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

iserith · Sep 20, 2018

MNblockhead said:
This isn't fair to 5e. From the Basic Rules:

I think there must be a lot of DMs out there that read this and think "hmm, well there is *always* a *chance* of failure, so I'll have them role for everything." But even those DMs don't really play like that. They don't have PCs role for every footstep, because there is always a chance of misstepping.

If I were writing the rules, I would likely say a "reasonable chance of failure" or give some more guidance, encouraging DMs to limit check to important, thematic moments.

One thing I do that some folks may consider homebrewing (but I argue it isn't because *the DM* decides whether there is a change for failure--how the DM decides this is left largely to the DM's discretion): if the DC is Very Easy (5) or Easy (10) I will grant an auto-success to someone with proficiency in that skill. In some circumstances, I'll do that same even for DC 15 (medium). I like to reward players for their character-building choices. Obviously, their class, races, background, and feat selections tell me as a DM a lot about how they see their character. Letting a character proficient in acrobatics with a background as a circus entertainer bypass rolls to jump over some of the smaller pits makes sense, is within the RAW, speeds up gameplay, and honors the player's vision of his or her character.

So, 5e could try to give more guidance in this area, but it is not fair to say that 5e reduces all character play to the rolling of dice.

Couple of side notes for everyone's reference since I (sadly) have them memorized:

Check out DMG 236-237, "Role of the Dice" and "Using Ability Scores." It talks about different approaches, including once where the DM calls for a lot of ability checks, and their respective drawbacks. (The drawbacks mentioned to the "Roll With It" approach are interesting.) The latter section explains the guidelines for when to call for a check, that is, when the attempted task is somewhere between impossible and trivially easy, and when there's a meaningful consequence of failure. Add that to the section in the Basic Rules (page 58) as to the DM determining there's a chance of failure/uncertain outcome and, voila, there's your completed checklist for determining whether a roll is appropriate.

Oofta · Sep 20, 2018

It's always interesting to me how some people are so insistent that you have to play a certain way, particularly in adherence to the rules. The idea that 5E "must" be played a certain way, follow specific rules or styles seems antithetical to the very premise of this edition.

For example, if I describe some markings and someone rolls a die and says "I got a 20 on my investigation check" I may do several things. I may not give them any info because investigation isn't going to help. I could ask for clarification. I could narrate the action, and encourage them to do so. I could tell them information that moves the plot along.

What I wouldn't do is tell them that that they can no longer play in my game or that they're doing it wrong. I'd never justify my opinion by saying that my interpretation was the only possible way to interpret the rules.

On the other side of things, if a DM bends the rules or has clear house rules that aren't game breakingly stupid I'll go with the flow and judge them on how well they run the game. As long as they are consistent and fair, I don't have a problem with not playing "pure" D&D.

The rules are not holy texts that must be followed. They are the foundation for story telling and resolution of uncertainty. I don't want to have to parse the rules like computer code, and I don't expect my players to either. Tweaking to fit your style is just part of the game. Well, at least they are for my game.

KenNYC · Sep 20, 2018

Kobold Boots said:
- Games where the scope is well beyond the DM's capacity to run. Show me a new DM with a "world map" that includes more than three locations and I'll show you a game that won't be well-focused for quite some time.

This is a great item. I wouldn't quit a game over it, but I think this is a common problem for new DMs. My formula was to start out with one location in a small town, and each session introduce one or two NPCs until I had enough to have them start recurring. Soon, a campaign takes shape. A lot of people I suspect buy these 200 page books with multiple locations and think they can do it too. Maybe they can, but it is setting yourself up for a lot of work you don't need.

D&D should get back to concepts like B1 In Search Of The Unknown and do some product for new DMs, that teach you how to DM. All the books assume you just know what you're doing but that's not the case. When you buy a board game they often give examples of play, D&D is a lot more work than a board game and new DMs need help. Heck, I need help.

The Crimson Binome · Sep 20, 2018

Rya.Reisender said:
That's why I'd like to agree on using whatever Sage Advice decided. Then it's neither my subjective nor the DM's subjective opinion on it but an objective thing everyone can rely on.

Of course if the rule is unclear and there's no Sage Advice on it, then there needs to be a ruling by the DM (though I still prefer if he asked the players first before making one).

Alright, well that's certainly a preference that you can have. Personally, I think it's a pretty unreasonable line for you to draw; but some might see my own preferences as unreasonable, and there's nothing wrong with choosing to not play, rather than subjecting yourself to a game that isn't to your tastes.

5ekyu · Sep 20, 2018

Saelorn said:
Alright, well that's certainly a preference that you can have. Personally, I think it's a pretty unreasonable line for you to draw; but some might see my own preferences as unreasonable, and there's nothing wrong with choosing to not play, rather than subjecting yourself to a game that isn't to your tastes.

to me, i doubt i have ever ran a game strictly "as the designers intended it" ever in like 38 years of play. i just dont want to spend that much time or effort figuring out what "they" wanted my game to be like and instead want to spend that time on what we want our game to be like. too much work otherwise.

But, i suppose AL provides an outlet for those today... at least i think so... not totally sure on the GM boundaries as far as "not what "they" intended GMing are for AL.

cmad1977 · Sep 20, 2018

iserith said:
What... what happened?

Nothing.

MNblockhead · Sep 20, 2018

Ralif Redhammer said:
Urgh, I get that DMs want to maintain the narrative and some semblance of the laws of reality, but players show up to play. I think most of us are willing to suspend some disbelief to get the new player into the game quickly. I hate using the “poof, a new PC appears” approach, and try to come up with something that gets them integrated within 5-10 minutes, but what players hate more is just sitting around for hours, not getting to play.

Same with PC death. I remember a game from high school when my best friend was running a game for me and a number of our other friends. I died early in the game and was basically ignored from there on. I hung about for about 45 minutes and went home. I felt snubbed by the entire group, even though it wasn't their intent.

As a DM I always try to make room for a player to get back into the game. If the nature of the session makes that difficult, I will discuss with the player and let them know that it may be some time before I can get them in. I'll even offer them to be co-DM. Not to give any spoilers but during combat, I can have the player of the dead character play the monsters.

KenNYC · Sep 20, 2018

Rya.Reisender said:
You can do that but you won't have me as player. (Aren't there some optional flanking rules somewhere in the official sources that could be used?)

Hi, I am just curious, but why is an official rule acceptable to you but a rule created by your friend not? It's quite possible your friend has a better mind than the people paid by WoTC, and his rule can make the game better.

MNblockhead · Sep 20, 2018

cmad1977 said:
If the DM is so stymied by a simple phrase that it takes his brain that many steps to interpret a sentence then the DM has some medical issues that should probably be poked into. Looked into. Poking the brain is probably bad.

I thought he was describing an early generation GM AI.