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

[Maxperson]

Can you show me where I've done that? I take a lot of flak because I don't automatically agree that everything every DM does is automatically right, that's true. But, where have I argued that DM's will abuse their power and act in bad faith?

There's a difference between not thinking that sitting in the DM's chair makes one completely immune to making mistakes and treating DM's as if they will act in bad faith.

I'd point out that I'm hardly the only one noting the pretty strong undercurrent of hostility to players in this thread. It was pointed out by quite a few others.

You consistently post with a tone of mistrust for DM authority. If that's not the tone you are trying to convey, perhaps take a bit longer when you post on topics involving DM authority and see if what you are saying matches what you believe. Just my observations, and you aren't the only one here that posts with that apparent mistrust.

 

[Maxperson]

Just to go back to the T-Rex for a moment.

The argument about consequences is interesting to me. I wonder just how far that goes. Think about it, we're a 17th level D&D party including a 17th level druid. We're the closest thing to gods with a heartbeat. Having a T-Rex is probably the least noticeable thing about this party. We're each carrying enough personal wealth to destabilize large economies. This being a 3e game, we've got more magic items than you can shake a stick at. It's quite possible that some of us have wings or various other things. But a T-Rex? Oh hell no.

I don't know man. If you walk into my neighborhood with a T-Rex and holding a Rod of Rulership, the Talisman of Zagyg, and a Staff of Magi, I'm not looking at you.

I can just imagine the discussion at the town's gate:

Guard: Hold! You cannot bring that beast into town. Away with you!

Druid: ((The sky darkens, the ground shakes and a few trees take half a dozen steps towards the town)) Sorry, what was that? I missed what you said.

Guard: Move along. No problems here...

I fail to see how making yourself as big of a threat(or bigger) as the T-Rex helps things.

But, I have a sneaking suspicion based on all the examples in this thread and others, that "consequences" only mean bad things for the PC's. I could be wrong. Fair enough. But, no one has mentioned a single good consequence yet.

The town will be empty for you to take what you like.

 

[Maxperson]

Do you apply your "time travel" interpretation to the 5e shield spell, so that it can't protect against the triggering attack?

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. Before damage, I would allow the declaration of a knockout to happen. After damage, not a chance. I'm not into time traveling PCs, unless they really are time traveling due to some magic. Hmm. I may have to add that to my next campaign.

 

[eayres33]

Short answer: Yes

Long answer: Yeeeeessssss

Longer answer: I play DnD to have fun and I want my fun maximized. If a DM proposes a new rule, I expect it to increase fun. A rule that decreases fun is a pointless waist of time.


Just about every optional rule introduced in Xanathar's, especially sleeping in armor, is a pointless waste of time that decreases the overall fun of 5e. If a DM tells me that in their campaign they are going to be using optional rules from Xanathar's, I know that there is a strong likelihood that game will be less fun than a campaign in which the DM is not using rules from Xanathar's (other than the player options).


If I am aware that such rules will be used at the start of the campaign, I will likely either not join their game or I will not invite them to DM at my table. If they are DMing at my table and half way through the campaign they decide to add rules to the game that make it less fun, and ignore me when I tell them I do not wish to play with such pointless rules, then I am under no obligation to invite them back to my table to continue their campaign.

Well I'm not sure if my definition of fun is the same as yours, but I can't argue against it being wrong to change the rules mid game (unless of course the majority of the table is in agreement and it will make the game better) and also can't argue against listening to the host, especially since I host one of the two games I play in.

Changing the rules mid game, against the groups wishes, and against the hosts wishes well that just is, well that's a special kind of entitlement.

 

[Maxperson]

Well I'm not sure if my definition of fun is the same as yours, but I can't argue against it being wrong to change the rules mid game (unless of course the majority of the table is in agreement and it will make the game better) and also can't argue against listening to the host, especially since I host one of the two games I play in.

Changing the rules mid game, against the groups wishes, and against the hosts wishes well that just is, well that's a special kind of entitlement.

Going against the majority of the group's wishes is wrong in my opinion. Going against the host's wishes, if the host is in the minority, is just fine in my book and I host sometimes. As host, I run the house, not the game(unless I'm DMing). If the host wants to control the game, the host should DM.

 

[eayres33]

It's also a huge mistake to think that from the snippets you get in online "discussions" that you can tell how the game will run with that person. I'd at least try a game with everyone I've interacted with here.

I respect Maxperson, not to say I agree with him most of the time, but he comes to the table with his perceptions and his opinions most of which I end up disagreeing with but he moves a discussion on. You add in this comment, that he'd at least try a game with everyone he's interacted with here and that's the goal. Play the game, if you don't like it move on, but lets have a good game.

Of course I love playing war games, and I love playing co-op RP games online with resolution of actions being determined by the conflicting parties so I'm open to the full range of games. All I'm looking for is to have fun and have no one at the table be a jerk.

 

[eayres33]

Going against the majority of the group's wishes is wrong in my opinion. Going against the host's wishes, if the host is in the minority, is just fine in my book and I host sometimes. As host, I run the house, not the game(unless I'm DMing). If the host wants to control the game, the host should DM.

I think the host should have a voice, but no more than the other players and the DM. I agree if the host wants to have control they should DM. I understood the situation as the host and other player's did not agree with the DM so the host kicked them out. If I am wrong in that understanding I withdraw my comment.

 

[Maxperson]

I think the host should have a voice, but no more than the other players and the DM. I agree if the host wants to have control they should DM. I understood the situation as the host and other player's did not agree with the DM so the host kicked them out. If I am wrong in that understanding I withdraw my comment.

That would be a majority, though. If the host is in the majority, then it would be wrong to go against that in my opinion. This comment made it seem like you were singling out the host as being entitled to have his way just because he is host, "...and also can't argue against listening to the host, especially since I host one of the two games I play in."

 

[eayres33]

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. Before damage, I would allow the declaration of a knockout to happen. After damage, not a chance. I'm not into time traveling PCs, unless they really are time traveling due to some magic. Hmm. I may have to add that to my next campaign.

This seems consistent with the spirit of the rule, you declare the reaction when you have been hit, nothing in the spell says you get to see what the damage is before deciding. You declare the "shield" reaction once you are hit, but before you know the damage. I'd extend grace to newer players, but after that grace I'd enforce this.
PC has AC of 15
DM the goblin fires a short bow at you to hit of 17
PC that hits my AC is 15
DM that is 8 HP of damage
PC shield so that doesn't hit

That situation feels all kinds of wrong. First time player sure, I'll let you use your reaction to add 5 to the AC with the shield spell but in the future once I tell you the to hit roll you have to cast shield then or it will not count.

 

[eayres33]

That would be a majority, though. If the host is in the majority, then it would be wrong to go against that in my opinion. This comment made it seem like you were singling out the host as being entitled to have his way just because he is host, "...and also can't argue against listening to the host, especially since I host one of the two games I play in."

Yeah I didn't state that the best way I could, the only thing the host should bring you is well respect of course and perhaps the tie breaking vote, but that last part is debatable. I don't think most of these fights come up at actual tables run in someone's house but I could be wrong, most people in person are easy to deal with, but maybe I've been lucky in the gamer's I've encountered.

I met a new group of gamer's at a coffee shop recently and they all seem reasonable, perhaps its because I game in person and not AL that it makes these conflicts seem weird or it could be that I'm more like the Dude, and the Dude abides.