10 dirty DM habits I wish I’d known about sooner

#1 Saying “sort of” and “kind of” CONSTANTLY

This is a growing pet peeve of mine. Look, when you’re describing something, you don’t need to say, “The room is sort of rectangular, and it’s filled with a kind of blue glow.” Just say, “The room is rectangular and filled with a blue glow.” THAT’S ALL YOU NEED. I feel like “sort of” and “kind of” have now become the RPG equivalent of “um.” They are useless filler words that should be expunged from our vocabulary.

#2 Not providing enough details

“You walk into a 20 by 30 room with music playing.” So, what, the room is empty? And where is the room coming from? “A monster rises up from the water and attacks!” Monster? Okay…so…what does it look like? If your words don’t work, can you give us an illustration or something? Like, just flip your Bestiary book around and show us the thing, eh? You need to describe things just a little bit more than that.

#3 Detail overload

“You walk into a rectangular parlor, 20 feet x 32 feet with a 10-foot ceiling. There are three plush, high-back chairs arranged in a triangle, each sitting on a small, oval rug that prevents them from scuffing the dark oak hardwood floors. Two crystal chandeliers provide light while a player piano fills the room with music. Red drapes cover the wall from ceiling to floor hanging down from just below crisply painted white crown molding. The temperature seems to be a degree or more warmer than the hallway, possible elevated by the 22 candles burning in each of the chandeliers.”

And the converse of too few details is just as bad. Lots of people will say that provided robust descriptions like this is great for “visualizing the moment,” but all it does is slow gameplay down and present red herrings. Your players are likely to assume that since you described all those things, they are probably important and should be investigated further.

A better approach is to only describe what’s actually important or of interest, and even then do so succinctly with “more information available upon request.” I’ll tell my payers that there is a stone statue in the room, but only when one of them asks me more about it will I tell them it’s in the form of a robed figure with it’s arms outstretched as though it were holding something; however, whatever it was holding is no longer in its hands.

#4 Showing the monster first

“You open the door and see a massive drooling ogre and three pointy-eared goblins staring at you. In the room…” And that’s all your players are likely to hear, even though you complete the description of the room, because in their minds they are already thinking about what they are going to say or do about the ogre and goblins in the room. And that means the rest of the description is a waste, and you’ll likely have to repeat it because your players aren’t paying attention.

I realize some folks will shout the mantra of “describe important stuff first” but that doesn’t apply here. You need to set the scene completely BEFORE revealing your ace in the hole. Besides, many times what you describe LAST is the thing that sticks in players’ brains. So, describe the environment first, and then describe the monsters in it.

#5 Monsters just attack

Just having your monsters attack as soon as the door is opened or they spot the characters is unimaginative and boring. I was at a convention game years ago where the game master did this, and it sucked. It was an abysmal game. Now, yes, sometimes monsters WILL just attack; however, that should be the exception, not the norm. Even semi-intelligent creatures will know that combat carries the risk of injury or death and are likely to resort to other methods such as threats, persuasion, or bribery before just attacking.

A rattlesnake will rattle at you and coil back in warning, giving you a chance to back away or use Animal Handling to calm it. Goblins may put their hands on their sword hilts, but they’ll at least demand to know why you’re here or threaten to carve your heart out if you don’t leave.

You see, when monsters DON’T attack first, it gives your players the opportunity to resolve an encounter through a variety of different methods then just combat and bloodshed, and ULTIMATELY that leads to a much better game experience.

#6 Pulling back the GM screen

Listen very carefully. You DO NOT have to justify EVERYTHING your monsters or NPCs do to your players. I’ve been in games where GMs do this, and it DRIVES ME CRAZY. I get that GMs who do this are probably doing it to dispel any notion that they are metagaming, but what it really shows is a GM who is more worried about what the players think of them than actually running the game. Just have your monsters do their thing, and I’ll have my character do his thing, thank you very much.

That said, there is a time and place for pulling back the screen. I do this myself, but rarely, and when I do do it, it’s usually to explain illogical behavior. Let’s say the rogue, wizard, and fighter are pouring out damage on a demon, but instead of attacking them, the demon rushes across the field to target the paladin, screaming, “Holy creature of light, I’ll show you hideous glory of the deep darkness!” You sdee, because the paladin represents the antithesis of the demon, the fiend choses to attack him instead. Now, you might simply explain this to your players out of character, but when you can, work the rationale into the narrative description like I just did with the demon.

#7 Making a PC critical to the campaign

There’s nothing wrong with making a character central to a game session, or adventure, or story arc—as long as all the other characters get their turn in the spotlight. However, when a player’s character becomes central to THE ENTIRE CAMPAIGN, nasty problems are likely to crop up such as plot armor—meaning the character really can’t die or the entire campaign falls apart—having to cancel the game session if that particular player can’t make it, and the appearance of favoritism.

#8 Unable to take constructive criticism

No game master is perfect. That means me, you, EVERYONE. You should always be looking to improve your game. Something I do every three months with my players is solicit feedback on the game so I can improve and make the game better for everyone. I do this two ways. First, I send out an anonymous Google forms survey. I ask them to rate the game from 1 to 5, and then ask three questions: What do you like about the game that we should keep doing? What do you dislike about the game that we should stop? What is something that we should start doing? And then I plan about 30 minutes DURING A GAMES SESSION to discuss feedback in person. We’ll talk about the survey results and discuss the game in general. Now, I do NOT always implement ALL the feedback I receive; but I do carefully consider it all, and if I don’t implement a suggested change, I have a good reason for not doing so.

#9 Letting players push you around

Now, I firmly believe that a game master should always hear a player out. When my players have a problem or complaint about the game, I’m always going to listen to them. If they disagree about a rule or ruling, I listen and don’t rush to shut them down. This usually becomes a conversation where I then explain my point of view, and then a decision is made or path forward is decided upon. Sometimes I side with my players, and sometimes I don’t. However, don’t let yourself be pushed around by your players. Remember that YOU, not them, are the adjudicator of rules, NPCs, and adventures. You need to have the backbone to make final rulings and decisions when necessary. And if you have a player that just won’t let it lie, argues and argues, and becomes verbally aggressive—well, it’s probably time to bid that player a fond farewell from your game. Trust me, every OTHER player will thank you.

By the way, the converse is also true in that the GM should not push the players around either, but that usually takes the form of the DREADED RAILROAD. However, railroading is probably not what you think it is; in fact, lots of folks get railroading all wrong. If you’d like to learn more about railroading, check out this video.

#10 Sacrificing your own fun for the players’ fun

How long do you think your game’s going to last if you, as the game master, are not having fun? That’s a rhetorical question, but if you need me to spell it out, I will: the answer is NOT LONG. Okay, maybe if you’re getting PAID to run the game, it’s a different story, but for most GMs, if you’re not having fun, your game is likely to slowly die and you get burnt out more and more. So, yes, one of your goals as the game master is to create an environment and game where your players are LIKELY to have fun—though remember, there is nothing you can do to GUARANTEE they will have fun—but you also need to make sure YOU are having fun.