Players of the Playground: What DM behavior annoys you the most? [Archive]

white lancer

2018-02-14, 08:00 PM

Our DM is generally pretty good, so my concerns are minor...but there are a few things he does that annoy me.

The first is that he's resistant to clarifying the details of anything our characters have learned in previous sessions, even if those sessions happened months before in real time and earlier that day in game time. I understand him wanting us to take notes and pay attention to the plot and everything, but we're not asking him to say the whole storyline for us--just clarify details that our characters would undoubtedly know. I don't want to be forced to take specific notes on every little thing we encounter (rather than, you know, actually engaging in the game), and I think his approach would work more if we played more frequently than once a month at best.

The second is that he doesn't tell us which Intelligence skills apply to something we ask about, so we just have to guess. Which often leads to us checking them all anyway, so I'm not sure what the point is. I dislike doing stuff like that because it feels cheap, but what can you do?

Finally, he definitely goes way too easy on us. Characters in combat rarely go unconscious, and as a caster I can get through most combats without anything more than cantrips (higher level spells are mostly used to end the combat faster). My character is the only one with healing ability at this point since our Cleric decided to switch characters, but I'm still totally unconcerned because battles are pretty routine at this point. This one I've mentioned to him as it's more of a problem than the other two, though nothing much has changed yet.

LaserFace

2018-02-14, 08:05 PM

"It's about story." AKA the DM is just railroading the players along their awful pseudo-novel. Thankfully I haven't had to deal with this in a long time.

"The best DMs give the illusion of choice." AKA the DM not only is incapable of rolling with player input, but takes pride in practically ignoring it. I don't go buck-wild in games, but if a DM refuses to let something weird happen because it's not part of The Plan, it's clear I can spend my time in better ways.

"Unlikelihood is a Fun Challenge to Overcome." AKA the DM sets abnormal DCs to everything, and pretends it's really rewarding to sit on your hands until somebody rolls an 18 (possibly even irrespective of any skill or ability modifiers). Thankfully this doesn't appear very common.

"You have to roll for it." AKA the DM makes you roll for everything, even in a calm environment. Climbing a rope? Roll. Holding some awkward object for a few seconds? Roll. Dare not to accidentally swallow your own tongue? Roll. I had a DM do this to create false tension all the time; ate up all of the playtime. Probably the worst DM I've had.

"Meet the new NPC, the Most Powerful Wizard In The Universe." AKA the DM who can't make a mundane NPC to save their life. Everything is big, bloated, larger-than-life, and it makes me wonder why the PCs are the center of anything meaningful.

I could probably think of more but those are what immediately came to mind. Although, I'm not really even much of a player nowadays, just a DM; I haven't maintained a character sheet in years.

Malifice

2018-02-14, 08:17 PM

I will add to that being overly railroady, and Uber DMNPCs that show up to make the PCs look like sucks, or to point them back in the direction of the railroad.

With the prevalence of AP's and story modules these days where the expectation is you play chapter 1-10 in order, railroading is inevitable, but it should be as invisible as possible.

There is nothing worse that being stonewalled by the DM to the point that you know none of your actions affect the plot or have any meaning in any way whatsoever. No NPC you talk to gives you a clue. No spell you cast does anything. None of yoor actions matter.

The only way your PC can affect the plot is to do nothing. Eventually the plot advances.

I really wish those APs had several point during earlier chapters where PC victories have an effect on the end of the Campaign. ''If the PCs succesfully raided the Temple of Dragons in Chapter 2 [back when they were 5th level' then reduce Tiamats available legendary actions by 1 as she is weakened'' and ''If the PCs befrended [some NPC] and saved [NPC's sister] from the cult in Chapter 5 (when they were 10th level) he turns up to reward them with a Dragon slayer sword, an heirloom that he thinks will aid the PCs'' and so forth.

Each victory in the AP counts towards eventual success by making the end goal easier. Each failure in the AP strengthens the BBEG making the end goal harder.

That would be something pretty cool.

Eunostus

2018-02-14, 08:22 PM

An uninspired DM is the worst in my experience. In a current game I play in there is so little life in the world. Our party recently passed through several towns on the road, but I can't tell you their differences for the life of me. Additionally, the DM seems to take no interest in our characters. We constantly try to do character-related stuff, but to no avail. In 9 levels, my warlock's cult has given me 1 minor gathering quest... And the same cult never has anything going on. I'm starting to believe it's actually a book club...

Emay Ecks

2018-02-14, 08:34 PM

For me it is probably DMs who try to murder the party. I understand occasional player death, and I'm all for challenging combat. However when your dm just wants to see the party dead to the point where you have to play paranoid ("I check the hallway for traps. I check it again.") it just isn't fun. One of my DMs (who was otherwise a very good dm) had our entire party slip on moldy stairs for 12 damage at lvl 3 (DC 15 dex save and one party member was using a staff to test each stair ahead of them) and had a glyph of warding still deal damage when we spotted it and intentionally opened the door it was protecting from outside the spell range (using mage hand).

Dudewithknives

2018-02-14, 08:59 PM

1. Having pet npcs that they will make sure wins no matter what.

2. Creating a plot where the npcs are supposed to lose no matter what. If the situation is an auto lose don't bother wasting time rolling things out.

3. Meta gaming against the pcs.

Malifice

2018-02-14, 09:17 PM

Ganymede

2018-02-14, 09:39 PM

Don't spring house rules on us without warning, especially not half a campaign in when we've been making plans based on the regular rules.

Daithi

2018-02-15, 12:36 AM

As long as they're fair I'm usually happy.

(Corollary: don't kill me because I did something that screwed up what you had planned.)

Coffee_Dragon

2018-02-15, 01:13 AM

The second is that he doesn't tell us which Intelligence skills apply to something we ask about, so we just have to guess. Which often leads to us checking them all anyway, so I'm not sure what the point is.

Did you try nudging him towards the rules? Players are not supposed to point and fire their skills at problems, they're supposed to say what they do or try to achieve, after which the DM may translate that to an ability check (with any appropriate proficiency applying) and request a roll.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure we already had a pair of "bad player/bad DM" threads.

Matticusrex

2018-02-15, 01:31 AM

DMs who dont understand the invisiblity rules and end up making Greater invisiblity as strong as a 7th level spell.

Lord8Ball

2018-02-15, 01:35 AM

Well, I had a Dm for a couple years who was a nice guy, but I don't think he got story pacing well and always had overpowered NPCs and villans who are the center of attention. This is not just to make a challenge it was insanity. Here are some abridged examples.
1. lvl 2-> stole cursed ring from villain caught in the act-> ring mind controls me-> I struggle against ring-> it forces me to suicide, but I had feat to survive->Willsaves-> npc takes ring away and then gets mind controlled-> ring activated op one shot ability instantly destroying me for 30+dmg.
2. Sailor working as an official improving new settlement in untamed land->adventuring a bit solo-> army of undead attack town->disguised GOD npcs take care of it->was target for assasination->wright attacks me in the night-> cursed and all the undead in the world are after me like a homing beacon.
3. lvl3 DMPC turns into demon lord upon eating soul using mask ability-> god NPC battle tarasque
4. A reoccuring villain who is a drow wizard who appears in all games(who is a greater god and amnesiac titan) antagonizes every single group of pcs by level 3 with world ending threats.
5. Vampires, Vampires, Vampires, Vampires.
TDLR: I didn't like god level NPCs overshadowing everything and ruining the pacing of rags to riches.

Sariel Vailo

2018-02-15, 01:51 AM

I have had a good dm and a **** dm my worst dm was at an al game where they were all naruto d20 pals.and .e the drow assasin. Lets just say favoritism was felt

Malifice

2018-02-15, 02:06 AM

DMs who dont understand the invisiblity rules and end up making Greater invisiblity as strong as a 7th level spell.

He becomes untargetable, with an infine stealth score!

I hate that.

ProsecutorGodot

2018-02-15, 02:59 AM

I've only been able to play in a game once but I did run into an issue that I think would bother me in any game.

I had chosen Sentinel as my VHuman feat and he wouldn't let me use it on a fleeing enemy. His argument is that it wouldn't have changed whether or not the enemy got away, which is definitely not true.

I guess it boils down to when a DM doesn't let you do your cool things.

Capt Spanner

2018-02-15, 06:31 AM

I started a game with one DM, who is a superb character actor who could really bring NPCs to life, as well as having a gift for story and plotting and worldbuilding. It was excellent. He had the add bad habit (whoever decided to attack first tended to get a surprise round, regardless of whether it was appropriate or not, and it took him a bit of time to figure out how to create more interesting fights.) Unfortunately, work picked up for him so he stepped down from DMing to being a regular player, and another player took over as DM. Things this guy does:

Small annoyance: regularly telling us how our characters feel. Last four doors have been trapped? I can't detect any traps, but I'll still take precautions on this next door by pushing it with a long pole. "The door swings open, and nothing else happens. You feel kind of silly holding the pole." No I don't. I just saw the Barbarian take enough damage to leave me dangerously close to death if I took it. I'm perfectly right to be cautious.

Medium annoyance: pretty much all the fights we face are in large, featureless rooms. I want terrain to hide behind, or use to my advantage. Sometimes I want to take the option of saying "screw this fight" and running away, but it's never an option. The doors magically lock, or something, and fighting is the only way forward.

Big annoyance: after having a fun plot involving a missing persons, a demon as a local gang leader, and a cabal of evil estate agents under the old DM, we now have a shallow plot of "there's this evil thing, go kill the lieutenants and then the BBEG". And that's it. The lieutenants live in dungeons that are painfully obviously created by a random generator. Similarly, the encounters are clearly randomly generated too. So we end up wandering aimlessly around corridors. We spend large parts of the session hearing "you come to a junction - do you go left or right?" "What's the difference between the two?" "They're both stone walls. There's no discernable difference either way." Well, what's the point of it then? There's no way to make a meaningful choice anymore. And because the layouts are randomly generated, we can't even try to infer where to go because the layouts make no sense. It feels like there's no meaningful decisions anymore beyond "what do we do in this round of combat?"

So yeah, I'm going to be talking to the DM and asking if he intends to improve on this. If not he might find that the number of players is going to drop dramatically soon. (The original DM is bored as hell, as well.)

Kalashak

2018-02-15, 06:34 AM

I think the worst DM behaviors I've dealt with are more out of game things, like not dealing with player issues or constantly having to reschedule sessions because they never checked their schedule before planning games.

Wisefool

2018-02-15, 07:38 AM

I have a good DM. Obviously not perfect, but if I was expecting a perfect DM/game I would just be setting myself up for disappointment. Better to let my minor quibbles go and enjoy the really good parts, which are plenty.

But in the spirit of the thread... haha... my main issue is I don't think he has a grand vision. He improvs most of our sessions, but any hint of a larger story arc is nonexistent. The group is chasing after one macguffin and last session we came across an NPC that had met the legendary character in person. So we pressed the NPC for a general description of the macguffin and got nothing. So it's moments like that that fall flat.

And I understand the DM has his life and this is a side hobby, priorities and all, it's cool.

opaopajr

2018-02-15, 10:19 AM

Oh, that's easy!

Adversarial GMing. Yeah, you got cosmic power over our imaginary mannequins, woohoo. Ooh, you're gonna show us what's what? Y'know "rock falls, everyone dies" is faster. If imagination land power goes to your head due to insecurity, this does not bode well if you actually had real power... :smalltongue:

Runner-up:

Puppet Time Theater, often from Frustrated Novelist. ("C'mon, listen! I have stories to share, you guys!") Busts out a parade of Mary Sues to dance before you, and woe to any who'd interrupt their monologue or command. Probably would be better served playing alone in a corner than tormenting a captive audience waiting to play. :smallbiggrin:

ChampionWiggles

2018-02-15, 10:25 AM

I wouldn't be me if I didn't turn the tables. :smallyuk:

There are several I can name, but I can pick one thing to be my most annoying: Dismissal of player concerns. When the player approaches the DM to say why he isn't having fun but the DM scoffs at the player saying he is whining or accuse him of rollplaying or being a munchkin or whatever derogatory name. This is not to say the player is always right but rather the DM's attitude of he is the superior being so players never have any right to criticize or ask for a supposed issue be resolved.

I basically kind of stated my biggest peeve about certain DMs in the other thread, but it's more or less along these lines. I hate DMs that aren't aware of (or take the time to learn) basic game mechanics and then get super butt hurt and annoyed when a player (or players) tell them "Hey that's not how that works." The thought process of "I AM THE DUNGEON MASTER! I AM GOD! I AM INFALLIBLE AND SHALL NOT BE QUESTIONED OR CORRECTED" is incredibly toxic and honestly stupid beyond all belief. Get over yourself and your small ego and realize that you, LIKE OTHER HUMAN BEINGS, made a mistake. Then go "Oh yea, I guess you're right, I got that wrong, sorry." or "That might be how it NORMALLY works, but this is an exception/I'm ruling otherwise".

Don't spring house rules on us without warning, especially not half a campaign in when we've been making plans based on the regular rules.

Also this. Players are expected to make decisions on how to build their character and how to have their character act based on their understanding of the rules and game mechanics laid out in the PHB. When you make house rulings and changes to the rules on the fly, it makes it almost impossible to decide what to do or de-values a player's choice.

Other things that are frustrating are DMs that super railroad the campaign. Makes it feel less like I'm controlling the story and altering the world and more like I'm just a character that has the privilege to observe a story.

Also DMs that have DM PCs. It's hard to have neutrality and not throw favoritism towards yourself and it also creates an air of "I know what traps are ahead, so I'm not going first".

the_brazenburn

2018-02-15, 10:28 AM

Oh, that's easy!
Runner-up:

Puppet Time Theater, often from Frustrated Novelist. ("C'mon, listen! I have stories to share, you guys!") Busts out a parade of Mary Sues to dance before you, and woe to any who'd interrupt their monologue or command. Probably would be better served playing alone in a corner than tormenting a captive audience waiting to play. :smallbiggrin:

Speaking as a sort-of part-time Puppet Master, I actually think that going to play against yourself is a good thing. I used to railroad my players, so most of them quit. I started playing my dungeons myself, and finally got so sick of things happening exactly according to the book that I now tolerate pretty much anything (except sex crimes and other really nasty stuff).

smcmike

2018-02-15, 10:38 AM

Threadbare campaigns. I agree that DMs can go too far with cutscenes and storytelling, but i want more than a series of combat encounters. This is another form of railroading, by providing so little to latch onto that the only thing to do is march toward the next encounter.

Drascin

2018-02-15, 10:57 AM

Strict, proud adherence to RAW is a thing that makes me instantly skittish. It's to the point where if a GM mentions as a point of pride that he "never fudges" and "always lets the dice fall where they may" and "never changes the rules", by the time the second sentence is done he's going to be talking to a smoke outline, me having ran away fast enough to leave a hole with my silhouette on the door, because that sort of thing seems to ALWAYS dogwhistle a "rules only" attitude to everything.

Blatant favoritism is another. Obviously we all have our little biases and preferences, but it's always a bit uncomfortable when the GM clearly gives a massive amount of extra protagonism to one of the player characters and sidelines the rest.

Spellbreaker26

2018-02-15, 11:05 AM

A lot of the problems I see come up with DMing essentially goes under one major theme - DMs trying to write a novel rather than create a gameworld that would be fun to play in. There are writer skills and gamemaker skills, and there's not a whole lot of overlap in the middle.

DiaZyn

2018-02-15, 11:46 AM

I've got... a couple of DM behaviors that irritate me greatly. I can gloss over a lot of things that are minor, but... eh.

The first being... "you're just a passenger on the DM's train." Train's going to get there with or without me, my choices don't matter. The checks, the dice... they don't matter. Failure, success... doesn't matter. It's going to end how the DM wants it to.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a somewhat newer player to tabletop games in general, despite my interest in them for years I've never really found a group to play with until just recently. But when I devote resources (character customization choices that are pretty basic use) to fleshing out an aspect of my characters kit and then I am immediately told that it doesn't work because the DM doesn't want to detract from the allure of his boss fight?

The example in question, my character leveled up before the boss fight, got the warlock invocation for Devil's Sight to see through magical or non-magical darkness. Boss fight started with the boss wrapped in a globe of magical darkness well within range. I brought up that my character can see through magical darkness. DM said "No, this is complete magical darkness. You can't see through it." And then... a round or two later, the magical darkness was dispelled by an NPC or something as I recall. What would've been lost in letting me have that moment of "my character can do something cool" that I've invested character resources into?

It didn't fit his vision. My choices don't matter. Only his story matters.

Second thing, same DM. He's a person I've been... somewhat friends with for a long time, but there are things I'm starting to realize irritate me. We had a story arc within the campaign, which was almost entirely homebrewed in a vast world with a lot going on... but the tone of the story arc was completely just... different. And in that story arc which lasted way too long for what it was themed around (Think... serious, grim homebrew fantasy adventuring, stepping into "You're all ponies!" in Ponyland that is fighting against Nightmare or some other thing.) ... the PC's were there, but they weren't the heroes.

The final boss was overtuned to defeat us on purpose. And then an NPC stepped up, smashing the boss. DM's explanation was "Everyone should be the hero in their own dream." and the NPC he used to kill the boss that whupped all of us was the young girl whose dream we entered. Hence the ponies.

Alright, it was an amusing little twist, but the party of heroes and adventurers... spent months... to end up not being the heroes of the arc? It left me feeling frustrated.

Third thing that I really... really hate, is DM -> Player favoritism. When a single character in the party gets ALL the magic loot, and gets to have a super unique character, gets to be racist ICly with no penalties at all, even toward another party member.

Irritability extends to both DM and player, but more to the DM for not putting the ixnay on it.

Goblin is our rogue, high skill-monkey, checking the dungeon we're in for traps and treasures. Finds a chest with a ton of locks 'n' stuff on it. Rolls really well, unlocks them all, chest opens... lots of coins and a magical horn. Goblin, being a greedy little thing in the most adorable of ways claims "MINE!" And starts to tuck away coins wherever she can.

Dwarf stomps up. This is a dwarf with a magic weapon, magic armor, magic book, magic shield (which he stole from another PC earlier because it was a dwarven artifact and that made it his right? o.o). Screams at the goblin and surprises her, yelling about how none of the treasure which she found and opened was hers. In her surprise, she blew on the horn at him as kind of a reaction. The horn rolled a 1 and exploded, knocking her out and doing damage to the dwarf.

Dwarf enrages, saying if she hadn't just put herself down, he'd have killed her. Ties her up and leaves her there, not stabilizing the character. My character, an honorable Goliath stomps over and helps out our party member, healing the goblin enough to get her up and going and threatening the dwarf, telling him that the goblin was more useful than he was. My goliath probably could've oneshot and killed our dwarf, but I kept it at a threat. DM OOCly tells me to grow up and act like an adult.

Now, OOCly, I am married to the goblin's player, but the goblin had been a part of our party for quite some time, and she and my goliath had become friends. So... how did I misreact? >.>

Either way, Racist, trouble-monger character gets to do what he wants, and I get dressed down by the DM.

And the last thing, I'm going to bring up since this post is getting a bit long... is the DM puzzle.

You know, the one where to solve the puzzle, escape the trap... or scenario...

Your answer or actions are completely ineffective for some inane hand-waving reason... unless it perfectly matches what the DM wants. "No. That's not the answer. You didn't say "By the glory of Mel'thar!" You said "For the glory of Mel'thar." And you didn't shout it heroically enough, so the trap continues. You're all dead."

In one of the small tabletop games I'm running to kind of get my feet wet, I realized early on that I've used this, and I'm trying to keep it in mind as I design further parts of the encounters and setting. Going with a more general open style of just putting the situational puzzle out there. Maybe I've got a solution, maybe I don't. But what I will do if no one hits the solution, is I'll take the best, most appropriate sounding option the players give me... and make it work.

I might make it take them a while, but I'm not going to keep them there until they use EXACTLY my solution. Because I hate that crap as a player. :|

Tanarii

2018-02-15, 11:50 AM

Cheating / fudging dice.

I also am not a fan of a DM custom tailoring encounters to my party/character, either for or against. But it's not something where I can't get over myself, if the game if fun.

Edit: Also, too extreme versions of the following are bad:
- railroading, forcing you to adhere to the story / plot they have in mind
- thinking the player understood your complex puzzle, trap, or stuff you failed to explain well, causing "gotchas" inadvertantly
- instinctively saying no to everything, especially attempts to do inventive stuff during play.

I *really* have to keep an eye on myself for the last one. I knee-jerk react with a "guy at the gym" fallacy if I'm not careful.

DarthPenance

2018-02-15, 11:52 AM

Honestly my DM is pretty good, haven't got any complains about him.
He isn't the best at remembering rules, but I am, so whenever he needs help I help, and he doesn't complain about it.
Only one thing that may be troublesome at most is the encounter strenght, it's either not hard, as in no one gets downed or it's too hard (6 giant spiders against 4 level 1 pcs), but he's getting better at it.

MrStabby

2018-02-15, 12:04 PM

I think a lot of this is gold. Whether I do or do not do any of this it is always good to have a checklist of things to avoid.

I think it is easier to diagnose the existence of a problem than to pin it down sometimes. To give an example from my own mistakes:

Players were frustrated that I "misjudged" the difficulty of a fight and nearly killed the party. I don't think I did. What I had done was a) misjudge the level/subtlety of the narrative clues and description to show the encounter would be really tough and they should prepare for it, and b) not be sufficiently clear in a session 0 that the campaign would be more open world than the last one and there would exist places that the PCs could go that would not be level appropriate (i did mention but it was kind of offhand and not every player was there at the time).

white lancer

2018-02-15, 12:12 PM

Did you try nudging him towards the rules? Players are not supposed to point and fire their skills at problems, they're supposed to say what they do or try to achieve, after which the DM may translate that to an ability check (with any appropriate proficiency applying) and request a roll.

Ah, is that explicitly laid out like that in this edition? I always figured it was a sort of stylistic DM choice, just one I didn't particularly like (I run my own campaign the way you suggested). Will have to review that in the rulebook.

I think he's worried that telling us to make a specific check is itself giving away information. So if we come across a certain term in writing without context, telling us to make a "Religion" check on it will give away that it has some religious significance, regardless of how well we roll. But I've yet to run across a situation where simply knowing which check was appropriate has any impact whatsoever.

Tanarii

2018-02-15, 12:17 PM

I think he's worried that telling us to make a specific check is itself giving away information. So if we come across a certain term in writing without context, telling us to make a "Religion" check on it will give away that it has some religious significance, regardless of how well we roll. But I've yet to run across a situation where simply knowing which check was appropriate has any impact whatsoever.
If the fact that a check is being made must be secret to the player, the DM is supposed to use a passive score. So Passive Religion in your example.

MrStabby

2018-02-15, 12:20 PM

Trying to work out what a text is about could also just be a simple Int check.

This should give pretty much nothing away.

Bobby Baratheon

2018-02-15, 12:37 PM

I had a DM who was not bad on the whole, but the group got way too large and that kind of brought out the worst in him (what with the ten or so competing voices). He would make encounters wayyyyyyy too hard to compensate for the group numbers, and he ended up taking a lot of time in-game to collaborate with one specific player (one of his RL best friends), which was super annoying because it was like having two DMs except one of them got to be the star player at the center of the "story" because their character was "built for roleplaying" (ie inferior to the rest of the party and could not pull his weight) and who got to know all the plot secrets without telling anyone else. It was bad enough that it started warping the game world into complete inanity, where we could loot a nobleman's manor, burn down his warehouse after stealing all of the alcohol within, open sell said vast quantities of (marked) alcohol (somehow) and get rewarded by the local king with a cushy position and a free keep. Because roleplaying, not nonsense reactions by NPCs to the one true roleplayer. Again, on the whole the DM was a pretty cool guy who's group I joined because we were Warhammer buddies, but the too-large group just was too much and it kind of irked me that he didn't ever try to do anything about it.

Also, the DM and the AntiDM tried to make 5e work as a battle simulator with ~100 different individually statted NPCs duking it out. That went about as well as you'd expect, and actually drove someone away from the group out of sheer boredom.

ChainsawFlwrcld

2018-02-15, 01:31 PM

First on the list would be DMs who think the game is Players - vs - DM instead of Players - vs - Monsters that the DM controls. The DM should engage every combat just as a boxing referee, they should be a neutral observer wanting the encounter to be a good show. The players are not fighting the GM it’s not supposed to be

Far too many GMs & DMs I've played with over years make combat personal and say stuff like "I got you!" or "I thought I had you, I should have taken out the cleric sooner" instead of "The dark mistress looks down into the pit trap and welcomes you to stay a while" or "Man the Orcs almost wiped you guys out, good thing they couldn’t tell who the healer was until it was too late"

Second would be that the monsters should act like monsters not like the DM in a monster suit. Puddings and Slimes are not smart and should act and attack the closest player or the player that hurt it, they would not wait until the wizard or cleric get close to attack. Orcs or Gnolls are also not too smart but it’s very possible that they have been taught to look for and attack the finger wigglers first but they wouldn’t know what a cleric looks like until after combat starts and people are being healed.

Third is being rail roaded.

Fourth is playing with the GM/DM’s boyfriend or girlfriend who the rules don’t seem to apply to.

Bobur

2018-02-16, 04:19 AM

My current DM does a good job overall,
the only thing I dont like is his tendency to tell us what we missed or didnt do.
He isnt very detailed about it, but just mentioning it bothers me.

"Well, if you dont even explore half of the dungeon"....
"Well all the loot was there, you just didnt find it..."
"Well if you had gone the left road..."
"You missed all quests in that city"

That ticks me of as it reduces the game to a right-vs-wrong thinking and it also pulls me out of my character and makes me think about "Level design" and what the best maxed profit path would be.

DeadMech

2018-02-16, 05:40 AM

I think the worst is when a DM is determined to not share information with the party. This is probably most pronounced in 5e and the thing that makes me want to walk away from this edition entirely, due in part to the lack of guidelines on how skills work enabling the worst of it. Some of it would happen anywhere though.

I don't find your riddles and puzzles fun. I never have. Your clueless mystery is a disaster. Your gotcha moments with obscure monster abilities and spell mechanics are not fun. I either know the answers but it's because I as the player know and it's outside game information or I have no clue and no method in game to figure it out other than throwing myself against the brick wall and hoping the sky doesn't fall because I'm not in your point and click adventure headspace.

Maybe there isn't anything mechanical to learn when I ask for a history check on the mysterious crypt we're coming up to. I mean arguably having some idea of how large and sprawling such a thing might be could have been a starting point to help us figure out how we want to tackle it. But at least tell me something about it then. Maybe some lore. Who built it? When? Why is it abandoned out in the middle of nowhere? The world we're playing in has the depth of a cardboard cutout if we never learn anything about the people and places inhabiting it.

We keep getting are faces punched in because we haven't memorized the monster manual and you refuse to tell us anything about what we're fighting. How are we meant to plan for encounters if we don't know what they are? How do we know we're over our heads if we don't know the enemies capability? Oh the specter or wraith can one hit kill us. That would have been nice to know before it happened to the rogue.

If I don't know anything about your game world then I can't make meaningful choices within it.

Tanarii

2018-02-16, 10:51 AM

If I don't know anything about your game world then I can't make meaningful choices within it.
One of the hardest things to wrap my head around as a DM, to keep in mind, is I've got all this stuff in my head and in my notes ... but that doesn't mean I've communicated it. If I have to ask someone "are you sure", if a player does something stupid, odds are they didn't understand something or I failed to paint a picture.

I mean, players do stupid thing all this time. Often because heroic and awesome! But when it's a blatantly stupid thing you just finished "warning" them about, it probably means you failed to warn them.

I also dislike DM riddles and puzzles for this reason. They're usually some form of pixel-bitching. Like when Merlin of Amber (and Chaos) faces the Sphinx, and he gives the simple and obvious answer to its riddle, and it refuses to accept it despite the answer fitting the riddle, because it wasn't the specific answer it was looking for. IMX DM (and published) riddles and puzzles are usually that.

Theoboldi

2018-02-16, 10:57 AM

Misadvertising the campaign you're going to run. I've seen this happen a lot, especially in PbP games. A GM asks his players to provide him with hooks through their backstories, only to either have the hooks easily and instantly solved, or run a linear adventure path where they don't matter. A GM offers a game based on a light-hearted TV Show, but then proceeds to add in nightmare-fuel Level enemies and very explicit violence. Or maybe they say they want to run a roleplay heavy campaign, but then ends up being forced into tactical battle after tactical battle by the System he is using.

I get it. Sometimes you overestimate or underestimate your own abilities or certain aspects of the System you are using. But as a GM, you need to be realistic about what you can provide, and very clear about what you are going to try to provide. It's not enough to offer a session 0 or a recruitment writeup. You need to put some real thought into both where your own limits are on what you are comfortable with and what you can do, and what you want your game to actually look like in the end. And then you have to actively communicate all of this to your players.

It's a lot to ask, especially of new GMs, and I understand that. But not paying attention to it is still one of the most common causes of death for games that I've seen. If you assume that These things will take care of themselves, and any expectations will sort themselves out with time, you're basically just laying the groundwork for disappointment from all sides.

Eldamar

2018-02-16, 11:13 AM

Petulance.

Mocks players who have a complaint. Hamstrings players mid-game because they think a detail of the game is stupid.

For example: I refuse to ever cast the polymorph spell on myself in any game run by my DM. Since trying to turn into a beast retains the personality but not mental stats, so you're stuck in that form for an hour and would do exactly what an animal would do, making you completely useless unless actively in combat. Giant Eagle or Giant Ape, oh, they don't have an 8 INT because that's stupid, you're still useless.

I also hate the fact that my DM very forcefully refuses to run anything but his own setting, which I'm growing to despise because of constant divine intervention that more ****s over the party than not.

strangebloke

2018-02-16, 12:10 PM

Getting knocked out and captured.

It can be fine.

It is almost always stupid as heck. You wake up in a prison that's ludicrously inescapable, the BBEG or whoever shows up and monologues a bit, the DM describes some torture or whatever and tries to hide his raging boner and then the all-powerful DMPC shows up to break you out and you find the chest containing all your equipment. Yay, that was fun.

Alternately, the prison is made of paper and the whole thing takes like 40 minutes to break out of.

KorvinStarmast

2018-02-16, 12:42 PM

I think the worst is when a DM is determined to not share information with the party. If I don't know anything about your game world then I can't make meaningful choices within it. Yeah, this is a long running problem that has to do with DM"s needing to be taught/mentored in how to flesh out the world. It does not come naturally to all DM's.

Misadvertising the campaign you're going to run. I've seen this happen a lot, especially in PbP games. A GM asks his players to provide him with hooks through their backstories, only to either have the hooks easily and instantly solved, or run a linear adventure path where they don't matter. Hehehe, I feel for you, and I understand why some people make very short/terse backgrounds. This is one reason.

Petulance. Mocks players who have a complaint. Hamstrings players mid-game because they think a detail of the game is stupid.

Giant Eagle or Giant Ape, oh, they don't have an 8 INT because that's stupid, you're still useless.

I also hate the fact that my DM very forcefully refuses to run anything but his own setting, which I'm growing to despise because of constant divine intervention that more ****s over the party than not. Ooh, that sounds like a difficult table ...

Getting knocked out and captured. IN the A modules in a tournament/con, it was a neat challenge. It can be overdone.

It can also be a fantastic way to start a game at level 1 "in media res" ... but that depends upon the group.

Grod_The_Giant

2018-02-16, 12:51 PM

Leaving aside major red flags...

Too many skill checks. This is particularly a problem in 5e, but I find it really frustrating when GMs call for rolls on everything, even when there's no real pressure. We're alone in the wilderness and I need to climb a rough cliff? Fine, just let me do that!
Fumbles. I understand why some people like having such rules, but I can't stand 'em.
Not warning players about inappropriate builds. If you're going to run an adventure mostly underground, and only one person doesn't have darkvision, maybe give them a heads-up. If they've put a bunch of resources into water-stuff and you're in the desert, tell them their character might be inappropriate. If you're running an undead-heavy 3.5 adventure, warn the guy who's talking about playing a rogue*. Don't let them start and be unexpectedly ineffective. That's no fun.
Intentionally wasting time. This is maybe kind of hard to explain... I don't mind a little railroading, especially in a module where a certain amount of that is required, but if you know the Plot is going to do something in two in-game days, don't spend two real-life hours letting players work on the thing. I recently joined a group running Out of The Abyss, and we spent quite a long time working on our escape plan. Like, we were about to pull it off when the module goes "when suddenly, you're freed and there's a bunch of chaos to cover your escape, oh and here's all your starting stuff!" What wast the point of all that effort beforehand? Random encounters while traveling is another example-- why not have a fight that actually moves the story forward?

*Rogues used to not be able to sneak attack undead, among other creature types.

strangebloke

2018-02-16, 12:55 PM

IN the A modules in a tournament/con, it was a neat challenge. It can be overdone.

It can also be a fantastic way to start a game at level 1 "in media res" ... but that depends upon the group.

But if you're starting the game that way, the capture serves a narrative purpose. It's how the PCs come together, and it simplifies character creation by forcing them to use whatever is available, rather than showing up to the table with magic items and everything.

Additionally, my gripe wasn't really with the prison escape routine. My gripe was with the "Getting Knocked out and Imprisoned" bit, which if you do this for your campaign start doesn't happen on-screen.

If it happens in the middle of the story, it either requires lots of contrivances (the enemies don't just kill you, your equipment is in a crate 100 feet from your cell, the jail cell is absurdly overbuilt to the point that it can restrain legendary thieves, barbarians, and wizards.) and its usually just pointless since you immediately escape.

Coffee_Dragon

2018-02-16, 12:55 PM

One of the hardest things to wrap my head around as a DM, to keep in mind, is I've got all this stuff in my head and in my notes ... but that doesn't mean I've communicated it. If I have to ask someone "are you sure", if a player does something stupid, odds are they didn't understand something or I failed to paint a picture.

Or you told them... but it was months ago real time, a few days ago game time, and the PCs are walking apathetically past sources of information about their ultimate goal, and you're thinking, "This may not end well for you, but OK", while the fact is the players have completely lost track of what they're supposed to be preparing for and are just shuffling along, because you only ever provided "last episode on Bob's Goblin Whack" recaps and no "whole freaking mini-campaign in minute detail" recaps. I'm guilty of this...

Tanarii

2018-02-16, 01:27 PM

Random encounters while traveling is another example-- why not have a fight that actually moves the story forward?Ignoring for a moment that not all games or gamers want their game to involve story at all, there used to be a point to resource depleting random encounters. Back when a nights rest didn't mean a full recovery, random encounters while traveling were resource depletion, making time spent while exploring a meaningful resource. The same way they random encounters while exploring an adventuring site during an adventuring day are supposed to make time a meaningful resource be now.

Of course, if you use the slow resting mechanic, random encounters while traveling still may be meaningful in that regard.

smcmike

2018-02-16, 01:32 PM

Ignoring for a moment that not all games or gamers want their game to involve story at all, there used to be a point to resource depleting random encounters. Back when a nights rest didn't mean a full recovery, random encounters while traveling were resource depletion, making time spent while exploring a meaningful resource. The same way they random encounters while exploring an adventuring site during an adventuring day are supposed to make time a meaningful resource be now.

Of course, if you use the slow resting mechanic, random encounters while traveling still may be meaningful in that regard.

Even without slow resting, random encounters can work as a resource depletion challenge in any sufficiently dangerous environment. They don’t work if you get one every three days, but they totally work if you are almost guaranteed to get one any time you try to camp outside at night.

Also, random encounter tables that are tied to the campaign are not mutually exclusive with encounters that advance the plot.

Grod_The_Giant

2018-02-16, 01:42 PM

Ignoring for a moment that not all games or gamers want their game to involve story at all, there used to be a point to resource depleting random encounters. Back when a nights rest didn't mean a full recovery, random encounters while traveling were resource depletion, making time spent while exploring a meaningful resource. The same way they random encounters while exploring an adventuring site during an adventuring day are supposed to make time a meaningful resource be now.

Of course, if you use the slow resting mechanic, random encounters while traveling still may be meaningful in that regard.
Story might not have been the right word, sorry-- say instead "encounters that don't serve the broader themes of the game." Both of your examples fit. I'm talking about... oh, a political intrigue game where the players are traveling to a rival city, and the DM decides to have them fight a bunch of dire wolves "to keep the journey from being too boring."

PhoenixPhyre

2018-02-16, 02:03 PM

Random encounters, even if they don't meaningfully deplete resources, can also serve to set the tone. I've got a group working in a demon/undead infested city ruin. There are magical wards that provide areas of (more) safety. As you go from a safer area to a less-safe area, you start getting more random encounters, and of bigger stuff. Due to the format of the game, it's unlikely to be more than a few, but it does encourage the party to not dawdle on the streets, especially at night. It also helps the place have a "this place is infested with nasties" vibe.

This has to be done sparingly, though.

xroads

2018-02-16, 02:49 PM

My only issue right now is that my DM seems to believe that cantrips are collectively useless spells. So outside of a few attack spells, there is no point to using any cantrip.

For example, the mending spell apparently can't fix a broken arrow.

Tanarii

2018-02-16, 03:17 PM

Story might not have been the right word, sorry-- say instead "encounters that don't serve the broader themes of the game." Both of your examples fit. I'm talking about... oh, a political intrigue game where the players are traveling to a rival city, and the DM decides to have them fight a bunch of dire wolves "to keep the journey from being too boring."I get ya, and I don't disagree. I guess I want mostly just complaining about how it's difficult to balance resource depletion with low(er) encounter rates while traveling with high(er) encounter rates while in an exciting adventure site.

Of course, this is going to hold true for any game that has a disparity between two modes of encounter rates, and uses a resource depletion model. There are ways to address it within the metagame, but it can be difficult if you're trying to use the rules as a stricter simulation of in-universe resting/recovery. For example, using variable resting/recovery depending on rates of encounters would work fine within the metagame, but most people find it wonky in terms of in-universe explanations.

Slurm Browley

2018-02-16, 07:16 PM

My current DM is pretty good overall, but I have a couple of gripes.

One- Lack of preparedness. We play an AL campaign in a local store where, as you would imagine, there are some time constraints. He believes strongly in starting late (30 minutes relative to the "official" start time) to let stragglers get to the table and to let everyone decompress from the day while he sets up his admittedly impressive array of tiles and miniatures for the night's adventure. The problem comes when the 30 minutes have passed and we're still working on setting up the map so we can actually play, usually because he was spending that time shooting the breeze with everyone. I don't mind having the lag time to decompress, but if we're supposed to start at a certain time, let's be ready to start at that time.

Two- Unending cryptic statements. "You look up at the painting, and on the left is sure enough a figure you recognize." "[NPC] tells you, 'SHE's coming.'" " Look, I get that movies looove to play the pronoun game, and that a cryptic statement from a character can add a bit of dramatic flair. Gods speaking in riddles? Sounds great. Setting up a cliffhanger for the next session? Awesome. But if I'm making a perception check to look at a painting, stop being coy and tell me what I see. If I'm helping the halfling farmer, maybe he should be explicit and specific about what I'm helping him do. Getting details on what our characters experience or on what allied NPCs know should not be akin to pulling teeth.

Anyway, that's my spiel. You kids can come back on the lawn, and I'll get off my rocking chair and go back inside.

Avonar

2018-02-16, 07:40 PM

This might be situational depending on the players, but I can't stand DMs who don't trust players to know how their character works. One guy I know will stop 10-20 times every game so he can take 2 minutes to check the exact wording on this ability.

I will usually ask the player how they do something and unless I know it is incorrect I will go with it (within reason). You can look up things after a session but constantly breaking the immersion and slowing the game down for repetitive checking makes everyone frustrated.

PhoenixPhyre

2018-02-16, 08:14 PM

This could probably go in either DM or player behavior, but it's mostly a DM problem.

Not understanding that different people are different and are motivated by different things. Assuming that "fun" means the same thing to various people, and especially belittling or condescending to people who find different things fun.

The 4e DMG points out a few types of motivations and gives advice to better engage each type and prevent the pathological side from being a problem:
* Actors who love to be in character (including voices, etc).
* Explorers who love new things, descriptions, details, moving on to the next thing
* Instigators who like to take risks to move things along. They often deliberately make "bad" choices, just to keep things rolling.
* Power Gamers who like the biggest numbers. Thrives on mechanical optimization.
* Slayers like to kill things. Combat focused.
* Storytellers like narrative. More high level plot-focused than individual character focused.
* Thinkers like to find the perfect solution to a problem, even if it's not dramatic. A prime motivator for those who like CaW.
* Watchers like the social aspects of the game itself. Being with friends, occasionally participating. Goes with the flow.

To which I'd add Challenger--unlike the Power Gamer, this one loves besting challenges. The harder the better. Strongly dislikes when encounters or scenarios are tuned to the party. Overlaps with Thinker a lot.

It also mentions that most people are a mix of these motivations. Edit: And that none of these are better/worse than others. They just are.

Sepok

2018-02-16, 08:33 PM

The thing that drives me crazy is making the players roll dice when the outcome is by DM fiat. If the DM wants something to happen and the players can't affect, do it "off screen" or have it happen as a cut scene. Making the roll, and then cheating when they succeed is lying to the PLAYERS.

First example:
The DM did not like a magic item he had given to one of the players. He had a thief steal it at night while the party was camping. But he had the player roll a perception roll to wake up and notice the thief. A fight then ensues and the thief tries to get away. The druid and wizard lay down an Entangle and Web spell to pin him down. The thief "gets away" without having to make any saves.

Second example(non-D&D game):
Combat starts and the bad guys take hostages. My character (who's entire theme was to protect innocents) separated the 2 hostages(children) from the bad guy and drops a smoke screen so no one can see at all to stop gun fire. GM's next turn..."The bad guy shots both of them in the head. They die." No rolls to hit or damage. That annoyed me so much I refused to roll dice for the rest of the fight...since it did not matter what I did. I would have been perfectly fine it had happened out-of-combat, but once you start making me roll for things I expect the rules to apply to both sides.

Jiece18

2018-02-17, 09:30 PM

DMPCs who can never lose.

Tanarii

2018-02-18, 03:42 AM

DMPCs who can never lose.
Yeah. Did a classic (horrible) DMPC once when I was 16. A halfling based off Tasslehoff Burrfoot to boot, very annoying to the PCs. Never again. Now if an NPC accompanies the party they're either a escort quest & combat liability, or destined to die a horrible death in very short order, or a henchman/follower/ally under PC control for the duration.

Arial Black

2018-02-18, 09:11 AM

Yeah. Did a classic (horrible) DMPC once when I was 16. A halfling based off Tasslehoff Burrfoot to boot, very annoying to the PCs. Never again. Now if an NPC accompanies the party they're either a escort quest & combat liability, or destined to die a horrible death in very short order, or a henchman/follower/ally under PC control for the duration.

Although I've played D&D for nearly 40 years starting with AD&D 1e, I only got a computer a few years ago. I discovered the gaming forums, and some of their assumed 'Truths' surprised me greatly.

For example, after ruling tables with various types of martial classes for decades, I suddenly saw that the common perception was that 'casters rule and martials drool', don't bother turning up if you're not a full caster who prepares spells. My experience is the opposite.

This 'DMPCs are horrendously bad 99% of the time' is another thing. Sure, in my early days I saw a little of the 'bad DMPC' where the DMPC has abilities that far outclass the PCs, saves the day while complaining how useless the PCs are, hogs all the glory, only the DMPC's ideas are allowed to work, etc.

But the vast majority of my experience with them are that the DMPC is a party member made using the exact same rules as the other PCs! The DM is usually trying to round out the party when there aren't enough players, and as the players are rolling up their PCs the DM will make a PC that fills in the gaps. Said DMPC is not made to be the focus of the adventure, and usually plays a support-type role. The DMPC doesn't (usually) come up with the bright ideas (because then the DM would be essentially creating a puzzle then solving it himself while the players just spectate), but if the players are totally stuck then the DMPC can come up with an idea or two that can get them moving again.

When I was the only player for 2e's Dragon Mountain boxed set, I made three PCs and the DM made three DMPCs, and one of them was a guy we were escorting into Dragon Mountain to perform a ceremony.

Nearly all the campaigns my group has had (we started in the '90s with 2e and then we moved to 3e and 3.5e where we remained), the DM had a DMPC, created using exactly the same rules as the rest of the party. There are five of us, so a party of five with four PCs and one DMPC. Coming from 2e meant that we were used to the 'standard' size of the adventuring party being six, whereas now the ideal party size seems to be four.

This changed for our longest running campaign. We started at 4th level in 3e and switched PCs for that campaign at 9th level when we started using 3.5, because our old PCs didn't work with the new rules. In this campaign, instead of having a DMPC, the DM had the four players play two PCs each for an eight person party! It's a lot of work, but he does a lot of work! His reasoning is that your turns will come with the same frequency on average so the greater number doesn't mean a longer time between turns, it means that more bases are covered with class abilities, and if one of your PC's bites it or is incapacitated then you don't have to just twiddle your thumbs for the rest of the night.

It means we have huge fights. A lot of work. But good, challenging fun. He's happy to ignore CR guidelines in order to present us with an actual challenge.

So anyway, my experience of DMPCs has not been anywhere near as overwhelmingly negative as the forums seem to view as 'Truth'.

strangebloke

2018-02-18, 09:43 AM

So anyway, my experience of DMPCs has not been anywhere near as overwhelmingly negative as the forums seem to view as 'Truth'.

If you've generally been playing with experienced players, then that explains why you haven't had a problem with DM PCs.

Lots of fantasy stories have an ace side character who's way cooler than the hero both to serve as a measuring stick for the hero's progress and to remind us of his limitations. New DMs try to implement this, and... Get carried away with the power trip. Pretty soon everyone's three levels higher than the party and you're wondering why our heroes even matter.

If you use them with limitations, they're fine.

My rules for DM PCs:
They are lower level than the party.
They rarely speak unless spoken to.
Their combat pattern is childishly simple.
Thought they might disagree with the party and leave, they just leave. No backstabbing or persuasion.

PhoenixPhyre

2018-02-18, 10:02 AM

I've run persistent, PC-classed NPCs in several games, mostly of two varieties:

* That NPC that they adopted, befrended, and upgraded to PC status. Never as powerful as the main PCs, doesn't get involved in social situations unless asked, loyal to the group.

* Hirelings. These are both weaker than the party and aren't optimized. They have personalities, but fill in gaps in the party and let the PCs take point in all matters except where the personality is directly involved (the zealot cleric won't work with undead, even if they seem friendly, for example. He'll not betray the party or PvP, he'll just not participate.). The PCs get to set combat priorities for them (while not actually running them, they dictate where they go and who they focus on). These hirelings often are built using my homebrew classes so I can play test them :smalltongue:

Tanarii

2018-02-18, 11:03 AM

If
My rules for DM PCs:
They are lower level than the party.
They rarely speak unless spoken to.
Their combat pattern is childishly simple.
Thought they might disagree with the party and leave, they just leave. No backstabbing or persuasion.Those are NOcs I just let the PCs control. I could run them myself in combat, but I've already got to control the monsters. I'd rather the Pcs take responsibility for their 'side', as long as they're doing the childishly simple things the NPC would actually. And my experience is PCs are pretty good about using NPCs the way you tell them they generally fight.

Of course, the most common NPCs with the party are mercenaries (who become henchmen later on) intentionally hired to be meat shields ... uh, I mean bodyguards / tanks for low level casters. So what the NPCs are willing to do is fairly dangerous, and the players are happy to let them.

So anyway, my experience of DMPCs has not been anywhere near as overwhelmingly negative as the forums seem to view as 'Truth'.I'm glad you had positive experiences. I started DMing for family at 11, and playing at school at 12. My school years were full of me and my friends making terribly clichéd mistakes that you'd only expect from a teenage DM & players. :smallbiggrin:

Also I only experienced wizards rule, fighters drool in 1 D&D game, which was an BECMI campaign I power leveled the characters to the thirties. I had a few college friends tell me they had it in AD&D 1e in their extended high school campaign that hit the late teen levels. But nobody else I knew played characters long enough to hit what were effectively AD&D epic levels like that.