Bad DM Bingo

[Sacrieur]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

That was a reference to a specific thread from a little while ago... an easter egg, basically. 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]

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]

They actually wasted their wishes entirely btw*.

I wish to bring Sir Osric back to life.

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]

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]

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]

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.
[td]Introduces DMPC that purposely fails all knowledge checks.[/td]

What exactly is wrong with--

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

...uh...

[td]Excuses himself to the bathroom just before climatic reveal.[/td]

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

[td]Sends party on quest for MacGuffin that never existed.[/td]

Would need more information to judge this.

[td]Makes BBEG sympathetic just to watch PCs squirm with morality issue.[/td]

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.)

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

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

[DigoDragon]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

the first bingo card has TotM on it can you explain it

[Totema]

the first bingo card has TotM on it can you explain it

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

[Amphetryon]

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

That's not the first acronym that sprang to mind, oddly.

[Sith_Happens]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Inconsistent Rulings
No Preparation At All
Favouritism
Poor Time Keeping
Hour Long Monologues
Fails to stop disruptive behavior.
Heavy handed railroading

[Cealocanth]

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]

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 from a little while ago... an easter egg, basically. 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]

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]

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]

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]

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!

Spoiler: Bad DM Bingo

Show

Inspired by Blacky the Blackball's post in this thread.

* 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]

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]

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.