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

[Maxperson]

Start a new one. Every couple of years. Have done so now for about 30 years. Might go back and revisit an old setting with a new group from time to time, or recycle material from one setting to another, but, by and large, my campaigns will be 1-2 years of real time

Mine go a year to a year and a half. People like having a chance to play different character concepts and I've found that finishing after that amount of time allows a lot of investment and play, while allowing plenty of different characters.

 

[5ekyu]

When you do it, you're setting yourself up for failure. Not all traps require a roll to see, but if you roll for it, I get to set a DC and let you fail if you roll low enough. If you wait for the DM, you won't have failure chances at things that weren't in doubt before you rolled.

This is a disconnect for me.

Whether a trap is a check to see or auto-visible to me in a scene to a given character is **not** something i would change based on whether a roll was made or a player sat still and waited for me to do something.

The scene is the scene and your character might get auto-success or might have to check and circumstance and decisiins matter but the idea that a olayers physically rolling the die is something i punish him for by giving a failure chance that wasnt going to be there is **not** sufficient for the type of consistency i want in my games.

I get other like it but not ever for me.

 

[5ekyu]

Question: do you recycle the same world or setting when starting anew, or do you design a whole new setting every time?

I ask because for me at least designing a setting and-or world is enough work to make me only ever want to do it once, or at worst once per very long while.

Not addressed to me but thought i would chime in...

My latest GM project is loisly stolen in conept from an old old paur of Fantasy novels where a world was shattered by magic and pieces of continents were bound by magic floating over a magical core.

I am borrowing the concept (finally) for a new campaign and the good part is once i lay down the core world physics then newer games or campaigns can,be run on different "shards" with the same core building blocks - just add local differences as much as you want.

In theory others could run different shard campaigns simultaneousl without a hitch - allowing for only a little travel between shards.

It may end up serving as a reusable campaign vehicle for me and my friends.

Something like that can lower some of the new campaign workload you mention.

 

[Maxperson]

This is a disconnect for me.

Whether a trap is a check to see or auto-visible to me in a scene to a given character is **not** something i would change based on whether a roll was made or a player sat still and waited for me to do something.

The scene is the scene and your character might get auto-success or might have to check and circumstance and decisiins matter but the idea that a olayers physically rolling the die is something i punish him for by giving a failure chance that wasnt going to be there is **not** sufficient for the type of consistency i want in my games.

I get other like it but not ever for me.

It's not a punishment. In 5e there is only ever a roll if the outcome is in doubt. By rolling, the player is letting me know that the outcome for this action is in doubt, so there has to be at least some small chance of failure.

 

[Lanefan]

Mine go a year to a year and a half. People like having a chance to play different character concepts and I've found that finishing after that amount of time allows a lot of investment and play, while allowing plenty of different characters.

People can play loads of different character concepts within the same campaign, though, if they want to - just retire one (or get it killed off) and bring in another...or better yet, have several on the go and cycle them in and out. Turning over characters doesn't have to mean turning over the setting as well; if for no other reason than turning over the setting just makes more work for the DM as she then has to design a new one.

 

[Lanefan]

Not addressed to me but thought i would chime in...

My latest GM project is loisly stolen in conept from an old old paur of Fantasy novels where a world was shattered by magic and pieces of continents were bound by magic floating over a magical core.

I am borrowing the concept (finally) for a new campaign and the good part is once i lay down the core world physics then newer games or campaigns can,be run on different "shards" with the same core building blocks - just add local differences as much as you want.

In theory others could run different shard campaigns simultaneousl without a hitch - allowing for only a little travel between shards.

It may end up serving as a reusable campaign vehicle for me and my friends.

Interesting idea.

How big are each of these shards - big enough to allow a reasonably wide variety of climates, cultures and geography? Or is it more like there's an arctic shard and a jungle shard and a plains shard etc.?

Something like that can lower some of the new campaign workload you mention.

Perhaps - but depending on how it's done I might end up just seeing all the shards as part of the same overarching setting and thus not new at all, after having played in the first one or two. They'll share the same cosmology, the same pantheons (barring local variants), the same astronomy, the same creation history, etc.

My current setting is a binary planet, and while I or someone else could easily run a campaign on the planet I'm not using it would still, for me, be the same background setting.

 

[Imaculata]

Sorry, but, I've never understood the issue with who calls for a skill roll. Why does it matter? I search for traps, I roll X on my Investigate skill vs I search for traps, DM asks me to roll, I roll X on my Investigate skill. What difference does it make?

Same with social skills. I try to sweet talk the NPC, I roll X on my Persuasion skill, do I succeed? At our table, it's always mixed. Sometimes players will just roll and tell me what they are doing and sometimes they will state an action and I ask for a roll.

Why is there this compulsive need, apparently, to nail down who calls for rolls?

Let me illustrate with an example:

The players are in a dungeon, and they enter a room with (among other things) a pile of rubble in it. There is nothing in the pile of rubble, it is just dungeon decoration.

Tom: I search the pile of rubble! (Starts rolling Search check) 20!

DM: You find nothing of interest.

Tom: -But I rolled a 20!

All of this can be avoided if the DM is the one calling for a check, or in this case not-asking for a check. This also avoids situations where a player makes a skillcheck, when the DM wants him to make a different skillcheck, and cases where an action is going to auto-succeed. This can also help the players focus more on stating an approach to their actions, rather than immediately throwing their dice before an action has been properly stated.

 

[Hussar]

When you do it, you're setting yourself up for failure. Not all traps require a roll to see, but if you roll for it, I get to set a DC and let you fail if you roll low enough. If you wait for the DM, you won't have failure chances at things that weren't in doubt before you rolled.

Why didn't you initially describe that trap when you described the room? If I auto-succeed, why wasn't I told as soon as I could see it? And, note, an auto-success means that no matter what I rolled, I'd succeed anyway, so, again, it shouldn't make any difference whether I rolled or not.

It's not a punishment. In 5e there is only ever a roll if the outcome is in doubt. By rolling, the player is letting me know that the outcome for this action is in doubt, so there has to be at least some small chance of failure.

But, the player cannot ever determine that. The player never knows if an action is in doubt or not. If it wasn't in doubt, no matter what the roll was, it succeeded. If the climb DC is 5 and I have a +4 climb skill, it doesn't matter if I roll or not, I move half my speed up whatever it is I'm climbing.

Let me illustrate with an example:

The players are in a dungeon, and they enter a room with (among other things) a pile of rubble in it. There is nothing in the pile of rubble, it is just dungeon decoration.

Tom: I search the pile of rubble! (Starts rolling Search check) 20!

DM: You find nothing of interest.

Tom: -But I rolled a 20!

All of this can be avoided if the DM is the one calling for a check, or in this case not-asking for a check. This also avoids situations where a player makes a skillcheck, when the DM wants him to make a different skillcheck, and cases where an action is going to auto-succeed. This can also help the players focus more on stating an approach to their actions, rather than immediately throwing their dice before an action has been properly stated.

Meh, I'm not really concerned to be honest. If I get a 20 and there's nothing to find, then, well, I succeeded but there was nothing to find. Any player who complains about that is being a bad player. And, it's pretty rare that a player is going to use the wrong skill for something. It's not like the skills overlap to any great extent. I search the chest is an investigate check. End of story.

It seems to me that people are far too concerned with nailing things down instead of just going with it and, AFAIC, wasting the table's time. I see the chest, I search the chest. I shouldn't have to wait for the DM's permission to do so. Just do it and move on. Same with talking to the NPC or listening at that door or trying to find that secret door. It looks like, to me, unnecessary steps are being added that don't really add anything to the game. How you find that trap is a lot less interesting than the existence of that trap in the first place.

 

[Aldarc]

My primary issue that I would see with what Imaculata describes, [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], is what part of the game the players are attempting to engage.

My own preference here is a "fiction first" approach. This approach is common in games like Fate and Dungeon World (PbtA). In fact, I believe that the PbtA system developed, in part, as a reaction to the habit in 3rd Edition D&D era (and following) of players engaging skills before fiction. Vincent Baker wanted to break the habit of players saying "I roll for Perception," and instead engendering more Player: "I look for odd features in the stone work of the wall." / GM: "It sounds as if you are trying to Discern Realities. Roll."

It is not that I want to tell the players when or what to roll. I want my players to engage the fiction. I want dice rolls to be interesting. I want them to describe what they are attempting. Describe what you are doing, then I (or "we" collectively) can decide what rolls, if any, are most appropriate. And for systems like PbtA and Fate, this often can lead to dice resolutions other than a simple pass/fail test. And these systems have influenced how I have subsequently approached running D&D.

 

[Maxperson]

People can play loads of different character concepts within the same campaign, though, if they want to - just retire one (or get it killed off) and bring in another...or better yet, have several on the go and cycle them in and out. Turning over characters doesn't have to mean turning over the setting as well; if for no other reason than turning over the setting just makes more work for the DM as she then has to design a new one.

Oh, I know. Those are just much less satisfying for me. I'm a smart player, so PC death happens less to me than others, and optional retirement doesn't sit well. If the campaign ends, I don't really have a choice. I also run the Realms primarily, so I don't have to do much in the way of redesign.