D&D 5E What DM flaw has caused you to actually leave a game?

Aldarc · Oct 25, 2018

Imaro said:
Emphasis mine... that's the problem with the word and I don't think it's usage in this thread is in ignorance of the negative connotations around cruelty, brutality and oppression it has. Or are we now claiming those are traits of traditionalist DM play??

I had in mind the so-called "enlightened absolutism" of the 18th century. Warring and power struggles aside, the enlightened despots were fairly-benign absolute monarchs who largely wielded unrivaled power for what they believed was the greater good of their country and people. Hence my word choice. I do think that "enlightened despot" applies to how many DMs here would describe their role and function. Good faith autocratic absolutism performed for the greater good of their players. But benign absolute autocracy performed in good faith is still absolute autocracy, and it is the presumed absolute autocracy around the DM that I take philosophic issue with as a principle.

Maxperson said:
And this statement is EXACTLY why you and [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] are assuming that the DM will act in bad faith. Despot is NOT the proper term as a despot uses his power in a cruel and oppressive way, which is the opposite of how the vast majority of DMs use it.

See above. Absolute power does not equal despotism. Nor is the statement that the DM CAN overrule the preferences. The ability to do so(fact) does not mean that the DM will do it.

And this is the behavior I take issue with. You can rename "absolute power" if you like. Monarch? Ruler? Autocrat? Dictator? Authoritarian? God-Emperor perhaps? Pick something more neutral than "despot" if it would ease your mind. You and [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] are all unsurprisingly missing the forest for the trees - perhaps from your own bad faith distrust and suspicion of me? - as you quibble over the term "despot." The greater point that you both ignore is that I prefer less autocratic power imbued in the position of the DM. So just repeating your inaccurate argument that my DMing preferences can be reduced to bad faith is an argument from bad faith, Max. It's insulting. It's a falsehood. And you perpetuating either would be in bad taste and poor form.

Maxperson · Oct 25, 2018

Aldarc said:
I had in mind the so-called "enlightened absolutism" of the 18th century. Warring and power struggles aside, the enlightened despots were fairly-benign absolute monarchs who largely wielded unrivaled power for what they believed was the greater good of their country and people. Hence my word choice. I do think that "enlightened despot" applies to how many DMs here would describe their role and function. Good faith autocratic absolutism performed for the greater good of their players. But good faith absolute autocracy, and it is the presumed absolute autocracy around the DM that I take philosophic issue with as a principle.

Despotism is negative.

And this is the behavior I take issue with. You can rename "absolute power" if you like. Monarch? Ruler? Autocrat? Dictator? Authoritarian? God-Emperor perhaps? Pick something more neutral than "despot" if it would ease your mind. You and [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] are all unsurprisingly missing the forest for the trees - perhaps from your own bad faith distrust and suspicion of me? - as you quibble over the term "despot." The greater point that you both ignore is that I prefer less autocratic power imbued in the position of the DM. So just repeating your inaccurate argument that my DMing preferences can be reduced to bad faith is an argument from bad faith, Max. It's insulting. It's a falsehood. And you perpetuating either would be in bad taste and poor form.

I really don't care what level of power you prefer. Everyone has preferences and it's not really my concern or business how you prefer your games. So long as you are having fun, have at it. I just take exception to being called any of those names. I'm simply a DM. That's what you call me. That's where all the "power" lies. I don't rule a country, so despot, monarch, ruler, etc. are simply not applicable. Hell, I can't even tell my players what to do. Some "despot" I turned out to be.

Save the names. They don't do you or anyone else any good.

pemerton · Oct 25, 2018

Lanefan said:
For reasons already noted in this thread, that is a poor recommendation on the part of the DMG authors.

To be pickier about it: there's nothing wrong with rolling both dice at the same time as long as the results are announced separately by the roller, with time between for interrupts. "Roll 18 for 6 damage!" is poor, as any reaction is going to force some sort of retcon. (part of this for me is that AFAIC once the damage has been announced at the table it's also occurred in the fiction, meaning it's now too late for reactions)

This goes back to my comment about [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]'s account of the 5e system. If you think that declaring the result of a damage roll ipso facto establishes some fiction; or that declaring a reduction to zero hp as unconsciousness rather than death is "time travelling"; then you're clearly interpreting the mechanics differently from how the 5e authors intended their mechanics to be interpreted. At which point I'm not that inclined to accept your readings of the system as reliable ones.

Lanefan · Oct 25, 2018

pemerton said:
This goes back to my comment about [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]'s account of the 5e system. If you think that declaring the result of a damage roll ipso facto establishes some fiction; or that declaring a reduction to zero hp as unconsciousness rather than death is "time travelling"; then you're clearly interpreting the mechanics differently from how the 5e authors intended their mechanics to be interpreted.

I probably am, and I don't care.

But the question then arises: at what point during play is the damage intended to become part of the fiction by your interpretation?

At which point I'm not that inclined to accept your readings of the system as reliable ones.

Your prerogative, I suppose.

pemerton · Oct 25, 2018

Maxperson said:
You can still take the full 1-16 damage at either location.

What's your basis for saying this?

Suppose my PC has 16 hp left, and suffers 16 hp of damage. S/he now has the potential to be dying. I contend that that was not a blow that clipped the tips of my PC's fingers! It hit my PC somewhere that has the potential to be fatal.

Narration around hits and damage in D&D has always been rather flexible - Gygax in his DMG argues that this is a virtue of the system; he also argues that hp can't work with hit locations for just the sorts of reasons I'm bringing out (ie that you can't know what location was hit until you know something about how much damage was dealt and what effect it had on the character).

To describe two particular mechanics that play on that flexibility - the zero hp rules and the Shield spell rules - as "time travelling" suggests a fundamental failure to grasp it.

Maxperson · Oct 25, 2018

pemerton said:
What's your basis for saying this?

That you can mangle a foot(16 points of damage) or scratch a head(1 point of damage). Especially once you start adding in luck, skill and other sorts of hit points. There's no good reason that higher damage has to hit the head or chest, as opposed to a hand or foot.

Suppose my PC has 16 hp left, and suffers 16 hp of damage. S/he now has the potential to be dying. I contend that that was not a blow that clipped the tips of my PC's fingers! It hit my PC somewhere that has the potential to be fatal.

In D&D as written, that potential is smoke and mirrors unless you actually die. The rest of the time you were at "risk of dying" from a scratch.

Narration around hits and damage in D&D has always been rather flexible - Gygax in his DMG argues that this is a virtue of the system; he also argues that hp can't work with hit locations for just the sorts of reasons I'm bringing out (ie that you can't know what location was hit until you know something about how much damage was dealt and what effect it had on the character).

He had a portion of the hit point total as dedicated physical hit points, though. That has long since changed.

Sadras · Oct 25, 2018

Dungeon MASTER
Games MASTER

Aldarc · Oct 25, 2018

Maxperson said:
Despotism is negative.

"Absolute power" is also negative, but that did not stop you from describing how you envision the role. But as I said before, you can rename it to "autocrat" or something else less derogatory if you like. But that's again missing the forest for the trees.

I really don't care what level of power you prefer. Everyone has preferences and it's not really my concern or business how you prefer your games. So long as you are having fun, have at it. I just take exception to being called any of those names. I'm simply a DM. That's what you call me. That's where all the "power" lies. I don't rule a country, so despot, monarch, ruler, etc. are simply not applicable. Hell, I can't even tell my players what to do. Some "despot" I turned out to be.

Save the names. They don't do you or anyone else any good.

You are not being called names. I am talking about my position regarding the authority, privileges, and culture surrounding the DM role. You may not care about what level of power I prefer, but it's certainly not out of the blue. It's a direct response following your false accusation that my distrust in the DM role must stem from "bad faith" or "abuse" that is meant to discredit our arguments.

Sadras said:
Dungeon MASTER
Games MASTER

This just underlines my point.

Hussar · Oct 25, 2018

Imaro said:
des·pot
/ˈdespət/Submit
noun
a ruler or other person who holds absolute power, typically one who exercises it in a cruel or oppressive way.

Definition of despot
1a : a ruler with absolute power and authority
tyrannical despots
b : one exercising power tyrannically : a person exercising absolute power in a brutal or oppressive way

Emphasis mine... that's the problem with the word and I don't think it's usage in this thread is in ignorance of the negative connotations around cruelty, brutality and oppression it has. Or are we now claiming those are traits of traditionalist DM play??

Yup, silly buggers with a dictionary. Ignoring the base meaning of the word which is a ruler or other person who holds absolute power. Or, ignoring the primary meaning for the secondary one. Yeah, that's pretty much par for the course.

But, ok, if that doesn't float your boat, howzabout benevolent dictator?

Hussar · Oct 25, 2018

pemerton said:
But I was talking about the rolling of the damage.

With a blowgun, if I'm hit then I know how much damage is coming in yet can use Shield. So why can't I wait until the damage from a sword blow is rolled - but then use Shield before it is opposed.

(There's also [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION]'s excellent point about rolling practices.)

But how is knowing whether the arrow is coming for my head or my thigh meta-knowledge?

Then make it a blow to my foot and a blow to my head. Or whatever.

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], I'm afraid you're barking up the wrong tree on this one. Virtually every interupt power in 5e is used before damage is rolled. It is, however, typically done AFTER a hit is declared. So, technically, they are time travel powers since it can turn a hit into a non-hit.

That of course presumes that die rolling corresponds to actions in the game world. Which, IMO, they don't. You don't actually know the result of an action until the action is completed. So, there is no "hit" event separate from a "damage" event. There is only one event, which remains in a nebulous state until every game action has been taken. So, a "hit" might be damaging or it might not really be a hit until such time as everyone at the table signs off on it.

I'd point out that this is how 5e handles not killing as well. You hit, you deal damage, AND you declare that you aren't killing the target BEFORE anything actually happens in the fiction. Earlier editions avoided all of this because they didn't really have any mechanics that interrupted actions. ((Yes, yes, I realize that 4e had lots of them and I'm sure that somewhere in earlier editions there were examples, but, before 4e, it wasn't something common and it certainly didn't happen every single round)) There is no actual time travel. It's a case of people coming up from earlier editions misapplying how the mechanics actually work in 5e.