Burning Questions: What's the Worst Thing a DM Can Do?

Guest 6801328 · Sep 19, 2018

Take away player agency to protect his anticipated outcome.

iserith · Sep 19, 2018

Lanefan said:
So what?

Not everything has to succeed, and not everything the players/PCs try is necessarily going to move the story forward.

I didn't assert that.

Lanefan said:
In this case, if the history check fails the PCs just have to carry on without whatever clues might have been hidden in the Dwarven runes - if any. This is why pre-emptive checks can be useful - sometimes things just get found (or missed) by random chance en route to doing something else unrelated.

My point is that there is no need for the History check here. It is superfluous, and arguably any purpose it may serve relies on the kind of "metagaming" you're rolling all those extra dice trying to avoid. Not only did the player not describe an action that would call for such a check, the information can be imparted as I described: There is a discharged trap. It has dwarvish runes on it. What do you do?

iserith · Sep 19, 2018

Jay Verkuilen said:
Ah, yeah, I didn't recall the exact terminology but that's basically how I handle it, with the proviso that you don't need to explicitly say "I'm on guard". If you're engaged in something else then you're not but otherwise you are. See below about "defaulting".

When it comes specifically to Keeping Watch and passive Perception, I think it is okay as default if that's an understanding worked out with the players beforehand. But I would use such defaults very sparingly.

I frequently do say exactly that.

I think the big point of disagreement here is the use of defaults. I fall on the side of "DM suggests a default action with the proviso that the player can provide an alternative" whereas you seem to fall on the side of "DM should always say 'what do you do?' and players then declare actions." In some respects this is the same thing but there's a difference in tension implied by "make a roll or (implied) make a counteroffer of some sort" and "what do you do?" The latter is fairly passive and puts it back on the players to evaluate the situation. I want to keep the game going because IMO execution speed is a huge energy loss, particularly in a stress situation. "Make an Athletics check to start swimming" implies urgency.

The way I see it, other than simply being how I understand the game is played based on my understanding of the rules, is that as DM I already control two-thirds of the basic conversation of the game. The players only get one-third. I don't want to take from them the one thing they're supposed to do in the game: Describe what they want to do.

Benji · Sep 19, 2018

iserith said:
Again, you describe the environment how you want - you're the DM! You don't need dice for permission on how much detail to give. You could just say that the armor is now missing some element. Or not. If you don't and if the player does not establish that the character is examining the armor, then you needn't provide any additional detail about that armor. If the player does describe the character as examining the armor, you can then decide an ability check is necessary if the outcome is uncertain and there's a meaningful chance of failure. Or you may decide no check is necessary and give the information after the player's action declaration.

The problem with this Iserith, is that if you play it your way (do not assume players are examining until told), the players always fail to spot the gloves. The DM describes a hall the players have walked down many previous times, perhaps in a castle they've lived in for years. No player would think much of it, let alone think to check all the furnishings again. No player has ever entered the castle of a king they've been in before and made a poin of checking all the furnishings. So they'd NEVER spot it.

Unless of course, in the fiction ofthe world, they spot it by accident when moving past. What mechanic exists like that? A Perception check. Or at the very least, a dm examination of passive pereception, maybe giving a different description to a play with a passive score of over 15. Or at least, that's the way I'd do it. How would YOU do deal with this situation without that?

Benji · Sep 19, 2018

Rya.Reisender said:
No. Jeremy Crawford is the creator, so he makes the rules. Not the DM, that's what I explained in my last something posts.

Back in the day you couldn't just contact the writers and ask their opinion - you just compromised. Who writes the rules then? Does that mean all D&D played before twitter didn't count?

iserith · Sep 19, 2018

Benji said:
The problem with this Iserith, is that if you play it your way (do not assume players are examining until told), the players always fail to spot the gloves. The DM describes a hall the players have walked down many previous times, perhaps in a castle they've lived in for years. No player would think much of it, let alone think to check all the furnishings again. No player has ever entered the castle of a king they've been in before and made a poin of checking all the furnishings. So they'd NEVER spot it.

Unless of course, in the fiction ofthe world, they spot it by accident when moving past. What mechanic exists like that? A Perception check. Or at the very least, a dm examination of passive pereception, maybe giving a different description to a play with a passive score of over 15. Or at least, that's the way I'd do it. How would YOU do deal with this situation without that?

As to the PCs never spotting it, to quote [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] since this is his example you're talking about, "so what?" If I need them to be aware of it for some reason, then I won't gate that information behind an ability check. To do so is to create a problem that one then has to solve by creating another problem - calling for an ability check for an action the player hasn't described. As I've said several times, the DM doesn't need the permission of the dice to describe the environment. Just describe it as missing if you need to and you avoid all those issues entirely. You don't need a mechanic to describe this scene.

I would also say that I am not as comfortable as you in saying "No player would much think of it, let alone think to check all the furnishings again." I don't know what the players will do. Maybe they will check, maybe they won't. That's up to them.

Jay Verkuilen · Sep 19, 2018

iserith said:
The way I see it, other than simply being how I understand the game is played based on my understanding of the rules, is that as DM I already control two-thirds of the basic conversation of the game. The players only get one-third. I don't want to take from them the one thing they're supposed to do in the game: Describe what they want to do.

I tend to run, or at least prefer to run, fairly player-directed campaigns. They get many opportunities to push the game in various directions.

My use of defaults has generally built up over many years of dealing with pointless fights or "oh, wait, what was happening? ... let me think about it" combined with a strong desire to keep the action going. As I said, they're free to propose something else when a "make an Athletics check" comes up and quite often do. If they're not under time pressure, I would most likely let them control the pace more.

I use rolls for information, sometimes kind of out of left field, often to prompt them to consider something other than what they would just default to do, which "what do you do?" elicits. That puts it back on the player and, in my experience, many are just as stuck in their ruts as DMs can get without things that push them to think laterally. I'll sometimes throw an unlikely character advantage on the roll, too.

I don't mind some meta-game thinking either, as long as it's not egregious (e.g., introducing seriously anachronistic modern technology). The game is played by the players. After all, they're the ones feeling the tension, not their avatars.

Jay Verkuilen · Sep 19, 2018

iserith said:
My point is that there is no need for the History check here. It is superfluous, and arguably any purpose it may serve relies on the kind of "metagaming" you're rolling all those extra dice trying to avoid. Not only did the player not describe an action that would call for such a check, the information can be imparted as I described: There is a discharged trap. It has dwarvish runes on it. What do you do?

Lanefan may be avoiding meta-gaming. My motive---I don't think I really totally understood it until going through this thread, though---is to induce lateral thinking and potentially introduce something surprising. I don't have much of an issue with a bit of meta-gaming either. The example that started this all was a bit weird, of course. I'd suspect that the vast majority (90%) of rolls called for when I'm DMing is just normal skills aligned to tasks as expected.

Benji · Sep 19, 2018

iserith said:
As to the PCs never spotting it, to quote @Lanefan since this is his example you're talking about, "so what?" If I need them to be aware of it for some reason, then I won't gate that information behind an ability check. To do so is to create a problem that one then has to solve by creating another problem - calling for an ability check for an action the player hasn't described. As I've said several times, the DM doesn't need the permission of the dice to describe the environment. Just describe it as missing if you need to and you avoid all those issues entirely. You don't need a mechanic to describe this scene.

I would also say that I am not as comfortable as you in saying "No player would much think of it, let alone think to check all the furnishings again." I don't know what the players will do. Maybe they will check, maybe they won't. That's up to them.

That's a much clear clarification of what you were saying above, thank you. Maybe Lanefan take a more gamist approach - he views a failed perception check in this type of roll as the same as a miss during combat, it's not about what he needs to deliver but instead a test of the characters abilities as they relate to the narrative. But I'm putting words in his mouth and I'm not about to argue an assumption.

I'm not sure I follow about holding information behind an ability check though. in previous examples you were saying you don't assume people are going to find anything hidden in a room without first declaring they are searching and then making an ability check. That's hiding information in your description behind both a specific action they describe and then an ability check. Or would you just describe what's hidden in the room to them if they said they were looking?

Ok, I was I assuming stuff about players but in over 25 years of gameplay I have never seen that happen without some kind of outside prompt. I'm only going on ancedotal though, so calling me on it is valid, I guess.

iserith · Sep 19, 2018

Benji said:
I'm not sure I follow about holding information behind an ability check though. in previous examples you were saying you don't assume people are going to find anything hidden in a room without first declaring they are searching and then making an ability check. That's hiding information in your description behind both a specific action they describe and then an ability check. Or would you just describe what's hidden in the room to them if they said they were looking?

I never assume there will be an ability check. I can't determine whether an ability check is required without the players first describing a reasonably specific goal and approach. I also never assume the players will look for it. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. Maybe they do and I have to call for a check (because their approach to the goal has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence of failure). Maybe they do and I don't have to call for a check (because their approach to the goal succeeds or fails outright, no roll).

If, however, I need them to have some kind of information, then there's simply no reason to put that behind a check. If I need them to have it, why leave it up to chance? (Truly though, I try not to ever need anything in this regard.)

Burning Questions: What's the Worst Thing a DM Can Do?

David J. Buck

Guest 6801328

Guest

iserith

Magic Wordsmith

iserith

Magic Wordsmith

Benji

First Post

Benji

First Post

iserith

Magic Wordsmith

Jay Verkuilen

Grand Master of Artificial Flowers

Jay Verkuilen

Grand Master of Artificial Flowers

Benji

First Post

iserith

Magic Wordsmith

Similar Threads

Related Articles