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

Hriston · Oct 24, 2018

Maxperson said:
Once damage has been rolled, yes it would be time travel to block the attack with the shield spell. Before damage, it hasn't truly "hit" yet.

What about tables that make attack and damage rolls at the same time as recommended on page 235 of the DMG? No shield spell for them?

Ovinomancer · Oct 24, 2018

Aldarc said:
It need not be abuse. I have reason distrust it when I see people in this thread feel threatened by the DM having less authority or by players expressing desire to have some semblance of authority beyond their character. I have reason to distrust it when DMs express hostile territorial behaviors regarding their role. I have reason to distrust it when DMs condescendingly speak of their players and insist they know what's best for their players. I have reason to distrust it when DMs likewise speak of players from an inherent position of suspicion and distrust. I have reason to distrust it when DMs speak of the game as theirs and not a game shared by the players. If you want to falsely reduce my issue to an assumption of "bad faith" and "abuse," then you are welcome to continue holding that grossly false belief.

I do not want to get into a sword control debate. I would say, rather, that while despots may be moral and enlightened people who act in good faith and in good rulership, I nevertheless prefer systems of government where there is a greater distribution of governing power among the masses than what despotism provides.

You know, you have good points but always seem to end up stating them in antagonistic ways. Like saying here that playing in a "traditionalist" style is akin to despotism. Whatever point you're making (and there's a good one in there) is drowned in calling the "other side" despots.

Hussar · Oct 24, 2018

Maxperson said:
Unless that "culture of attitudes and privileges" is abused, there's zero reason to distrust it. This distrust is nothing more than an assumption that the DM will act in bad faith. You're basically claiming to distrust the sword, and not the person who is wielding it. The sword doesn't do anything by itself.

I was going to answer this, but, [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] just answered it much better than I could.

[MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] - what is the proper term then for a table where one person holds all (or at least the vast majority of ) the power at the table? You might not like the word despot, but, that's precisely what a "traditionalist" DM is. I'm sorry if you find that overly antagonistic, but, at what point should we call a spade a pointy digging tool?

And, really, if you honestly missed the level of tongue in cheek there in that post, that's gotta be at least a little bit on you.

/edit to add:

In what way is a "traditionalist" DM not a despot? We've seen arguments in this thread alone that the DM is the ultimate authority over all things that happen in the game. We've seen arguments in this thread alone that the DM determines who can sit at the table. We've seen arguments intros thread alone that the DM can overrule the preferences of any or all players at any time.

In what way is that not a despot?

pemerton · Oct 25, 2018

Maxperson said:
It doesn't matter. After the damage has been applied, it's too late.

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.)

Sadras said:
one can twist and tease the narrative in a plausible way to gain additional meta knowledge to assist in their decision making process. At our table we try as best to limit meta knowledge (player knowledge or otherwise).

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

Maxperson said:
And yet the arrow coming for your head can be a glancing blow that does a single point of damage. And the one for your thigh can hit the femoral artery critting you for 16, and put you on the ground making death saves.

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

Lanefan · Oct 25, 2018

Hriston said:
What about tables that make attack and damage rolls at the same time as recommended on page 235 of the DMG? No shield spell for them?

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 '**')

Imaro · Oct 25, 2018

Hussar said:
I was going to answer this, but, [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] just answered it much better than I could.

[MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] - what is the proper term then for a table where one person holds all (or at least the vast majority of ) the power at the table? You might not like the word despot, but, that's precisely what a "traditionalist" DM is. I'm sorry if you find that overly antagonistic, but, at what point should we call a spade a pointy digging tool?

And, really, if you honestly missed the level of tongue in cheek there in that post, that's gotta be at least a little bit on you.

/edit to add:

In what way is a "traditionalist" DM not a despot? We've seen arguments in this thread alone that the DM is the ultimate authority over all things that happen in the game. We've seen arguments in this thread alone that the DM determines who can sit at the table. We've seen arguments intros thread alone that the DM can overrule the preferences of any or all players at any time.

In what way is that not a despot?

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??

Ovinomancer · Oct 25, 2018

Hussar said:
I was going to answer this, but, [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] just answered it much better than I could.

[MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] - what is the proper term then for a table where one person holds all (or at least the vast majority of ) the power at the table? You might not like the word despot, but, that's precisely what a "traditionalist" DM is. I'm sorry if you find that overly antagonistic, but, at what point should we call a spade a pointy digging tool?

And, really, if you honestly missed the level of tongue in cheek there in that post, that's gotta be at least a little bit on you.

/edit to add:

In what way is a "traditionalist" DM not a despot? We've seen arguments in this thread alone that the DM is the ultimate authority over all things that happen in the game. We've seen arguments in this thread alone that the DM determines who can sit at the table. We've seen arguments intros thread alone that the DM can overrule the preferences of any or all players at any time.

In what way is that not a despot?

It's not despotism. You don't go to prison or get shot if you complain or try to leave.

Seriously, guys, words have meaning, and despotism doesn't suit any kind of rpg table.

As I said, there's some good points made about how traditional play has a very unbakanced power structure and how that can he liked or not, but when you toss on callimg the "other side" despots, you're not making points, you re just insulting.

Maxperson · Oct 25, 2018

Hriston said:
What about tables that make attack and damage rolls at the same time as recommended on page 235 of the DMG? No shield spell for them?

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.

Maxperson · Oct 25, 2018

Hussar said:
[MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] - what is the proper term then for a table where one person holds all (or at least the vast majority of ) the power at the table? You might not like the word despot, but, that's precisely what a "traditionalist" DM is. I'm sorry if you find that overly antagonistic, but, at what point should we call a spade a pointy digging tool?

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.

In what way is a "traditionalist" DM not a despot? We've seen arguments in this thread alone that the DM is the ultimate authority over all things that happen in the game. We've seen arguments in this thread alone that the DM determines who can sit at the table. We've seen arguments intros thread alone that the DM can overrule the preferences of any or all players at any time.

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.

Maxperson · 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.

Damage, whether static or rolled, is not applied until after the portion of combat where the attack hits. If someone uses a blowgun in my game and they don't state within a few seconds of being hit that they are going to use the shield spell, I'm going to apply the damage and it will be too late.

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

If by excellent point, you mean not a good point, you would be correct. A house rule allowing simultaneous rolling doesn't do diddly for a discussion on how the game works. I've never had a problem with house rules changing things. If you want to engage the simultaneous rolling house rule, then it's up to you to make ruling dealing with any issues that come up, such as how shield works.

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

It's not, but knowing how much damage will be caused is. As I pointed out above, the head shot could do 1 point of damage, and the thigh shot 16 damage.