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

5ekyu · Oct 25, 2018

Aldarc said:
Though I understand that you are arguing that a GM's power requires a governing consent, I don't think that the absolute power of monarchs, for example, is measured by the (in)ability for its people to leave.

It's almost as if this is actually the problemic issue(s) that I have been talking about all along.

The inability of ability to leave vs monarchy is a key part as in a practical sense a lot of people do not have the means to leave or other place to go. That's not the case in terms of "do I play in this game" as the door or another table is right there and there are other games if the players choose to boot their despotic gm.

The key is can you change your ruler or not? Any player can. The only power or authority the hm holds comes from how much folks want to play with him as a gm. (Note to there possibly being exceptions where parents tell kids they have to and other oddball cases of external authority creeping in.)

Ovinomancer · Oct 25, 2018

Hussar said:
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?

You know how you got to these silly bugger games? Using inappropriate labels instead of making arguments. Blaming others for disliking the labels you chose when you pick the label fir it's pejorative value is a further exercise in silly buggers.

If you don't want to have to defend your labels, make the points instead of the labels. I'm only on this issue because I strongly believe there are excellent points in discussing the underlying issues of authority distribution. It's a valuable discussion that will not start if it begins with 'y'all are just despots.'

Aldarc · Oct 25, 2018

5ekyu said:
The inability of ability to leave vs monarchy is a key part as in a practical sense a lot of people do not have the means to leave or other place to go. That's not the case in terms of "do I play in this game" as the door or another table is right there and there are other games if the players choose to boot their despotic gm.

Nevertheless, as one would reasonably argue, I don't think that any historian or political scientist would define the powers of an absolute monarchy in such an oblique and tertiary way. If you are privilege to such a definition, then I would be keen to hear it. However, defining this as a "key part" is vacuous under scrutiny.

The (in)ability for people to leave is not unique to monarchies, but is found across nearly all governments and (not) done for numerous reasons. It says more about the mobility of the citizenry than it does about the institutional power structures that supports the ruling class. Likewise, my ability to leave a table is a given for any system or game; it says nothing useful about the relative powers relegated to or presumed by the DM function. Neither does players choosing to stay. Thus this makes players leaving or remaining at the table something of an irrelevant non sequitur argument for this discussion, which is why I find an appeal to such an argument perplexing. :erm:

5ekyu · Oct 25, 2018

Aldarc said:
Nevertheless, as one would reasonably argue, I don't think that any historian or political scientist would define the powers of an absolute monarchy in such an oblique and tertiary way. If you are privilege to such a definition, then I would be keen to hear it. However, defining this as a "key part" is vacuous under scrutiny.

The (in)ability for people to leave is not unique to monarchies, but is found across nearly all governments and (not) done for numerous reasons. It says more about the mobility of the citizenry than it does about the institutional power structures that supports the ruling class. Likewise, my ability to leave a table is a given for any system or game; it says nothing useful about the relative powers relegated to or presumed by the DM function. Neither does players choosing to stay. Thus this makes players leaving or remaining at the table something of an irrelevant non sequitur argument for this discussion, which is why I find an appeal to such an argument perplexing.

The ability of inability of the players to leave the game and change hm does not (you are correct) have any significant definition on the power and scope of power the GM has *OVER THE GAME* but the issue came up as response to claims about power the gm has over the players. One specific case referenced as power over the players was a gm starting a new game and not inviting some players.

When one starts talking about comparing gming authority to actual political monarchies or despots authority, the difference in the ease to change it on the "subjects" seems appropriate.

Hriston · 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)

"Roll 18!" * "You hit." ** "6 damage" is better, as there's at least a chance to interrupt with a reaction. (though better if the interruption comes at '*' rather than at '**')

But shield triggers off a hit. That damage was rolled concurrently with the attack doesn't invalidate that the trigger has been satisfied.

Maxperson said:
That page is about house rules for the game. If the DM house rules attack and damage to happen at the same time, it's on him to figure out how to run the shield spell. For myself, I'm not going to engage that house rule so it will never be an issue for me.

It's a page and a half on table rules, similar to [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]'s table rule that roll results are entered into the fiction as specific outcomes upon being announced. I'm not sure what you mean by "happen at the same time", but the table rule suggested by the DMG is for the two rolls to happen at the same time. Presumably, in the fiction an attack hits and does damage at the same time as well, but if it misses of course no damage is done, and the intent of shield is clearly to turn a hit rolled at the table into a miss in the fiction.

Ovinomancer · Oct 25, 2018

Aldarc said:
Nevertheless, as one would reasonably argue, I don't think that any historian or political scientist would define the powers of an absolute monarchy in such an oblique and tertiary way. If you are privilege to such a definition, then I would be keen to hear it. However, defining this as a "key part" is vacuous under scrutiny.

The (in)ability for people to leave is not unique to monarchies, but is found across nearly all governments and (not) done for numerous reasons. It says more about the mobility of the citizenry than it does about the institutional power structures that supports the ruling class. Likewise, my ability to leave a table is a given for any system or game; it says nothing useful about the relative powers relegated to or presumed by the DM function. Neither does players choosing to stay. Thus this makes players leaving or remaining at the table something of an irrelevant non sequitur argument for this discussion, which is why I find an appeal to such an argument perplexing.

The argument here still being the applicability of your label and not the actual distribution of authority. Which is more important to you: discussion of various narration authority models or labelling those models you don't like?

Hussar · Oct 25, 2018

Ovinomancer said:
You know how you got to these silly bugger games? Using inappropriate labels instead of making arguments. Blaming others for disliking the labels you chose when you pick the label fir it's pejorative value is a further exercise in silly buggers.

If you don't want to have to defend your labels, make the points instead of the labels. I'm only on this issue because I strongly believe there are excellent points in discussing the underlying issues of authority distribution. It's a valuable discussion that will not start if it begins with 'y'all are just despots.'

Really? The problem with silly buggers games is my labels? When you have responses like this gem:

Maxperson said:
We don't hold absolute power. If we did, the players couldn't quit the games if they don't like what we do.

Or comments about jumping off bridges?

Yeah, I'm thinking that there's a significant level of bad faith going on when people are ignoring actual dictionary definitions and then doubling down by making ridiculous claims that even the definitions that they chose to use don't even come close to supporting their point. While I agree that there is some onus on the person making the claim to make sure that their point is clearly made, there has to be some degree of responsibility on the other person's part to actually make an honest attempt to see the point being made instead of jumping off of ludicrous tangents just so they can "win" the argument.

And this particular thread has been full of them. Whether it's blindingly stupid examples like a T-Rex in town or cherry picking dictionary definitions. It does get rather tiresome.

Ovinomancer said:
The argument here still being the applicability of your label and not the actual distribution of authority. Which is more important to you: discussion of various narration authority models or labelling those models you don't like?

The only reason that the argument over the applicability of the label is because of incredibly obtuse arguments that are pretty obviously in bad faith. I'd say, from my side of the fence, the argument ended a couple of pages ago, but, I know that it will continue to get brought up because it's easier than actually trying to make a real point.

Hussar · Oct 25, 2018

Oofta said:
As a DM I create and run campaigns that I think will be fun for everyone, myself included. That has meant that occasionally I've lost a player or two over the years and I don't see a problem with that.

For example, one guy really wanted to play an evil character. I have a well established rule against that, I just don't want to deal with it. We parted ways amicably because I accept that not every game or every DM is for everyone. He was soon replaced by someone else because I DMed a lot for our living campaign and I effectively had a waiting list.

So if I understand correctly, according to you I should have allowed him to run an evil character? Even though the rest of the group was perfectly fine with my rule? When I have no problem getting new players or retaining the majority of old ones?

NOPE. NO. That's not what's been said AT ALL.

No one is claiming that the DM should run a game that the DM doesn't like. Not ONCE has that been claimed. You don't want to run an Evil game, so, we don't play an Evil game. Fair enough. The player has no way to compel you to play an evil campaign.

Now, turn it around though. You WANT to play an evil campaign, and the player, a long time player who you enjoy playing with, says that he or she isn't interested. To the point of hating the idea and saying that if you run the campaign, he or she will drop out of the game.

Do you proceed? Or do you simply pitch a different campaign idea to keep the group together?

THAT'S the difference. Why should the DM be able to force his or her ideas on the group to the point of forcing a player to leave the table? Is that a good DM who does this? I certainly don't think so.

Lanefan · Oct 25, 2018

pemerton said:
Another virtue of RPGing is skilfully playing the fiction - this is a secondary consideration for me, but still important as it is one of the things that distinguishes RPGing from pure storytelling. This virtue can be reconciled with GM authority over the fiction, provided that the GM is fair in adjudication. This is why classic D&D advice like that found in Moldvay Basic or Mike Carr's B1 places such emphasis on fairness in GMing. But frankly, ones the fiction gets more complicated than the pretty simple situations found in classic D&D dungeon-crawling I think the distinction between fair adjudication of the players playing the fiction and deciding what the outcome is based on one's own conception of where the fiction should ge becomes increasingly hard to maintain. For instance, deciding what happens when I (as my PC) poke a wall with a 10' pole can be a matter of fair adjudication; deciding what happens when I (as my PC) slyly mention to the duchess at the party that I believe the duke is having an affair with her chambermaid is a different kettle of fish altogether. If I (as my PC) hope that the duchess's response will be to walk up and slap her husband, rather than (say) leave the room in tears while cursing at me, I (as a player) will be rather sceptical of a GM's determination that the only true extrapolation of the fictional situation is the latter.

The duchess in this scenario is an NPC, right? That puts her reaction to this news squarely under the purview of the GM, who plays all NPCs, right?

The duchess could slap the duke and make a scene; or she could wink and reply "I know. It was my idea."; or she could run away crying; or she could have the guards forcibly escort you from the premises; or she could put on a brave face and carry on with the party. Or any of a bunch of other possible reactions. Just because you don't get the particular reaction you're hoping for doesn't give you any reason to be skeptical of your GM.

If a Shield spell or Uncanny Dodge worked in this way, then the trigger would have to be being targetted by an attack as that is an (in fiction) perceivable circumstance which can be followed by creating an arcane shield or dodging the attack. But a to hit roll succeeding is not an in fiction perceivable circumstance that occurs prior to the damage being rolled!

It's not perceivable in the fiction but it is perceivable at the table, and this is all about how table actions and results relate to in-fiction actions and results.

There is an in fiction perceivable circumstance that occurs between being targetted and being struck, which is something like "How dangerous the attack seems to be as it hurtles towards me!" But D&D doesn't have any procedural step of combat resolution that corresponds to this. (Contrast some other RPGs where, eg, this might be reflected by the number of dice in the attacker's pool.)

This means that if a player declares a readied action along the lines of "I leap in front of any attack against Tara that seems likely to do more than simply scratch her" I don't think the 5e rules provide any easy way to resolve that. Because we can't tell whether or not the attack is likely to do more than simply scratch Tara until we see the to hit and damage roll. At which point the "after the trigger has finished" rule suggests that Tara has been struck by the attacker and suffered the consequences of that.

To me this just means that Tara's defender simply has to (oh, the horrors!) guess which potential attack to leap in front of, with said guess most likely based on noticing someone targeting Tara before the to-hit roll even happens, and thus might guess wrong. This is realistic, and would also now and then allow a really canny opponent to fake the defender out by pretending to target Tara, draw the interrupt, and then instead target someone else...which might in fact have been the defender all along!

Imaro · Oct 25, 2018

Hussar said:
NOPE. NO. That's not what's been said AT ALL.

No one is claiming that the DM should run a game that the DM doesn't like. Not ONCE has that been claimed. You don't want to run an Evil game, so, we don't play an Evil game. Fair enough. The player has no way to compel you to play an evil campaign.

Now, turn it around though. You WANT to play an evil campaign, and the player, a long time player who you enjoy playing with, says that he or she isn't interested. To the point of hating the idea and saying that if you run the campaign, he or she will drop out of the game.

Do you proceed? Or do you simply pitch a different campaign idea to keep the group together?

THAT'S the difference. Why should the DM be able to force his or her ideas on the group to the point of forcing a player to leave the table? Is that a good DM who does this? I certainly don't think so.

Why is that player able to force his or her ideas on the group to the point that the others don't get to play what they really want to?

I'm a little confused on how you consider it selfish on the part of the DM to choose to run a game he, along with every other player except one, want to play but for some reason you don't consider it just as selfish, if not more, for a single player to eliminate a certain type of game from ever being played by the group because they don't like it. To take another example... If everyone in the group enjoys running/playing horror games but a single player doesn't like them... how is it not selfish on his/her part to basically ban horror games from ever being played vs. sitting a single run of a horror game out or finding a group that similarly has no interest in horror games? Is it a "good DM" who allows a single player's preferences to minimize the groups fun? Am I missing something here?

Here's another perspective... if I as a player am in a group and we all discuss playing a horror game and everyone is good with it except player X who states they don't like horror games and won't play them... am I a bad player for leaving said group if I find one that will run Unknown Armies, Call of Cthulhu, Chill and Vampire? Are they a bad player for putting me in the position of having to make that choice? Was the DM a bad or good DM for letting one player's preferences dictate that for the entire group?