Biggest Dungeon Master Pet Peeves?

[Darkpyro2]

I've DMed more than I've played any D&D or Tabletop RPG game, and so now I find it kind of difficult to sit down and play in somebody else's game?

Does anyone else have this problem? Like, after running games for SO long, other DMing styles have a habit of just straight up annoying you? It's a bit pretentious, but it's really hard to get over. Ever since I moved states and lost my usual DM, I've been jumping from game to game because I haven't been able to find one that I genuinely enjoy. Over the course of the last year and a half or so, I've built up a couple of HUGE pet peeves that make a game difficult to play in.


1)Arbitrary limits on legal game mechanics: I'm not talking about limiting broken combinations in order to balance your game. I'm talking about "I don't like that this is happening, so in the spur of the moment I'll rule that it can't." Like, when someone shows up to the table with a ranger and starts doing absurd amounts of damage, the DM suddenly decides "In the future, no more rangers!" Or, when one person has been playing a Changeling all campaign and suddenly a few characters die and everyone else decides that they want to play changelings too and the DM wants to put some sort of arbitrary limit of playing changelings because he's annoyed at the rush to do so. I had another DM that banned multi-classing into Wizard in 5e out of "Principle" because supposedly if you wanted to be part Wizard, you should pick Fighter or Rogue and just multiclass into one of the subclasses. No mechanical objections, just a "Principled one." THAT really ticks me off.

2)Never Being Allowed to Avoid Combat: I've had some DMs that prepare an absurd number of combat encounters to fluff out their session, and combat encounter after combat encounter starts to drag on and on and on, especially if you're an RP-oriented player. That on its own isn't necessarily an issue -- it's a difference in playstyle and one might want to consider a different table if everyone else is into it -- but when the entire party wants to do something to avoid the encounter, and every single time they try to do so, something magically goes wrong outside of the dice to force you into it, it starts to get annoying. I get that some DMs don't want to have to prepare new content on the fly, or don't feel great about letting some of their content go to waste, but it takes away a hell of a lot of player agency, and if the players are constantly trying to avoid your combat encounters, you should maybe take that as a cue that this party isn't big on combat.

3)Ending the game and starting over at 10th Level: GOD, I hate this. Every GM I've played with in the state of Nevada seems to have the idea that high-level play is inherently boring and that you shouldn't bother. I personally find it to be a BLAST if you have a GM that can custom-tailor encounters and RP situations that feel genuinely exciting. Inter-planar or inter-dimensional threats that a high-level wizard would struggle to defeat can be interesting and epic so long as you let your players know what they're getting into before you start high-level play. Have them fight GODs. Have them fight powerful demons. Have them ascend into Divinity or come to rule the world. Why does an adventuring party need to weak and flimsy for encounters to be challenging? Sure, it takes a little more effort on the GM's part as they have to custom-create a lot of creatures and content, but if done right it can be a game to remember.

I've ultimately decided that, as a result of being unable to enjoy myself at other tables because of a lot of these pet peeves, I should just stick to running my own games and just play with my usual DM whenever I'm back in town. That's probably best for me.

Those are just some big ones, but there are plenty more. Share your pet peeves below!

 

[Altazor]

1)Arbitrary limits on legal game mechanics: I'm not talking about limiting broken combinations in order to balance your game. I'm talking about "I don't like that this is happening, so in the spur of the moment I'll rule that it can't." Like, when someone shows up to the table with a ranger and starts doing absurd amounts of damage, the DM suddenly decides "In the future, no more rangers!" Or, when one person has been playing a Changeling all campaign and suddenly a few characters die and everyone else decides that they want to play changelings too and the DM wants to put some sort of arbitrary limit of playing changelings because he's annoyed at the rush to do so. I had another DM that banned multi-classing into Wizard in 5e out of "Principle" because supposedly if you wanted to be part Wizard, you should pick Fighter or Rogue and just multiclass into one of the subclasses. No mechanical objections, just a "Principled one." THAT really ticks me off.

2)Never Being Allowed to Avoid Combat: I've had some DMs that prepare an absurd number of combat encounters to fluff out their session, and combat encounter after combat encounter starts to drag on and on and on, especially if you're an RP-oriented player. That on its own isn't necessarily an issue -- it's a difference in playstyle and one might want to consider a different table if everyone else is into it -- but when the entire party wants to do something to avoid the encounter, and every single time they try to do so, something magically goes wrong outside of the dice to force you into it, it starts to get annoying. I get that some DMs don't want to have to prepare new content on the fly, or don't feel great about letting some of their content go to waste, but it takes away a hell of a lot of player agency, and if the players are constantly trying to avoid your combat encounters, you should maybe take that as a cue that this party isn't big on combat.!

Click to shrink...

I'm a D&D noob so I haven't been exposed to these situations (literally just being part of my first game with a bunch of friends) but those two sound extremely annoying and I feel you're well within your right to feel ticked off by them. DM should be clear from the start regarding the sort of game he intends to run so players know/can refuse if they don't want that type of campaign. I assume those two pet peeves usually go hand in hand with condescending attitudes by the DM, right?

 

[Deleted member 8561]

I'm not in a D&D game specifically, but when the GM basically does something that, while seeming innocent, ends up completely derailing the campaign because of a lack of obvious foresight. Or includes things that don't really fit with the overall theme and tone of the campaign.

 

[pants]

Oh, I thought this would be pet peeves from the perspective of a DM, in which case my answes would be:

1. Players checking their phone at the table
2. Players being unrelable, unavailable, and otherwise unable to compromise on a scheduled time.
3. Players bringing significant others to the table, uninvited ("Oh its okay, they'll just watch quietly")
4. Players not planning their turn beforehand, and taking 10+ minutes to flip through spells
5. Players expecting me to do three hours of prep for the session AND host them AND feed them 😑(DM does the work, players bring the food/drinks should be the standard covenant)

 

[Darkpyro2]

I'm not in a D&D game specifically, but when the GM basically does something that, while seeming innocent, ends up completely derailing the campaign because of a lack of obvious foresight. Or includes things that don't really fit with the overall theme and tone of the campaign.

Click to shrink...

Foresight can be hard when you're DMing because of a number of variables, and derailing the campaign a bit is a pretty common occurrance. A DM just needs the skill to bring it back without feeling railroady.

Oh, I thought this would be pet peeves from the perspective of a DM, in which case my answes would be:

1. Players checking their phone at the table
2. Players being unrelable, unavailable, and otherwise unable to compromise on a scheduled time.
3. Players bringing significant others to the table, uninvited ("Oh its okay, they'll just watch quietly")
4. Players not planning their turn beforehand, and taking 10+ minutes to flip through spells
5. Players expecting me to do three hours of prep for the session AND host them AND feed them 😑(DM does the work, players bring the food/drinks should be the standard covenant)

Click to shrink...

I agree with all of these other than 1 and 5. We're in a digital age, and a lot of people keep their spell lists and character sheets on their phones. Furthermore, combat can last a LONG time, and just sitting and watching the other players play -- especially in a six person or greater party -- can get really dull. They just need to be on it when they're supposed to be actively engaged.

As for 5, it's a matter of taste. I enjoy hosting my players, so I'll usually provide some sort of food if I can.

 

[TrailerParkRanger]

I DM'd a game where there was a faction war within a keep, and I had set up all these interesting power struggles and it was going to climax at the party having to navigate a giant battle to get to their final objective. At one point, I may have gone overboard and decided there was a horrible nest of giant spiders which claimed part of said castle's dungeons. Party decided to set loose all the giant spiders on the 2 factions and use the chaos to let them stroll their way through. I wasn't even mad about that when my grand battle crumbled apart. I was more amused that the party came up with it and managed all their stealth/persuasion checks to waltz on through relatively unscathed.

 

[Deleted member 8860]

It's been a while since I've played, but what I despised most was DMs railroading interactions with their pet NPCs. Cutscenes and plot armor don't fly in P&P RPGs.

 

[Fancolours]

DM narrates a scene, I try to intervene whatever happens and they say "no".

This annoys me the most. Like, the great thing about tabletop RPGs is that there's no hard limit set by available technology. If I wanted to watch a cutscene I would just play a videogame.

 

[Arrrammis]

Some pet peeves for me (as a player and as a DM):
As a player about DMs:
- Having a DM who views the game as the DM playing against the players, to the point where he's disappointed if he doesn't perma-kill at least one PC per session.
- DMPCs that are insanely min-maxed, often start with powerful gear, and somehow have the perfect answer to whatever encounter we come up against
- Dms who hold to the idea that there is only one specific solution to a problem or encounter, and when a different solution (that is logically also correct) is brought up by a player/PC, the DM pulls some other mechanic, NPC, or bit of information out of thin air so he can prove them wrong.

As a DM about players:
- Players who have played through content already (hardcover adventures mainly), and use that knowledge to instantly solve puzzles and prepare for encounters ahead of time that they otherwise would never be able to do. Then, when the DM changes some encounters/puzzles to compensate, they call out that the encounter is wrong. (last part saw from a story on reddit, but experienced the first part myself - not fun for the DM or other players)
- "It's what my character would do" - CE rogue, as he steals the party's gold and stabs the cleric in his sleep
- A player creating the most optimal character possible in an RP-focused campaign (planned to last a while), staying mostly quiet for everything not related to rolling, blasting through combat other PCs are pretty balanced for, and then complaining that it's too easy
- Player completely ignoring what's going on, either on their phone (or alt-tabbed in the case of Roll20) to the point where we have to call their name multiple times to tell them it's their turn, and they come back asking what's going on. Which is ok maybe once or twice, but having that happen every round and through a lot of the story stuff is very tiring.

 

[Fishious]

Going by what you've written I don't think your issues come from DMing more than being a player. I generally do both in equal measure and all the things you listed would tick me off. To an extent DMs have different styles and that's understandable so it's mostly about finding a DM that gels with your style as a player which can be a terribly difficult thing depending on the play groups you have access to.

I hate to say someone might be a bad DM just due to a difference in style, but going by what you listed (especially number 2) it's not an issue of style difference. Part of DMing is being responsive to player's interests. I obviously don't mean giving players everything that they want, but understanding what kind of play styles, sessions, etc they enjoy playing. And likewise players need to understand the work a DM puts in and generally mutually understand each other, but whoever you'd been playing with seems like they're the "my game, my rules" type. Definitely suggest trying to find a different DM.

 

[Teh_Lurv]

I've DMed more than I've played any D&D or Tabletop RPG game, and so now I find it kind of difficult to sit down and play in somebody else's game?

Does anyone else have this problem? Like, after running games for SO long, other DMing styles have a habit of just straight up annoying you? It's a bit pretentious, but it's really hard to get over. Ever since I moved states and lost my usual DM, I've been jumping from game to game because I haven't been able to find one that I genuinely enjoy. Over the course of the last year and a half or so, I've built up a couple of HUGE pet peeves that make a game difficult to play in.


1)Arbitrary limits on legal game mechanics: I'm not talking about limiting broken combinations in order to balance your game. I'm talking about "I don't like that this is happening, so in the spur of the moment I'll rule that it can't." Like, when someone shows up to the table with a ranger and starts doing absurd amounts of damage, the DM suddenly decides "In the future, no more rangers!" Or, when one person has been playing a Changeling all campaign and suddenly a few characters die and everyone else decides that they want to play changelings too and the DM wants to put some sort of arbitrary limit of playing changelings because he's annoyed at the rush to do so. I had another DM that banned multi-classing into Wizard in 5e out of "Principle" because supposedly if you wanted to be part Wizard, you should pick Fighter or Rogue and just multiclass into one of the subclasses. No mechanical objections, just a "Principled one." THAT really ticks me off.

2)Never Being Allowed to Avoid Combat: I've had some DMs that prepare an absurd number of combat encounters to fluff out their session, and combat encounter after combat encounter starts to drag on and on and on, especially if you're an RP-oriented player. That on its own isn't necessarily an issue -- it's a difference in playstyle and one might want to consider a different table if everyone else is into it -- but when the entire party wants to do something to avoid the encounter, and every single time they try to do so, something magically goes wrong outside of the dice to force you into it, it starts to get annoying. I get that some DMs don't want to have to prepare new content on the fly, or don't feel great about letting some of their content go to waste, but it takes away a hell of a lot of player agency, and if the players are constantly trying to avoid your combat encounters, you should maybe take that as a cue that this party isn't big on combat.

3)Ending the game and starting over at 10th Level: GOD, I hate this. Every GM I've played with in the state of Nevada seems to have the idea that high-level play is inherently boring and that you shouldn't bother. I personally find it to be a BLAST if you have a GM that can custom-tailor encounters and RP situations that feel genuinely exciting. Inter-planar or inter-dimensional threats that a high-level wizard would struggle to defeat can be interesting and epic so long as you let your players know what they're getting into before you start high-level play. Have them fight GODs. Have them fight powerful demons. Have them ascend into Divinity or come to rule the world. Why does an adventuring party need to weak and flimsy for encounters to be challenging? Sure, it takes a little more effort on the GM's part as they have to custom-create a lot of creatures and content, but if done right it can be a game to remember.

I've ultimately decided that, as a result of being unable to enjoy myself at other tables because of a lot of these pet peeves, I should just stick to running my own games and just play with my usual DM whenever I'm back in town. That's probably best for me.

Those are just some big ones, but there are plenty more. Share your pet peeves below!

Click to shrink...

As a long-time DM, I will say each of those pet peeves are legitimate problems DMs sometimes have to deal with, though your examples describe the worst way a DM could go about addressing them:

1. There are times when a DM does need to scale back a player that is abusing a mechanic or min/maxed a character to the point of harming the enjoyment of the rest of the group. I recall back in Grad School, a guy I knew was running a 3.5e Monster PC adventure using the progression tables from the Savage Species supplement. One player rolled up a Troll/Half-Golem PC which appeared balanced at the time, but the DM found the player min-maxed the character to be nigh-indestructible with a Troll's regeneration and Golem's immunities. The player pretty much began soloing combat encounters which left the other players feeling like they weren't contributing much to the game. Those situations are tough to resolve in-game as simply increasing the challenge of encounters to try and compensate is more likely to kill off the weaker PCs. Devising encounters to target that player specifically (ex. goblins with anti-troll guns) can make it seem like you're punishing that player for success. To that end, rather than declaring "no more <insert problem mechanic here>!" a responsible DM needs to take the offending player aside and tell them "hey, your PC is skewing the balance of the adventure to the point other players aren't enjoying themselves. I'd appreciate it if you could tone the character down a bit." A reasonable player should understand this.
2. A good DM should reward players who devise clever solutions to avoid combat, however if you're playing D&D or an equivalent, combat is generally expected to occur at some point for the sake of the plot. If the player group is trying to avoid every single combat encounter, then there is a deeper disconnect to the type of game the DM wants to run and the players want to play. At that point, it'd be better for both DM and players to scrap the current adventure and start over with a specifically combat-light or free adventure. Maybe a fantasy espionage stealth or royal palace intrigue adventure where combat isn't the focus.
3. High level campaigns are A LOT of work. I've run both low level and high level campaigns and I greatly preferred running low level campaigns. High level campaigns require significant prep-time to craft up high level NPCs, appropriate challenges, etc. It is almost exponential to the amount of time you'd need to spend on a level 1 adventure. The worst is trying to start an adventure with players drawing up fresh high-level characters. More often than not, the first evening is pretty much everyone trying to equip/stat/level up their PCs to level 15 or whatever. I've seen DMs burn out fast trying to run high level adventures and get bogged down on all the options player PCs have and things to manage. That's why I pretty much recommend people start off at level 1 and gradually build up their characters over time, it's easier for players and DMs who can end the campaign gracefully when the burden of prep gradually becomes too much for their time.

In short: Your pet-peeves have to do more with issues of your DM failing to properly address issues at his or her table and a breakdown of communication between the player group and DM.

 

[Lightus]

A DM who is overlying hard on a particular class/character.

Example: my character is a warlock who's patron is Mask. As a result I'm often compelled by my patron to steal things. My DM can be really hard against this though, making it difficult for my character to make any progress. I once set up a diversion to distract someone so that I could steal their necklace. It was a crowded area with a diversion, I rolled an 18 and STILL hard failed. He didn't take the diversion into account at all and it ended up making this big mess for our whole party.

Also annoying when a DM doesn't allow you to be creative. A party member of mine went in close to an enemy to hit him point blank with a spell in the back of the head. My DM made him roll the standard attack role AND a dex role as he claimed trying to specifically target someone in such a way is sort of like using a melee attack with the character's spell focus.

Bare in mind that this was when my DM was newer to DMjng so he's not as strict on this stuff now but it was annoying at the time.

 

[Nappuccino]

As a Keeper for Call of Cthulhu and player of DnD and Shadowrun, the "my character is stoic or a loner, so they're not going to participate or interact with anyone" player is possible the worst.

 

[Pasokon Deacon]

As a Keeper for Call of Cthulhu and player of DnD and Shadowrun, the "my character is stoic or a loner, so they're not going to participate or interact with anyone" player is possible the worst.

Click to shrink...

The occasional "Chaotic Neutral" character's also a red flag, though I've yet to run anything for someone playing that way.

 

[Prolepro]

Checking phones is the quickest way to annoy me (as a DM).

I try not to take it personally. On the one hand, it inspires me to try to be more engaging and to prepare better as a DM to not let my players feel bored enough to check their phone, but otherwise it's super annoying and borderline disrespectful.

 

[PopQuiz]

Combat for sure. DMs not ready to eject out of a boring combat scenario if the group starts to look bored or just making bland slugfests.

These are especially a problem if you're playing campaigns over Skype. The moment I want to click over to another tab when it's not my turn, it's game over.

 

[Deleted member 3542]

I'm still very new to D&D but I recently "tested" some adventures for someone and the one thing that kept cropping up was logic or maze puzzles. It's a fine line between making it fun versus making it challenging but some of these were way too hard, especially when only one player can do it and can't consult with someone else. I appreciate the DM being clever, but they also need to make sure it doesn't slow if not stop the flow of the game.

They really can halt progress if you're stuck doing one while in combat and throw timing off completely too. In once scenario three people were in battle but someone else was elsewhere, but had to adhere to the time constraints of turns as though in combat so that person couldn't really do shit.