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

[Blue]

Let's not lose the thread here: My objection is in asking for an ability check before I describe what I want to do, not to simply describing the environment without an unprompted ability check. The rules lay out what describing the environment is all about - where the adventurers are, what's around them (which I would reasonably say includes 50-foot-tall letters that spell something out), and presenting the basic scope of options that present themselves - and when the DM may ask for an ability check.

I would say the possibility of pickpockets needs to be telegraphed in the description of the environment (either before or during the scene) in order for the player to make a meaningful decision about it and for the challenge to be fair. After witnessing larcenies in other scenes or being informed by an NPC that the City of Thieves is no place for the unwary, a canny player might say he or she is keeping watch for hidden dangers while traveling the city in which case the DM can use a passive Perception check to resolve uncertainty as to whether the pickpocket is noticed. Or, failing some effort at telegraphing, the DM can simply ask, "While you're traveling the city, what sort of ongoing activity will you be engaged in?" as one might when the PCs are traveling through a dungeon or in the wilderness. A wise PC chooses to Keep Watch unless some other activity would be of more benefit than losing a few coins to a pickpocket.

To do otherwise is to effectively resolve the challenge based on what the player chose during character creation and/or advancement in my view, not what he or she chose to do while playing the game. I believe it should be a bit of both.

The PC lives in the world. You don't penalize a PC if the player doesn't tell you that they are going to breathe. Same way you don't assume that a character has no chance to notice something they aren't expecting just because they aren't being specifically vigilant.

I personally can be working at my desk, in the zone so not specifically paying attention, and still hear someone come up behind me. Or not - which is why it's a check.

(And yes, I've noticed cleaning staff when there late, even though it wasn't telegraphed that there would be anyone in the office besides myself.)

The concept that resolving a challenge should be based on both character and action is a really good one. But: (a) don't let it blind you that is the only option. If you survive a jump off a cliff to escape certain death may be completely dependent on your character creation choices. (b) don't confuse resolving an issue, which is an active thing, with giving the player the amount of information their character would notice.

 

[machineelf]

The problem for me comes only in when the DM interprets a rule incorrectly and doesn't listen to me when I try to correct him or when he intentionally changes a rule just because he thinks it's not balanced or something.

IMO, correcting a DM on a rule when he/she has not asked for help on rules corrections is rude and in bad form. I'll never do it during a session. I'll wait until after a session and bring it up. If the DM says it's ok to help with rules corrections, then I'll bring up clear rule mistakes, but I won't question the DM's interpretation of the rules or house rules.

If I think the DM is consistently misapplying or abusing rules, then the solution is for me not to play in that game, not to be a jerk and try to correct everything they get wrong everytime without being asked to.

My gaming relationships have been so much better, and I've been at peace with myself, since I adopted this position.

When I DM, I explicitly tell my players they are free to bring up rule mistakes I've made right away, because I want to get things right and everyone makes mistakes sometimes. But if it is rule interpretations, I ask them to refrain from arguing with me and bring it up after the session.

 

[iserith]

The PC lives in the world. You don't penalize a PC if the player doesn't tell you that they are going to breathe. Same way you don't assume that a character has no chance to notice something they aren't expecting just because they aren't being specifically vigilant.

I'm not sure how you come away with this from my post. So let me be more clear: If a player is indicating a desire to go from one place to another in the city, I'm going to ask what the character does along the way. If the player establishes that the character is doing anything that distracts from being vigilant, then he or she has no chance of noticing the pickpocket. That's in line with the rules for Activities While Traveling. The player will be made aware of the risk through telegraphing and, if necessary, directly upon stating an action that is other than being alert to danger. Perhaps the risk is worth it to the player. Perhaps the player had the character stuff his or her coins in his or her boots or underwear. Context will tell.

The concept that resolving a challenge should be based on both character and action is a really good one. But: (a) don't let it blind you that is the only option. If you survive a jump off a cliff to escape certain death may be completely dependent on your character creation choices. (b) don't confuse resolving an issue, which is an active thing, with giving the player the amount of information their character would notice.

As to the cliff, you forget that there are a lot of decisions that likely led up to that point including being at a cliff in the first place, jumping off of it or being close enough to it to be pushed off, etc. So it's both decisions made at character creation or advancement and during play.

I don't know what you're referring to with (b). I've been very clear on my desire to adequately describe the environment before the player describes what he or she wants to do including telegraphing threats.

 

[Aguirre Melchiors]

only 2 times i did abandon a campaign:

D&D - DM vs players, lots of show off powerfull NPCs, lots of you are doing this wrong, this spell doesent work, NPC discover your plan with no explanation.
VAMPIRE - Live Action, because the Storyteller where not Dming but playing with NPCs and we the players without anything to do. And we had a 60 min. discussion about potence 2.

 

[Kobold Boots]

Personally, I've never walked away from a game where it was clear that the DM intended to run a campaign.

I've definitely had situations where a DM wasn't popular with the players, and the game petered out as a result.

I can list what I don't like in games I play in; but I'm not interested in damaging relationships by declining something as trivial as a game when I have time to play and I've agreed to play it.

- Heavily scripted DM plot without allowing players to pursue their own plot lines. Scripted is ok so long as I have my own plot line to pursue too.

- Player plotlines that don't take into account other players or allow other players to integrate into them. If the game devolves into a large amount of play by post due to player compartmentalization when there's a table component that meets regularly it can be annoying. Especially if XP is awarded for PBP. Even worse, if it's only table and the majority of the players are in "bench" mode it can be boring.

- DMs that aren't interested in keeping the majority of the players if not all of the players involved for the majority of the session. I prefer playing NPCs with a DM assigned motivation to assist the game when my PC is not in scene than sitting around in "bench" mode.

Bench mode is what I call it when the game centers on someone doing recon or having a conversation where other characters aren't involved. Shorter amount of time a session is scheduled for, more of a problem it is.. but you can't always avoid it.

- 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.

 

[iserith]

- 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.

That's a really good one. A lot of DMs bite off a lot more than they can chew. One of the players in my circle but not in my regular games was recently lamenting about how, just once, she would like to finish a campaign. I gave your response more or less to her because that has definitely been my experience as well. I added that DMs rarely seem to think about the real time commitment of even a published adventure which can take a year or more to play if you're not gaming weekly. That kind of time span nowadays is likely to see the campaign abruptly end before it ever gets close to finishing.

 

[5ekyu]

IMO, correcting a DM on a rule when he/she has not asked for help on rules corrections is rude and in bad form. I'll never do it during a session. I'll wait until after a session and bring it up. If the DM says it's ok to help with rules corrections, then I'll bring up clear rule mistakes, but I won't question the DM's interpretation of the rules or house rules.

If I think the DM is consistently misapplying or abusing rules, then the solution is for me not to play in that game, not to be a jerk and try to correct everything they get wrong everytime without being asked to.

My gaming relationships have been so much better, and I've been at peace with myself, since I adopted this position.

When I DM, I explicitly tell my players they are free to bring up rule mistakes I've made right away, because I want to get things right and everyone makes mistakes sometimes. But if it is rule interpretations, I ask them to refrain from arguing with me and bring it up after the session.

I tend to ask.

Example from a couple sessions ago.

My sorceress got ko to zero hp and went down.
PC cleric healed me.
Another npc took ranged shot at me from a distance before i got up.
Saw GM grabbing ine die.
"Are they shooting with disad?"
Gm paused...then said
"Because you are prone?"
Nodded.
GM griped about it "doesnt make sense"
To which i said "do whatever" and let it go.
This was a case where it was obvious he just didnt remember the rule for prone.


Same GM last game when my pc bite by giant spider asked for save vs poison (made) then stopped to tell me it said i should take half but he was making it zero.
My response...
"Give me half if you want"

My preference would have been half actually. It was a fight we would win anyway and it just made it seem more "given to us" than "won".

But i make a point to stay in player mode not gm mode when playing.

 

[MNblockhead]

I quit a campaign because of the over-reliance on dice and skill checks. I was a ranger trying to cross a 10 foot river that was 3 feet deep and had no current. Just to be on the safe side I took off my clothes so I couldn't be weighted down, tied a 50 foot rope around my waste, tied it to a tree, gave it to the Barbarian in the party to hang on, and I waded in. I described it all in excruciating detail my plans, and then the DM said "make a dex roll".

I said "why?" and I realized that role playing, or careful character playing isn't needed in 5e, it is just how you rig your stats for this never-ending assault of skill checks. I didn't have to do anything and could have blundered in carrying 5000 lbs of gp since nobody does encumbrance, and rolled the same silly dice. I wasn't needed for this character, just my sheet was. I decided that that DM wasn't for me.

(emphasis mine)

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

The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results.

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.

 

[BookBarbarian]

IMO, correcting a DM on a rule when he/she has not asked for help on rules corrections is rude and in bad form. I'll never do it during a session. I'll wait until after a session and bring it up. If the DM says it's ok to help with rules corrections, then I'll bring up clear rule mistakes, but I won't question the DM's interpretation of the rules or house rules.

If I think the DM is consistently misapplying or abusing rules, then the solution is for me not to play in that game, not to be a jerk and try to correct everything they get wrong everytime without being asked to.

My gaming relationships have been so much better, and I've been at peace with myself, since I adopted this position.

When I DM, I explicitly tell my players they are free to bring up rule mistakes I've made right away, because I want to get things right and everyone makes mistakes sometimes. But if it is rule interpretations, I ask them to refrain from arguing with me and bring it up after the session.

I need to work on this myself. My current DM comes from a pathfinder background and we have a lot of new players.

I find myself saying, Why aren't you adding Ability Modifer and Proficiency bonus to attack roles to the other players a lot. I try to hold my peace, but I can see the players getting frustrated when the miss and can't hold back "That's a 15 not a 10!".

Maybe I can just work on a more patient tone of voice. :/

 

[Swarmkeeper]

With reference to this and your other posts in this thread, what are your thoughts on the following scenarios?

Scenario 1

GM: You see a statue of a woman holding a scythe.
Player: I have Religion, do I know who she is?
GM: Roll INT\Religion please, DC 17.
Player: I roll an 18.
GM: It is a statue of Kishar, the goddess of agriculture.

Scenario 2

GM: You see a statue of a woman holding a scythe.
Player: I have Religion, *rolls* I got an 18. Do I know who she is?
GM: It is a statue of Kishar, the goddess of agriculture.

Scenario 3

GM: You see a statue of a woman holding a scythe. Can I get an INT\Religion roll please?
Player: I roll a 18.
GM: Because of your knowledge of religions of this area, you know it is a It is a statue of Kishar, the goddess of agriculture.

Scenario 4

GM: You see a statue of a woman holding a scythe. *rolls an INT\Religion roll on behalf of the player, gets 18*
GM: Because of your knowledge of religions of this area, you know it is a It is a statue of Kishar, the goddess of agriculture.

I am fine with all of these. I like the player in #1, they are being proactive and helping the GM out. Player in #2 is similar but may come across a bit pushy, trying to insert a skill that may be inappropriate. Many players though don't think to ask for a check or are too shy etc; for that reason as GM I'll tend to go with #3 but I am particularly grateful to any #1 players. #4 is way too much effort for me in a tabletop game since it requires knowing the PC stats, but GMing online I may do it for greater speed & immersion.

#1 is an example of player best practice; all four are fine.

Ok, I'll chime in here to play fiend's advocate: a player should not really invoke their skill proficiency as if that alone is a stated action. The player should just describe an actual action their PC is taking and the goal the PC hopes to achieve. It's up to the DM to then ask for a specific roll, if a roll is in fact required. The DM might even give the player multiple options...


Better:

Scenario 1a

GM: You see a statue of a woman holding a scythe.
Player: I'd like to carefully view the statue from where I am - I'm not stepping closer or touching it yet. Do I know who she is?
GM: Roll INT\Religion or INT\History please, DC 17.
Player: I roll an 18 for Religion.
GM: It is a statue of Kishar, the goddess of agriculture.