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

[Lanefan]

(1) Where is this assumption built-in? Not into AD&D, which uses different to-hit tables for a half-orc depending on whether the half-orc is a PC or NPC (see Gygax's DMG p 74).

1e is glaringly, if quietly, inconsistent that way. "Men" (i.e. Humans), Elves, Dwarves etc. are all written up in the MM and given hit dice, meaning that by default they're supposed to use the monster combat matrix - but then they're also counted as NPCs, with 1.5 sets of different mechanics depending whether they're levelled or not; or as PCs/henches/hirelings with different mechanics again, some but not all of which overlap those for levelled NPCs.

Tossed all that ages ago. As best I can manage it, an Elf is an Elf is an Elf whether PC or NPC or opponent. Any of these might be levelled (and PCs always are, barring any recent unfortunate encounters with level-drainers) or might not be; in any case they all use the same mechanics.

Not into 4e, which uses different character build principles player-side and GM-side.

4e had some good design ideas. This was not one. In fact, in an edition that also had considerably more than its share of bad design ideas this one was, if not the worst, mighty close to it.

3e was squarely on the right track in having everyone - PC, NPC, whoever - use the same mechanics, but it then blew it by having far too many mechanics that everyone had to use.

(2) The GM narrating the results is not "cutting to the chase". It's not a mode of action resolution. It's framing and/or establishing backstory.

Semantics. Narrating relatively static or inactive things (terrain, buildings, weather most of the time, inactive or peaceful creatures or people, etc.) establishes the scene. Narrating anything involving an NPC doing anything significant - and a fight between two NPCs leading to the death of one certainly qualifies as significant - is simply (and quite reasonably) short-cutting out all the action resolution that'd be involved if it were a PC doing the same thing.

It's assumed all the action resolution took place the same as if PCs were involved, but for the sake of sanity those actions don't all get individually played out; all that happens is the GM narrates the results.

An example: when the GM narrates "Over breakfast the rumours are confirmed: the chambermaid woke up dead in her bed this morning, her throat slit by an assassin during the night." what's being left out of that narration is all the climbing and lock-picking and stealth and to-hit/damage rolls from the assassin along with any rolls the victim might have got in order to awaken and cry for help, yet it's assumed those all took place as they would have done had one or both of those involved been PCs. Here, to save tme and get on with things, the GM just narrates the result.

 

[pemerton]

Tossed all that ages ago.

OK, but your house rules don't constitute a "built-in assumption" (your phrase). In fact, if you had to house rule, the assumption probably wasn't built in at all!

Narrating relatively static or inactive things (terrain, buildings, weather most of the time, inactive or peaceful creatures or people, etc.) establishes the scene. Narrating anything involving an NPC doing anything significant - and a fight between two NPCs leading to the death of one certainly qualifies as significant - is simply (and quite reasonably) short-cutting out all the action resolution that'd be involved if it were a PC doing the same thing.

It's assumed all the action resolution took place the same as if PCs were involved

<snip>

when the GM narrates "Over breakfast the rumours are confirmed: the chambermaid woke up dead in her bed this morning, her throat slit by an assassin during the night." what's being left out of that narration is all the climbing and lock-picking and stealth and to-hit/damage rolls

Are you talking about the fiction, or the real-world basis on which the fiction is established? Climbing is something that happens in the fiction. Rolling to hit and damage is something that happens in the fiction. (So is a climb check.)

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], you might want to reread my post noting that (i) and (ii) refer to some steps that your (1) to (3) left out, not to your (1) and (2).

Working out what actions the adventurers take happens before step 2. The player works those out and then describes them to the DM.

<snip.>

Working out the results of those actions just means the details, like is the action automatic fail/succeed, or does it require a roll. That doesn't mean the action has occurred in the fiction, but instead is just informative to the DM and allows the DM to narrate the results.

<snip>

I didn't say the DM makes up whatever he wants, though he is within his power to do so, he probably will use the mechanics provided to figure it out. It doesn't matter at all to my argument, though. The action doesn't actually happen within the fiction until the DM narrates it during step 3.

I find this a bit hard to follow, because you say that the players work some stuff out but that nothing changes in the fiction until the GM works some stuff out.

To be clear: is it your view that the players never bring about any change in the fiction, and simply make suggestions to the GM which the GM may or may not have regard to in deciding what happens next?

If that's not your view, would you indicate where, or under what circumstances, you think that the players change the fiction through their narration of what their PCs do?

If that is your view, why do you think the players are called players rather than (say) suggestion-givers?

 

[Seramus]

When the GM narrates that NPC X kills NPC Y the built-in assumption behind that narration is that had that encounter been played out it would have followed the same mechanics as if it had been two PCs fighting each other. But as processing all that would quite understandably be very dull and boring for the players to sit through, the GM just cuts to the chase and narrates the result.

That’s not a common assumption in my area. Escaping the idea that monsters have to be built like PCs was one of the best things to happen to D&D, and made encounter design light years faster for DMs. The option still exists for DMs that want to do it, but most people don’t bother.

I like building characters, so I still do it sometimes. But only for really important humanoids.

 

[5ekyu]

ENWorld is the only forum I know where "appeal to authority" is treated as a fallacy rather than good evidence!

I've never been to France or spoken to a French government official. How do I know France's capital is Paris? I learned it from an authority! Fallacious me!

A2A is a known form of logical fallacy - practically speaking a great many of significant advancement had to overcome A2A. See Galileo.

The key being this - is there evidence other than the perceived authority?

If you argument hinges on nothing more than "that's what folks say" (with presumably your choice of folks being credible) the whole of your argument boils down to their credibility.

Whrn the supporting folks is you, or someone you know, that gets hinky.

But the key part is A2A can be reasonable- if the source is credible and supported by evidence.

 

[Maxperson]

[MENTION=23751]I find this a bit hard to follow, because you say that the players work some stuff out but that nothing changes in the fiction until the GM works some stuff out.

To be clear: is it your view that the players never bring about any change in the fiction, and simply make suggestions to the GM which the GM may or may not have regard to in deciding what happens next?

Of course they bring about changes in fiction. Those changes just don't officially happen until the DM narrates them. Player decides he wants his PC to grill the barkeep for information about the Frog Lord and describes to the DM what he wants his PC Grabor to do. The DM decides that a charisma check is in order and has the player roll. The player rolls the die and makes the DC.

There are a few ways to narrate that. The DM might narrate the PC going up and asking the questions, then have the player roll, and then narrate some more, splitting what happens in fiction. Or the DM might wait until after the roll and then narrate the PC going up and talking to the NPC, and base the NPC's responses on the roll that happened. At no point, though, does what happens in the fiction happen until after the DM begins to narrate what happens.

Regardless of how the DM chooses to narrate the encounter with the barkeep, the player is the one who is enacting the change in the fiction by his declaration. The action just doesn't happen within the fiction until the DM narrates it based on what the player described and the results of any rolls or auto success/failures, what knowledge of the subject the NPC might have, etc.

While the DM has liberty to narrate the results of the player's declaration, he can't just decide to narrate anything he wants to narrate and ignore what the player declared. While the DM has the technical power to respond to the player's declaration with, "Grabor instead goes to the barmaid and orders a drink.", that would be a gross violation of the social contract and so it just doesn't happen unless the DM is a bad one. The DM is constrained by the social contract to go along with what the player declared and have the interaction between Grabor and the barkeep about the Frog Lord.

If that is your view, why do you think the players are called players rather than (say) suggestion-givers?

Why would you think that a player describing what he wants his PC to do isn't playing the game?

 

[Maxperson]

Sadly, your DM is not unique in this. I quit a game for similar reasons - if you rolled a 1 you dropped your weapon, potentially broke it, hurt yourself or an ally. Trying to play a high level fighter with multiple attacks was just annoying. Your PC is a pinnacle of expertise but they constantly lose hold of their weapon? No thanks.

In 3.5 I played with a DM who had fumbles on a 1. However, he corrected for what you describe there. At 1st level when you rolled a 1, you had to make a DC 15 dex check or fumble. Success ended your attack. At 6th level you had to make a DC 10 dex check or fumble, success ended any remaining attacks for the round. At 11th level the DC remained 10, but you had to roll two consecutive ones in order to fumble and lose your attacks, otherwise the 1 was just an auto miss and you got your remaining attacks. At 16th level there was no longer any chance to fumble.

 

[Maxperson]

ENWorld is the only forum I know where "appeal to authority" is treated as a fallacy rather than good evidence!

Why would a fallacy not be treated as a fallacy?

Also, @Hussar claimed to be an English teacher, but that he immediately engaged in an Appeal to Authority in his post, and then in the following post engaged in an Ad Hominem attack, causes me to doubt that claim. An English teacher should know better.

I've never been to France or spoken to a French government official. How do I know France's capital is Paris? I learned it from an authority! Fallacious me!

The fallacy would be if you presented as your only proof that France's capitol is Paris, that an authority said so. If you engaged other arguments, such as maps, news sources, a french citizen you spoke with, and so on, it would not be an Appeal to Authority to also mention that a geography teacher taught that to you.

Edit: Authorities can also be wrong. As an attorney, you should be well aware of that fact, since your profession engages in dueling experts on a regular basis, where you have authorities making opposing claims on important parts of the case. They both can't be right, and it's possible that neither one is.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It was a question. But hey, don't let things like facts get in the way with your accusations.

Ooh! Special pleading! What's next?

 

[Grainger]

In 3.5 I played with a DM who had fumbles on a 1. However, he corrected for what you describe there. At 1st level when you rolled a 1, you had to make a DC 15 dex check or fumble. Success ended your attack. At 6th level you had to make a DC 10 dex check or fumble, success ended any remaining attacks for the round. At 11th level the DC remained 10, but you had to roll two consecutive ones in order to fumble and lose your attacks, otherwise the 1 was just an auto miss and you got your remaining attacks. At 16th level there was no longer any chance to fumble.

Sounds like a lot of book-keeping (and house rules to remember) for something that is fundamentally farcical (see my post above about how I'm a terrible swordsman, and never dropped my sword by accident in dozens of bouts) and not even very fun in game. First time: "Ha ha you dropped your sword". Several sessions later: "Ha ha you dropped your sword... again... as all of us often do". If it happened as often as this, people would simply wear lanyards around their wrists.

"Fumbles" seem to be a thing that people put in thinking it will be cool (because more dice-rolling has to be fun, right?) when they're actually a bit rubbish.