PDA

View Full Version : Gamer Humor Bad DM Bingo



Ninja_Prawn
2015-05-27, 05:43 AM
Playgrounders, I know you've had some bad experiences in the past, but has anyone won the bad DM bingo*? Feel free to contribute your own bingo cards as well!


http://i59.tinypic.com/9hut0x.png

Inspired by Blacky the Blackball's (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/member.php?29919-Blacky-the-Blackball) post in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?417080-weapons-understanding).

* The prize is cake... which I will eat on your behalf.

DigoDragon
2015-05-27, 06:51 AM
If I made a card, one square would be "Stole NPCs wholesale from someone else's better campaign". I've seen a GM do that, and they stole my NPCs. :smalltongue:

Feddlefew
2015-05-27, 07:28 AM
I've personally done "Deadly Random Encounters" back when I was new at the game and didn't understand just how deadly swarms were. To add to the list, I've also done "Only one character is useful for this quest" and "Special snowflake NPCs".

For ones I haven't personally done, I'd like to add "Uses cut scenes" and "Writes your character's backstory without your input."

Lorsa
2015-05-27, 07:55 AM
Do you have to get bingo from just one DM, or can it be from multiple persons? I've had some pretty bad ones, but no single one can give me bingo. :smallsmile:

MrStabby
2015-05-27, 08:11 AM
I have certainly seen a few of these but not all of them are things I can blame the DM for.

Things like the puzzle with one solution and no clue - our party faced this for a while before giving up and moving on to other areas (areas where we THEN found the clues needed to complete the puzzle). In retrospect not the DMs fault (or not much).

Same guy wiped the party apart from one guy who escaped with a deadly random encounter. Again, to be fair to him, he was running an open world and NPCs gave us plenty of warning where we were going was very dangerous. Our fault for taking the risk.

A different DM did reward good acting on social skills - which was ok for months whilst we were all comfortable with it but a new guy joined who had trouble. We had a few very difficult sessions till we worked out a new compromise. I don't blame the DM there - it was the group as a whole.

Others I also found forgiveable - and actually signs of a good DM. Inconsistent rulings when we were moving to D&D 5th edition and as we developed an understanding of how things worked for example.

On the other hand I have seen some of the other things on the list destroy games. I dont think I have any lines though.

Jormengand
2015-05-27, 08:28 AM
Changes PC's Alignment.

Changes ability's effect without telling player.

Changes house-rule mid-game for no good reason.

Gives IC benefits for OOC actions.

Lies repeatedly about a player's actions.



Bans the tricks used by the least powerful character, but none of the others.

Bans something after it's already on the PC's character sheet.

Removes all a PC's equipment and/or abilities.

Forces the party to split.

Creates enemies which the fighter, archer etc. can only hit on a 20.



Creates encounters with CR=ECL+5 or more that must be defeated to progress.

Doesn't give the characters any indication of what to do.

Gets annoyed at players for DM's own mistakes.

Penalises players for having a lower CHA than their character.

Penalises players for having a lower knowledge bonus than their character.



Uses something like That Damned Crab.

Random rules-lawyering, eg factotum surges as standard action so ability is useless.

Buffs high-tier classes or nerfs low-tier ones.

Breaks PCs' equipment for no good reason.

Conversation in the Featureless Plane of Disembodied Dialogue.



NPC guards turn out to be level 20 warblades or otherwise far more powerful than they should be.

Gives BF/GF/Husband/Wife/Other partner/best friend IC bonuses and/or better loot.

Bans books for no good reason ("I don't like DMing with it" is fine, "Truenamers are OP" isn't.)

Having characters levelling at different rates. Exemption is made for XP spending characters.

Anything which a DM does just because they feel like it without actually having a good reason.

Maglubiyet
2015-05-27, 08:47 AM
Pretty sure I have Bingo. The Mary Sue villains is questionable, but otherwise I've got that first column filled out. Probably the bottom row too. The guy was actually a pretty decent DM, though. Entertaining at least.

I would add "No Record Keeping". I had one DM who ran combats all in his head. Didn't mark off hit points so occasionally guys who were dead would start attacking again. That's an extreme example, though, and hopefully that doesn't ever happen to anyone else.

Raphite1
2015-05-27, 08:57 AM
"Rewards players for good acting [or] background writing ..."

Isn't this a feature of a good DM? To encourage roleplay and immersiveness? Sure, it shouldn't be done in a way to put non-RPers in the same party at a big disadvantage, but I've only heard people talk positively about this kind of thing.

Ninja_Prawn
2015-05-27, 09:09 AM
Loving the stories and jormengand's card. Keep em coming!


"Rewards players for good acting [or] background writing ..."

Isn't this a feature of a good DM? To encourage roleplay and immersiveness? Sure, it shouldn't be done in a way to put non-RPers in the same party at a big disadvantage, but I've only heard people talk positively about this kind of thing.

Well, now you're hearing me talking about it negatively! Not everyone is blessed with the gift of the gab; shy people should not be unfairly punished.

As has been mentioned above, in the right group it can be positive. Though if you all want to play acting games, there are probably better options than D&D.

Sacrieur
2015-05-27, 09:39 AM
Guilty of having DM PCs.

Also what's wrong with rewarding characters for spending more effort on their character?

DigoDragon
2015-05-27, 09:56 AM
For fun, I'll incriminate myself. :smallbiggrin:



Forgets to calculate xp and low-balls a random number.
Inflicts terrible puns upon the players.
Plays Yakety Sax for a boss encounter.
Attacks party with a Wall Master expy.
Introduces DMPC that purposely fails all knowledge checks.


PCs find CR 12 encounter of kobolds playing Fizban.
Does not say the BBEG is aliens, but...
Manages to kill a PC with some kind of food-based golem.
Causes player to curse 'Damn you, Digo!'
Inflates shop prices just as party acquires large cash reward.


Throws in an overt reference to Monkey Island.
Manages to kill a PC with a toilet.
(Free Space)
Excuses himself to the bathroom just before climatic reveal.
Sends party on quest for MacGuffin that never existed.


TPK's party with a falling treasure hoard.
Loses d20 under the table and just assumes it rolled in his favor.
Attacks party with a My Little Pony expy.
Makes BBEG sympathetic just to watch PCs squirm with morality issue.
Forgets his own house rule and makes something up instead.


Uses an Optimized Build from GitP as his BBEG.
Has a good-aligned chromatic dragon encounter who's still a jerk.
Dungeon trap inspired by an imbalanced washing machine.
PCs find remains of a Black 2004 Hummer H2 despite cars not existing in campaign universe.
Creates terrible M.Knight Shyamalan twist ending for sole purpose of ending the campaign.

Anonymouswizard
2015-05-27, 10:00 AM
I dontbhave bingo but have seen people who either managed to hit enough of these or who would that I would have it with a different card.

I would say that 'does not do background research on the setting they chose to run', as in a werewolf game I'm in one of the current plot points (a 'new tribe' of ronin) makes no sense because of the Children of Gaia.


Well, now you're hearing me talking about it negatively! Not everyone is blessed with the gift of the gab; shy people should not be unfairly punished.

As has been mentioned above, in the right group it can be positive. Though if you all want to play acting games, there are probably better options than D&D.

I think is is a difference between ' players say what their characters say' and 'players say the gist of what their characters say', I've only really seen the latter work out in the long run.

Eisenheim
2015-05-27, 10:03 AM
Also what's wrong with rewarding characters for spending more effort on their character?

Mainly that it mechanically penalizes the characters of players who are shy, or simply less eloquent than the people who get rewarded. I have some great players who take a while every session to warm up and get any IC dialogue going, and they still reach for description and dice faster than some others, but they're good players nonetheless. If I'm going to reward RP, I'd rather use a principled system like fate's compels, rather than just throw out rewards for RP that strikes me a certain way.

In general, I would shy away from anything promoting unequal advancement or resource gain that isn't baked into a system at the base level.

Ninja_Prawn
2015-05-27, 10:10 AM
Guilty of having DM PCs.

Also what's wrong with rewarding characters for spending more effort on their character?

Because effort != achievement and that's the only thing the DM can see.

What I will say though, is DMPCs aren't always bad in and of themselves. They're on my card because they are often symptomatic of other problems.

Lord Torath
2015-05-27, 11:19 AM
I think is is a difference between 'players characters say what their characters players say' and 'players say the gist of what they want their to characters say', I've only really seen the latter work out in the long run.Fixed that for you. :smallwink:

Anonymouswizard
2015-05-27, 11:49 AM
Fixed that for you. :smallwink:

In a play, does a character say what their actor says, or does an actor have to say what their character say? Either way round works. :smalltongue:

Lord Torath
2015-05-27, 12:37 PM
Some DM's, though, run things such that the character says everything the player says (no OOC talk allowed!). Which is a step beyond just requiring the player to say exactly what he wants the character to say.

ClockShock
2015-05-27, 01:21 PM
Well, now you're hearing me talking about it negatively! Not everyone is blessed with the gift of the gab; shy people should not be unfairly punished.


The box didn't only specify acting. It also had background writing (taking the time to think about your character and attach them to the world) and penmanship (keeping legible records and/or keeping any records at all). Neither of which are prevented by shyness. (and heck, there are times you can act your character without saying a word)

Handing out asymmetric rewards can be poorly handled - such as when the rewards heavily favour a particular player so that they begin to outshine others - but that would be covered by favouritism.

Amphetryon
2015-05-27, 01:28 PM
I'd be really interested in stories of DMs who ran successful campaigns without hitting any of the spots on either Bingo card, given the apparent assumption that hitting any of those spots makes them a bad DM.

Ninja_Prawn
2015-05-27, 01:31 PM
The box didn't only specify acting. It also had background writing (taking the time to think about your character and attach them to the world) and penmanship (keeping legible records and/or keeping any records at all). Neither of which are prevented by shyness. (and heck, there are times you can act your character without saying a word).

I don't want to drag this out into a debate about IC rewards for OOC talent, but I'll give it one more post because I feel like you've misunderstood my point. Probably because I went for poetry over clarity.

Yes, shy people can be good writers. Some would say they're more likely to be so. But being a good writer is still a talent that belongs to the player and not (necessarily) the character. And as I said (or implied) above, claiming to be rewarding effort/commitment is fine, but I suspect that the majority of people who think they're doing that are actually rewarding something other than effort.

Does that make more sense?


I'd be really interested in stories of DMs who ran successful campaigns without hitting any of the spots on either Bingo card, given the apparent assumption that hitting any of those spots makes them a bad DM.

My opinion: hitting a few of these spots occasionally does not make you a bad DM. Many of them can be used positively (I can imagine a fight against The Great And Powerful Trixie would be fun), if you've got the skill. This whole exercise is aimed more at the people who do a whole load of them constantly. Look at the spots as 'red flags' - they could indicate a problem, but you can safely ignore a few.

Sacrieur
2015-05-27, 01:46 PM
Because effort != achievement and that's the only thing the DM can see.

What I will say though, is DMPCs aren't always bad in and of themselves. They're on my card because they are often symptomatic of other problems.

I reward them in game with ways to advance the plot and other things, but not with stuff like XP or gold, if that's what you mean. What I mean to say is that it may work out in your favor as a character may show up that knows your character.

One player of mine wrote an interesting backstory. He has powerful connections in a certain region of the country because of it.



Mainly that it mechanically penalizes the characters of players who are shy, or simply less eloquent than the people who get rewarded. I have some great players who take a while every session to warm up and get any IC dialogue going, and they still reach for description and dice faster than some others, but they're good players nonetheless. If I'm going to reward RP, I'd rather use a principled system like fate's compels, rather than just throw out rewards for RP that strikes me a certain way.

In general, I would shy away from anything promoting unequal advancement or resource gain that isn't baked into a system at the base level.

I reward good RP'ing as well through a modification of the trait system. But not in a way it would unfair or overpowered. I also may hand out an extra feat or two for exceptional roleplaying. I just consider it prudent to reward effort. I have a wizard that's the best chaotic wizard that I've personally witnessed with a familiar that's as interesting as his main character. He's a role model for all wizards to follow and yes, I gave him an extra feat for it.

I think that's completely fair, so long as you give equal rewards for equal effort without demonstrating favoritism.

Dienekes
2015-05-27, 02:20 PM
Heh, judged this off of my first and worst GM



x
-(SW no Wish)
x
x



x

x
x
x



x
x

x


x


x
x


x
x
x
x





So close, numerous times, but no bingo.

Hawkstar
2015-05-27, 02:45 PM
Handing out asymmetric rewards can be poorly handled - such as when the rewards heavily favour a particular player so that they begin to outshine others - but that would be covered by favouritism.
Asymmetric rewards work out in games where players are supposed to and able to be independent actors (I also find they work well in 'piecemeal'/point-buy advancement more than level-up advancement due to tighter action/reward connections, and in games with shallower power curves, so people who pull ahead a few points won't outshine the rest of the party), to encourage players to chase their character's goals and act out their character's interests - if you're falling behind the rest of the players, it means you're not 'playing hard enough' - generally by sandbagging or metagaming. Ideally, though, the DM can see the discrepency as well, and allow the player to 'catch up' (Though the player should also be constantly looking for opportunities to do so himself)

One system I have uses its equivalent of Bennies/Action Points/Fate Points as XP as well. I have yet to see how it works in play.

Anonymouswizard
2015-05-27, 03:14 PM
Asymmetric rewards work out in games where players are supposed to and able to be independent actors (I also find they work well in 'piecemeal'/point-buy advancement more than level-up advancement due to tighter action/reward connections, and in games with shallower power curves, so people who pull ahead a few points won't outshine the rest of the party), to encourage players to chase their character's goals and act out their character's interests - if you're falling behind the rest of the players, it means you're not 'playing hard enough' - generally by sandbagging or metagaming. Ideally, though, the DM can see the discrepency as well, and allow the player to 'catch up' (Though the player should also be constantly looking for opportunities to do so himself)

One system I have uses its equivalent of Bennies/Action Points/Fate Points as XP as well. I have yet to see how it works in play.

I've considered getting rid of things such as nature, virtue, vice, mask, dirge, blood, bone etc. in World of Darkness games and instead tying Willpower regeneration to character goals, where working towards them supplies characters with a steady flow of it. Unfortunately, I've never seen a PC use Willpower/Edge/Fate points in my games despite them being useful, and I was once the only player in a game of Deathwatch to spend a Fate Point (I had been planning to save them for dodge rolls against the boss, but the others needed patching up really badly), I entered the final battle with 0, everyone else ended on 5, and so I don't see it as giving the players the desire to build on the narrative that I want.

Mandragola
2015-05-27, 04:44 PM
I would add to the card with the following:

Disapproves of how you play your character and uses passive-aggressive measures to make you play the "right" way. E.g. you want to play a paladin with a great weapon but he thinks paladins should use a sword and board. You are showered with magical longswords and shields but no two-hander, ever.

Amphetryon
2015-05-27, 05:09 PM
My opinion: hitting a few of these spots occasionally does not make you a bad DM. Many of them can be used positively (I can imagine a fight against The Great And Powerful Trixie would be fun), if you've got the skill. This whole exercise is aimed more at the people who do a whole load of them constantly. Look at the spots as 'red flags' - they could indicate a problem, but you can safely ignore a few.
My opinion: Behaving in ways labeled 'bad DMing' while sitting in the DM's chair must, per force, make you a bad DM, else the label is misapplied or behavior doesn't influence 'good' or 'bad' metrics. See also: Kurt Vonnegut "We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be."

Hawkstar
2015-05-27, 05:12 PM
My opinion: Behaving in ways labeled 'bad DMing' while sitting in the DM's chair must, per force, make you a bad DM, else the label is misapplied or behavior doesn't influence 'good' or 'bad' metrics. See also: Kurt Vonnegut "We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be."Ehh... I see it as more of a "How long can you French Kiss before it's a mortal sin" (To quote 'Web Pages that Suck's use of the term).

Also - that is an incredibly Lawful Stupid viewpoint.

AzraelX
2015-05-27, 11:00 PM
I've certainly seen most of these in various games, if not all of them.

However, I feel like being on a bingo sheet makes them all seem equally weighted, when some of the issues are much worse than others. Here's my personal ranking of the "bad DM" stuff listed, starting with the worst.

WORST: Heavyhanded railroading
Gives players access to NPCs that will cast Wish on their behalf
Obviously unbalanced houserules
Monsters specifically engineered to counter PCs
Inconsistent rulings
Tells players what their characters do
Tries to control players OOC
IC sanctions for OOC misdemeanors
---
Overzealous alignment policing
Impossible skill checks
Rewards players for good acting, background-writing, or penmanship on their character sheet
Hour-long flavor monologues
Unavoidable traps
---
Fails to stop disruptive behavior
Creates puzzles with only one correct solution and no clues
Favoritism
All NPCs are expies
---
Poor timekeeping
Monsters always fight to the death
Mary Sue villains
No preparation. At all
Abuses TotM
---
Contrived "moral quandaries"
DMPCs
Deadly random encounters
You might notice there are some "---" entries: these are transitions between different degrees of terribleness.

The list starts off at "you're an absolutely worthless garbage DM-wannabe, and most likely a terrible person too; no one should ever even consider sitting at the same table as you".

8 -> 9 is where it transitions to "come on man, you're a bad DM and need to start seriously improving".

13 -> 14 is where it transitions to "eh, you can really do better as a DM".

17 -> 18 is where it transitions to "you're at least a decent DM, and your sessions might be fun for everyone".

22 -> 23 is where it transitions to "none of this stuff is even negative, so you're most likely a pretty worthwhile DM, and your sessions are probably fun; let's party!"

You might be surprised the last (and thus best) entry was for deadly random encounters. That's because "deadly" does not suggest "guaranteed to die" but rather "has a real potential to kill you". I don't think the PCs always need to face encounters they can necessarily overcome; there's usually an option to flee if it's too much for you, and a player should be able to make that determination themselves, rather than metagaming by assuming the narrative will pander to their character. Additionally, it can be fun when you enter a deadly encounter that most people would run from, and you not only stand your ground, but manage to pull off an unlikely victory through exceptional strategy/tactics/teamwork.

Talakeal
2015-05-28, 11:56 AM
So many of these categories I want to ask more questions about before I score myself.

My current DM, no surprise, gets bingo easily and almost blacks out the whole board.

So I assume the logic behind rewarding players for RP / backstory effort being a bad thing is because the other players assume that rewarding someone else = punishing them? I have often had players complain about this, not because I give them any mechanical rewards, but because the players who care about the world and their character's place in it tend to have a lot more spotlight time and adventure hooks centered around their character or their background. Its kind of a self sustaining cycle.

Also, is having enemies fight to the death that unusual? I check morale for my enemies (when I remember to), but in my experience most DMs have most monsters fight to the death all the time, I don't think its unusual at all.

Lorsa
2015-05-28, 12:04 PM
Since when is giving access to NPCs that will cast Wish necessarily a bad thing?

Sacrieur
2015-05-28, 12:05 PM
Since when is giving access to NPCs that will cast Wish necessarily a bad thing?

It's one step short of a deus ex machina.

Talakeal
2015-05-28, 12:15 PM
Since when is giving access to NPCs that will cast Wish necessarily a bad thing?

Yeah, I wondered about that myself.

If the players can fork over that metric ton of gold to an arch-mage to buy the spell, find a genie's lamp in a treasure hoard, or are willing to make a soul pact with a devil, or do something incredibly heroic at the behest of a god or archangel then they can get wishes. I don't see what's wrong this. If wishes are a bad thing why even have them in the game?

Sacrieur
2015-05-28, 12:21 PM
If wishes are a bad thing why even have them in the game?

If the CW Samurai is a thing, so can Wish be a thing. I really don't think they thought it through.

AzraelX
2015-05-28, 12:36 PM
Also, is having enemies fight to the death that unusual? I check morale for my enemies (when I remember to), but in my experience most DMs have most monsters fight to the death all the time, I don't think its unusual at all.
Even in the cases where a DM has enemies fighting to the death, you can usually point out to the DM that the enemies' suicidal behavior is destroying your suspension of disbelief, and a light bulb will go off above their head. They'll generally have no problem approaching that aspect of combat more realistically.

You have to remember that there are bad players as well; some DMs will shy away from having enemies flee because there are bad players out there who will get upset that some loot escaped (if you're playing D&D 3.5 or Pathfinder, XP doesn't change since you receive full XP for any encounter you "overcome", regardless of how many enemies were killed; systems that don't utilize this method of XP delivery should at least consider it).

Depending on the group, the DM should be replying to such players with something along the lines of either "they are creatures in a world, not stat blocks standing there just to throw loot at you" or "if you want their loot, then earn it by taking it from them; no one is stopping you".


Since when is giving access to NPCs that will cast Wish necessarily a bad thing?
Fixed.

Also, since always. There has literally never been an era in tabletop roleplaying games when it was considered good form to make Wish spells freely available. It's the laziest of lazy DMing and has no regard for game design or balance. If "having an NPC cast Wish for the party" is the best you can come up with to reward players, then you shouldn't be sitting behind the DM screen, never mind wasting people's time with such a lazy poorly thought-out excuse of a campaign.

Ninja_Prawn
2015-05-28, 01:04 PM
Since when is giving access to NPCs that will cast Wish necessarily a bad thing?

That was a reference to a specific thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?415899-Should-this-be-allowed) from a little while ago... an easter egg, basically. :smalltongue: Also, this:


Also, since always. There has literally never been an era in tabletop roleplaying games when it was considered good form to make Wish spells freely available. It's the laziest of lazy DMing and has no regard for game design or balance. If "having an NPC cast Wish for the party" is the best you can come up with to reward players, then you shouldn't be sitting behind the DM screen, never mind wasting people's time with such a lazy poorly thought-out excuse of a campaign.

Talakeal
2015-05-28, 01:08 PM
Also, since always. There has literally never been an era in tabletop roleplaying games when it was considered good form to make Wish spells freely available. It's the laziest of lazy DMing and has no regard for game design or balance. If "having an NPC cast Wish for the party" is the best you can come up with to reward players, then you shouldn't be sitting behind the DM screen, never mind wasting people's time with such a lazy poorly thought-out excuse of a campaign.

I have to take exception to that. I assume your objection is that the players get to choose their own reward rather than the DM "going to the effort" of crafting premade rewards?

In my campaign I can recall two times the players had "wishes" as rewards.

The first was an adventure where the Macguffin was literally a magic lamp with the genie inside of it and several factions racing to claim it. The players ended up with the lamp in the end and were allowed to claim their three wishes. They actually wasted their wishes entirely btw*.

The second was a long running plot arc where they were being guided by a former deity. He was once a mortal who had ascended to godhood, but due to time travel shenanigans has ascension was erased and his divinity know existed as a vestige. The players helped him posses himself (the mortal version that existed in the new timeline) and then retrace his path to ascension. This took over a year of real time, and when the god finally returned to his divine state he rewarded the players with whatever they desired. Technically is was "alter reality" rather than "wish", but I imagine it counts just the same.


I don't see how either of these plot threads were bad or lazy DMing, and the players seemed to enjoy them (although they were kind of disappointed wasting their wishes in the first scenario).

*One of the enemies was a demon and retreated back to Hell when his side was defeated. The players wished that they knew where he went with their first wish, used their second wish to follow him into Hell, and then used their third wish to escape once they realized they were in over their heads.

Anonymouswizard
2015-05-28, 01:46 PM
They actually wasted their wishes entirely btw*.

I wish to bring Sir Osric back to life. :smalltongue:

I agree on the argument here, but would never actually hand out wishes because I know players creative enough to break the game. A Ring of three Limited Wishes is something I might very occasionally drop as a reward, but I have an entire campaign planned where the McGuffin can grant a single wish, and find that it makes for a more interesting story than the 'genie in a lamp' three wishes style (although I'm not adverse to single wishes being won in heroic ways, such as helping a god).

AzraelX
2015-05-28, 01:48 PM
I don't see how either of these plot threads were bad or lazy DMing
Maybe they weren't, until the part where you anti-climatically said "okay so just, uh, have whatever you want now".

If I wanted to get whatever I wanted, I'd just write a story with my PC as the main character, and then they can sail around the ocean sunbathing on a yacht while drinking hard lemonade and lounging in the on-deck jacuzzi surrounded by beautiful persons of their sexual preference. Sounds like a good time, and no DM necessary.

I play campaigns for countless reasons, but one of them isn't so the DM can prompt me to rewrite their universe.

Talakeal
2015-05-28, 02:13 PM
Maybe they weren't, until the part where you anti-climatically said "okay so just, uh, have whatever you want now".

If I wanted to get whatever I wanted, I'd just write a story with my PC as the main character, and then they can sail around the ocean sunbathing on a yacht while drinking hard lemonade and lounging in the on-deck jacuzzi surrounded by beautiful persons of their sexual preference. Sounds like a good time, and no DM necessary.

I play campaigns for countless reasons, but one of them isn't so the DM can prompt me to rewrite their universe.

I am having a hard time figuring out what exactly you don't like. Is it that you feel having too much (or any?) agency as a player is a bad thing?

Would it be equally bad for a king to offer a hero any boon that is within his power to grant for rescuing a princess or a merchant to offer a player their choice of items from his shop in exchange for saving his business? Or how about a campaign where the players are allowed to have some buy in to the world's creation such as designing their own homeland or decided what races exist in the world?

Or are you under the impression that I am handing out unlimited wishes free of cost or consequence?

Kish
2015-05-29, 10:07 AM
Though if you all want to play acting games, there are probably better options than D&D.
Yeah, expecting people to roleplay in a roleplaying game? What a concept.

For fun, I'll incriminate myself. :smallbiggrin:
Introduces DMPC that purposely fails all knowledge checks.

What exactly is wrong with--


PCs find CR 12 encounter of kobolds playing Fizban.
Does not say the BBEG is aliens, but...
Manages to kill a PC with some kind of food-based golem.
Manages to kill a PC with a toilet.

...uh...


Excuses himself to the bathroom just before climatic reveal.

While I appreciate that this would be irritating, expecting the DM to transcend biology seems a tidge harsh...


Sends party on quest for MacGuffin that never existed.

Would need more information to judge this.


Makes BBEG sympathetic just to watch PCs squirm with morality issue.

We want no thought here! Give us enemies who we can slaughter mindlessly!

(Though there could be ways this was bad, like if the player had no reason to fight the "BBEG" at all after the revelation but the DM railroaded it.)


Has a good-aligned chromatic dragon encounter who's still a jerk.
Dungeon trap inspired by an imbalanced washing machine.

Way too many things on that table that aren't actually bad. You fail at incriminating yourself.

DigoDragon
2015-05-29, 10:38 AM
Way too many things on that table that aren't actually bad. You fail at incriminating yourself.

Dang, I suck at being a bad DM. :smallbiggrin:

Although much of that wasn't meant to be serious, they were all things that I've honestly done a few times each.

Ninja_Prawn
2015-05-29, 11:26 AM
Although much of that wasn't meant to be serious, they were all things that I've honestly done a few times each.

And I, for one, thank you for your contribution. I wanted to see some humour, and your card does a great job of hinting at funny stories but letting us imagine the details.

oxybe
2015-05-29, 07:22 PM
Yeah, expecting people to roleplay in a roleplaying game? What a concept.

I think the issue people are having is less that writing long backstories is an indicator that someone is good at roleplaying and simply that they're better at role-bookkeeping.

I tend to make my backstories brief:

I am playing a Wookie in our newly minted Star Wars Edge of the Empire game. My background is "The empire are jerks because of Kashyyyk" and "Jaggis (one of the PCs) is a cool dude (for getting me off Kashyyyk)". Heck, you could even use a B-action movie tagline to sum up our characters: "One is a wookie refugee with an axe to grind, the other is a gungan ex-pat bounty hunter: they fight crime stuff. For money.".

That's pretty much as much backstory as I put into most of my characters. The roleplay is what I do at the table. Rorworr is 7 feet and 450 pounds of angry fur and a beaten up force pike. Loyal to fault to his Gungun bounty hunter buddy (who is less Jarjar Binks and more Warcraft Troll Hunter) who saved him years ago. When a rodian shot my buddy in the leg during a chase it ended with "Berserk Wookie jumps into rodian escape vehicle, turns the shooter into a rodian shaped pile of blood via repeated force pike stabbings, hurls the driver out of vehicle and into oncoming something and jumps out without any harm as the other rodians let themselves out (of the careening lift), which careens with the limp body of the shooter still inside (and possibly alive/unconcious. I don't know. I only stopped the stabbing motions when he stopped moving)" and then proceeds to mope around at the end of the session and awkwardly tend to his gungan buddy's leg wound. Along with handing him the spoils of that encounter, the rodian shooter's rifle he grabbed before bailing, as a beginning of an apology for allowing that to happen.

Life debt, yo. Wookies take that stuff seriously.

Roleplay is what do you at the table. Not the literary bookeeping you do before you sit down. If you're going to give a boon to a player for spending time on his character, might as well as give the minmaxer a boon for working out how to optimally get his stat arbitrarily high. Most players are bad at writing backstories. I give my GM exactly the amount of backstory needed to get me going:

Rorworr has motivation to follow the plot (oh look, the empire are being jerks, if only there was somewookie...)
Rorworr has connections with other PCs (Hi Jaggy!)
Rorworr has a profession (if only by association)
Rorworr has a personality (THE EMPIRE ARE JERKS! Jaggis a cool dude. Smashing is fun. )
Rorworr's skills are reflected by his mercenary, violent and somewhat self-sufficient lifestyle (a jack of all trades)

And all this via "The Empire are jerks because Kashyyyk" and "This other PC is a cool dude because Kashyyyk".

Does that mean I should get a leg up on my other players? NO!

Anything more then the bare minimum to get your character integrated in the setting/group/plot is done because you want to. Not because you expect to be rewarded mechanically and a GM creating a mechanical imbalance between characters by giving Ernest Space-Hemmingway more starting boons then Stephanie Space-Meyers doesn't make him a good GM because all he's done is told the players he gives bonuses people who can write good novels, over actually being capable of characterization in-play.

Roleplaying is usually rewarded naturally: a player who gets immersed and involved in the game world will naturally have things start revolving around him and get the appropriate boons. Players who roleplay characters who are noble and kind will likely naturally start getting NPCs asking for help and giving help back in return in some form: money, food, shelter, etc... Players who roleplay characters who are scary and violent will likely have that sort of roleplay returned in kind too: his name alone might loosen lips and his presence scare off potential assailants, simply showing up might also cause others to give him boons out of fear of reprisal. Both will have their downsides though: people will be wary and cautious around (or simply avoid) a violent PC and you can expect some to take advantage of a kind one.

That is how you reward good roleplaying... under a decent GM it's an investment that will reward itself over time without needing to give away a +1 Stunning Forcepike.

On the flipside if our theoretical Hemmingway is simply a good novelist and a bad roleplayer, all you've done is given him tools to overshadow our theoretical Meyer who happens to be a bad novelist and a surprisingly good roleplayer.

Roleplaying is it's own reward. Unbalancing characters from the get-go does not a good GM make.

Honest Tiefling
2015-05-29, 07:59 PM
Maybe I am weird, but I care a whole lot less about the quality of stuff I get handed when I am the DM then the idea of if the player put some effort into making a PC that fits the world/party. I am not really going to judge a PC before the first session, and I'm hardly the only one who counts when it comes to judging a character as good. If you give me a basic background, maybe even search the web for an appropriate image of the character and try to make something that works with what everyone is doing, then I'm willing to give rewards. I really don't want to be that guy who gives out rewards based on their own personal tastes.

And I agree with Oxybe, I've gotten very nice character backstories from people who then went on to RP the worst murderhobos or even sometimes 'good-aligned' psychopaths. I'd rather get a single paragraph of a simple character who works well at the table then seven pages of backstory that doesn't explain why the character is trying to murder the mayor for insulting their outfit that one time.

Nessa Ellenesse
2015-05-29, 08:34 PM
the first bingo card has TotM on it can you explain it

Totema
2015-05-29, 08:46 PM
the first bingo card has TotM on it can you explain it

Theatre of the Mind, the non-visual parts of roleplaying.

Amphetryon
2015-05-29, 08:52 PM
Theatre of the Mind, the non-visual parts of roleplaying.
That's not the first acronym that sprang to mind, oddly.

Sith_Happens
2015-05-29, 08:55 PM
Since when is giving access to NPCs that will cast Wish necessarily a bad thing?

Since it was discovered that doing so always ends one of two ways: TPK or TPAtG (Total Party Ascension to Godhood).

Takewo
2015-05-30, 05:10 AM
Changes PC's Alignment.

Call me fussy, but I'd change that into "Changes PC's Alignment Arbitrarily". Especially if there are character traits or magic that involves alignment, it is the DM's responsibility to ensure that everyone has in their character sheet the same alignment that they are role-playing.

JAL_1138
2015-05-30, 07:36 AM
Back in the day, Wish spells just always backfired horribly. The players saw something that gave a Wish, they/we ran from it faster than they/we would from a fight with every demon in the Abyss at once, because it could only end horribly. Even if you got a lawyer to write it, it'd still go Monkey's Paw on you.

And dagnabbit, if the random encounter tables said the random encounter was deadly, then by gum it was. Granted, at low level, a swan, a goat, a housecat, or a single-digit number of squirrels could be deadly. Now git off my lawn, you dadgum whippersnappers.

Ninja_Prawn
2015-05-30, 08:46 AM
That's not the first acronym that sprang to mind, oddly.


... Just looked it up. I've never seen that phrase acronym-ised, but I guess it's probably more widely used among the general public.

So yeah, I'm talking about situatuons where a DM puts the players in places they would never have picked on a grid, etc., which is pretty nasty in my book.

Gamgee
2015-05-30, 08:52 AM
Inconsistent Rulings
No Preparation At All
Favouritism
Poor Time Keeping
Hour Long Monologues
Fails to stop disruptive behavior.
Heavy handed railroading

Cealocanth
2015-05-31, 10:30 AM
This looks like fun. Ah, the trip around my memories as a bad "just starting out" GM.



Gives players OP weapon, then tells them they can't use it.
Tries to force horror into a D&D game.
Making the players fight a black hole.
Tedious list of useless magic items
Makes houserules to counteract one particular player's strength.


Mind controlling players without cooperation.
Forces pointless prophecies on the players.
Anachronism stew.
Unavoidable underwater level.
There is nothing but weeks of travel between point A and B.


Beginning and ending, but nothing but padding in between.
The setting works beautifully with everything except for the players in it.
Sudden and dramatic setting change.
Post apocalyptic D&D when nobody asked for it.
"The Ancients" did it.


Monsters change mid-fight to lengthen combat.
"I didn't prepare for that room yet. Pick another one."
Magic items don't match adventure.
"No, you can't play a Minotaur. They're a slave race."
Tries to play anything except for D&D using the D&D system.


"Gee, I'm not beating down hard enough on the players. Better start fudging rolls."
Political intrigue when nobody asked for it.
Retired PC becomes major villian.
Respawning monsters.
Drops a player by simply never contacting them again.

Lorsa
2015-06-01, 03:02 AM
It's one step short of a deus ex machina.

I don't see it. A DEM is some previously unknown power that comes in at the last second to save the day when the protagonists fail.

Wish is one of the basic spells in the Player's Handbook. Thus, in order to keep verisimilitude, you either have to remove it completely from the game (which, arguably, you should), or have NPCs which can cast it. These NPCs interact with the world in some way, thus it should be possible for the PCs to access them.


That was a reference to a specific thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?415899-Should-this-be-allowed) from a little while ago... an easter egg, basically. :smalltongue: Also, this:

Aha. That scenario is just bad. But I'm not surprised really, first time DMing at a young age. We really shouldn't be too hard on him, hopefully he will learn in time.

mephnick
2015-06-01, 03:08 PM
I have some random encounters that I would term "deadly" in my encounter tables. Generally it's up to the stupidity of the players to actually confirm that they are deadly..

I don't think it's necessarily bad DMing. Presenting an encounter way above the group can be an interesting role-play opportunity.

mAc Chaos
2015-06-01, 04:30 PM
I don't find anything wrong about "deadly" random encounters. It is what helps give a feeling about the environment. For instance, if you were running around in Mordor, you'd expect the random encounters you run into to be a good deal deadlier than in the Shire.

Most of my bad habits as a new DM come from being too easygoing and not nipping problems in the bud when I could have in the spirit of player agency. (Like PvP.)

TurboGhast
2015-06-03, 04:20 PM
A chance of having a random encounter kill is fine, since tension needs to exist to make the encounter engaging, but having many killer random encounters is far too much. A random encounter shouldn't kill someone who is trying very hard to not die.

Icewraith
2015-06-03, 05:34 PM
Playgrounders, I know you've had some bad experiences in the past, but has anyone won the bad DM bingo*? Feel free to contribute your own bingo cards as well!


http://i59.tinypic.com/9hut0x.png

Inspired by Blacky the Blackball's (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/member.php?29919-Blacky-the-Blackball) post in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?417080-weapons-understanding).

* The prize is cake... which I will eat on your behalf.

I don't think I have a bingo with any individual DM, but roll all of them together (including good dms on bad days) and I'm close to blackout.

Sacrieur
2015-06-04, 04:39 PM
I don't see it. A DEM is some previously unknown power that comes in at the last second to save the day when the protagonists fail.

Wish is one of the basic spells in the Player's Handbook. Thus, in order to keep verisimilitude, you either have to remove it completely from the game (which, arguably, you should), or have NPCs which can cast it. These NPCs interact with the world in some way, thus it should be possible for the PCs to access them.

Precisely, it's a DEM that players have access to, a DEM on command if you will.

And yes, removing it from the game is the only sensible thing to do. It and its brothers reality revision and miracle.

Lord Torath
2015-06-04, 06:16 PM
Giving the PCs access to an NPC who can cast Wish is very different from giving them access to an NPC who will cast Wish whenever they ask. Of course, you still need a reason why he's not casting Wish and solving everything.

Kriton
2015-06-04, 06:58 PM
Precisely, it's a DEM that players have access to, a DEM on command if you will.

And yes, removing it from the game is the only sensible thing to do. It and its brothers reality revision and miracle.

If you are referring to the ability of the players to cast Wish(or summon things to cast it for them) as a Deus Ex Machina, I have to point out that that's not the case. In reality your are faced with a bad case of Deus Ex Magus.

JAL_1138
2015-06-04, 10:06 PM
I would add to the card with the following:

Disapproves of how you play your character and uses passive-aggressive measures to make you play the "right" way. E.g. you want to play a paladin with a great weapon but he thinks paladins should use a sword and board. You are showered with magical longswords and shields but no two-hander, ever.

The 2e DMG, page 241, says "70% of [magical] swords are longswords, 20% are scimitars or broadswords, 5% are short swords, 4% are bastard swords, and 1% are two-handed swords, unless the description of a specific item indicates otherwise." Better hope for the DM to roll a 100 on the d100 when rolling up treasure if you want a two-handed +5 Holy Avenger. [/grognard]

EDIT: And that's after rolling a 20 (d20) on table 108, then a 10 (d10) on table 110, then a 6 (d20) on subtable D. IF the lair or individual treasure type allows magical items, specifically weapons, the highest chance of which is 70% for type U, 60% for Type W, and 50% for type Z, although those are quite rare. More likely to encounter something with a chance of magical item in the 15% to 30% range. [/grognard]

Nightcanon
2015-06-06, 06:57 AM
The 2e DMG, page 241, says "70% of [magical] swords are longswords, 20% are scimitars or broadswords, 5% are short swords, 4% are bastard swords, and 1% are two-handed swords, unless the description of a specific item indicates otherwise." Better hope for the DM to roll a 100 on the d100 when rolling up treasure if you want a two-handed +5 Holy Avenger. [/grognard]

EDIT: And that's after rolling a 20 (d20) on table 108, then a 10 (d10) on table 110, then a 6 (d20) on subtable D. IF the lair or individual treasure type allows magical items, specifically weapons, the highest chance of which is 70% for type U, 60% for Type W, and 50% for type Z, although those are quite rare. More likely to encounter something with a chance of magical item in the 15% to 30% range. [/grognard]

It's long time since I played 2e, but there are mechanical reasons why longswords would be 'better' (weapon speed, paucity of better defenisve options than a nice magic shield) and thus more common in a 2e world, while in a 3e world two-handers should be more common.

JAL_1138
2015-06-06, 07:42 AM
It's long time since I played 2e, but there are mechanical reasons why longswords would be 'better' (weapon speed, paucity of better defenisve options than a nice magic shield) and thus more common in a 2e world, while in a 3e world two-handers should be more common.

I was just being silly, really. Hence the [/grognard] tags. While it can get a little silly to tailor every magic item to the exact builds of the PCs ("conveniently, a +X Bohemian Earspoon" in every treasure hoard), relying entirely on the random tables, especially if they'd shut down a character's chances of ever getting their iconic weapon, is a little harsh.

Gavran
2015-06-06, 04:39 PM
For instance, if you were running around in Mordor, you'd expect the random encounters you run into to be a good deal deadlier than in the Shire.

One could argue that by virtue of being an encounter in Mordor it isn't exactly random.

But, honestly, that (and some others) are far more into playstyle preference than "objectively bad" territory.

KorvinStarmast
2015-06-08, 09:37 AM
Giving the PCs access to an NPC who can cast Wish is very different from giving them access to an NPC who will cast Wish whenever they ask. Of course, you still need a reason why he's not casting Wish and solving everything.
4.Monsters specifically engineered to counter PCs
I seem to recall that there were Fireproof mummies in either MM II or Fiend Folio for AD*&D 1e. Official game resource from TSR. :smallyuk:
9.Overzealous alignment policing
Sounds like AD & D 1st ed. Alignment penalties.
23.Contrived "moral quandaries"
Sounds like how nearly every average-to-below average DM ran Paladins from Greyhawk to ... before 5e was published. :smallyuk: DMing when a Paladin was being played, and DMing well, I have seen done twice.
5e gives everyone a bit more room to breath.
25.Deadly random encounters
This began in OD & D before Greyhawk.
Unavoidable underwater level.
I seem to recall an all underwater level in The Final Enemy (U3, second sequel to U1 "Sinister Secret of Salt Marsh" module, official TSR release). (That aside, the U1-U3 set were great fun to run).

Some of these behaviors were aided and abetted by the company who built the game.
Just sayin'. :smallcool:

Person_Man
2015-06-11, 01:14 PM
I would like to add "omniscient and/or unkillable NPCs". As in, player commits a crime, kills somebody, or otherwise does something the DM doesn't like, and all NPCs are mysteriously and sometimes instantaneously become aware of it, and/or shop keepers, quest givers, kings, DMPCs, etc, can't be killed because of contrived circumstances.

This tends to be fairly common in video game rpgs, and poor DMs sometimes import it into their tabletop games.

JAL_1138
2015-06-11, 01:48 PM
I would like to add "omniscient and/or unkillable NPCs". As in, player commits a crime, kills somebody, or otherwise does something the DM doesn't like, and all NPCs are mysteriously and sometimes instantaneously become aware of it, and/or shop keepers, quest givers, kings, DMPCs, etc, can't be killed because of contrived circumstances.

This tends to be fairly common in video game rpgs, and poor DMs sometimes import it into their tabletop games.

Argh, those are aggravating. Hm...I wonder if those could be redeemed somehow. Could maybe be used as a plot point, e.g.,

Players: "How the hell did anyone find out?!"
DM: "Good question." *evil grin*
*Much investigation later*
The NPCs have all been infected and are being controlled by something akin to the Thorian from Mass Effect, or are a hive-mind of abominations masquerading as humans, etc., etc.

Perhaps the unkillable NPC has cast some kind of geas-and-charm combo on the party, making them think their inability to strike the NPC is due to ludicrous contrivance rather than the spells preventing them from doing it; once they discover the charm, they still can't attack with the geas in place; they must break the spell in order to be able to kill the NPC, which is now the main plot of the adventure. Of course, you can't hit them with the geas+charm by fiat unless there are no-save spells for it in the book; otherwise give them saving throws, even if you roll them yourself behind the screen.

DarthMarasmus
2015-06-13, 05:35 PM
I'm going to start this post off with the disclaimer that this DM is a close friend of mine and I think the world of him as a person. That being said, his DMing makes me want to self-administer a concussion most of the time.

My personal "favorite" is the DM that asks everyone to write up backstories for their characters with ZERO information about the world they will be played in because he "doesn't like" published worlds and wants to make up his own as he goes (badly). Also, upon submitting said backstory to the DM, he reads it and completely ignores everything in it and on the copy of the character sheet that I gave him.

Entry 1) My character was a halfling cleric from a primitive culture, very loosely based on Native American mythology, think a shaman or medicine man (I didn't use the actual shaman class because we didn't have a copy of the book). Nothing on my character's person would readily identify him as a cleric to anyone from the "civilized" world. He looked much more like a small barbarian than a cleric. Didn't matter, as soon as we set foot in town, the town guard approached me to preside over the trial of a witch (a wizard or sorcerer, more on that later). Never mind the fact that IN MY BACKGROUND I stated that my character barely understood Common and did not look at all like a cleric (no readily identifiable holy symbol, etc.).

Entry 2) Contrary to multiple times of my stating that I was wearing leather armor (high DEX coupled with wanting to play an atypical cleric), the DM and other players kept assuming that I was wearing plate armor.

Entry 3) This DM also has a very bad and very annoying habit of ignoring game rules because of his real world experience as a doctor and radiologist or because he thinks changing the rule will be funny. For example, applying bleeding damage to a critical hit and then saying that magical healing won't stop the bleeding damage. He backed down on that when we showed him the rule about bleeding and magical healing and on the next attack broke the character's foot instead. He's also been known to pull out anaphylactic shock just because he was studying about it in biology (undergrad days).

I know a lot of you are probably wondering why I still play in his games, there's 3 reasons: 1) I can't seem to find anyone else that's DMing, 2) I like playing and will suffer through a bad DM to do it if I have to, and 3) He's my friend and I think he might take it personally if I didn't accept his invitation to play. I do wish he'd be a bit more receptive to criticism and attempts to correct his bad DM behaviors, but I'm also willing to let some of it go because he's working full time and has 3 kids to deal with.

Socksy
2015-06-14, 03:55 PM
DMPC is secretly a god
Everyone is teleported to modern-day Earth when nobody wanted to be
Firm believer in CR
Showers low-level party in major magical items/gear
Brings in real-world politics/religion


Boss battle is a character statted in another system
Boss battle is his PC from an earlier game
Uses books for NPCs/DMPCs which are banned for players
Repeatedly messes up initiative order
Sexist/Racist


Magical Realm
Keeps being distracted by his phone
Constantly high/drunk
No-save death effects
Doesn't let you roll your own dice


The Tales Of DMPC (briefly featuring PC)
Changes systems halfway through
Arbitrary changes to the mythology without telling anyone beforehand
NPCs have guns/tasers, PCs have bows/swords
DMPC is a time traveller


"You didn't say you looked up when you made that spot check!"
Punishes players for having less WIS than their character
"It was a dream all along!"
Illegal template-stacking
Playing against, rather than with, the players

Jormengand
2015-06-14, 04:10 PM
Uses books for NPCs/DMPCs which are banned for players

To be fair, the BoVD specifically tells you to do this and the reason why you would is fairly clear.

Socksy
2015-06-14, 04:37 PM
To be fair, the BoVD specifically tells you to do this and the reason why you would is fairly clear.

Hmm, you're right.
I meant more "No completes! No psionics!" and then the DMPC has a PrC from Complete Psionic.