ideas that actually go through new DMs' heads. (No DM thinks 'my story is more important than fun,' although s/he might often think 'my story is fun!')

Okay then, make it, "If I'm a good DM, I should be able to make the players' actions fit the awesome story I have planned."

[ZeroNumerous]

16. If you mess up, ever, you suck as a DM.

I admit to having this problem.

19) A wizard who saves the party every fight would be totally awesome.

[ScionoftheVoid]

11) The DMG advice on city population distribution is worth following.

12) The DMG advice on having absurd amounts of preparation done before hand is worth following. (I'm not saying improvise everything, but the extent to which they suggest prep work is obscene.)

In relation to these I once figured out the level and class of every individual in a large metropolis.:smalleek: Despite the facts that A. I didn't give any of them so much as a name, B. I wasn't actually going to use the place much if at all and C. it took ages even with a calculator for the level and class population division.

I'm not even sure if I finished it. I am never doing something that stupid again. EVER.

[Zeful]

1. Players must fight a monster in mortal combat and reduce it to 0 hp in order to earn full XP. Often this idea is a result of not reading the rules carefully, or having a very strict idea of what 'defeat' means, but I think it warrants note.

1a) Players must defeat a monster in some fashion, either through combat or diplomacy.

Yeah, the DMG only states that the party must overcome the the challange the monster represents. If they make things harder on themselves, like fighting a powerful Golem with a poor Listen/Spot bonus, and it's looking the other way, then they deserve whatever they get.

[Aldizog]

2. Alignment restrictions are an important part of class balance, and so must be enforced. Many game restrictions actually imply importance to a new DM, from 2e's level limits to 3e's plethora of prereqs for feats and PrCs, but alignment causes the most frustration.
I always thought part of the original intention here was to prevent players from double-dipping on things. Most obviously in Core, something like getting both the paladin's Divine Grace and the blackguard's Dark Blessing.

I'll add from my own experience:
20) Discussions on Internet boards provide a good gauge of game balance. Most games IME fall far short of the level of optimization and clever tricks seen here. I know my first time at running 3.5 I tilted things too far in favor of martial classes (in terms of encounter design and rewards) because I was concerned (from what I read on EnWorld) that otherwise casters would rule. Most players either don't have or don't use the optimization-fu to make that the case.

[Camelot]

20) I don't all those fancy initiative trackers, whiteboards, miniatures, power cards, etc. I can just use paper and carboard counters for combat and lined paper for hp and condition tracking and I'll be fine.

Use a whiteboard. Those things are godsends in 4e, especially if you have a player using it to track stuff for you. Also, initiative trackers hung over the DM's screen, with smaller ones to indicate status conditions like daze and such.

Soon, I'm going to go to Staples to get pipe cleaners for zones. Oh, zones, how you hurt me.

PS: We had two 17s, and a few X.5 or Xa, so this is technically at least number 21. But meh.

[Swordgleam]

This thread brings back memories.

21ish) You have to be as good as the best DM you've ever gamed with, right away. If not, you suck as a DM and always will.



Soon, I'm going to go to Staples to get pipe cleaners for zones. Oh, zones, how you hurt me.

Brilliant. We use mini poker chips under minis to track conditions, by the way. The players love watching enemies towering high above a stack of debuffs.

[TheCountAlucard]

11) The DMG advice on city population distribution is worth following.But I gotta figure out what race that seventeenth-level Commoner's gonna be! :smalltongue:


I'm not saying improvise everything, but the extent to which they suggest prep work is obscene.I came to the game table Friday with nothing prepared, just a vague and undeveloped picture of the campaign setting, as in, "Okay, there's six continents - wait, maybe five - nah, six continents. And something bad happened on this one." I said, "Okay, guys, tell me about your characters," and we started from there.

Great session. :smallbiggrin:


12.5) Have everything statted up beforehand, just in case.On the other hand, it is good to be able to throw an NPC together on the spot.

[absolmorph]

But I gotta figure out what race that seventeenth-level Commoner's gonna be! :smalltongue:

I came to the game table Friday with nothing prepared, just a vague and undeveloped picture of the campaign setting, as in, "Okay, there's six continents - wait, maybe five - nah, six continents. And something bad happened on this one." I said, "Okay, guys, tell me about your characters," and we started from there.

Great session. :smallbiggrin:

On the other hand, it is good to be able to throw an NPC together on the spot.
Throw together an NPC? Heck, I don't need any stats! I can figure it out in my head (i.e. Marshal 4 with Elite array, focusing on keeping up his squad of soldiers strength gives all allies in a 60 ft radius +3 on Strength-based rolls.)

23) You need to have a plot to have an interesting game.

[CrazedPachyderm]

24) Give Big Bads teleport so they can just run away when the going gets tough.

Reality: the PCs will grapple and you will roll a poor concentration check, or they will get a lucky critical hit and drop the enemy in one hit. But couldn't you just...

25) Fudge the dice to maintain the plot!

Nah, if the bad guy has one of the legendary items that the Queen asked the PCs to find and they keep him from running away, let them get the MacGuffin ahead of schedule. They deserve it. You can always come up with new adventures.

(Both of these came up last session; I fell for the first, but recognized how lame it would be to force things to happen my way. My players have quite a knack for screwing over the BBEG's plans, and je l'adore.)

[Glass Mouse]

23) You need to have a plot to have an interesting game.

Guilty.


16. If you mess up, ever, you suck as a DM.

Very, very guilty.

I'm actually guilty of quite a few of all these. Aww, now I feel like a bad GM...


26) My plot does in no way depend on the kind of characters my players make. It will be cool either way.

[Swordgleam]

27. You should be able to make perfect rules calls at all times. If there is any confusion, a good DM will stop play to look it up, instead of making a spot ruling that might turn out to be incorrect. This is the only fair way to play.


I'm actually guilty of quite a few of all these. Aww, now I feel like a bad GM...

Most of these are true stories. Don't feel bad. :smalltongue:

[Dr Bwaa]

In relation to these I once figured out the level and class of every individual in a large metropolis.:smalleek: Despite the facts that A. I didn't give any of them so much as a name, B. I wasn't actually going to use the place much if at all and C. it took ages even with a calculator for the level and class population division.

I'm not even sure if I finished it. I am never doing something that stupid again. EVER.

If you really, desperately want it that badly... here you go (http://www.myth-weavers.com/generate_town.php?) :smalltongue:

28a) Everything should be described in excruciating detail.
28b) Description slows down the game too much. It's okay to run combat in the "he hits you for 34 damage. Your turn." way.

Moderation is important. :smallbiggrin:

[Tyndmyr]

I wrote in my blog about this a bit. The biggest DM trap is the idea that the DM is more important than the players.

[ZeroNumerous]

I wrote in my blog about this a bit. The biggest DM trap is the idea that the DM is more important than the players.

29b) The players are more important than the DM.

[ScionoftheVoid]

If you really, desperately want it that badly... here you go (http://www.myth-weavers.com/generate_town.php?) :smalltongue:

The point was that I didn't need to do it for any reason. I spent hours of my life just because I didn't stop to think "I won't actually need to use this. Even if I do finish it I won't look at it again anyway, needed or not". I'm going to assume you were joking, though. Thanks for the link BTW. (Not that I'll ever need it)

[chiasaur11]

29b) The players are more important than the DM.

Well, they do have numbers on their side.

[Tyndmyr]

29b) The players are more important than the DM.

You could probably generalize it to any of the participants being more important than the others...I just see the "DM is always right" attitude most.

[ZeroNumerous]

You could probably generalize it to any of the participants being more important than the others...I just see the "DM is always right" attitude most.

The most common complaint I've ever seen is "My DM is railroading us" or "DMPCs are horrible".

30) DMing means I'm the player's enemy.

[Tyndmyr]

The most common complaint I've ever seen is "My DM is railroading us" or "DMPCs are horrible".

Both of which are perfectly valid complaints. Players complaining doesn't mean that they feel DMs are inferior to players....it merely means that they dislike this particular issue. If the group of players all think that their DM is railroading them, then yes, there is a problem.

I've seen people, in seriousness, propose that the DM is always right. I don't think I've ever seen anyone ever propose that players are always right. After all, such a stance would lead to hilarity when players disagree with each other.

[Solaris]

I've seen people, in seriousness, propose that the DM is always right. I don't think I've ever seen anyone ever propose that players are always right. After all, such a stance would lead to hilarity when players disagree with each other.

I've always took "DM is always right" to mean in regards to the rules. He'd just better be internally consistent.

[Swordgleam]

The biggest DM trap is the idea that the DM is more important than the players.

I'd rephrase this a little. If a player doesn't show up, the game goes on (in many groups). If the DM doesn't show up, you're hosed. If a player forgets what's happened for the last three sessions and only has his character sheet from two levels ago, the problem can be fixed in relatively short order. If a DM does something similar, the problem is a bit worse. DM prep is usually many times more intensive than player prep.

That doesn't mean the DM is always right, or that the DM can/should act like a tyrant. But I think it means the DM deserves a little extra consideration.

[lsfreak]

31) One person, playing one class, in one particular campaign, in one particularly fashion, is enough to generalize that said class does too much damage, does the right amount of damage, does too little damage, is useful all the time, fills a role well, fills a role poorly, sucks completely, or will spontaneously cause the campaign to explode. Especially true in 3.5 where two people playing the same class, even with a similar focus, end up vastly different.

32) There is a clear distinction between fluff and rules. For example, a newbie DM may see Power Attack and then not even consider something similar for bows or for daggers if the players ask. But really, restricting Power Attack to non-light melee weapons is an arbitrary and fluff-based distinction, rather than one of mechanics or balance. In new DMs' defense, these can be hard to judge without a solid grasp of the system already. Tied closely with 'fluff is mutable.'

[Zaq]

33) It's a bad thing when the players overcome challenges I didn't expect them to.

34) I don't really need to know what the players are capable of. I'm sure that they'll handle it for me. (Note: This does not mean that your players are dishonest. It means that they can focus on the nuances of a single sheet while you're juggling, well, more.)

35) Player X is good at roleplaying, so I'll let him/her be the go-to person for NPC interactions. I'm sure the others will speak up if they want more of a turn. (Some people wait to be asked. This isn't a good thing, but they do it.)

35a) Player X is good at roleplaying, so he/she totally wants to be the de facto party leader.

36) Play at level P is just the same as play at level P+3 or P+5. If it's not, we're doing something wrong, so I had better either institute some nerfs or make player-specific counters to keep things just like they were at level P.

37) Player Q has character trait Y, which means I can automatically trust them to stop whatever developments I hear player F is planning.

[Saintheart]

38) Crowning Moments of Awesome by players are subordinate to fidelity to the rules.

If you've spent six months leading up to the BBEG fight, you've have a bloody, tattering confrontation, the party's down to one PC still standing, the BBEG's down to 1 hitpoint, and the player's attack roll is 1 short of the AC ... fudge the damn numbers. :smallbiggrin:

[Eurus]

38) Crowning Moments of Awesome by players are subordinate to fidelity to the rules.

If you've spent six months leading up to the BBEG fight, you've have a bloody, tattering confrontation, the party's down to one PC still standing, the BBEG's down to 1 hitpoint, and the player's attack roll is 1 short of the AC ... fudge the damn numbers. :smallbiggrin:

39) The dice should be fudged, or the players won't have fun.

Hey, when I'm playing, I'd rather fail because I wasn't quite lucky/good enough than succeed because cosmic law says I should. :smallbiggrin:

[Kylarra]

I guess that all leads up to

40) What works for one group will work for every group
and its corollary
40a) If I'm not playing the way the internet says I should, I'm doing it wrong.

[Swordgleam]

I guess that all leads up to

40) What works for one group will work for every group
and its corollary
40a) If I'm not playing the way the internet says I should, I'm doing it wrong.

40b) If someone else is playing differently from me, it makes my game less fun.

And back on a less troubled path...


41) If I see advice, and it looks like really good advice, and I don't remember or understand how to follow it, I'm a bad DM. (I edit the RoleplayingTips ezine. I have this problem all the time.)

42) There is an ultimate answer to how to be a good DM, and I will find it in time / already know it. (Seemed appropriate for the number.)

43) I should never own up to having made a mistake, be it forgetting part of the plot or misreading a rule. The players won't respect me any more. It's better to try to convince the players it never happened.

[Dr Bwaa]

The point was that I didn't need to do it for any reason. I spent hours of my life just because I didn't stop to think "I won't actually need to use this. Even if I do finish it I won't look at it again anyway, needed or not". I'm going to assume you were joking, though. Thanks for the link BTW. (Not that I'll ever need it)

Fear not; joking I was :) I found that thing one day playing around on myth-weavers and then realized the same thing-- "wow, I will never, EVER need this!" :smalltongue:

[Kris Strife]

If you really, desperately want it that badly... here you go (http://www.myth-weavers.com/generate_town.php?) :smalltongue:

It didn't do anything when I was messing with it. :smallconfused:

[Drascin]

I've seen people, in seriousness, propose that the DM is always right. I don't think I've ever seen anyone ever propose that players are always right. After all, such a stance would lead to hilarity when players disagree with each other.

Weeeeellll... when it comes to rules calls, he kind of is. That's the point of him being a referee - he gets final say in rules arguments because someone has to terminate the rules discussions that eat hours away, and the only way to do it with a lot of players is "okay, I don't care what you two think the book says, my campaign is going to do it like [way A] from now on. Everybody okay with that? Let's continue".

Before I realized that bit, I seriously had two players argue for two hours of gaming time once. Plus many, many little arguments - one of my players was just one of these naturally argumentative people who ends up not caring about the result, just about winning the argument itself for its own sake, even if its detrimental to him in game :smalltongue:. So honestly, I think instilling in newbie DMs the fact that you're supposed to have final say when it comes to rules might be a good idea.

[faceroll]

40a) If I'm not playing the way the internet says I should, I'm doing it wrong.

That's my favorite rule!