Biggest Mistakes of a DM?

[jedipotter]

As a Player:
What annoys you most in DMs?
What bugs you the most annoying, and what are you willing to forgive?
What should be the last words of a master of the game?
What game master should not do?
What behavior deprives the game of fun?

We would ask that as many as possible people answered these questions ;)

(I hope for a little discussion on this topic)

I temporarily hold my answer.

[Buufreak]

As a Player:
What annoys you most in DMs?
What bugs you the most annoying, and what are you willing to forgive?
What should be the last words of a master of the game?
What game master should not do?
What behavior deprives the game of fun?

We would ask that as many as possible people answered these questions ;)

(I hope for a little discussion on this topic)

I temporarily hold my answer.

In order:

Inability to read. (metaphorical, we had a guy who refused to read any books and just winged everything. Currently teaching him why that is a horrible idea.)
See previous answer, willing to forgive accidents.
The last words? Not exactly sure what you are going for there, JP.
A DM should not be a total douche-nozzel, but that definition might vary by the table.
Said douche-nozzelness deprives the game.

[rockdeworld]

By far, in my experience: when the DM's attitude is "this is the only way the PCs can overcome/play through this encounter. Any attempt at anything else will fail."

[Pex]

Dismissing a player's concern as "whining".

[heavyfuel]

As a Player:
What annoys you most in DMs?
What bugs you the most annoying, and what are you willing to forgive?
What should be the last words of a master of the game?
What game master should not do?
What behavior deprives the game of fun?


Massive railroading. I don't mind that the DM wants me to play a LG army guy if that's more or less the story he had in mind, but if he doesn't allow me to deviate, even somewhat, from the planned story, then I'm mad.

Rule of Cool. As a DM, I'm very strict to the rules (RAW, RAI and house-rules). eg. Recently I've had a player "go between two 5ft squares to bull rush two enemies at once". What I did was apply massive penalties to him, but I know other DMs might have let him do just that and be ok with it simply because it was cool. This bugs me somewhat because it might open up some game breaking possibility, but if the DM in question is fine with this, then he is the one assuming the risk.

His ruling. I don't think it's wrong to argue (while being civil) the DM's judgement call, but as a player, I respect whatever his call is. If I truly and consistently don't agree with a DM, I just leave the table as nobody is forced to play. Fortunately, only happened once.

Massive railroading; Being Inconsistent with rulings; Hide a particular houserule that a person in that universe should know. Eg. I ban multiple Arcane Thesis when playing E6, but every arcane caster at my table knows this, as it makes sense that his character would know that.

Doing any of the above, in a manner I consider excessive.

[1pwny]

Okay, I'm going to put this out there right now: Let's assume that everyone here (including jedipotter) is aware of how much jedipotter's ideas are disliked by the general...[Scrubbed]

[fishyfishyfishy]

The worst possible thing a DM could do that would guarantee me leaving a table would be to remove player agency and make my decisions for me. I'm not talking about magical compulsion or other such things that are within the rules. I mean the "no you guys don't investigate that forest you talked about with the NPC. I planned for the adventure to stay in town and resolve this murder mystery, so your characters do that instead." type of stuff.

[Fenryr]

As a Player:
What annoys you most in DMs?
What bugs you the most annoying, and what are you willing to forgive?
What should be the last words of a master of the game?
What game master should not do?
What behavior deprives the game of fun?

We would ask that as many as possible people answered these questions ;)

(I hope for a little discussion on this topic)

I temporarily hold my answer.

1) Switch stuff in the fly: Youu activate a trap and a Lightning Bolt springs. You're immune to electric damage and you tell him so. So he says "Then it's a Fireball now. Roll Reflexes".
2) I am willing to forgive everything at least once. Players are not perfect either.
3) Depends on the situation.
4) Be unwilling to learn a new subsystem. Try it at least once and see the power level and optimization ceiling.
5) PVP starters and people who don't pay attention.

[Buufreak]

5) PVP starters and people who don't pay attention.

That too, but I think that is more caused by party members than DM. And usually, at least at my table, its because people can't seperate OOC and IC and need to get panties out of a bunch.

[molten_dragon]

What annoys you most in DMs?

DMs who don't know the rules and slow the game down by having to constantly look things up.
DMs who apply the rules (whatever they happen to be) inconsistently without good reason.
DMs who have a "My way or the highway" style of running the game and aren't willing to compromise to help their players have a good time.
DMs who cancel sessions frequently at the last second.
DMs who misrepresent the game they're running (i.e. they tell you it'll be a certain type of game, but it's something else)
DMs who, in general, aren't people I want to spend time around. Whether it's because they have poor social skills, disgusting personal habits, they're really immature, or just because they're not nice people.
DMs whose games are boring.
DMs who play favorites among the players.


What bugs you the most annoying, and what are you willing to forgive?

I'm willing to forgive not knowing the rules, especially if we're all new to the game.
Applying the rules inconsistently and "My way or the highway" will usually lead to me leaving a group if talking to the DM about it doesn't lead towards a resolution. These ruin the fun for me pretty fast.
I'm sometimes willing to forgive cancelling frequently if there's a good reason for it. Otherwise I'll probably try to find another group that meets more regularly.
I'm willing to forgive misrepresenting the game if what it turns into is still fun.
With people I don't want to spend time around, I might be forgiving, depending on what it is about them I don't like, how often it comes up, and whether they're trying to change.
Boring games, I'll generally put up with it if I like the group. If the group and the game are bad, I'm out.
Playing favorites, depending on how bad it was, and how often it came up, I might be able to put up with, or I might not. Hard to say.


What should be the last words of a master of the game?

I don't really understand this question. Like on his deathbed or something?


What game master should not do?

The DM should not do the things I answered the first question with.


What behavior deprives the game of fun?

From the DM? The things I answered the first question with.

From other players?

Players who intentionally disrupt the game, whether through working at odds with the rest of the party, or simply wanting to go off and do their own thing all the time.
Players who are too wrapped up in their phone/tablet/laptop/girlfriend to pay attention to the game.
Players who aren't people I want to spend time around, mainly for the same reasons I wouldn't want to be around the DM.

And for DMs and players, if we're playing at my house, people who aren't respectful houseguests.

[fishyfishyfishy]

DMs who don't know the rules and slow the game down by having to constantly look things up.
DMs who apply the rules (whatever they happen to be) inconsistently without good reason.
DMs who have a "My way or the highway" style of running the game and aren't willing to compromise to help their players have a good time.
DMs who cancel sessions frequently at the last second.
DMs who misrepresent the game they're running (i.e. they tell you it'll be a certain type of game, but it's something else)
DMs who, in general, aren't people I want to spend time around. Whether it's because they have poor social skills, disgusting personal habits, they're really immature, or just because they're not nice people.
DMs whose games are boring.
DMs who play favorites among the players.



I'm willing to forgive not knowing the rules, especially if we're all new to the game.
Applying the rules inconsistently and "My way or the highway" will usually lead to me leaving a group if talking to the DM about it doesn't lead towards a resolution. These ruin the fun for me pretty fast.
I'm sometimes willing to forgive cancelling frequently if there's a good reason for it. Otherwise I'll probably try to find another group that meets more regularly.
I'm willing to forgive misrepresenting the game if what it turns into is still fun.
With people I don't want to spend time around, I might be forgiving, depending on what it is about them I don't like, how often it comes up, and whether they're trying to change.
Boring games, I'll generally put up with it if I like the group. If the group and the game are bad, I'm out.
Playing favorites, depending on how bad it was, and how often it came up, I might be able to put up with, or I might not. Hard to say.



I don't really understand this question. Like on his deathbed or something?



The DM should not do the things I answered the first question with.



From the DM? The things I answered the first question with.

From other players?

Players who intentionally disrupt the game, whether through working at odds with the rest of the party, or simply wanting to go off and do their own thing all the time.
Players who are too wrapped up in their phone/tablet/laptop/girlfriend to pay attention to the game.
Players who aren't people I want to spend time around, mainly for the same reasons I wouldn't want to be around the DM.

And for DMs and players, if we're playing at my house, people who aren't respectful houseguests.

You and I would get along well I think. I agree 100% with this post.

[torrasque666]

As a Player:
What annoys you most in DMs?
What bugs you the most annoying, and what are you willing to forgive?
What should be the last words of a master of the game?
What game master should not do?
What behavior deprives the game of fun?

We would ask that as many as possible people answered these questions ;)

(I hope for a little discussion on this topic)

I temporarily hold my answer.


Railroading, and unnecessary/arbitrarily removal of player choices
I find an inexperienced DM annoying, but I'm willing to forgive that, so long as the DM is willing to try and improve. I find a DM who ignores what his players want in favor of his own goals abhorrent. I find a DM who is unwilling to compromise his own goals with those of the players a bad DM, who has no business DMing. (If all the PCs want to do something, say they want to kill a king, or go on a dungeon crawl, or use a certain book[And I mean that the desire to allow the book is unanimous amongst the PCs], and the DM is absolutely unwilling to compromise with them, unless the players are forewarned when joining that it will be such a game.)
Preferably something that wraps up the adventure. Whether that means that a "what happens next" montage, or something else, that's up to them.
He should not arbitrarily[Read: for no reason other than "I want/don't want to"] remove the ability for a player to make meaningful choices. He should not create secret houserules that the players will not know about until they run afoul of them. He should not hide behind "I could do worse, because the DMG has rule 0."
All of the above, minus an inexperienced DM. Removing my ability to make a choice that has meaning(namely, how my character acts) because, at that point, why should I play if my actions are just going to be overridden? Secret houserules(not necessarily plot points though) because I like to know how the system works so that I don't break any rules. Refusing a book that all the players would like to use, and are willing to loan/give you their copy, is usually met with if not hostility, irritation. Refusing someone who wanted to play a viable melee character after 10th level the Tome of Battle? Well, now he'll need to dig through the other 100+ books to find ways to make his concept work. Refusing someone who wants to play a caster who isn't an absolute gamebreaker the Complete Arcane, or the PHB2? Its either play a bard or intentionally gimp themselves with poor spell choices, lest he build something that will break the game unintentionally.

[molten_dragon]

You and I would get along well I think. I agree 100% with this post.

Yeah, I guess the tl;dr version of all that is just that I want to game with a mature group of people who are all there to have a good time, and will work together to help everyone do that.

[atemu1234]

(I hope for a little discussion on this topic)

I temporarily hold my answer.

I'm going to reference your other threads {Scrubbed}

[Dienekes]

As a Player:
What annoys you most in DMs?
What bugs you the most annoying, and what are you willing to forgive?
What should be the last words of a master of the game?
What game master should not do?
What behavior deprives the game of fun?

We would ask that as many as possible people answered these questions ;)

(I hope for a little discussion on this topic)

I temporarily hold my answer.

Annoys me in DMing:
Seeing fluff as a straight jacket for players to design their players.
Coming up and enforcing plots that do not involve player input.
Making decisions that seem arbitrary and refusing to explain the reasoning behind them.
Showing obvious preferential treatment to players, or bullying others.
Being unwilling to try new things, or allow the players to attempt to think outside the box.
Creating puzzles that ultimately revolve down to "Can you guess what I was thinking when I made this? If you can auto success, if you cannot, autofail."
Seeing themselves as a dictator as opposed to an elected leader.
DMPCs (I guess they can be done right, but I get a little wary whenever one comes up)
Refusing to admit mistakes
General behavior I view as childish or hampering the fun of others. As that is what the game is about, getting everyone together having fun. If someone's fun doesn't in any way prevent another players fun, I tend to prefer a "What the Hell, go for it" mentality in my DMs.

[nedz]

Lack of Player Agency A.K.A. Railroading
Playing Favourites
Fixed ideas about the game, which are frequently wrong
Demeaning Players
Lack of imagination in creating encounters

I can cope with not knowing the rules, but being unwilling to learn them or even worse criticising parts of the rules you don't even understand as munchkin rules

[rockdeworld]

I don't really understand this question. Like on his deathbed or something?
Probably means something the DM should not say ever, but I also thought of this interpretation and I think it's much more fun. For example:

"Codeine…bourbon…"*

*These should also be the first words the DM says. And several times throughout the game.

[OldTrees1]

As a Player:
What annoys you most in DMs?
What bugs you the most annoying, and what are you willing to forgive?
What should be the last words of a master of the game?
What game master should not do?
What behavior deprives the game of fun?

We would ask that as many as possible people answered these questions ;)

(I hope for a little discussion on this topic)

I temporarily hold my answer.

Clarification 1: Are we talking about hypothetical DMs? I have been rather lucky with DMs and with Players.
Clarification 2: What do you mean by last words?

Personally I would be annoyed if any DM did not follow one of the following principles:
1) Same Game Principle (aka communication)
All people playing should share expectations about what kind of game they are playing. Some games have all the rules known to everyone. Some games have puzzles and secrets that need to be figured out (I have run 2 campaigns where the players started with no knowledge of the rules but did understand the kind of game we were playing).

2) Shared Game Principle (aka cooperation)
All the players including the DM should be willing and open to accommodating the wishes of another player (eager is also good). Maybe there wasn't a storm god before John asked to make a Cleric of Thor. The DM should be open to adding a storm god to the setting. Maybe the DM doesn't want Planar Binding armies, the players should try to accommodate for the DM's preferences.

When everyone is playing the same game and everyone is trying to fulfill everyone else's goals for the game, then there is little cause for annoyance. Sure there can still be small annoyances and pet peeves resulting from clashing personal preferences, but those are often forgiven even when no compromise is possible.

[jjcrpntr]

As a Player:
What annoys you most in DMs?
What bugs you the most annoying, and what are you willing to forgive?
What should be the last words of a master of the game?
What game master should not do?
What behavior deprives the game of fun

1) Heavy railroading and having NPC's they wont let us kill. I had a dm that had us fight a guy, then fight the same guy two days later. Our scout did WAY more damage to the guy the second fight and the dm said "oh, he panics and runs away".
Close second would be, having a house rules that you either don't explain until the situation comes up, or never explain.
2)
Most annoying: I don't know I'm pretty open minded. I guess save or die stuff. Never liked it, refuse to use it when I dm.
Willing to forgive: Not knowing all the rules. This is something I'm guilty of as a DM. I don't know everything about Pathfinder, I try to, but I don't. If something comes up I'll either make a quick ruling (usually in the players favor) then move on and look it up during the week. Sometimes it gets looked up at the table.


3) Last words of the night, "did you guys have fun?" I try to end every session with "ok guys, did you have fun? Any questions, comments, suggestions or complaints?"

4) Don't be a ****, don't try to tell a story just because you want to tell a story. As someone mentioned already don't say "you can't go to that forest because I planned for you to stay in town and solve this murder mystery".

5) For me what deprives fun is things like save or die/suck.I know many here disagree and that's fine. I just don't see the fun in saying "roll a fort save.. you're dead". As a player it annoys me, as a dm i don't see the fun. That and when player choices don't impact the game/world around them.

[12owlbears]

DM's that refuse to stretch the rules when necessary, enforce rules that are obviously bull****, let players make characters that break the game but at the same time call other characters over powered, and when they decide that a charterer needs to die to in order to "heighten the drama" but don't bother to tell the player.

I'm willing to forgive railroading mostly because it's hard to plan things on the fly.

"rosebud"

Drink large amounts of alcohol then GM a group with two ADHD players.

Playing obnoxious and abrasive characters that you know are obnoxious and trying to justify it by saying that your acting in character.(I know not a DM thing)

[Aegis013]

As a Player:
What annoys you most in DMs?


I'm generally most annoyed when player input is ignored without explanation, or the DM outright deceives, or is not sufficiently transparent with, the players about the game itself.

If the players want to discuss concerns or provide feedback to the DM and the DM dismisses them, ignores them, or generally is unreceptive, it's a game I won't play.
Examples of this include but are not limited to: explaining things like why they felt their hands were tied in a given situation and they needed to do particular actions which the DM would not go along with, expressing concerns regarding the handling of particular events and their effects on player efficacy, expressing frustration with breaks in verisimilitude where there is no assurance that there is in fact an explanation to be found, and concerns regarding the removal of a player's ability to control their own character's actions (since this has been a point of contention in the past, not control the outcomes or consequences, merely the attempt to perform a task and the reasoning for such)

Using deception in the story can be excellent, don't get me wrong (e.g. The Rakshasa BBEG for the story arc tricks the players into obtaining a powerful magic item which she will use to further her nefarious plans. The players don't catch on), but lying about the style of the game, not warning players ahead of time if their concept will not be capable of meaningful contribution to the group via abilities (optimized Turn Undead in a game where you fight nothing but non-undead), or if there are going to be important considerations when dealing with developing a character for the game. Withholding this information can turn a great experience into one of extreme frustration. This also includes most rules changes that are not given honestly before the game, particularly those that affect the functionality of characters, and the scope of their ability to impact the world. (to borrow JP related examples, a broken McGuffin item creating an unstable gate to the plane of fire pulsing out Maximize for fire spells or such is not a rules change that would be an issue. Summon Monster style spells having a 1% chance per level to summon something other than the chosen monster with no established rules for players to understand their risk when utilizing these options would fall into this category and would need to be made known upfront)

A final one for me, personally, is that if my character dies fair and square in combat or otherwise and the DM hand-wave resurrects my character instead of letting me stay dead and won't allow me to bring a new character instead, it ruins my ability to enjoy the character. If the players had plans (such as the Revenance -> Revivify/Last Breath combo, or perhaps Amulet of Second Chances or the like) that save the character, it's fine.


What bugs you the most annoying, and what are you willing to forgive?

These are merely my pet peeves. I don't think they are as important as the ones above.

A couple of bad sessions, a cancellation here or there even for reasons as flimsy as "I'm not up to it tonight" are annoyances, but I can forgive them. A couple of bad to mediocre sessions in a generally enjoyable game, I can forgive. Breaks in verisimilitude with some assurance that there is in fact an explanation that can be discovered, I can forgive (if well done, they are welcome). Temporarily screwing with my character concept because the DM is afraid to let me utilize my previously approved character, I can forgive, but if the issue is persistent, then it falls into the deception clause above with the DM withholding information about the game. If some sources are "available" but you will be actively punished for using them, then ban them, or at least be clear about it.

Insufficient source material availability is a pretty big one for me. I typically won't play Core Only, I've played enough accidentally campaign shattering god Wizards/T1, and my experience with DMs who stay in this field can't handle my ability to utilize Bards either, and I find the other classes (Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian, Fighter, Monk) available in core to be mechanically boring, even if the roleplay is enjoyable, I want to enjoy the combat with interesting resource management systems as well.


...snip...

The other questions seem addressed through the answers to the two above. Though I think it might be a worthwhile pursuit to instead inverse the final question: What increases/compounds/multiplies/improves a game's fun?

An important aspect of this question for me, is that I can have meaningful interactions with NPCs.
An example would be a plan I hatched in a game where our group was going to infiltrate a factory; I waited until the workers were released, identified a manager, initiated conversation and eventually got him to agree to share drinks, on me. I used his intoxication to try to pry information about the place from him while disguised to facilitate our task. The group thought it was a great idea, and we used a good deal of time pursuing it. The DM made obtaining this information impossible. It was not possible to have meaningful interactions with the NPCs.

Another important aspect of this question is that the encounters are diverse and reasonably challenging. This has to come with some understanding regarding the difficulty it can impose for a DM to create meaningful challenges based on party optimization level - and hinges on people in the group aiming for roughly the same power between characters to facilitate this for the DM, especially in regards to combat.

For example, when I play a Wizard, I don't expect challenges to come frequently, but even "You're in a new place, how do you get a feel for the locale so you don't make yourself out like a total idiot?" can be an interesting challenge (I used scholar's touch and my bumpkin wizard learned that Dorian Gray was a lich [erroneously], and discovered from conversation that newspapers were incredibly powerful divination artefacts [erroneously]).

However, when I play a Paladin-Crusader archetype, I expect the combat challenges to be more intense since even a moderate variation in combat tactics will provide a reasonable challenge to such a character, in contrast with the Wizard where you likely need very specifically tailored tactics. So the bandits don't merely shoot crossbows from the woods at the party. Maybe they have a guy in their ranks with ranks in UMD and a scroll of Solid Fog, or Cloudkill.

[Bullet06320]

things that annoy me most with DM's.....
DMs that give you a set of rules and allowed/banned material, then complain when you use that to break their game in unintended ways,

DMs that change the rules every week, and makes you figure out it works now(I left one long time larp I was in, after about 6 weeks of constant rules changes with no explanation on how the new rules work)

DMs that let you play a conjuration specialist, then complain when your summons beat down his BBEG(it was a balor we wasn't supposed to fight yet, being too low level, 8th or 9th level I think. I was using Summon Undead IV from PGTF version specifically, summoned 3 huge skeleton, used the stats right out of the monster manual for huge skeleton plus appropriate modifiers, had them appear surrounding the balor, so as to receive flanking bonus. they made their attacks, then the balor decided to teleport away on his turn, its an SLA that provokes an AoO, and all 3 skeletons got one, oops, dead balor. DM had a hissy fit, said there was no way that should've happened, the rest of the table thought it was good tactics on my part. I was booted out of his house and told never to return)

DMs that let you play a necromancer and then complain when you reanimate everything you kill and use them to waltz through their massively designed dungeon they spent weeks on designed to kill epic characters

DMs that don't properly help teach new players the rules and how to game better. my first game I ever played in, my character didn't have a weapon, was on horse back, and got attacked by 2 bandits, well...I turned the horse around and galloped away, LOL. the DM said I could've used the horse to attack with. didn't know that was an option, being new to the game an all.

[OldTrees1]

@Bullet06320
So your complaint is about DMs that can't out predict how you will unintentionally break the game?

A fair complaint but, to be fair, not a unilateral problem.

[The Random NPC]

things that annoy me most with DM's.....
DMs that give you a set of rules and allowed/banned material, then complain when you use that to break their game in unintended ways,

DMs that change the rules every week, and makes you figure out it works now(I left one long time larp I was in, after about 6 weeks of constant rules changes with no explanation on how the new rules work)

DMs that let you play a conjuration specialist, then complain when your summons beat down his BBEG(it was a balor we wasn't supposed to fight yet, being too low level, 8th or 9th level I think. I was using Summon Undead IV from PGTF version specifically, summoned 3 huge skeleton, used the stats right out of the monster manual for huge skeleton plus appropriate modifiers, had them appear surrounding the balor, so as to receive flanking bonus. they made their attacks, then the balor decided to teleport away on his turn, its an SLA that provokes an AoO, and all 3 skeletons got one, oops, dead balor. DM had a hissy fit, said there was no way that should've happened, the rest of the table thought it was good tactics on my part. I was booted out of his house and told never to return)

DMs that let you play a necromancer and then complain when you reanimate everything you kill and use them to waltz through their massively designed dungeon they spent weeks on designed to kill epic characters

Sounds to me like it's mostly a problem of mismatched optimization levels.


DMs that don't properly help teach new players the rules and how to game better. my first game I ever played in, my character didn't have a weapon, was on horse back, and got attacked by 2 bandits, well...I turned the horse around and galloped away, LOL. the DM said I could've used the horse to attack with. didn't know that was an option, being new to the game an all.

You could, but why would you? I mean, it's likely the bandits would try to pull you from the horse, and then you'd be in a pickle.

[Gwendol]

As a Player:
What annoys you most in DMs?
What bugs you the most annoying, and what are you willing to forgive?
What should be the last words of a master of the game?
What game master should not do?
What behavior deprives the game of fun?

We would ask that as many as possible people answered these questions ;)

(I hope for a little discussion on this topic)

I temporarily hold my answer.

DM annoyances: Railroading in the sense that players can't impact the outcome in a direct way (choice, strategy, etc is removed). Rules, or absence thereof are applied in order for a predestined event to occur (disregard rules for flatfootedness, not allow for other interactions than combat, etc)
The most annoying would be to suddenly realize the campaign is heavy with enemies you can't really do much about: a rogue vs undead or similar, beguiler vs mindless, without giving any hints about it beforehand.
I'm willing to forgive anything but jerkish behavior.
A GM should not be a jerk.
Being a jerk deprives the game of fun. Also: boring adventures.

[Yahzi]

What annoys you most in DMs?
Inconsistency.

[kardar233]

Well I've been pretty lucky with DMs so far but I've had a few issues.

One thing that really killed the game for me was when my DM resorted to an in-character solution for an out-of problem. I was playing a lightning mage and he was having trouble dealing with her ability to detonate enemy rifles and deal AoE damage with water-covered floors so he dropped a man-eating voodoo croc on her who ate part of her soul and thus a good chunk of her magical power... it makes more sense if you know who Calaban the Gravewalker is. This irritated me quite a lot and while I managed to turn it into a redemption arc for her (as the loss of part of her soul turned her pretty much Neutral Evil until she got it back) it would have been handled much better if he had approached me to say "I think your character is too powerful or too versatile for the campaign at this stage, can we tone it down?", as I know what that's like and would be happy to reduce my character's power level.

Another thing I've run into that put me right off the game was being distrusted at the start of the game. In my games I allow all official books and sources because even when I don't know my players, I trust them not to break the game. Then, if some players are less experienced I'll help them boost the power level of their character concept to compete with the more experienced players. If someone does actually make a build that's way too powerful, I first ask them to tone it down and then I ask them to leave. Trying to corral a player who doesn't want to fit in with the group is not a productive use of my time and makes the rest of the game less fun.

The one that comes up a lot in games with one DM is having NPCs show up that are unreasonably powerful for the current level of the game, and not running them realistically. We weren't playing 3.5 or this would have gone much differently but if you're a squishy wizard who has just been taken off-guard by a low level warrior in a small room you're going to be pretty worried about your life, but all his NPCs are just smug and dissolve into crows or something when threatened.

The bigger problem is that he really feels the need to have a ton of NPCs from the setting material show up in the game, and so having half the high-level characters in any given region pass by and give our characters tasks that really just consist of "go here and wait for me to show up" starts grating after a while.

[Spindrift]

I agree with lots of the above, and already covered a lot of my opinions in the "what do you expect from d&d" thread.

So I'm just gonna add "not following the golden rule".
If you knowingly DM a game in such a way that you'd get mad if someone else was running the game and you were playing in it, that's not good DM policy.

In my opinion the golden rule trumps rule 0.

[Prince Raven]

Being adversarial with their players, just because you play the bad guy doesn't mean you are the bad guy.

[Bullet06320]

Sounds to me like it's mostly a problem of mismatched optimization levels.

I will admit, I am an optimizer and a rules lawyer, probly always have been, and have come across a number of players and DMs over the years that don't know how to optimize well, and my play style hasn't always gone over well in some groups, then there's the times I have a good build but cant RP properly to save my life, ratting out my party to the BBEG, my mouth just running away while the brain is yelling at me to shut up. but I can only respond to the OP based on my personal experiences when it comes to DMs


You could, but why would you? I mean, it's likely the bandits would try to pull you from the horse, and then you'd be in a pickle.

as far as the first time I played, knowing only what ive been told over the last hour or so, it seemed like my best option at the time, lol

@OldTrees1
its more like using the rules in unitended ways, and being told you cant do that, despite having the rules in front of me that tell me I can, consistency in rules and rulings may be a better complaint

[Jeff the Green]

Most of what irritates/infuriates me has been mentioned by one poster or another, but since it seems like you're looking for consensus and the spectrum of answers:

As a Player:
What annoys you most in DMs?


Arrogance. Totalitarianism. Inflexibility. Lack of an understanding of plot, setting, and character (though this is less problematic in dungeon crawl games). Rules illiteracy (i.e. You don't have to know every sourcebook like the back of your hand, but you should know how to run just about every situation covered by the PHB and DMG with no more than a glance at a cheat sheet and if you don't know the basics of psionics, incarnum, and maneuvers you should be willing to learn enough for me to play one and shouldn't believe stupid things like "psionics is broken because you can dump all your PP in one power and do 108d6 damage").

New DMs get some slack (particularly on rules literacy), obviously.


What bugs you the most annoying, and what are you willing to forgive?

Most annoying infuriating: Visible railroading*. If you wrote your plot to start in Questville and we instead go to Adventuretowne, it's fine to do a quick find/replace on the names. It's not fine to have us be ambushed by ninjas twice our level on the way to Adventuretowne who knock us out and deposit us in Questville.

Most forgivable: Being a bit spacey. While it can be annoying in the person who's supposed to be running things, I'm more prone to it than most so I sympathize.

*I find it amusing that this could also be described as "transparent railroading" with essentially the same meaning.


What should be the last words of a master of the game?


Do you mean "What is the last thing a DM should say?" i.e. "What should a DM never say?"

If so, "No, your character wouldn't do that." **** you, it's my character and I know what she would and wouldn't do. The closest you should come to this sentiment is "That doesn't seem consistent with what your character has done in the past. What's her motivation?" Not only does that address the real problem (loss of verisimilitude through inconsistent characterization) it encourages the player to think about and/or explain his character's inner life, which often leads to better roleplaying.


What behavior deprives the game of fun?

The game is an abstract concept and thus incapable of having fun. Were it capable, it would be most likely be deprived of its fun by pedantry.

[Averis Vol]

As a Player:
What annoys you most in DMs?
What bugs you the most annoying, and what are you willing to forgive?
What should be the last words of a master of the game?
What game master should not do?
What behavior deprives the game of fun?

We would ask that as many as possible people answered these questions ;)

(I hope for a little discussion on this topic)

I temporarily hold my answer.

In order:

DM's that play favorites. Pretty simple, I've had spineless DM's that couldn't refuse the requests of a certain other players

What bugs me, not enough to actually get upset over but that's kind of nagging, is badgering me over terminology and function of weapons. I make knives/swords and I practice their use; if you think the wizard can create a magical cage of force, why the ass are you trying to argue with me over halfswording? But, I'm willing to get over this, though I will indulge in argument after the session.

I think the last words of a DM (at least before the game starts) should be, "Hey, we're here to have fun and I'm going to just say this: I'll try to be open minded, if I rule something you don't agree with, don't stop the session so you can look something up. If I say something "wrong" look it up before you say anything, I'm not going to argue for fifteen minutes over whether or not something works like you think it does."

GM's should not power trip. This encompasses anything from being an ass because you can, to putting in creepy fetish ****. Don't be a ****ing pleb.

Be chill dude, it's a game. Don't get all ****ing elitist ******* on me because I made a character driven choice before a mechanically structured one. If only your character is super OP you're the problem, not me.

EDIT: It seems I misunderstood number 3. I guess the last thing I would want the dm to say is "No, you wouldn't do that." I HATE when DM's try to steal the reins of the only thing I have control over.

[Harlot]

As a Player:
What annoys you most in DMs?
What bugs you the most annoying, and what are you willing to forgive?
What should be the last words of a master of the game?
What game master should not do?
What behavior deprives the game of fun?

Well, DMs are all very different, so you can't mention just one thing.
What annoys me: DMs that can't be bothered to prepare for the session, i.e. haven't looked up monsters, made credible NPC's, think up encounters or just have some sort of plan as to where things are going. Winging it it ok sometimes if you're pressed for time, but it does annoy me and shouldn't be your general style of DMing.

The single most annoying thing a DM can do (and which is often a result of being unprepared and not knowing you ECL/CRs) is to constantly save the party from challenges that you threw at them, not letting them die. If a DM don't know the monsters thoroughly / play the monsters wrong, you end up having a Lvl. 6 party facing CR 15-18 or worse, and so many DMs will try to correct their error of judgement my constantly have miracles happening, hitherto unknown NPC's stepping in, or monsters fleeing for no reason, anything to avoid the otherwise unavaidable TPK.
I want a challenge, I won't whine if I die from being stupid or reckless or not knowing when to run. I do mind dying because the DM was unprepared and oddly I also mind him saving the day at random.

I am willing to forgive errors made from misunderstanding or misreading a rule.

I don't know what the last words should be upon ending a campaign. But something like 'thank you for helping making this campaign awesome and fun' should be the feeling you should have as a DM towards the players after a long journey together.

DMs should not railroad. Never. Choices and opportunities are the essence of roleplaying. The feeling that you can do whatever you feel like doing, albeit face the consequences of your choices.

A behavior that deprives the game of fun is constant discussions about rules during a session. This applies to DMs and players alike. IMO its better to accept the DM's verdict of a rule but state that you disagree, and then look up the rule have the discussion after the session ends/between sessions, so that you are in agreement the next time the problem comes up. If you meet up once a month or week or whatever for a couple of hours of fun and games, its really uncool to spend half the evening researching rulebooks etc.

/Harlot

[prufock]

What annoys you most in DMs?
- Railroading
- Unwillingness to admit mistakes
- Antagonism with players
- Uber-powered NPCs that overrun the game
- Using the rules incorrectly without explaining them as houserules


what are you willing to forgive?
- Unfamiliarity with a given rule or mechanic, provided that they are willing to admit mistakes and change/make a group decision on houserule


What should be the last words of a master of the game?
- "Good game tonight, guys!"

[ekarney]

What annoys you most in DMs?
DM's with little to no knowledge of the game, who back it up with "I'm the DM."

What bugs you the most annoying, and what are you willing to forgive?
Hidden house rules.
"You used up all you caster based classes for this campaign, you have to be melee or ranger next." Which I was told after I died for the first time in a campaign without prior knowledge of said rule.
I'm willing to forgive anything where there's a dispute of RAW/RAI.

What game master should not do?
Deliberately start arguments with his players.
Go back on his word.
Override RAW in any case that would lead to him being deemd wrong.

What behavior deprives the game of fun?
DM excluding players due to him not liking their characters.
DM's taking long winded lectures in the middle of a combat about how great his DMPC is. Protip DM's: If I spent more time checking facebook than looking at my character sheet during a combat, you need to get a move on.
Lack of character progression and background, I just really hate having hard work not just go unnoticed, but also unknown.

[Jagernaut]

The worst possible thing a DM could do that would guarantee me leaving a table would be to remove player agency and make my decisions for me. I'm not talking about magical compulsion or other such things that are within the rules. I mean the "no you guys don't investigate that forest you talked about with the NPC. I planned for the adventure to stay in town and resolve this murder mystery, so your characters do that instead." type of stuff.

Ugh, I had DM do this to me once.

DM: The mercenary captain pour you all some wine, then grabs a bottle of brandy and drinks that.
Me (thinking): "This is obviously poisoned. Not drinking it."
Other Player: I drink it.
DM: Ok, everyone roll fortitude saves.
Me: But I didn't drink the wine!
DM: Well he would have waited till you did. Roll save.

I'd understand if I was playing a low int character, but a Warblade with an int of 14 wouldn't fall for that obvious of a setup.

[atemu1234]

Ugh, I had DM do this to me once.

DM: The mercenary captain pour you all some wine, then grabs a bottle of brandy and drinks that.
Me (thinking): "This is obviously poisoned. Not drinking it."
Other Player: I drink it.
DM: Ok, everyone roll fortitude saves.
Me: But I didn't drink the wine!
DM: Well he would have waited till you did. Roll save.

I'd understand if I was playing a low int character, but a Warblade with an int of 14 wouldn't fall for that obvious of a setup.

You should've said to the DM, "My character refuses to drink because this wine is obviously poisoned and rolls bluff to tell his allies that it's poisoned without letting the captain know. Then, I proceed to tell him we are holy servants of a deity who refuses to allow us to imbibe alcohol."

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Please keepin mind the Forum Rules, particularly regarding External Baggage.

[Pikeax]

As a Player:
What annoys you most in DMs?


Personally, i hate railroading DMs and DMs that "houserule" on the fly the most. The DM should not have the gall to tell me that my character wouldn't do something, especially if its not RAW restricted (like a paladin code or something). Why would the greedy rogue want to avoid the city when that's the best place to find and sell loot?


As a Player:
What bugs you the most annoying, and what are you willing to forgive?


I can forgive the occasional ruling simply due to not knowing a rule, that can be settled after the game with a reference to a book. The stuff i can't forgive is "well that's the way it is now" when a round ago, the monsters did it the RAW way. "No non-lethal damage should be both harder to do and deal less than lethal damage."
"... where in RAW is that and your hobgoblins did it that way last time though..."
"well that's the way it is"

"well that's the way it is now"


As a Player:
What should be the last words of a master of the game?


"You're going to do this because that's what the story says you're going to do,"
or some variation thereof are common "last words" for me to hear before i walk out on a campaign.


As a Player:
What game master should not do?


Other than railroad or have horribly inconsistent rules made up on the fly, DMs shouldn't dismiss their players or throw challenges at them that the party has no way of defeating (like a chasm too large to jump over and too far to throw a rope across at level 3). They also shouldn't show favoritism towards players by bending or breaking rules for them. DMs also help hold the game together, and if there are OOC party issues, the DM shouldn't ignore them (in my experience most IC party conflict originates OOC)


As a Player:
What behavior deprives the game of fun?


Auto-pilot DM plots are the worst for fun. If you want to tell a story, write a book.
We're Dungeons and Dragons players. We make stories ourselves. They might be stupid, or idiotic, or cliche, but they're our stories, not just the DM's story.

[Oryan77]

throw challenges at them that the party has no way of defeating (like a chasm too large to jump over and too far to throw a rope across at level 3).
I've heard players complain about this when it came to monster encounters (which is a complaint that I don't agree with). But now mother nature needs to be balanced according to party level? Man, if only adventuring were so easy for the Donner Party. :smallconfused:

[OldTrees1]

I've heard players complain about this when it came to monster encounters (which is a complaint that I don't agree with). But now mother nature needs to be balanced according to party level? Man, if only adventuring were so easy for the Donner Party. :smallconfused:

This brings up an important difference. Basically it is the difference between the DM throwing the encounter at the players vs the players stumbling in over their heads.

I have not encountered anyone that would begrudge a DM for playing a Great Wyrm intelligently when the idiot 1st level adventurers decide to go steal its horde.

However I would begrudge a DM that decided to force the 1st level party to face a Great Wyrm.

[Sir Garanok]

Limited options for pcs,
not encouraging roleplay,
bad mechanics knowledge,
insufficient info to complete quest,
too hard encounters,
not treating players equally,
not killing pcs when he has to.

[Flickerdart]

The biggest mistake - the single biggest mistake, bar none - a DM can make is failing to learn. We all had to start somewhere. We've all made our share of bad rulings and unbalanced encounters and unsolvable puzzles.

The important thing isn't not to make mistakes, but to recognize you've made mistakes and learn from them. The DM has the best perspective and the most influence to make sure the game runs properly, and if he is wilfully ignorant of that perspective and abusive of that influence, that's the worst mistake.

[aleucard]

First off, show of hands; who here does NOT think that roughly 90% of the posts on this thread not relating to anecdotes are directed specifically at a certain individual whose opinions on this subject are well-known around these parts?

Second,

As a Player:

What annoys you most in DMs? Probably the notion that the DM's word is God. I feel increasingly tempted to notify them that they're just as much of a player as the rest of us and that if they insist on continuing to sneer at the lowly peasants then they should remember that they're outnumbered.

What bugs you the most annoying, and what are you willing to forgive? As for pet-peeves, I'd have to say those who either don't read the rules for the things they're doing when they're easily available, or modify them without warning. I'm willing to forgive nearly anything if the offending party is willing to admit when they screwed up.

What should be the last words of a master of the game? Of the night? "What did you guys think about that session?" Things that end the game when spoken? "Rule 0 trumps your desire to play your character, now follow my whims bitch!" or any variation thereof.

What game master should not do? Hardline railroading is something I've been hinting at in the same way that walking on the sun implies heat, but an absolute refusal to respect the fact that I came to play 3.5, or at least make sure that I know all the house rules is pretty high on the list too. Having a somewhat sandbox-y game is fine by me, but ad-libbing everything from what you think should happen without even looking at what the rules for the system you advertised your game as will make me want to force-feed you your own (presumably loaded, by this point) dice.

What behavior deprives the game of fun? Acting like a complete jackass, mostly. Especially when you do so in-game (surprise PVP in a game not advertised as PVP-On, for instance, of which stealing **** from other players qualifies) with no justification for it aside from that being what your character would do. Newsflash moron, either you should make a character who does NOT have a bellend instead of a brain or not whine when someone else's character (possibly multiple someones too) ties yours to a stake in the middle of the woods and sets your character on fire.

[chihawk]

Any DM that forgets the ultimate goal is for everyone to have fun is a terrible DM.

The rest, as far as I'm concerned, is all negotiable.

[Jagernaut]

You should've said to the DM, "My character refuses to drink because this wine is obviously poisoned and rolls bluff to tell his allies that it's poisoned without letting the captain know. Then, I proceed to tell him we are holy servants of a deity who refuses to allow us to imbibe alcohol."

That would have been good. At this point I had pretty much given up though, so I rolled with it. Campaign was still fun, I just didn't take anything seriously after that.

[atemu1234]

I've heard players complain about this when it came to monster encounters (which is a complaint that I don't agree with). But now mother nature needs to be balanced according to party level? Man, if only adventuring were so easy for the Donner Party. :smallconfused:

To be fair, the PCs are supposed to plan ahead; they know they are going on an adventure where something is going to, in all likelihood, go wrong, unlike the Donner party.

[eggynack]

What should be the last words of a master of the game?

I've been *cough* I've been a master of the game... for so long. I don't know what awaits me *cough hack* beyond this mortal plane, but I... I like to think that... someday... I can be a master of your game... again...... *beeeeeeeeep*.

[jedipotter]

Personally, i hate railroading DMs and DMs that "houserule" on the fly the most. The DM should not have the gall to tell me that my character wouldn't do something, especially if its not RAW restricted (like a paladin code or something). Why would the greedy rogue want to avoid the city when that's the best place to find and sell loot?

I hope you like the normal amount of Railroading in a RPG to follow the plot. Unless the DM tells the players the whole plot and story, the only way to keep everything on track (literally) is on the railroad.

And things like the greedy rogue. Well if it was a greedy rogue solo game, sure anything goes...at least for a while. But for one player to derail a group game is too much.



throw challenges at them that the party has no way of defeating (like a chasm too large to jump over and too far to throw a rope across at level 3).

Wait, what is wrong with impossible things? Are you saying that everything in the world must be defeatable by the characters at all times? This would be odd at low levels, but once you get to 7-10 levels, things can become impossible within the rules.

Or are you talking just about scaling? Where the Dragon King is a baby dragon when the group is 1st level, grows to a teen dragon at level 5 and finally suddenly becomes an adult dragon when the group is 10th level?




Auto-pilot DM plots are the worst for fun. If you want to tell a story, write a book.
We're Dungeons and Dragons players. We make stories ourselves. They might be stupid, or idiotic, or cliche, but they're our stories, not just the DM's story.

Can you give an example of an auto-pilot plot? How is this different from a normal game? How does a player ''make a story themselves''?

The DM makes the adventure, it is one of the big jobs of the DM. And the player plays through the adventure. This is just basic D&D 101.

[Windstorm]

I have a simple answer to most of these from both a player and DM perspective: I always prefer to be in/run games where everyone has an open mind and is willing to give a little/take a little for the fun of all involved. close-minded stubborness is the fastest of all game killers, usually because it leads to the very negative aspects of things already discussed in this thread.

[eggynack]

@ Jedipotter: The thing he's talking about would generally be termed a sandbox game, or otherwise something approaching it. You don't necessarily need a single overarching plot. Just have a world where things happen, and where you have characters that want things (even if it's just a glass of water, as Kurt Vonnegut would say), and set the players loose in it.

So, maybe the players wander into a local bakery, and ask what the baker wants most in life. Maybe the baker desperately wants to become an opera singer, but has been trapped in this life by an evil sorcerer. Maybe the players don't care about that, wander off somewhere else, and help some villagers deal with a food shortage. They didn't have to though. That's a good approximation of players creating their own plot.

In a perfectly ideal situation, you have a perfectly constructed world filled with real people who want real things, and potential plots flow out of that state because things just tend to happen in reality, and because there's a bunch of magic and high power making things happen more. It's incredibly difficult, verging on impossible, to meet that ideal, but you can do pretty well, and maybe make up the difference with some improvisation.

[jedipotter]

@ Jedipotter: The thing he's talking about would generally be termed a sandbox game, or otherwise something approaching it. You don't necessarily need a single overarching plot. Just have a world where things happen, and where you have characters that want things (even if it's just a glass of water, as Kurt Vonnegut would say), and set the players loose in it.

So, maybe the players wander into a local bakery, and ask what the baker wants most in life. Maybe the baker desperately wants to become an opera singer, but has been trapped in this life by an evil sorcerer. Maybe the players don't care about that, wander off somewhere else, and help some villagers deal with a food shortage. They didn't have to though. That's a good approximation of players creating their own plot.


So, how does this sandbox thing work? So the game starts and the players just have their characters walking around, looking for something to do. Every person the characters meet, just happens to have a quest/problem/thing to do. Ok, so the players take a whole hour to ''pick an adventure''. But then what?

See, one the players say ''we will defeat Lord Darkon and free the halfling village of Poot'', then they are climbing aboard the person car of a train on the Railroad. Or, in other words, they are playing the DM's story. So how does a player make their own story then? Either they follow the DM's story or they don't, it's kind hard to do both. And sure the players can ''rearrange the tableware in the dinning car'', but they can't get of the railroad tracks.

[nedz]

I hope you like the normal amount of Railroading in a RPG to follow the plot. Unless the DM tells the players the whole plot and story, the only way to keep everything on track (literally) is on the railroad.


So, how does this sandbox thing work? So the game starts and the players just have their characters walking around, looking for something to do. Every person the characters meet, just happens to have a quest/problem/thing to do. Ok, so the players take a whole hour to ''pick an adventure''. But then what?

You're new to this DMing thing aren't you ?

[eggynack]

So, how does this sandbox thing work? So the game starts and the players just have their characters walking around, looking for something to do.
Basically, yeah.

Every person the characters meet, just happens to have a quest/problem/thing to do.
Well, people do tend to have problems. I wouldn't expect all of them to be quest hooks though. To some extent, I'd figure that problems would just be there to add depth to the world.



See, one the players say ''we will defeat Lord Darkon and free the halfling village of Poot'', then they are climbing aboard the person car of a train on the Railroad. Or, in other words, they are playing the DM's story.
If they don't have to fight Lord Darkon, then there's no railroad. The players just have to have a choice of what to do, and railroading is averted. You choose the world, and the players choose the things to do in that world. The things that players are capable of doing will always be informed by the DM, because you can't exactly help a baker with their dreams if the baker doesn't exist, but there's a lot of freedom there.


So how does a player make their own story then? Either they follow the DM's story or they don't, it's kind hard to do both. And sure the players can ''rearrange the tableware in the dinning car'', but they can't get of the railroad tracks.
The things I've cited are very much not railroading. This might be easier to understand if we consider one situation with multiple choices, rather than a number of situations that are fully binary (participate/don't participate). For example, returning to the baker, the players could try to seek out the evil sorcerer who cursed the baker, or they could try to avert the curse by helping him get a job in music, or they could inspire the baker to embrace his career as a baker, or they could kick the baker out of the bakery for not appreciating his awesome life, and run the bakery themselves.

None of those are the DM's story. You put the baker there, and gave him this motivation, but everything else was up to the players. Yes, the exact elements of those paths will be determined by you to a great extent, but the players will again have a choice of how to engage with those elements. They could fight the sorcerer, or go on a quest for the sorcerer (First get the cow as white as milk...), or they could diplomacy the sorcerer, or they could trick the sorcerer. They could even be convinced that the baker deserved the curse, and become apprentices to him. It's all up to the players.

[OldTrees1]

None of those are the DM's story. You put the baker there, and gave him this motivation, but everything else was up to the players. Yes, the exact elements of those paths will be determined by you to a great extent, but the players will again have a choice of how to engage with those elements. They could fight the sorcerer, or go on a quest for the sorcerer (First get the cow as white as milk...), or they could diplomacy the sorcerer, or they could trick the sorcerer. They could even be convinced that the baker deserved the curse, and become apprentices to him. It's all up to the players.

This paragraph also shows how to minimze railroading in a non sandbox campaign.

The DM starts the game with only the setting, the actors and the plot hook. From there the players are free to write whatever story they want that is relevant to the plot hook and is consistent with the setting, actors and dice.

So the player might have been handed the "Cursed Baker" plot hook as the start of the story but they can write any story they want that does not contradict the setting(no "blink twice to remove curse"), the actors (no, the baker cannot cast remove curse. He is not a caster.) or the dice(Diplomacy can fail when luck runs afoul).


A good test to see how railroaded your campaign is:
Count the number of ways the campaign can go from the initial start to a valid end. The lower the number the more railroaded the campaign. This also works for each segment of your campaign. Perhaps the campaign as a whole is not railroaded very much, but Act 1 has more railroad than a trail station.

[Threadnaught]

I hope you like the normal amount of Railroading in a RPG to follow the plot.

Why are you comparing playing D&D to a videogame?

You can do more with D&D than you can with a videogame. Including the versatility of a plot.


Unless the DM tells the players the whole plot and story, the only way to keep everything on track (literally) is on the railroad.

Really, by telling players exactly what they want to happen for the entire story, a DM would be making it more likely that the players would attempt to break free of the rails in an attempt to be able to make their own choices.
By not announcing exactly what the plot involves, it is possible to attempt to subtly nudge the players toward where the DM wants them, without it being too obvious.


And things like the greedy rogue. Well if it was a greedy rogue solo game, sure anything goes...at least for a while. But for one player to derail a group game is too much.

And if the rest of the group was fine with the greedy rogue having their share of the spotlight, what then?

Would a DM be right to punish a player for wanting to do something, which the other players do not object to?


Wait, what is wrong with impossible things? Are you saying that everything in the world must be defeatable by the characters at all times? This would be odd at low levels, but once you get to 7-10 levels, things can become impossible within the rules.

Nobody is saying that a game should be a steamroll roflstomp for the PCs, other than you with your strawman against any advocacy on behalf of any game's players.

Impossible things are fine, a DM who has impossible things in their game is fine, as long as they don't force their players to go up against those impossible things to prove that as DM, they are in charge.

Putting impossible things somewhere for players to find, is fine. Surrounding players with impossible things to prove dominance over them, and to force them down a narrow path of constant defeat, and humiliation, is not.


Or are you talking just about scaling? Where the Dragon King is a baby dragon when the group is 1st level, grows to a teen dragon at level 5 and finally suddenly becomes an adult dragon when the group is 10th level?

Again, nobody, but you mentioned anything about a videogame based campaign where everything scales to the party's level, so the party is just as powerful at 20th level with a couple of nations' worth of magic items, as they were at level 1 with barely 2cp to rub together.


Can you give an example of an auto-pilot plot? How is this different from a normal game? How does a player ''make a story themselves''?

Auto-pilot plot. DM of the Rings is a good example of a DM going auto-pilot. While the players are discussing a potential game, or other things, the DM is going off on long winded explanations of the plot.
Any time the PCs try something contrary to the DM's plot, it either gets shot down, or the DM immediately uses it to screw them.

The DM prevents their players from doing anything that would prevent the DM's story from playing out, including preventing the players from controlling their characters, because the DM believes their story makes the "game" more "fun".


The DM makes the adventure, it is one of the big jobs of the DM. And the player plays through the adventure. This is just basic D&D 101.

Yes, the DM sets the basic adventure with a quest or quest line. The players work with the DM to make it into a story, by playing the game. Making their own choices is how a player can impact on the adventure and story.

The players aren't powerful enough to kill the Ancient Red Dragon, but maybe if they petition to it's vanity, pride and greed, they can trick it into leaving it's lair to attack a much more powerful Gold Dragon, so they can steal some of it's hoard.
What would happen though, if one party member, took advantage of parley, to attack the Dragon? Would it merely kill the attacker, or wipe out the entire party? Would it kill the attacker and swear vengeance on the remainder? If it flew off in search of a Gold Dragon, would it notice what's missing? Would it seek out the thieves? Would it discover that the Gold Wyrm is actually a boat and wipe out an entire city in anger? If the party arrived at an abandoned hoard, would the Dragon actually be there watching their every move, evaluating their belongings? Would the Dragon merely just attack them upon arrival?

Has the Dragon heard of the party?


So many hooks, not rope for your players to hang themselves with, but for a theoretical outsider to read and enjoy a half decent story. Rather than it being as engaging as 8-bit Theatre, which while I enjoyed, is a badly written cliché riddled mess as far as the actual story goes.

[Aquillion]

None of those are the DM's story. You put the baker there, and gave him this motivation, but everything else was up to the players. Yes, the exact elements of those paths will be determined by you to a great extent, but the players will again have a choice of how to engage with those elements. They could fight the sorcerer, or go on a quest for the sorcerer (First get the cow as white as milk...), or they could diplomacy the sorcerer, or they could trick the sorcerer. They could even be convinced that the baker deserved the curse, and become apprentices to him. It's all up to the players.It's also important to point out that the DM can adjust the setting based on what the players seem to want and what they're interested in.

For example, suppose the players want to deal with Lord Darkon. One of them might ask the DM "does lord Darkon have a daughter?" And then you, the DM (who probably didn't even consider whether Lord Darkon has a daughter) has to consider that. Usually in that circumstance, I would say that it is best to say "yes" unless you have an overriding reason to say "no", because chances are if the player is asking that question they have some good idea that involves an affirmative answer -- so the story will go better if you work their ideas into your game. Then the player might, say, try to win the daughter over in hopes that she could help them against her father (or help them redeem her father), or they could take her hostage... lots of options.

Or, for instance, suppose the players start digging at Darkon's background and motivation. As DM, you might not have considered that, or might only have had a vague idea; but the more the players poke at it, the more you'll develop it. This could completely change the goals and directions of the story.

No DM can generate the entire world at once; you come up with ideas and fit them in as the players' actions require it. Therefore, the setting is really defined as much (or more) by the players' actions as it is by the DM's.

[Yahzi]

So, how does this sandbox thing work? So the game starts and the players just have their characters walking around, looking for something to do.
Have you seen GoT? Have you read any history of the 100 years war?

The players start with a quest. It is called surviving. If the players are willing to be chattel for a baron and work in the fields like a dog, then they can survive to 40 or so without making any dice rolls. If they want anything else... start rolling. :smallbiggrin:

[Flickerdart]

Good characters have motivations and desires baked in. Bad characters just want to kill things and take their stuff. Either way, it's a lot more goal-oriented than "walking around looking for something to do" because if you lead such a purposeless existence, you're a teenager at a mall, and could never have become a skilled adventurer.

[Chd]

It's also important to point out that the DM can adjust the setting based on what the players seem to want and what they're interested in.

For example, suppose the players want to deal with Lord Darkon. One of them might ask the DM "does lord Darkon have a daughter?" And then you, the DM (who probably didn't even consider whether Lord Darkon has a daughter) has to consider that. Usually in that circumstance, I would say that it is best to say "yes" unless you have an overriding reason to say "no", because chances are if the player is asking that question they have some good idea that involves an affirmative answer -- so the story will go better if you work their ideas into your game. Then the player might, say, try to win the daughter over in hopes that she could help them against her father (or help them redeem her father), or they could take her hostage... lots of options.

Or, for instance, suppose the players start digging at Darkon's background and motivation. As DM, you might not have considered that, or might only have had a vague idea; but the more the players poke at it, the more you'll develop it. This could completely change the goals and directions of the story.

No DM can generate the entire world at once; you come up with ideas and fit them in as the players' actions require it. Therefore, the setting is really defined as much (or more) by the players' actions as it is by the DM's.

I find that the best way to go as a DM is create a map, write down 3 or 4 main features and a bit about 3 or 4 personalities for each major (IMO) place, then create 60 separate encounters (5 Town Guard / townspeople encounters, 10 encounters with 'savage tribes' (orcs, goblins, Kobolds, Myconids etc), 5 Dragons/Epic Beast encounters, 10 bandits/mercenary/Thieves encounters, 5 Magic-User encounters, 5 Cleric/Paladin encounters, 5 Undead Encounters and 15 wild critter encounters (wolves, dinosaurs, Oozes, slimes, Gel Cubes, Chickens, Bats, Bugs, etc).

Then I just let the players loose on the world, after a session of 'railroaded' party's meeting. While meeting in a tavern is a classic, I find a Jail Break from death-row is a great start, especially if there are Paladins/clerics and Evil Characters in the party. It gives reasons for good and evil to work together until they clear their names or earn enough to buy their freedom.

They can even choose to not 'clear their names or earn enough to buy their freedom', and that means we get to use the town guard encounters and mercenary encounters more often!


When they do what they want to do, we have a series of encounters for when the party stumbles into/start trouble.

[Prince Raven]

I hope you like the normal amount of Railroading in a RPG to follow the plot. Unless the DM tells the players the whole plot and story, the only way to keep everything on track (literally) is on the railroad.

There are two types of "railroading". One is where you restrict/remove player agency, and force them along a particular path for the sake of the plot. The other is where no matter what path the players take, you subtly* lead them back to the main plot. Avoid the first if at all possible.
Also, if you find yourself constantly having to railroad your players, consider how much agency your plot allows, the adventure you have planned might be too restrictive.

*ideally

[nedz]

If you remove agency then you are not really running a game.

Also if events happen because of plot, and this becomes apparent (which it will), you lose all sense of drama. How can you have tension in a chase scene if the villain is scripted to either escape or be caught ? The PC's may as well stroll after the villain as move at their full speed — it makes no difference.

[The Glyphstone]

The only mistake a DM can make is failing to properly communicate with the players to ensure everyone is playing the same game. Anything else is a consequence of making this ur-mistake.

[Dienekes]

So, how does this sandbox thing work? So the game starts and the players just have their characters walking around, looking for something to do. Every person the characters meet, just happens to have a quest/problem/thing to do. Ok, so the players take a whole hour to ''pick an adventure''. But then what?

See, one the players say ''we will defeat Lord Darkon and free the halfling village of Poot'', then they are climbing aboard the person car of a train on the Railroad. Or, in other words, they are playing the DM's story. So how does a player make their own story then? Either they follow the DM's story or they don't, it's kind hard to do both. And sure the players can ''rearrange the tableware in the dinning car'', but they can't get of the railroad tracks.

Generally, I start my campaigns out with, an EVENT, this big thing that colors what every aspect of what follows. For my first campaign, it was the invasion of the city they were in by an elven force. And from there my players decided to join the towns defense. So I took 5 minutes to think about what would happen next and we went from there. The game becomes a long string of seeing what the player's want to do, and adding information to help them along or engage them. Maybe they end up failing the defense of the city. They messed up their position pretty bad. Well, they can now choose to leave completely and attempt to go on with their lives, rally nearby territories to retake the city, or attempt to make a resistance movement, and more that I didn't even think of. They chose one of those and so from there I made more plans and events and encounters and kept the game moving. Adding details and seeing what the players respond to.

Of course, this doesn't always work. One of my favorite campaigns I've ever GMed had the EVENT being the assassination of the king. It was the lynchpin by which everything else I had thought up that could potentially happen depended upon. And so when the assassination attempt occurred in the first 10 or so minutes of the game, one of my players saved him. Threw everything out of whack, had to GM by the seat of my pants for the rest of the session and replan everything for the next. Still, it was great fun and an has become one of the most referenced campaigns among my players.

So, really, that's how you do a game that allows player agency, or at least one of the ways. My way. Create scenarios and see what sticks, what interests your players, and how they respond. Think of winning and losing scenarios, and do not be afraid to throw away weeks of work if it doesn't pan out. Who knows, maybe they'll be helpful for a later campaign, but for now you'll have to see where your players take the story.

[*.*.*.*]

{Scrubbed}

I think the biggest mistake a DM can make is not listening to their players. Be it their desires, concerns, or well-being; a caring DM is best DM. As for the Railroad v.s. Sandbox discussion, they need not be separate. I routinely make settings with loads of stuff, be it major or minor, going on it different parts of the world. I'll make 'plot webs' that have vague consequences if they do certain quests and ignore others. If you are friends with your players, I honestly don't find DMing hard. Make your players happy and try to have fun in doing so, that's how you win DMing.

[jedipotter]

There are two types of "railroading". One is where you restrict/remove player agency, and force them along a particular path for the sake of the plot. The other is where no matter what path the players take, you subtly* lead them back to the main plot. Avoid the first if at all possible.
Also, if you find yourself constantly having to railroad your players, consider how much agency your plot allows, the adventure you have planned might be too restrictive.

But there is not any difference between the two.

Say the players pick the (lame) ''lets uncurse the baker'' plot. After like 30 minutes of wandering around and talking to NPCs. So the first idea of the players is to go to Magic Mart and buy and item to uncurse the baker (and this is an exciting game, first they talk to a baker, then they go shopping..). So, the DM does not want the game to end in five minutes (or worse, have the players decide to do something really exciting like going fishing in a 10x10 pond with tiny gold fish in it). So the DM says ''no anti-curse items at Magic Mart. So is that Railroading yet? Or is it OK for the DM to say ''Magic Mart has no curse removal items"?

So next the players go look for a cleric. As again, the Dm does not want to end the game in just seven minutes, there are only a few clerics around that can even cast remove curse, but none want to help, and the few that do want lots of money up front. The players don't want to play a lot to help the baker, so they move on. Is the DM Railroading? They don't really have another idea yet, so they just sit around and try to figure out what to do.

So going on 20 minutes of the players doing nothing, the DM decides to do something. He has a couple of goblins from the evil wizard come over to taunt the characters. So finally some action and combat, even the players are happy....even though they were just ''making their own story'' by going shopping and chatting around town. So the fight is won easy and the characters find some keys on one of the goblins.....keys to the evil wizards tower. So the players decide to go ''sneak'' into the tower and ''sneak'' attack the wizard and get him to ''end the curse''....somehow. So is the DM Railroading yet?

So the characters go sneaking around and check out the evil wizards tower. Two players get board and want to ''go steal stuff at the market'', while the other players work on getting into the tower. The DM really does not want to have the 'fun' of pointless watch the two players rob commoners for like five sliver coins. So the DM just has the market closed and empty. The DM wants to keep everyone at the tower, and after all, there is tons of treasure at the tower. So, Railroad?

So the players have their characters ''sneak'' in the tower like bulls in a China shop and they make tons and tons of noise and commotion, But at least everyone, after like an hour, is finally having fun. THIS is what everyone came here to do: adventure. The DM only had to lead everyone to it. After an hour or more...

So in a normal ''Type R'' game.....in minute one the DM would say ''you have been hired to lift the curse on the Mayor, by his wife. She knows the evil wizard Flod did it, and she sets you in the direction of his tower. The game will start where you are all on the road to the evil wizards tower.'' So....minute three of the game is...the players have their characters attack the tower. Except this game does it much sooner....

[eggynack]

Say the players pick the (lame) ''lets uncurse the baker'' plot.
Hey, the uncurse the baker plot is awesome. It's got giants, and a witch, and adultery, and awesome songs. Great stuff all around.

Edit: Also, you can avert a lot of your problems by just not doing everything in the most boring way possible. Maybe they go to the magic store, find out that it doesn't have what they want, but also find out that places exist that do have what they want over yonder. Maybe, instead of money, the cleric could want something interesting, that takes time to find. I'm adding that to my list of mistakes, incidentally. Being horribly boring.

[jedipotter]

Hey, the uncurse the baker plot is awesome. It's got giants, and a witch, and adultery, and awesome songs. Great stuff all around.

I'm not saying you can't make a great plot out of this. Like cursed baked goods that attack and eat people. Like animated muffins.....attack of the killer muffins! And dough boys! A yummy good time....

[Arbane]

Well, 'uncurse the baker' could be a good plot, IF the casters are kept on a leash. Once Remove Curse is available, (which it shouldn't be in a low-level adventure in a small town, for example,) it becomes very short.
It's amazing how many classic plots a spellcaster can instantly trivialize. But that's another rant....

As has been mentioned, one of the biggest mistakes the GM can make is not getting themselves and the players on the same page. Superhero games tend to get this a lot: when your team consists of three Silver-Age-style square-jawed Defenders of JUSTICE! and The Punisher, there will be problems.

[OldTrees1]

But there is not any difference between the two.

Say the players pick the (lame) ''lets uncurse the baker'' plot. After like 30 minutes of wandering around and talking to NPCs. So the first idea of the players is to go to Magic Mart and buy and item to uncurse the baker (and this is an exciting game, first they talk to a baker, then they go shopping..). So, the DM does not want the game to end in five minutes (or worse, have the players decide to do something really exciting like going fishing in a 10x10 pond with tiny gold fish in it). So the DM says ''no anti-curse items at Magic Mart. So is that Railroading yet? Or is it OK for the DM to say ''Magic Mart has no curse removal items"?
Did the local mart lack curse removal before or after the player suggested the idea?


So next the players go look for a cleric. As again, the Dm does not want to end the game in just seven minutes, there are only a few clerics around that can even cast remove curse, but none want to help, and the few that do want lots of money up front. The players don't want to play a lot to help the baker, so they move on. Is the DM Railroading? They don't really have another idea yet, so they just sit around and try to figure out what to do.
Was the lack of clerics decided before or after the player suggested the solution?
It is starting to sound like the DM is metagaming.



So going on 20 minutes of the players doing nothing, the DM decides to do something. He has a couple of goblins from the evil wizard come over to taunt the characters. So finally some action and combat, even the players are happy....even though they were just ''making their own story'' by going shopping and chatting around town. So the fight is won easy and the characters find some keys on one of the goblins.....keys to the evil wizards tower. So the players decide to go ''sneak'' into the tower and ''sneak'' attack the wizard and get him to ''end the curse''....somehow. So is the DM Railroading yet
Dropping additional clues when the players are lost is not railroading. However if they are lost because they feel the DM will veto any answer they suggest? ...


So the characters go sneaking around and check out the evil wizards tower. Two players get board and want to ''go steal stuff at the market'', while the other players work on getting into the tower. The DM really does not want to have the 'fun' of pointless watch the two players rob commoners for like five sliver coins. So the DM just has the market closed and empty. The DM wants to keep everyone at the tower, and after all, there is tons of treasure at the tower. So, Railroad?
Yes. Minor in comparison, but this is definitely a DM decision with the intent to prevent player agency.


So the players have their characters ''sneak'' in the tower like bulls in a China shop and they make tons and tons of noise and commotion, But at least everyone, after like an hour, is finally having fun. THIS is what everyone came here to do: adventure. The DM only had to lead everyone to it. After an hour or more...
In this case the DM lead everyone to his kind of fun while vetoing any kind of fun that was not his kind of fun. Notice I did not mention the players' kind of fun at all? This did not follow the Shared Game Principle. The DM played solo D&D using humans for RNGs.


So in a normal ''Type R'' game.....in minute one the DM would say ''you have been hired to lift the curse on the Mayor, by his wife. She knows the evil wizard Flod did it, and she sets you in the direction of his tower. The game will start where you are all on the road to the evil wizards tower.'' So....minute three of the game is...the players have their characters attack the tower. Except this game does it much sooner....
What happens when the PCs turn around to find a cure rather than face Flod?
What happens when the players decide to ally with Flod?
From the sound of it, this hypothetical DM would veto any turn of events. This kneejerk reaction removes player agency and with it removes the point of players.

[awa]

now I'm not actually agreeing with Jedi becuase he takes it much farther then i every go but a bit of railroading can be good not every game has to be a sandbox game.
In the game i ran a few hours ago the party was stuck in abandoned fort by a magic blizzard with several npcs one of whom was secretly a killer trying to pick off every one else, then latter hungry zombies. The party could not leave the fort becuase while there were gaps in the blizzard they weren't big enough to get to safety they needed the map to the secret tunnel stolen by the boss.

No action they could have taken would have allowed them to get out of that blizzard with out dealing with the boss but once they were doing the adventure how they went about trying to find the killer and latter stop the zombies was up to them the npc mostly let the pcs take the lead on any kind of planning.

[Flickerdart]

now I'm not actually agreeing with Jedi becuase he takes it much farther then i every go but a bit of railroading can be good not every game has to be a sandbox game.
In the game i ran a few hours ago the party was stuck in abandoned fort by a magic blizzard with several npcs one of whom was secretly a killer trying to pick off every one else, then latter hungry zombies. The party could not leave the fort becuase while there were gaps in the blizzard they weren't big enough to get to safety they needed the map to the secret tunnel stolen by the boss.
There's a difference between a railroad and a premise.

[OldTrees1]

now I'm not actually agreeing with Jedi becuase he takes it much farther then i every go but a bit of railroading can be good not every game has to be a sandbox game.
In the game i ran a few hours ago the party was stuck in abandoned fort by a magic blizzard with several npcs one of whom was secretly a killer trying to pick off every one else, then latter hungry zombies. The party could not leave the fort becuase while there were gaps in the blizzard they weren't big enough to get to safety they needed the map to the secret tunnel stolen by the boss.

No action they could have taken would have allowed them to get out of that blizzard with out dealing with the boss but once they were doing the adventure how they went about trying to find the killer and latter stop the zombies was up to them the npc mostly let the pcs take the lead on any kind of planning.

That is true. Different players have difference ranges of railroading saturation that they prefer. I have found players that get lost in a sandbox and prefer to be lead by plot hooks. Still these same player loudly objected when another DM used a heavily railroaded plot.

An important thing to note about this: The players' preference matters. The DM should not railroad more as a reaction to the players trying to be freer.

[jedipotter]

Did the local mart lack curse removal before or after the player suggested the idea?


This is an odd point most players will make. I guess there are DM's that make up every single item for sale at Magic Mart before the game. Though that sounds like a lot of work. I guess you could roll ''even number'' the store has one. Plenty of DM's i know leave things like ''magic marts inventory'' vague and unknown, until it is officially used in the game...and even then it can be vague in the future.

But in any case, unless you give the players a copy of Magic Marts Inventory before the game, they can never know for sure if an item was there or not.



Was the lack of clerics decided before or after the player suggested the solution?
It is starting to sound like the DM is metagaming.

Well, the DM might have decided before the game that the town only has six clerics, just as part of the world building. But even if the DM did so, the players would not know that....unless the DM gives the players a copy of the list of every NPC in town.

Though it does make sense ''in the game'' that no cleric can/wants to help him....because if that were true, then the curse would already be gone.



Dropping additional clues when the players are lost is not railroading. However if they are lost because they feel the DM will veto any answer they suggest? ...

Kinda the point. I'm sure some players would feel all 'vetoed'' out.



Yes. Minor in comparison, but this is definitely a DM decision with the intent to prevent player agency.

I would just call this keeping the game on track. I'd be happy to run a mini game, some other time, where the two characters can run around town and rob commoners.



In this case the DM lead everyone to his kind of fun while vetoing any kind of fun that was not his kind of fun. Notice I did not mention the players' kind of fun at all? This did not follow the Shared Game Principle. The DM played solo D&D using humans for RNGs.

But look at the ''players kind of fun''. They go to Magic Mart, but a curse removal thing and remove the curse. So, ok, five whole minutes of game play. And it was not even close to a challenge. So the characters would get like what, 1XP?

And sure, you can just move on to the next quest the players pick. And if they just solve a quest every five minutes with no challenge or even combat or even dice rolling?



What happens when the PCs turn around to find a cure rather than face Flod?
What happens when the players decide to ally with Flod?
From the sound of it, this hypothetical DM would veto any turn of events. This kneejerk reaction removes player agency and with it removes the point of players.

The most adventure is at the tower, doing other things just takes up time. D&D is a combat adventure game. Players don't make wizards and fighters and warlocks to...go shopping.

[Jane_Doe]

But there is not any difference between the two.

Say the players pick the (lame) ''lets uncurse the baker'' plot. After like 30 minutes of wandering around and talking to NPCs. So the first idea of the players is to go to Magic Mart and buy and item to uncurse the baker (and this is an exciting game, first they talk to a baker, then they go shopping..). So, the DM does not want the game to end in five minutes (or worse, have the players decide to do something really exciting like going fishing in a 10x10 pond with tiny gold fish in it). So the DM says ''no anti-curse items at Magic Mart. So is that Railroading yet? Or is it OK for the DM to say ''Magic Mart has no curse removal items"?

So next the players go look for a cleric. As again, the Dm does not want to end the game in just seven minutes, there are only a few clerics around that can even cast remove curse, but none want to help, and the few that do want lots of money up front. The players don't want to play a lot to help the baker, so they move on. Is the DM Railroading? They don't really have another idea yet, so they just sit around and try to figure out what to do.

I don't mean to seem rude, but it seems that it would be fairly trivial to establish in the initial conversation with the baker that this was powerful magic that couldn't be undone by the normal means :smallconfused: . It's not much of a quest if it can be solved in under five minutes, after all.

Alternatively, this is a quest for a party of individuals low enough level that they simply can't afford a relevant magic item or the services of a cleric, though I'm lead to understand that this is less common. Either way, this really is only a diversion that a fairly inexperienced DM would experience, given how easily it's avoided.


So going on 20 minutes of the players doing nothing, the DM decides to do something. He has a couple of goblins from the evil wizard come over to taunt the characters. So finally some action and combat, even the players are happy....even though they were just ''making their own story'' by going shopping and chatting around town. So the fight is won easy and the characters find some keys on one of the goblins.....keys to the evil wizards tower. So the players decide to go ''sneak'' into the tower and ''sneak'' attack the wizard and get him to ''end the curse''....somehow. So is the DM Railroading yet?

Well, that depends on why the party has spent the last twenty minutes doing nothing; are they arguing over how best to break the curse? A "Let's force the sorcerer to break her evil curse!"/"Nonono, we don't need another powerful enemy, let's see if we can offer her reparations in return for lifting it..." type of thing? It's probably for the best to let them finish the argument on their own, if it's not going too obviously in circles.

Are the players looking for information to advance a concrete course of action? "Okay, let's kill the sorcerer!"/"Wait, where is she, exactly?" - in this case, it's perfectly appropriate to toss them a combat encounter to guide them, though it feels a bit arbitrary to me; I'd probably let them find a map instead, but it's entirely possible we're envisioning the plot differently.

Are the players kind of bored and only half-heartedly interested? Well, if they don't care about the baker, toss them a different plot hook. If the players don't care, they don't care; maybe they'll be more interested in the gossip they hear in the marketplace about rumors of an evil sorcerer plotting to overrun the city with goblin hordes, assisted by individuals within the city cursed to obey her once they hear her voice. Sure, it's the exact same set of encounters, mechanically, but now they'll actually be interested in the story.

Do the players show no interest in any plot hooks, and keep asking you when they get to kill stuff already? Well, then, this style of game probably isn't for them, and you'd be just as well served offering them dungeons with no plot whatsoever beyond "Here's an ancient tomb, go in there, kill everything, and take all the stuff that isn't nailed down". Some people just aren't interested in story! I've never understood the appeal, but there's really very little point in spending a lot of effort on something they won't appreciate - neither of you will be made happier for it.


So the characters go sneaking around and check out the evil wizards tower. Two players get board and want to ''go steal stuff at the market'', while the other players work on getting into the tower. The DM really does not want to have the 'fun' of pointless watch the two players rob commoners for like five sliver coins. So the DM just has the market closed and empty. The DM wants to keep everyone at the tower, and after all, there is tons of treasure at the tower. So, Railroad?

This is what social pressure is for - someone else in the party is quite certain to say "Geeze, come on, we've finally decided on what to do, stop wasting time and join up with us already!" once they get to put their ideas into action. After all, you're all there to have fun together - why would it be entirely on you to keep things in line?

Perhaps it's different for other people, but back when I played, the group tended to be pretty good about policing itself in such matters. And if anyone was consistently disruptive to the flow of the game, we would have (presumably) just stopped inviting them - if someone's not fun for any of us to play with, why would we keep inviting them?


So the players have their characters ''sneak'' in the tower like bulls in a China shop and they make tons and tons of noise and commotion, But at least everyone, after like an hour, is finally having fun. THIS is what everyone came here to do: adventure. The DM only had to lead everyone to it. After an hour or more...

So in a normal ''Type R'' game.....in minute one the DM would say ''you have been hired to lift the curse on the Mayor, by his wife. She knows the evil wizard Flod did it, and she sets you in the direction of his tower. The game will start where you are all on the road to the evil wizards tower.'' So....minute three of the game is...the players have their characters attack the tower. Except this game does it much sooner....

You seem to have a very low opinion of the imagination of your players :smallconfused: . The example that Eggy laid out was quite clear as to why you would do it in a more open-ended manner, but you ignored the other possibilities he provided; perhaps the players would prefer to negotiate with the sorcerer, perhaps the players would rather research a means of breaking this rare and difficult curse without dealing with the sorcerer at all, or perhaps the players would like to rally a small army to attack the sorcerers tower.

Your questline only deals with the most cliché and (in my opinion) boring approach; go, kick the door in, and force her to lift the curse at the tip of your sword. That's certainly a valid approach, and there are plenty of tables who have no issue with that, but many players would prefer to have more options available to them.

---

Relatedly, one of the advantages that having a more open world has which hasn't been touched upon much (although I did notice a few people mention it) is how deciding against following certain plotlines can allow the world to grow organically, when those plots end up having bigger effects when they go unaddressed. If the players don't follow up on rumours that the vizier is plotting against the king, perhaps he dies when the orcs launch an invasion, after the players decided not to follow up on those attacks in the outlands. Perhaps the players ignoring talk of a strangely malfunctioning gate of fire in the northlands leads to poor supplies when the north is ravaged by fire elementals, and perhaps the city is in a state of paranoia when dozens of citizens in the town (including our poor baker) suddenly find themselves changed into orcs as a result of an unknown clause of their curse.

By taking advantage of the logical consequences of setting details that the players elected against exploring, for one reason or another, the campaign setting can open up in new ways that keep it fresh and full of things to do many sessions after it would otherwise have been time to retire it. And since there shouldn't be time for them to do <I>everything</I>, there will always be time for some unexpected disaster to clean up (and/or cause; we all know how often player plans end up backfiring, after all :smallsmile: ).

---

EDIT: Removed a paragraph that, upon reflection, had little to do with anything, despite claiming to be related to the problem. Not entirely clear where it came from, outside of a conversation a few months back.

[OldTrees1]

This is an odd point most players will make. I guess there are DM's that make up every single item for sale at Magic Mart before the game. Though that sounds like a lot of work. I guess you could roll ''even number'' the store has one. Plenty of DM's i know leave things like ''magic marts inventory'' vague and unknown, until it is officially used in the game...and even then it can be vague in the future.
Would it have been reasonable for the players to expect they could find a curse removal at this mart before they came up with the idea of using the mart as a solution to the quest?
If yes, then Railroading
If no, then not Railroading
If in between, then in between



Well, the DM might have decided before the game that the town only has six clerics, just as part of the world building. But even if the DM did so, the players would not know that....unless the DM gives the players a copy of the list of every NPC in town.
So it "might have" not been railroading. However it does sound like the DM is closing windows the PCs discover rather than the PCs happening to find closed windows.


Kinda the point. I'm sure some players would feel all 'vetoed'' out.
I am glad you recognize this feeling of the players. It is a sign that the illusion of player agency has been shattered (regardless of if they actually have player agency or not).



I would just call this keeping the game on track. I'd be happy to run a mini game, some other time, where the two characters can run around town and rob commoners.
Keeping the game on track for fear the players would prefer a mini game for a bit? This is a big flashing warning sign. Even I have had times like this. The best answer was not to choose my insecurity and impatience over the happiness of my friends.



But look at the ''players kind of fun''. They go to Magic Mart, but a curse removal thing and remove the curse. So, ok, five whole minutes of game play. And it was not even close to a challenge. So the characters would get like what, 1XP?

And sure, you can just move on to the next quest the players pick. And if they just solve a quest every five minutes with no challenge or even combat or even dice rolling?
1) If your kind of fun and the players kind of fun differ so much, then you are seeing a DM/PC mismatch. This is possible and it is best to recognize it. (Same Game Principle)
2) Not all players would prefer going to the mart. Some players would prefer to go questing for rare ingredients rather than go murder Flod.
3) [related to 2]It is possible remove trivial solutions before the plot hook is even mentioned while still allowing the players to choose their creative solution over the DM's initial solutions. (Shared Game Principle)



The most adventure is at the tower, doing other things just takes up time. D&D is a combat adventure game. Players don't make wizards and fighters and warlocks to...go shopping.
Most players don't(which makes it strange that your example assumed they did), but some do. Those that do might not fit in the same game as you. (Same Game Principle)

[eggynack]

I don't mean to seem rude, but it seems that it would be fairly trivial to establish in the initial conversation with the baker that this was powerful magic that couldn't be undone by the normal means :smallconfused: . It's not much of a quest if it can be solved in under five minutes, after all.

That was the intent for my ridiculous Into the Woods style quest, yeah.


This is an odd point most players will make. I guess there are DM's that make up every single item for sale at Magic Mart before the game. Though that sounds like a lot of work. I guess you could roll ''even number'' the store has one. Plenty of DM's i know leave things like ''magic marts inventory'' vague and unknown, until it is officially used in the game...and even then it can be vague in the future.

But in any case, unless you give the players a copy of Magic Marts Inventory before the game, they can never know for sure if an item was there or not.

Well, the DM might have decided before the game that the town only has six clerics, just as part of the world building. But even if the DM did so, the players would not know that....unless the DM gives the players a copy of the list of every NPC in town.

Though it does make sense ''in the game'' that no cleric can/wants to help him....because if that were true, then the curse would already be gone.
Just doing as mentioned above solves this problem pretty easily, I think.



I would just call this keeping the game on track. I'd be happy to run a mini game, some other time, where the two characters can run around town and rob commoners.
See this thing? With the track? That's the opposite of the idea. If the players are venturing around, trying to rob folks, then do something with that. Have the guard find out, or have one of the people robbed be stronger than he appears, or even just do some standard robberies for fun. If the problem is party splitting, then just make a separate rule against that.


But look at the ''players kind of fun''. They go to Magic Mart, but a curse removal thing and remove the curse. So, ok, five whole minutes of game play. And it was not even close to a challenge. So the characters would get like what, 1XP?
Not every problem needs to be crazy important. If the players just want to solve some ordinary problem in an ordinary way, then that's what they want to do. Such is the nature of a sandbox, that what is done will be a general reflection of the players' desires.


And sure, you can just move on to the next quest the players pick. And if they just solve a quest every five minutes with no challenge or even combat or even dice rolling?
And not every problem needs to be crazy trivial. If you have a problem with a curse that can't be easily removed, and if you're fine with that problem being solved in a mundane way, then just have other problems be more complex. Maybe a goblin army is approaching from the south, or maybe someone tells the characters about some buried treasure.


The most adventure is at the tower, doing other things just takes up time. D&D is a combat adventure game. Players don't make wizards and fighters and warlocks to...go shopping.
There is no place with all of the adventure, is the idea here. The whole world is an adventure, waiting to happen. You could find combat anywhere, really. Maybe the baker's problem is actually that his attic is haunted, or that he really wants revenge on an evil sorcerer. Don't force the players to go on that adventure, but if fighting ghosts is what the players want to do, then that's what will happen. Moreover, if the players just want their wizards, fighters, and warlocks to go on a shopping trip, then clearly they did make those characters to go shopping. Simple as that.

[Jane_Doe]

The most adventure is at the tower, doing other things just takes up time. D&D is a combat adventure game. Players don't make wizards and fighters and warlocks to...go shopping. There is no place with all of the adventure, is the idea here. The whole world is an adventure, waiting to happen. You could find combat anywhere, really. Maybe the baker's problem is actually that his attic is haunted, or that he really wants revenge on an evil sorcerer. Don't force the players to go on that adventure, but if fighting ghosts is what the players want to do, then that's what will happen. Moreover, if the players just want their wizards, fighters, and warlocks to go on a shopping trip, then clearly they did make those characters to go shopping. Simple as that.

As an aside; if her players are spending all of their game time buying goods and services for her NPCs, then their new problem will soon become the fact that they've run out of gold to do so with, a hook in and of itself.

Which, upon a quick moments reflection, isn't actually a bad campaign; "The players are a party of wandering philanthropists, who scout an area for problems deserving of a level of charity only adventurers can provide, before scouring the area for forgotten treasures to bestow upon the next community they venture across". With how many "good" adventuring parties focus more on the monster extermination and evil smiting, it could be fun to see the philanthropic angle explored a bit more. A bit unconventional, but I could certainly see it working.

[molten_dragon]

But there is not any difference between the two.

The key word there is "subtle". Are you familiar with the term suspension of disbelief? It's not possible to run a completely sandbox game. Any game is always going to have some degree of the DM steering the players where he wants them to go, simply because most DMs have a limited amount of time to prepare for a game, and it's difficult to DM on the fly when the players do something you weren't prepared for. But it's important to a lot of people that they have the illusion of free will in the game. If the DM is heavy handed when he railroads the players, and the players feel constrained, and like their choices don't mean anything, then they get frustrated. If the DM is subtle about it, and the players feel like the place they ended up where he wanted them to go as a natural result of their choices, then they're happier.

It's like watching a movie. You know it isn't real, but if it's made well, you can ignore that and enjoy it anyway. But if the actors can't act well and the special effects are crappy, you probably aren't going to enjoy it no matter how good the story is.

[Jeff the Green]

It's not possible to run a completely sandbox game.

It is, at least in principle, if you do it in PbP. In person it's really hard to improvise, but in PbP where you have a couple minutes between posts at the least it becomes much easier.

Granted, the fact that the couple minutes is more likely to be several hours or even days makes it problematic for other reasons.

[molten_dragon]

It is, at least in principle, if you do it in PbP. In person it's really hard to improvise, but in PbP where you have a couple minutes between posts at the least it becomes much easier.

Granted, the fact that the couple minutes is more likely to be several hours or even days makes it problematic for other reasons.

Fair enough. I've never really done play by post games, so I didn't consider that.

[Threadnaught]

But look at the ''players kind of fun''.

The players' kind of fun: They control their actions while you the DM controls everything else.

What you're advocating: They sit and watch while you the DM control everything.


What game are you really playing when you're in charge of the rules, which you change whenever it suits you and you're the only person allowed to do anything?

[Aquillion]

But there is not any difference between the two.

Say the players pick the (lame) ''lets uncurse the baker'' plot. After like 30 minutes of wandering around and talking to NPCs. So the first idea of the players is to go to Magic Mart and buy and item to uncurse the baker (and this is an exciting game, first they talk to a baker, then they go shopping..). So, the DM does not want the game to end in five minutes (or worse, have the players decide to do something really exciting like going fishing in a 10x10 pond with tiny gold fish in it). So the DM says ''no anti-curse items at Magic Mart. So is that Railroading yet? Or is it OK for the DM to say ''Magic Mart has no curse removal items"?

So next the players go look for a cleric. As again, the Dm does not want to end the game in just seven minutes, there are only a few clerics around that can even cast remove curse, but none want to help, and the few that do want lots of money up front. The players don't want to play a lot to help the baker, so they move on. Is the DM Railroading? They don't really have another idea yet, so they just sit around and try to figure out what to do.

So going on 20 minutes of the players doing nothing, the DM decides to do something. He has a couple of goblins from the evil wizard come over to taunt the characters. So finally some action and combat, even the players are happy....even though they were just ''making their own story'' by going shopping and chatting around town. So the fight is won easy and the characters find some keys on one of the goblins.....keys to the evil wizards tower. So the players decide to go ''sneak'' into the tower and ''sneak'' attack the wizard and get him to ''end the curse''....somehow. So is the DM Railroading yet?

So the characters go sneaking around and check out the evil wizards tower. Two players get board and want to ''go steal stuff at the market'', while the other players work on getting into the tower. The DM really does not want to have the 'fun' of pointless watch the two players rob commoners for like five sliver coins. So the DM just has the market closed and empty. The DM wants to keep everyone at the tower, and after all, there is tons of treasure at the tower. So, Railroad?Yes, at this point you're railroading (you have been since the start, but this is the point where, if I were a player, I'd just throw up my hands, realize we're never going to be on the same page, and quit the game.)

What you're missing is that one of the DM's greatest powers is the ability to recognize what their players want out of their game and adapt their story to it. Instead of saying "the adventure MUST be at the tower! Your attempts to adventure elsewhere are boring and unfun and I veto them!", you should consider the kind of story they're looking for, and try to adapt your ideas around that.

For instance, what I would do is (when the players look for items or clerics) have the cleric they find determine that the curse is an unusually ancient or powerful one, and advise the players on what they could potentially do to break it. Giving them multiple options would be best, but even if it's just "go fight the wizard in the tower", this is still vastly better than the DM throwing up their hands and saying "no clerics exist! Suddenly goblins attack", because you are giving the players a sense of agency -- you're accepting their actions and working them into your story (using the cleric they sought out to give them a clue to go to the tower) rather than just rigidly stonewalling them the moment they do anything that isn't completely within what you originally planned.

Notice that if this is done subtly, you can often still keep telling the story you wanted to tell (in my example, the cleric can still point them towards the tower -- but it will feel less like railroading to the players, because you worked with them and gave them a result when they searched for a cleric rather than just giving them a terse "can't do that". It makes it seem like ending up at the tower is a natural result of their actions rather than you forcing them to adhere to the exact story you had in mind.) You can also turn their hunt for a cleric into a quest in and of itself -- perhaps the only decent-level cleric in the area is a mountaintop hermit who they have to hunt down, for instance.

The most important attribute for a DM is flexibility. This doesn't necessarily mean scrapping your entire plans; it means being able to rapidly revise them and reuse the pieces that are still applicable in the face of whatever odd decisions your players make.

[Segev]

If the "cursed baker" plot can be solved by paying for a magic item or a single casting of a spell wih pocket change, then it is likely not a level-appropriate adventure for the party.

Or perhaps those things mysteriously do not work. This is not due to "secret house rules," but due to the nature of the "curse." The DM needs to know what the true situation is, so that the world reacts appropriately to player actions.

Perhaps the "curse" is not magic; the wizard using "detect magic" sees no aura on the baker, because there isn't one. It turns out that the sorcerer actually is just using his own influence to scare anybody who would give the baker a shot at his dream into refusing. Or wrecking any efforts the baker pts forth that are not part of baking.

Or perhaps ther is no sorcerer. The man who "cursed" our baker was just a very convincing charletan who convinced the baker he was cursed. The fear and belief in the curse causes the baker to self-sabotage and choke. It requires proving the curse is not real to convince the baker that the sorcerer is not simply so powrful that every effort made to lift it failed.

Or perhaps there is a curse, and the PCs are low level enough that just throwing gp or a party member's spell slot at the problem is not an option. In that case, the party can try a number of things: see if ther is a ritual or obscure cure (which may be the DM's plot); look for a magic item (and find out it is too pricey, but hear rumors of one in [quest location]; find out the magic item salesman or the cleric they sought to hire want a MacGuffin in [quest location]. Each of these can use the DM's [quest lication] and present the further plot hooks.

That sort of soft railroad rarely offends players; they came up with heir solution and choose to pursue it.

If hey refuse, it may be appropriate to speak OOC with them to see what they want to do. Perhaps the "cursed baker" plot is not what they want to play after all.

[atomicwaffle]

I am going to answer these as both a player and a DM



What annoys you most in DMs?

There are two things; impossible to defeat DMPCs, and a complete lack of knowledge of rules and game mechanics which they hide by abusive house ruling.



What bugs you the most annoying, and what are you willing to forgive?

Most annoying: Heavy Duty Commercial Grade House Ruling. Design your own F***ing game! But don't tell me we're playing X when we're ACTUALLY playing Apple Pie. Willing to forgive: screwing up initiative/turn order. Make it up later, give a guy an extra attack, acknowledge and don't dwell. I make this mistake more often then i'd care to admit.



What should be the last words of a master of the game?
[/QUOTE
Unless you have a damn good reason as to why you're blatantly ignoring a rule in the book, I am a firm believer that knowledge of the text is your ally. Uppity player: Why did you do that?! "Page 162." Case Closed

[QUOTE]
What game master should not do?

Assume the PCs are his enemies to crush. You should be working together to tell a story. If a game master is not trying to make his PCs feel awesome, he is doing something wrong.



What behavior deprives the game of fun?

'Fixing' every 'problem'.

[prufock]

I hope you like the normal amount of Railroading in a RPG to follow the plot.
And I had such high hopes for this thread.

Railroading means players have no options in what they do. That includes removing player agency (ie saying "no, your character doesn't do that" or "you do this"; literally taking control of the character when there is no mind control active), disallowing creative solutions (only one way through this door, only one solution to this problem, enemy fights you regardless of your diplomacy), and setting up invisible "narrative walls" (to the right are only impassable cliffs, to the left impenetrable forests, and you can't go backwards because).

Railroading is not the same as having a premise, a plot, a story, or a setting. You set up the pins, the players decide how they knock them over. As long as it is internally consistent, there should be no reason a character can't simply hack through the door with his adamantine greataxe, or sneak up on the enemy instead of barging in, or set an ambush, or use a spell to solve problems in a creative way.

Hell, if the players decide that they don't want to enter the dungeon at all, the DM should allow them to pursue other alternatives. Now, the DM should have a good understanding of what the group wants before prepping. If they don't like dungeon crawls, don't prepare one. And most players understand the work that goes into crafting adventures, and will at least try to follow the premise, but that doesn't mean they have to go through step by step what the DM dictates.

There's this thing called improvisation. It doesn't require arbitrary house rules, or DM fiat of player choices, or any other nonsense. It requires the DM to think on his feet and integrate their choices into the story. There should be multiple paths that lead through the adventure, and there should be the potential for the players to go off-road and forge their own. They may not end up at the exact place you expected, but so what? One of the "rules" of improv is that you never say "no" to another player's idea. You can say "yes," "yes and..." or "yes but..."

Personal example: I had the PCs run through an ice castle, at the end of which was a genie. Rather than fight their way in, as I expected, they made nice with the servants, and got a guided tour. I improvised the servants' personalities and the tour they gave. The genie was still tied to a lamp, but with no current master. When they encounter the hostile genie at the end (who was intent on turning them into ice statues), I expected them to fight it, gain control of the lamp, and make wishes (which the genie, being hostile, would twist if not worded carefully - my houserule is that wishes have to contain no more than 25 words, but this is known to players, not a secret). Instead, they destroyed the lamp. There is no rule for what happens if you destroy a genie's lamp, but now that he was no longer tied to a material world object, I had him sent back to his home plane of air. As an off the cuff thing, I had the ice castle melt violently, since it was no longer held up by the genie's magic, and there's another hazard to keep a climax in the adventure.


Say the players pick the (lame) ''lets uncurse the baker'' plot.
Your elaboration of this adventure hook is the least creative possible way to do it, on both the DM and players' part. You've given them no motivation to help the baker. You've given them no information by which they could become invested. You form a false comparison, because in your post-attack scenario, you've already employed a way to get them invested - revenge if nothing else. But none of these things is railroading, because the players have the options of NOT going to the tower. Even starting the game at the tower isn't railroading. The PCs don't have to go inside. They could climb the tower, smash the bricks from the outside with catapults, stand outside challenging the villain, etc etc. Saying "no you can't go around the tower there is impassible forest on both sides" or "no you can't climb the tower despite your +30 climb check because the sides are too sheer" or "no you don't know how to fire those catapults you all bought despite your ranks in profession (siege engineer)."

You also seem to assume players only want one thing - episodic smash and grab campaigns as in your tower scenario. Believe it or not, some players enjoy investigation, NPC interaction, roleplaying, and so on. Those other things are also "adventuring," and when part of a longer campaign are often critical to the setup.

[Segev]

It is worth noting, too, that starting a game by telling the players, in the character-building stage, "Have a reason why your characters will be in X location (or attending Y event or seeking Z employment, etc.), because that's when/where/how the game is starting and it's your responsibility to have reason to be participating in the game's events," is perfectly valid. That's not railroading; that's telling the players enough information that they can be ready to play the game rather than wander about aimlessly hoping for a hook that fits the character they made with no knowledge of what hooks are there to be interested in.

Railroading would be telling them, having done that, that they now must take the job from the Mysterious Figure and do so with only the motives you expect them to have, and to go handle it as he said. And, even if they think they sense betrayal, they have to play it straight as if they don't, because your plot says so. (e.g. the story in the "bad DMs" thread about a guy whose DM told him that his character had drunk poisoned wine even though he made a fuss about NOT drinking it, having thought it might be poisoned).

[BRC]

My line about Railroading is "Railroading is not saying "There is a wall there", railroading is saying "There is a wall everywhere BUT there".

To put it another way, a DM should provide a Scenario, a Goal, and Challenges, the players should provide the Solutions.

Where Railroading comes in, is when the DM has already decided on the Solutions, and tries to enforce them. The more twisted the logic is to enforce the selected solutions, the worse Railroading is. Railroading is bad not only because it deprives players of agency, but because it breaks immersion as DMs come up with convoluted reasons to keep players on the rails.
A DM can create a situation where the PCs have only one option without it feeling like railroading.

For example "You settle down to make camp, when you are attacked by wolves."
Barring some way to speak with animals, the PC's really only have one solution here: To fight off the wolves. But this does not feel like railroading, because it makes sense. The Wolves are hungry animals reacting to prey/intrusion in their territory.
Here's an example of Railroading: "You need to retrieve a book from a local Noble Wizard's private library". The DM has already decided the PCs will attack the library, fight the noble and his guards, then escape. He Enforces this by constantly twisting logic.
Logic Twist 1: The party contains a paladin, and the Paladins are a powerful order in this setting. "Can I get a copy of this book from the church?" Nope, this not-especially rare book can only be found in this one library.
Logic Twist 2: No, the Nobleman will not let the PCs borrow, or even read the book, even though they're trying to save his town from some major threat.
Logic Twist 3: No, the Paladins, despite recognizing that they need this book, and being a very powerful political force, won't pressure the nobleman into helping. Or if they do, the nobleman will just say no.
Logic Twist 4: Trying to sneak in at night is impossible. The Library is surrounded by an impenetrable magical shield every night. Yes this wizard can make an impenetrable magical shield over an entire building, no he won't use his apparently awesome power to help the party.
Logic Twist 5: Yes, this apparently really powerful nobleman wizard spends all his time in this library, so no you can't lie to the guards that you have permission to take the book out, or disguise yourself. All the guards have magic items that let them see disguises (even mundane ones) and let them detect all lies.
Logic Twist 6: No you can't sneak in during the day. Spells mean that the Nobleman is perfectly aware where everybody in his library is.
Logic Twist 7: No you can't get one of the guards (Who live in the town you're trying to save) to help you, they're all unquestionably loyal to this nobleman.
Until finally the PC's give up and launch a frontal assault on this library, where the wizard capable of making unbreachable magic shields and his guards equipped with true-sight, lie-detecting helmets is a CR-appropriate challenge for a 5th level party.


The Two scenarios are both equally "Railroady", in that the only solution is straight combat. The difference is , for the first situation it makes sense that the PC's will start fighting, and it makes sense that there are no other solutions (For the sake of argument, the party lacks a druid or ranger). For the second, launching a frontal assault is a TERRIBLE idea, and the DM must continually come up with reasons why other, more reasonable, solutions don't work.


In it's worst form, the DM tries to railroad the PC's off a cliff. FORCING them to make stupid decisions because their failure is necessary for the plot the DM has planned out. In the above example, the PCs are railroaded into attacking the Library, where they are swiftly defeated and captured, so that the Nobleman can say "Man, you were really stupid attacking my library directly. Now I'll spare your lives and give you the book if you go do some favor for me. Although I doubt you'll succeed, seeing as how you're idiots who tried to attack my library".

[Trasilor]

As a Player:
What annoys you most in DMs?
What bugs you the most annoying, and what are you willing to forgive?
What should be the last words of a master of the game?
What game master should not do?
What behavior deprives the game of fun?

We would ask that as many as possible people answered these questions ;)

(I hope for a little discussion on this topic)

I temporarily hold my answer.

There are a few things that seriously annoy me as a player: DM railroading, DM favoritism, DMPC. Any of these can ruin a game, but I have all three at the same time. Actually the only game I left.

I can forgive quite a few things...

Railroading: Sometimes the plot is so good I want to stay on the rails :smallamused:. Besides, a really good DM will constantly railroad the players without them even realizing it.

Favoritism: Usually this ultimately helps me, especially when the favored player calls the DM out on it and gets me a boon ("I have this epic item of awesomeness, don't you think the other players should have nice things too?").

DMPC...I hate these. While I probably wouldn't leave if their was a DMPC, I would do my best to minimize their impact. If you want to play a character, then don't DM. Note this is not to be confused with an NPC that travels with the PCs. I have no problems with them.

"Good night, I hope you all had fun. Let me know how I can improve." A good DM seeks input from his players.

DMs should never use the campaign as a means of writing their novel....

Generally, pettiness removes all fun from the game. Being able to recognize that having an in-game argument does not mean you are mad at the person and vice-verse. As players, it is important to realize that all the character's actions are decided by us, the player. This is not an excuse to be a jerk and state "that's what my character would do" - in fact, just the opposite.

[dascarletm]

Most annoying: Heavy Duty Commercial Grade House Ruling. Design your own F***ing game! But don't tell me we're playing X when we're ACTUALLY playing Apple Pie.

I usually don't mind the amount of houserullery. Given that I know going in.

Designing a game like that on your own is no easy task. Especially one in the same scope of DnD 3.5.

I wouldn't mind DnD 3.[Insert DM's Name]


As far as the open world business, JP, perhaps this anecdote will show what others are saying more clearly.
Two nations separated by mountains:
I had a city in a campaign recently that was situated in a narrow pass. This pass was the only means to traverse the large mountain range separating two large nations. Of course they could go around, but time, or go through the mountains if they are willing to risk it, but the pass is the safest bet. The city was part of a large wall, all it's money was derived from taking anyone trying to go through.
The party started as agents for the north nation and their first task (starting at level 6 or so) was to secure a viable means of attack to the south nation.

At this point they could do whatever they like, I had ideas if they wanted to take over the city in the pass, go around to the east or west, or find a naval passage. I knew what was there, why it currently isn't viable to send an army through, and generally what might change that.

They wanted to take over the city, so there it was.

I play over Skype, so coming into the first session I had a one session adventure prepared that was pretty short so I could more thoroughly prepare based off their decision. It could come into play regardless of which way they set out.

The first session was basically them making preparations in the city and starting off on my mini adventure.

Long story short they did something unexpected in the mini adventure, and what I thought would be one to one and a half sessions ended up being 5-6. It also became how they "took" the city.

There was a lich underground that had set up a tradition in the past to have the city send into this chasm the dead. He had been reanimating them, amassing this large uncontrolled horde of zombies. The players knocked the lich into the horde, and released the floodgates while closing all other passages (save the ones leading to the city).

I did not expect this at all. I didn't think they'd do anything like this, but they did, and it was awesome. The End.

Moral of the story, unexpected things are usually the best.

[Oko and Qailee]

But there is not any difference between the two.
.

Yes there is. In one case the player feels like their decisions matter, in the other case it doesn't.

What you're describing is that all that matters is the end result. And thats not true, no one has the most fun after the campaign is over, they have it during the process.

Finally, while DM's can try to have their overarching story, players do tend to have fun more so when they get to help choose the story.

Ex. The DM wants the part to kill a lich. The party follows along but then they get to the lich and decide to join him instead of fight him. The DM can railroad them into battle with the lich, or he can change his plot to compensate for the party now joining the lich. The decision is ultimately up to the DM, just that it might be a lot more/less fun for the players depending on how the DM goes about it.

Edit: Also, your entire example requires you telling everyone else "what is fun" maybe some people have more fun robbing commoners than raiding dangerous dungeon. If a rogue wants to be a common pick pocket why shouldn't he? He should be allowed to have fun as long as its not at the expense of the other players and until it is you don't really need to stop him.

[Aquillion]

More specifically: Players have fun telling their story and playing the character they designed at chargen. So if a rogue wants to pick the pockets of some commoners, the reason is probably because he wants to be playing a thief like that. You should let him!

But yes, the idea (in most campaigns) is not to completely ignore your story-ideas; the idea is to introduce them in a way that makes it feel like the players are coming across them naturally.

Consider a videogame for comparison, since we've been talking about them -- look at the Elder Scrolls games. You can wander wherever you want in an Elder Scrolls game, and chances are you'll find a plot or quest or adventure of some sort. It might not be the main plot, but if you ignore that and focus on joining the Dark Brotherhood or whatever, the game will shrug and say "sure, why not?" And that's what, to most players, makes the game cool.

The catch is that the Elder Scrolls games can do that because they have years of writing and development put into them by entire teams of people. You can't do it the same way; if you try to script out your entire world at that level of detail, you'll go insane. Instead, you can parley your advantage at thinking on the fly to have the same effect -- based on what the players focus on and what they seem to want, you adjust your existing ideas to fit them in there, in a natural fashion, as if they were always there.

The result is that, from the players' perspective, it feels like they're playing in a huge, vibrant world where they can do anything they want. Ideally, they don't realize that taking any path would lead them to the same place -- to them, it feels like every single path has a new adventure at the end, like they were in that world with a thousand teams of writers. This is part of the suspension of disbelief that comes with playing a tabletop game.

If you do it the other way (and only give them one path, or are too obvious about the fact that all paths inevitably lead to the same place), you're stripping away the illusion that your world has reality and depth to it.

Of course, you can't always reuse your old ideas. Sometimes you have to just give up on them, especially if the players straight-up reject them -- this is why it pays to have backup plans, little 3x5 cards with small adventure ideas and encounters and set-pieces scrawled on them which you can slot in when you're stuck. But my point is, there's a huge difference between "secretly make it so every path leads to the wizard's castle" and "only give the players one path".

[Threadnaught]

look at the Elder Scrolls games.

Laugh all you want Aquillion, but I have been attempting to create a system that can be run by a handful of GMs, in which the players can explore Tamriel on their own with as little GM adjudication as possible.

It's not driving me crazy. :smallbiggrin:
And also, I'm about to rock you like a hurricane.

I was insane to begin with, it began to infuriate me after a while and I just gave up.
Now it's mocking me. :smallsigh:

[Vogonjeltz]

Did the local mart lack curse removal before or after the player suggested the idea?

Remove Curse is a 3rd/4th level spell (depending on the source). The SRD20 has an interesting note on purchasing spell services:

In addition, not every town or village has a spellcaster of sufficient level to cast any spell. In general, you must travel to a small town (or larger settlement) to be reasonably assured of finding a spellcaster capable of casting 1st-level spells, a large town for 2nd-level spells, a small city for 3rd- or 4th-level spells, a large city for 5th- or 6th-level spells, and a metropolis for 7th- or 8th-level spells. Even a metropolis isn’t guaranteed to have a local spellcaster able to cast 9th-level spells. (bolded for emphasis)

So it isn't railroading to tell a sub-5th level party in a smaller than small city environment that there's no cleric who can help. The PCs had a good idea, just not one that is plausible at that level or in that setting.

If this takes place in a small city or larger (so it's possible to access remove curse from NPCs) or at 5th level or higher (so remove curse is a thing for PCs), then it's totally fine for them to use those resources to resolve the issue. (It may be the cursed person doesn't have any reward, and the PCs are doing this out of the goodness of their hearts; perhaps the person remained cursed because they couldn't afford the obvious solution). If it's an easy solve for the party in question, then it is the DMs job to make that problem more complex, or have more elements if they want it to play a larger role in the overall adventure.

[Pikeax]

Personally, i hate railroading DMs and DMs that "houserule" on the fly the most. The DM should not have the gall to tell me that my character wouldn't do something, especially if its not RAW restricted (like a paladin code or something). Why would the greedy rogue want to avoid the city when that's the best place to find and sell loot?


I can forgive the occasional ruling simply due to not knowing a rule, that can be settled after the game with a reference to a book. The stuff i can't forgive is "well that's the way it is now" when a round ago, the monsters did it the RAW way. "No non-lethal damage should be both harder to do and deal less than lethal damage."
"... where in RAW is that and your hobgoblins did it that way last time though..."
"well that's the way it is"

"well that's the way it is now"


"You're going to do this because that's what the story says you're going to do,"
or some variation thereof are common "last words" for me to hear before i walk out on a campaign.


Other than railroad or have horribly inconsistent rules made up on the fly, DMs shouldn't dismiss their players or throw challenges at them that the party has no way of defeating (like a chasm too large to jump over and too far to throw a rope across at level 3). They also shouldn't show favoritism towards players by bending or breaking rules for them. DMs also help hold the game together, and if there are OOC party issues, the DM shouldn't ignore them (in my experience most IC party conflict originates OOC)


Auto-pilot DM plots are the worst for fun. If you want to tell a story, write a book.
We're Dungeons and Dragons players. We make stories ourselves. They might be stupid, or idiotic, or cliche, but they're our stories, not just the DM's story.


There's too much for me to respond to individually so i'll just clarify some things.

I don't consider following some DM devised plot as railroading, i consider being FORCED to do so the way the DM wants to be railroading. As for the challenges issue, its one thing to run into them, but an entire other problem if the only way to "progress the plot" involves grinding exp to gain access to the tools required to do so. I referenced those two problems specifically because I had a DM who forced us to cross a chasm with "no discernible place to grapple on the other side, and a sheer cliff to deep to jump down and too steep to climb back up even if you survived the fall, which you won't. You'll need a flight spell" at level 3 without a wizard.

If the players are wandering around like wrecking balls or otherwise getting the wrath of the world to fall upon them, then that's their own fault. Going out at level 1 to steal from a great wyrm gold dragon (and somehow succeeding, beyond all odds) and then getting said dragon to come after them like, well, a dragon isn't unfair from a DM. Having a great wyrm gold dragon out trying to kill level 1 PCs for no real reason is not really acceptable.

A good DM will typically steer the party back to the story without it feeling forced. Sure everything they do (short of something completely campaign breaking) will lead to the same place, but letting the players decide how to get there is the difference between a nice ride in a sleeping car and getting stuffed in the coal car of the train.

[OldTrees1]

Remove Curse is a 3rd/4th level spell (depending on the source). The SRD20 has an interesting note on purchasing spell services:
(bolded for emphasis)

-snip-

The GM in the example is the only one that could answer my question and my question was phrased as an answer to their question of if they were railroading.

[holywhippet]

A lot of these problems would likely annoy me if I ever had a DM who did those kind of things.

Two DMs I've had stand out in my mind as being problematic. The first one was running a second edition D&D game and seemed to be operating on the belief that PCs can and should die on a regular basis as well as ignoring rules or interpreting them to his favour. For example, when heading to a certain location we were warned by some elves about the wolves in that location being dangerous. When we got closer we were attacked by someone using a magical item to make themselves into something akin to a werewolf, including the resistance to normal weapons. I think we had only one magical weapon amongst us and most of us were about level 2. The party druid managed to cast an entangle spell in front of the wolf before it attacked. The DM decided the wolf would be too strong to be bothered by it and just ran through and killed the druid in a single attack. IMO that is ridiculous. The rules state entangle can only be ignored by something seriously powerful and I don't think the wolf could possibly qualify. Then there is the fact that it took out the druid in the surprise round and would likely have killed the lot of us if I didn't think of pouring oil on it and having the NPC with the party set it on fire. Said DM later ambushed us with 12 second level enemies with bows after we mentioned the general direction we were going to the wrong person. He said he honestly expected us to all be killed, he just got unlucky with his attack rolls. At one point he decided he wasn't happy how few of us he'd killed and decided we'd not get to -10 before dying but -1/2 of our level. Anyone who went below 0 would also have a permanent ability penalty applied from his maiming table.

The second DM didn't seem interested in fun. We were playing games like Dark Heresy and Cthulu and seemed almost pissed off some of the time. He didn't like any of his rulings questioned or any joking around. For Dark Heresy he wanted us to flesh out our character background, even though our survival odds were pretty damn low so there was no point in getting attached to them.

[Shalist]

What annoys you most in DMs?
Having difficulty communicating with them (i.e. they're insulting or dismissive, or they interpret any question or criticism as a personal attack, or simply horribly disorganized and never read PMs / forget anything you talk about 5 minutes later, or whatever. See also "DM expects you to read their mind," "DM solves OOC problems ICly," etc.). Difficulty in this area tends to greatly exacerbate any other problems.

What bugs you the most annoying, and what are you willing to forgive?
Lack of consistency. I've mostly seen this as differences between NPCs and PCs (common sense = metagaming to the point of absurdity for PCs, but all NPCs are all-knowing master strategists; PCs perception/stealth skills are useless; abilities/etc are superb on NPCs, but virtually useless for PCs, etc). Also the good 'ol fashioned "pulling the rug out from under someone mid-game," or just changing things on whim.

What should be the last words of a master of the game?
Dunno what this is asking.

What game master should not do?
Forget the big picture, which is that the whole point of the game is to have fun. Nearly everything else is secondary to that, so DMs and Players all need to be willing to make some compromises. See also 'communications' above, a lack of which would preclude any such understanding. *Insert metaphor about missing a forest for the trees here*.

What behavior deprives the game of fun?
Your character being useless for extended periods of time, whether due to DMPC, plot / excessive railroading, party balance / favoritism, or whatever. If you just wanted to sit on the sidelines watching other people play D 'n D, there's always Twitch; if you want to read a Gary Stu fanfic, there's always actual fanfics, and so on.

===

On railroading...the difference between railroading and not railroading isn't necessarily the end result (arguably the game is about the journey more than the destination), so much as whether you're giving your players choices, or making those choices for them. There's also the matter of perception and trust, as telling your players why a plan will fail could be seen as acknowledging their characters' common sense (yay!) or, of course, arbitrarily limiting their options and forcing them down a specific path.

That being said, different folks prefer different types of games, and what level of railroading (subtle or otherwise) makes for the most fun likely varies considerably from group to group, but will always be more than "none."

[ekarney]

What behavior deprives the game of fun?
Your character being useless for extended periods of time, whether due to DMPC, plot / excessive railroading, party balance / favoritism, or whatever. If you just wanted to sit on the sidelines watching other people play D 'n D, there's always Twitch; if you want to read a Gary Stu fanfic, there's always actual fanfics, and so on.


I can definitely relate to this.

there's been a time where I haven't even bothered turning up to 3+ sessions in a row due to mt character not even being present for that part.

I'm completely okay with a DM devoting a session here and there for helping characters progress their personal plots, but when it becomes more about "Let's not include this character in anything because I don't like it" it kinda gets to a point where I feel like I need to find a new group or reroll.

[awa]

I agree being useless can get real boring real fast i remember one dungeon my character basically couldn't function in. i actually got out a book at one point while "fighting" a monster i could not affect. It was a swarm with high elemental resistances so my scout literally could only interact with it by taking damge and it had tons and tons of hp so the fight took over an hour and even the player who could fight it were super bored (don't recall how much over an hour but still)

[Flickerdart]

I agree being useless can get real boring real fast i remember one dungeon my character basically couldn't function in. i actually got out a book at one point while "fighting" a monster i could not affect. It was a swarm with high elemental resistances so my scout literally could only interact with it by taking damge and it had tons and tons of hp so the fight took over an hour and even the player who could fight it were super bored (don't recall how much over an hour but still)
In such cases - especially in the case of a swarm, with low intelligence, high territoriality, and usually not stellar movement - the best thing to do is just leave it alone. If your DM starts fuming, explain that no sensible party would keep fighting a foe they had difficulty affecting at all, and that you'll return with better preparations if and when you feel like it.

[Spindrift]

I referenced those two problems specifically because I had a DM who forced us to cross a chasm with "no discernible place to grapple on the other side, and a sheer cliff to deep to jump down and too steep to climb back up even if you survived the fall, which you won't. You'll need a flight spell" at level 3 without a wizard.



Spider climb might have worked, that's available at that level, but you'd still need a wizard or druid or domain that grants it.

[avr]

Lack of preparation for the session is the big bugbear of mine. Railroading can be OK if it's not too frequent (and is outright necessary for some players) and in D&D at least there's quite a lot of room for players to assist in ensuring that their characters aren't useless for multiple sessions - but preparing for the session is the one thing that only the DM can be responsible for.

[draken50]

As a Player:
What annoys you most in DMs?
What bugs you the most annoying, and what are you willing to forgive?
What should be the last words of a master of the game?
What game master should not do?
What behavior deprives the game of fun?

We would ask that as many as possible people answered these questions ;)

(I hope for a little discussion on this topic)

I temporarily hold my answer.
What annoys you most in DMs?
I get really annoyed when DMs don't take the individual players into account when working with players/designing their games. The new kid who doesn't own a players guide, has never played and is just excited to be in the game doesn't need to play a cleric , or druids, or wizards. If he wants to play an Archer, help him build a archer. Also, we don't need a healer, there's potions and wands for that stuff.

Also, if one of the players is new to RPing and has built a character that he's inadvertently running as an annoying jerk, don't make him the center-point of the plot. Especially when someone else (not me) has a much better character that is set up to be a decent leader, and with an interesting backstory. Especially not for the reason "You want to challenge him."

what are you willing to forgive?
Made a mechanical error or forgot a rule? Fine.
Take away control for a short cut-scene in which the bad guy runs away? Hey, if no player gets screwed in the process, fine with me.
Want to restrict classes/races or builds? I do the same thing.
Have to ret-con because you forgot to put something in the bad guys belongings we looted? There's better ways to handle it, but hey, things happen.

What should be the last words of a master of the game?
So it goes.

What game master should not do?
Do not bully or harass your players, especially sexually.
Don't stand down when one of your players is bullied or harassed.
Don't ever forget that you are responsible for the enjoyment of ALL of the players, yes, even the ones you may not personally like. If you don't want them around don't have them in your game.
Don't change things that just happened because it wasn't what you wanted.
Don't view the players as your enemy. They may be your characters enemies and they should be played accordingly. They are not yours.

What behavior deprives the game of fun?
Bullying or harassment... pretty obviously I'd surmise.
Lack of trust between players, or between any player and the GM.
Use of sensitive topics/themes without prior discussion. You do not want to surprise your players with domestic violence, rape, or the like. Doesn't' mean don't ever do it, or that it shouldn't be done, just make sure people are cool with it first, give them the chance to not participate if that's something you are intent on using in game.
Adversarial behavior, the players are not the GMs enemy, nor is the GM the players enemy.
Removal of player agency, this means that players should not only be able to act as they chose, but that the consequences for those actions should be somewhat logically deduced by the player taking the action at the time they are taking it.
Spotlight hogging, players should learn and be spoken to by the DM about when they should step back and allow other players the spotlight. The GM as well needs to ensure that the players get the spotlight rather than his own creations.

[awa]

In such cases - especially in the case of a swarm, with low intelligence, high territoriality, and usually not stellar movement - the best thing to do is just leave it alone. If your DM starts fuming, explain that no sensible party would keep fighting a foe they had difficulty affecting at all, and that you'll return with better preparations if and when you feel like it.

It was a swarm of tiny fiends (devils i think) i don't know how smart it was but it was smart enough to chase us and faster then me much less the rest of the party. running away or hiding were not options.

[Xelbiuj]

*newb*

How does one avoid railroading without having the pcs crap all over their prep? Multiple plot hooks, pick one or die in the woods?
All roads out of town lead to the same ogre camp? What if they found out it was South, and head North? Just toss random encounters at them?

It seems like the illusion of free will is key to a functional* game. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I've been wanting to DM for my friends (all newbs) for a while.
My thoughts are that it would be a sandbox game and thus, necessarily dangerous. That mountain? Red dragon lives there, does now, will when you're level 15. Stay away.

For example, starting in a town, coast on the east, a road going west, woods north and south.
Boarding a ship would result in it sinking and having an island adventure, woods would have previously mentioned ogres, and the road would have brigands. In town, prostitutes ended up dead.
No matter which way they leave town (or don't), they get an encounter, Or they jerk off for a few hours and I never waste my timing DMing for them again.
Once they made their choice, because I'm a lazy B, the other avenues are recycled, updated, and presented again at a later date.

Is that enough agency for you guys and is that a realistic expectation on my part?

[Urpriest]

*newb*

How does one avoid railroading without having the pcs crap all over their prep? Multiple plot hooks, pick one or die in the woods?
All roads out of town lead to the same ogre camp? What if they found out it was South, and head North? Just toss random encounters at them?

It seems like the illusion of free will is key to a functional* game. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I've been wanting to DM for my friends (all newbs) for a while.
My thoughts are that it would be a sandbox game and thus, necessarily dangerous. That mountain? Red dragon lives there, does now, will when you're level 15. Stay away.

For example, starting in a town, coast on the east, a road going west, woods north and south.
Boarding a ship would result in it sinking and having an island adventure, woods would have previously mentioned ogres, and the road would have brigands. In town, prostitutes ended up dead.
No matter which way they leave town (or don't), they get an encounter, Or they jerk off for a few hours and I never waste my timing DMing for them again.
Once they made their choice, because I'm a lazy B, the other avenues are recycled, updated, and presented again at a later date.

Is that enough agency for you guys and is that a realistic expectation on my part?

That's a fine way to run a sandbox. You don't have to run a sandbox to avoid railroading, though. Railroading is fundamentally about there being rails: the problem isn't that you have a plot in mind, it's that you enforce the plot rigidly using means unnatural to the game. Most of the time if you have a rough plot in mind the PCs will follow it, unless you're particularly bad at communicating said plot to your players. They may deviate, but they'll do it in ways that expand the plot, by proposing solutions to problems that you hadn't anticipated. In a non-sandbox game, you don't get situations where the PCs just run off somewhere that has nothing to do with the story unless they're confused or out to annoy you.

[The Glyphstone]

That can work for a casual group, but only if they don't manage to peek behind the curtain and spoil the illusion. In your example, you had Ogres in the forest and bandits on the road. If they just merrily trudge off south into the woods, they can meet Ogres just fine. But if they ask around town to find out what dangers might lurk in the forest, and you tell them Ogres, then the forest must contain Ogres. If they decide to take the road instead and coincidentally happen to meet ogres, the spell is broken and they can see the tracks.

It also helps to make sure they enjoy the ride. I played in a short but entertaining game where the GM was very up-front about the fact that he had a linear plot, and would really appreciate if we didn't rock the (literal IC) boat. We were on a railroad, and we knew it, but we had knowingly bought first-class tickets and the metaphorical snack car was delicious.

[jjcrpntr]

Yes there is. In one case the player feels like their decisions matter, in the other case it doesn't.

What you're describing is that all that matters is the end result. And thats not true, no one has the most fun after the campaign is over, they have it during the process.

Finally, while DM's can try to have their overarching story, players do tend to have fun more so when they get to help choose the story.

Ex. The DM wants the part to kill a lich. The party follows along but then they get to the lich and decide to join him instead of fight him. The DM can railroad them into battle with the lich, or he can change his plot to compensate for the party now joining the lich. The decision is ultimately up to the DM, just that it might be a lot more/less fun for the players depending on how the DM goes about it.

Edit: Also, your entire example requires you telling everyone else "what is fun" maybe some people have more fun robbing commoners than raiding dangerous dungeon. If a rogue wants to be a common pick pocket why shouldn't he? He should be allowed to have fun as long as its not at the expense of the other players and until it is you don't really need to stop him.

This is very true. In the game I'm running right now I had planned on the players doing something that would lead them to the over arching plot. They completely missed the hints, then flat out ignored it when I tried to veer them back and they ended up spending a month (wort of sessions) and nearly 6 months of game time walking through a think jungle, nearly dying, to ultimately finish a sidequest. But they had fun and now they are back on track.

I think the important thing is to let the players have freedom but make their choices matter. At one junction the group asked me for some ideas of what they can do next so I listed out 4 options. They picked one and one player said "that's fine let's do this then come back and do the others". I had to remind him this isn't WoW, what you do, and in some instances don't do, will have ramifications down the line.

[incarnate236]

More specifically: Players have fun telling their story and playing the character they designed at chargen. So if a rogue wants to pick the pockets of some commoners, the reason is probably because he wants to be playing a thief like that. You should let him!

But yes, the idea (in most campaigns) is not to completely ignore your story-ideas; the idea is to introduce them in a way that makes it feel like the players are coming across them naturally.

Consider a videogame for comparison, since we've been talking about them -- look at the Elder Scrolls games. You can wander wherever you want in an Elder Scrolls game, and chances are you'll find a plot or quest or adventure of some sort. It might not be the main plot, but if you ignore that and focus on joining the Dark Brotherhood or whatever, the game will shrug and say "sure, why not?" And that's what, to most players, makes the game cool.

The catch is that the Elder Scrolls games can do that because they have years of writing and development put into them by entire teams of people. You can't do it the same way; if you try to script out your entire world at that level of detail, you'll go insane. Instead, you can parley your advantage at thinking on the fly to have the same effect -- based on what the players focus on and what they seem to want, you adjust your existing ideas to fit them in there, in a natural fashion, as if they were always there.

The result is that, from the players' perspective, it feels like they're playing in a huge, vibrant world where they can do anything they want. Ideally, they don't realize that taking any path would lead them to the same place -- to them, it feels like every single path has a new adventure at the end, like they were in that world with a thousand teams of writers. This is part of the suspension of disbelief that comes with playing a tabletop game.

If you do it the other way (and only give them one path, or are too obvious about the fact that all paths inevitably lead to the same place), you're stripping away the illusion that your world has reality and depth to it.

Of course, you can't always reuse your old ideas. Sometimes you have to just give up on them, especially if the players straight-up reject them -- this is why it pays to have backup plans, little 3x5 cards with small adventure ideas and encounters and set-pieces scrawled on them which you can slot in when you're stuck. But my point is, there's a huge difference between "secretly make it so every path leads to the wizard's castle" and "only give the players one path".

I second this. It also helps to use the stock guards from city of sharn and other such premade enemies to make on the fly less of a headache. Pick a world where a lot of the what would happen if is fairly spelled out for you so you can do less looking up random encounter enemies.

[mashlagoo1982]

Personal example: I had the PCs run through an ice castle, at the end of which was a genie. Rather than fight their way in, as I expected, they made nice with the servants, and got a guided tour. I improvised the servants' personalities and the tour they gave. The genie was still tied to a lamp, but with no current master. When they encounter the hostile genie at the end (who was intent on turning them into ice statues), I expected them to fight it, gain control of the lamp, and make wishes (which the genie, being hostile, would twist if not worded carefully - my houserule is that wishes have to contain no more than 25 words, but this is known to players, not a secret). Instead, they destroyed the lamp. There is no rule for what happens if you destroy a genie's lamp, but now that he was no longer tied to a material world object, I had him sent back to his home plane of air. As an off the cuff thing, I had the ice castle melt violently, since it was no longer held up by the genie's magic, and there's another hazard to keep a climax in the adventure.

This is a great example of what a DM should be able to do. My party doesn't even care if what happened isn't "by the book", just so long as their actions have consequences that in some way or another make sense.

[jedipotter]

But if they ask around town to find out what dangers might lurk in the forest, and you tell them Ogres, then the forest must contain Ogres. If they decide to take the road instead and coincidentally happen to meet ogres, the spell is broken and they can see the tracks.



I'd call this Railroading. But not if ''there are Ogre Bandits somewhere out and around town moving around and raiding all the roads'', then not matter what the PCs will have that chance...of 100%...of meeting the Ogres as soon as they leave town.

The problem is that way too many players think the second one is Railroading too. When it is just how the game works. When the princess is kidnapped and the king asks for help, the players are simply not playing the game when they say ''oh we leave town and go east, do we see any monsters?''

I can only guess that a lot of the players that complain about Railroads has never DMed a game. Most DM's have to get things ready before the game: looking up things, writing out things and making encounters and plots and NPCs and everything. Only a few DMs can sit down with just a black sheet of paper and a pencil and make an amazing adventure out of whatever random things the players say. All the other DM's have to plan things out ahead of time.

And, by far most of the time, anything a DM took days to make and go over and rewrite and ask other peoples options on and revise, is much, much better then most things the spontaneous DM can throw together in thirty seconds.


They completely missed the hints, then flat out ignored it when I tried to veer them back and they ended up spending a month (wort of sessions) and nearly 6 months of game time walking through a think jungle, nearly dying, to ultimately finish a sidequest. But they had fun and now they are back on track.

This sounds horrible to me, and to a lot of players I know too. Your group spent a month walking through a jungle on a side quest? Now, your not talking about were a Side Quest becomes a Real Quest, right? It was still a tiny side quest that should have taken no more then an hour or two, right?

A lot of my players like to adventure. It is the reason they play D&D. they want to be on a mountain top fighting a lich to save the town below. They don't want to wander. They want the Epic story, and the epic build up. And a lot of players like this too, even though they can't put it into words. Though guess it depends on what type of players you have too.

[eggynack]

A lot of my players like to adventure. It is the reason they play D&D. they want to be on a mountain top fighting a lich to save the town below. They don't want to wander. They want the Epic story, and the epic build up. And a lot of players like this too, even though they can't put it into words. Though guess it depends on what type of players you have too.
Two things. First, it seems like they are adventuring. Not all adventures are crazy epic in scope. Second, the whole point is that this is the thing that the players chose to do. If your players don't want to wander, then they presumably won't take the option to wander when the option comes up. It's as simple as that. For these players, this jungle sidequest, regardless of scope, was the most interesting thing possible. Given that that's the case, why not deliver the jungle sidequest to them?

[OldTrees1]

This sounds horrible to me, and to a lot of players I know too. Your group spent a month walking through a jungle on a side quest? Now, your not talking about were a Side Quest becomes a Real Quest, right? It was still a tiny side quest that should have taken no more then an hour or two, right?

A lot of my players like to adventure. It is the reason they play D&D. they want to be on a mountain top fighting a lich to save the town below. They don't want to wander. They want the Epic story, and the epic build up. And a lot of players like this too, even though they can't put it into words. Though guess it depends on what type of players you have too.

Notice that when your players want the same story as you, you do not need to drag them along the story while walling off escape routes. Merely giving enough clues to their options will result in them freely choosing the option they will like (and since they want the same story, the one you will like) via their informed decision.


Now consider the following. Your party is told that an Evil Lich lives at the top of the tallest mountain. Your party naturally wants to get to the action(the Lich) as quick as possible. They suggest teleporting. The DM quickly adds that the entire mountain is warded from teleporting. They suggest teleporting to the base of the mountain to avoid the large swamp. The DM quickly retcons and says the warding extends to beyond the swamp. They suggest hiring an airship to travel over the swamp. The DM says yes, but has the airship crash right before the swamp...

In this example we see a DM that is railroading the players into playing a game they did not want to play. The players want to reach the action(the Lich), the DM wants the players to slog through the swamp instead. This is one of the 2 main reasons why people do not like railroading.

[atemu1234]

In this example we see a DM that is railroading the players into playing a game they did not want to play. The players want to reach the action(the Lich), the DM wants the players to slog through the swamp instead. This is one of the 2 main reasons why people do not like railroading.

One point I'd like to make before JP does:

It may be railroading, but railroading isn't always as bad as it's been vilified to be. If you (the DM) had made a really good subplot that you think that they'd enjoy that kicks off in the swamp, then by all means do so. If it turns out wrong, apologize. If it doesn't, well, your players will (hopefully) be grateful.

[Galen]

Notice that when your players want the same story as you, you do not need to drag them along the story while walling off escape routes. Merely giving enough clues to their options will result in them freely choosing the option they will like (and since they want the same story, the one you will like) via their informed decision.


Now consider the following. Your party is told that an Evil Lich lives at the top of the tallest mountain. Your party naturally wants to get to the action(the Lich) as quick as possible. They suggest teleporting. The DM quickly adds that the entire mountain is warded from teleporting. They suggest teleporting to the base of the mountain to avoid the large swamp. The DM quickly retcons and says the warding extends to beyond the swamp. They suggest hiring an airship to travel over the swamp. The DM says yes, but has the airship crash right before the swamp...

In this example we see a DM that is railroading the players into playing a game they did not want to play. The players want to reach the action(the Lich), the DM wants the players to slog through the swamp instead. This is one of the 2 main reasons why people do not like railroading.
Should have gone with "the clue to the lich's only weakness is hidden deep in the swamp" right from the start.

[OldTrees1]

One point I'd like to make before JP does:

It may be railroading, but railroading isn't always as bad as it's been vilified to be. If you (the DM) had made a really good subplot that you think that they'd enjoy that kicks off in the swamp, then by all means do so. If it turns out wrong, apologize. If it doesn't, well, your players will (hopefully) be grateful.


Should have gone with "the clue to the lich's only weakness is hidden deep in the swamp" right from the start.

Either of these would have been a better DM than my example used.

Considering your player's interests and creating something you think they will like is good DMing. Trying to force them to play something they don't like is bad DMing. Railroading is often disliked because it is a tool for bad DMing even though mild railroading can be a crutch used in the service of good DMing.

Although as Galen pointed out, there are much better ways that railroading for getting the player's interested in the swamp. In Galen's modification the players might still pass the swamp by, but now they have an incentive to go to the swamp.

[Theomniadept]

Inability to read. (metaphorical, we had a guy who refused to read any books and just winged everything. Currently teaching him why that is a horrible idea.)Had the exact same problem with my last DM. Whenever he did read he went stupid and applied what he read to EVERYTHING. At first level enemies had over 100 HP, once he learned of DR everything had it, once he learned of SR everything had it, and he ran the worst Dark Souls ripoff campaign you could ever imagine.

Okay, biggest DM mistakes:
1. Wealth By Level. If you ignore this, Magic Supremacy doesn't become law, it becomes literally everything. Players without magic will NOT have fun going down every battle.
2. Railroading. Seriously, it's a game, not a tourbus of your world.
3. Uber NPCs. Nobody cares that you have a level 20 NPC in your world. Nobody. It's the laziest copout and worse yet a lot of DMs FILL the world with them.
4. Ignoring the rules. I don't care if you houserule stuff, you make your houserules known day 1, session 1. Otherwise you are intentionally using the idea of houserules to make players waste resources. Limited resources, might I add. If the player isn't playing something like Wizard, Sorcerer, Druid, etc. then you have no right to disallow the very basic thing they make their character around. Rogue with a Greater Truedeath crystal full-attacks with sneak attack on every hit on your fetish Lich NPC? He's dead, deal with it. You know he put resources into that for a reason.
5. DM Fiat. No, don't even think about it. DM Fiat might sound cool to a noob DM, but if you take off DM Fiat's mask Scooby-Doo style you'll see it's just Deus Ex Machina trying to be a relevant plot device again. News flash Deus Ex Machina, you were tired and boring the minute you debuted in Greece. Give up, your dreams of stardom never existed.
6. Stagnant worlds. The players should be able to have an effect on your world, more than just 'yay people are happy you killed the thing'. If the players want to shape the world they should be allowed to, otherwise they're just playing Minecraft on spectator mode.

[jjcrpntr]

This sounds horrible to me, and to a lot of players I know too. Your group spent a month walking through a jungle on a side quest? Now, your not talking about were a Side Quest becomes a Real Quest, right? It was still a tiny side quest that should have taken no more then an hour or two, right?

A lot of my players like to adventure. It is the reason they play D&D. they want to be on a mountain top fighting a lich to save the town below. They don't want to wander. They want the Epic story, and the epic build up. And a lot of players like this too, even though they can't put it into words. Though guess it depends on what type of players you have too.


First off, no this wasn't a side quest that was going to take them an hour or two. I have an over arching main plot and then a few minor plots. This was in regards to a minor plot and it was something the players THOUGHT was the solution.

They weren't wandering entirely lost, they had a general idea of where their objective was. But they all had a blast. It gave me the chance to use some creatures I had found in the bestiaries that I had wanted to use. Namely the Grippli, Oreads, and Wood Giants. They nearly got themselves killed a few times, actually did get one guy killed. Had some crazy fights, some funny roleplay moments and in the end they all had fun. Hell they had one fight against two Allosaurus that were kicking their tails. As a last ditch effort the ranger tried charm animal on one and it failed the save by 1 point. Was one of the funniest things I've seen happen in a game (the reaction not the choice of action).

It may sound terrible to you but I let my players make the decisions of what's going on. Sometimes that leads them to wasting a session. For example they recently just helped a city fight off a horde of undead. Before the undead attacked they had a lead as to who was leading the attack and went to her home (she was a resident of the city). I hinted to them that they weren't going to find anything. But they went and looked at every room in the house, one went to the library and started searching for books about an evil god. They found nothing. After the game one of them asked me about it and i explained that this person isn't dumb enough to leave a giant undead shrine in her home. They laughed it off and now we move on.

[Theomniadept]

First off, no this wasn't a side quest that was going to take them an hour or two. I have an over arching main plot and then a few minor plots. This was in regards to a minor plot and it was something the players THOUGHT was the solution.

They weren't wandering entirely lost, they had a general idea of where their objective was. But they all had a blast. It gave me the chance to use some creatures I had found in the bestiaries that I had wanted to use. Namely the Grippli, Oreads, and Wood Giants. They nearly got themselves killed a few times, actually did get one guy killed. Had some crazy fights, some funny roleplay moments and in the end they all had fun. Hell they had one fight against two Allosaurus that were kicking their tails. As a last ditch effort the ranger tried charm animal on one and it failed the save by 1 point. Was one of the funniest things I've seen happen in a game (the reaction not the choice of action).

It may sound terrible to you but I let my players make the decisions of what's going on. Sometimes that leads them to wasting a session. For example they recently just helped a city fight off a horde of undead. Before the undead attacked they had a lead as to who was leading the attack and went to her home (she was a resident of the city). I hinted to them that they weren't going to find anything. But they went and looked at every room in the house, one went to the library and started searching for books about an evil god. They found nothing. After the game one of them asked me about it and i explained that this person isn't dumb enough to leave a giant undead shrine in her home. They laughed it off and now we move on.
As long as it pertains to a central quest it's okay. I still remember when our Barbarian failed a Fort save to resist becoming a Werewolf and yet made the Knowledge Nature checks to both know he's a werewolf and that he can eat wolfbane to either cure or kill himself. Then he finds it, eats a salad of poison, then fails the fort to recover AGAIN but succeeds on not dying. Then the DM said I couldn't cure him with Break Enchantment.

So for a while we had to run away from the barbarian whenever he inevitably hit half health and failed the roll to not transform. He ALWAYS failed that roll, but never failed the alignment shift prevention roll. Plus once a month we had to pay a Wizard to Forcecage him for a night.

Then the DM made up some dumb ritual that he played out by himself making every single one of these stupid rolls that to this day we still don't know what they did, all we know is they cut up Dave (the barbarian) to remove the lycanthropy physically and after all was said and done he had to make a fort save to fight off the lycanthropy - which he failed. I think we spent a whole week in some tribal village doing nothing while the DM played Stab Dave.

[jiriku]

I can only guess that a lot of the players that complain about Railroads has never DMed a game. Most DM's have to get things ready before the game: looking up things, writing out things and making encounters and plots and NPCs and everything. Only a few DMs can sit down with just a black sheet of paper and a pencil and make an amazing adventure out of whatever random things the players say. All the other DM's have to plan things out ahead of time.

I hate railroads. I also have more than two decades of experience behind the DM screen. I am also fortunate enough to be one of those DMs who can sit down and make amazing adventures with no notice out of random stuff. But it took me years to learn to do that, and I sympathize with where you're coming from. I still invest a lot of preparation time when I can afford it; it makes my games better.

Let me try offering two analogies.

Being able to DM a railroady game is good. It is like knowing how to use a hammer. Being able to DM a sandbox game is also good. It is like knowing how to use a screwdriver. You are a better handyman, however, if you know how and when to use both tools to their fullest extent. Your complaint that sandbox games are boring and pointless is somewhat like the hammer-wielder who says "Screwdrivers are stupid. I tried to use a screwdriver to pound in some nails once, and it didn't work well at all." If you attempt projects that only use nails as fasteners and never screws, then it is no wonder that a screwdriver seems useless to you. Conversely, if you were to try to fasten screws by pounding them with your hammer, anyone who watches would think you a fool. A good DM uses artful, subtle railroading to manage a railroady campaign, and uses action-oriented, plot-driving sandboxing techniques to manage a sandbox campaign.

I learned calculus from a Columbian professor who taught us "kickapong", which means "give-and-take". In calculus, some problems cannot be solved. However, if you "give and take" by adding one to the equation and then immediately subtracting one, the problem becomes solvable, even though +1 -1 results in no net change. In D&D, this technique often goes by the name "yes, and" or "yes but". For example, if a player asks "is there a cleric in town who can cast remove curse?" and you say "no", then the problem is not solved. But if you say "yes, and getting his aid will involve xyz" or "yes, but he can't remove this curse for some reason, and speculates that you may need xyz", the players have the beginnings of a solution, even though both answers have the same immediate result (i.e. remove curse does not get cast at that exact moment in time). Great sandbox DMing is about learning to take "nothing" and turn it into "two steps forward and one step back" on the spur of the moment.

[atemu1234]

The problem, JP, is that you are failing to see the point. Railroading does happen (it is necessary on a certain level) but there's a fine line between telling them that a lich lives in a castle and that there's incentive to fight it (treasure, xp, phylactery to hold over it's head indefinitely, etc.) and telling them that they MUST go and kill the lich.

Reasonable people make reasonable players.

Another mistake you make is assuming that because everybody railroads means all railroading is equal. This is also wrong, and the line is generally drawn along the difference between allowing them to make a choice and having them live with it and having you make the action for them. You already run all the NPCs, why do you need to control the players too?

[RegalKain]

*newb*

How does one avoid railroading without having the pcs crap all over their prep? Multiple plot hooks, pick one or die in the woods?
All roads out of town lead to the same ogre camp? What if they found out it was South, and head North? Just toss random encounters at them?

It seems like the illusion of free will is key to a functional* game. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I've been wanting to DM for my friends (all newbs) for a while.
My thoughts are that it would be a sandbox game and thus, necessarily dangerous. That mountain? Red dragon lives there, does now, will when you're level 15. Stay away.

For example, starting in a town, coast on the east, a road going west, woods north and south.
Boarding a ship would result in it sinking and having an island adventure, woods would have previously mentioned ogres, and the road would have brigands. In town, prostitutes ended up dead.
No matter which way they leave town (or don't), they get an encounter, Or they jerk off for a few hours and I never waste my timing DMing for them again.
Once they made their choice, because I'm a lazy B, the other avenues are recycled, updated, and presented again at a later date.

Is that enough agency for you guys and is that a realistic expectation on my part?

As a DM who tries to avoid railroading a lot I can give you some tips. First make your players inaction have consequence. They didn't bite the bait and rescue the princess instead choosing to go and hunt random kobolds? When they return to town .Have the city folk dressed in black and everyone is mourning the princess' death. Want to take it further? Make the lord or lady who had originally asked blame them directly for her death. I've found this instills a sense of fear and importance in their actions sometimes give them a lose-lose scenario. What I mean by that is they have to choose one of two objectives knowing the one they do choose the other will fail I've had players diverge on a quest to hunt down and eliminate an NPC who killed another NPC they liked. Things like that get your players invested not only in your world but more important fly their characters.