D&D 5E Does RAW have a place in 5e?

[KarinsDad]

I have done it both ways. Rolled when the kobold was in a hurry. Set DC for long term traps in the lair.

True.

But there are tons more material that I put into a game that I never roll for than what I do roll for.

As example, the Elven nation lives in trees. I do not roll to see if they are any good at building their houses in trees, they just are and that's that. The major of this town is named Fred. I decided on the name a while back. I did not roll on a random name table. This town is located here, this river here, this trap has this DC here, this monster is placed here, etc.

Rolling is for when I am on the fence and almost always done when NPCs directly interact with PCs. When setting up an adventure, I put a lot of elements in it that I just do. It's my world. This is what happens. If the PCs change something, then other things happen. Making the world breathe does not mean rolling for every little detail. It means changing the details as time goes on based on the other things happening in the world.

 

[Hussar]

True.

But there are tons more material that I put into a game that I never roll for than what I do roll for.

As example, the Elven nation lives in trees. I do not roll to see if they are any good at building their houses in trees, they just are and that's that. The major of this town is named Fred. I decided on the name a while back. I did not roll on a random name table. This town is located here, this river here, this trap has this DC here, this monster is placed here, etc.

Rolling is for when I am on the fence and almost always done when NPCs directly interact with PCs. When setting up an adventure, I put a lot of elements in it that I just do. It's my world. This is what happens. If the PCs change something, then other things happen. Making the world breathe does not mean rolling for every little detail. It means changing the details as time goes on based on the other things happening in the world.

You dodged my question though. if the situation was reversed, would you have made the players roll?

He purposely checked the interior of the ship once they were on it. No solution there. I do not just let entitled players get away with stuff just because they want to do so. His intent was fine, his implementation was totally flawed. Oh well. If a player would have said "Is there another way to check?", I would have give me an Int roll.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?365146-Does-RAW-have-a-place-in-5e/page20#ixzz3F24F9YDC

Yup, pixel bitching. He didn't say the magic words to unlock that plot path, so, too bad. I mean, if there were security cameras with evidence of tampering, where were the security guards whose job it is to watch those security cameras? We're not talking the camera in a 7/11, this is a space ship. Did the players even know there were video cameras? Was it even mentioned during the game?

You can call it serious problems with DM's all you like, but, I look at this as a pretty clear case of a DM screwing up and then blaming the player for his own mistakes.

Let me ask you this then. Would you make the same call again? Do you feel that this was the right call? Do you feel that there are no better calls you might have made?

 

[KarinsDad]

You dodged my question though. if the situation was reversed, would you have made the players roll?

Yup because PCs matter (to actual players) and NPCs are so many bits on a piece of paper.

At the power/skill levels of the PCs, this would have been a walk in the park though, just like it was for the skilled supervillain that did it.

Yup, pixel bitching. He didn't say the magic words to unlock that plot path, so, too bad. I mean, if there were security cameras with evidence of tampering, where were the security guards whose job it is to watch those security cameras? We're not talking the camera in a 7/11, this is a space ship. Did the players even know there were video cameras? Was it even mentioned during the game?

Doubtful. It has been a few years, so I do not remember all of the nit details.

And seriously, this was an extremely minor thing in the grand scheme of things going on.

Most of the middle of the United States was blacked out, all kinds of systems were running on backup power and reduced capability, many infrastructure systems were getting hacked into, supervillains were attacking and capturing superheroes in cities across the US (each of the PCs had been double teamed individually at the start of the adventure while separated, but they all managed to win their individual fights), supervillains were shooting military jets out of the sky, the authorities were having problems landing normal commercial planes, nobody knew which computer systems to trust and which not to trust. It was a very chaotic night. The US was under the worst attack in its history.

Supervillains had broken into Stronghold a few weeks earlier, broke everyone out, and it was all kept hush hush (it actually took the authorities days to even find out about it). This was not known by the general population until dozens and dozens of villains showed up all over the place.

The repercussions of the PCs not figuring this bomb out was that it took them longer to rescue the ISS crew. It was a likely outcome the entire time. It's not the DM screwing over the players. It's the scenario as written. One that they had a chance to modify, but missed. They modified a lot of other plot points. This was one little one which did not significantly affect the overall outcome. It modified some timelines, but it was no great shakes.

You can call it serious problems with DM's all you like, but, I look at this as a pretty clear case of a DM screwing up and then blaming the player for his own mistakes.

That's because you are a perfect DM sitting there in your armchair and the rest of us are not.

I know many dozens of players who would not even have broken a sweat over this. Possibly, you would have. That's what happens when players do not trust their DMs.

In the big scheme of things, this was one minor plot point out of many many many dozens. As a DM, I do not feel it is my responsibility to hold my players hands and give them enough clues until they finally figure each little item out. The scenario is as it is and the players come up with ideas on how to handle it, what to investigate, and so on. Their PCs have a ton of versatility. You seem to be of the school that PCs should be able to figure out everything and if they are not spoon fed enough info to get them to that point, it's bad DMing. Meh.

Let me ask you this then. Would you make the same call again? Do you feel that this was the right call? Do you feel that there are no better calls you might have made?

There are better calls. I am far from perfect. But this was not a terrible call. The other players did not think so.

 

[Hussar]

In the big scheme of things, this was one minor plot point out of many many many dozens. As a DM, I do not feel it is my responsibility to hold my players hands and give them enough clues until they finally figure each little item out. The scenario is as it is and the players come up with ideas on how to handle it, what to investigate, and so on. Their PCs have a ton of versatility. You seem to be of the school that PCs should be able to figure out everything and if they are not spoon fed enough info to get them to that point, it's bad DMing. Meh.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?365146-Does-RAW-have-a-place-in-5e/page21#ixzz3F2GNyH5z

As the DM, you are the imperfect window through which they view the entire world. If they miss some detail, that is at least partially your fault. The PC did something which had no chance of success, fair enough. But, how could he have known what else he could have tried? Obviously he, and no one else at the table, thought to look at the security cameras, yet, their super intelligent, Reed Richard's type character is only as smart as the player playing him?

I'm of the school of thought that says if I have a player blow a gasket and walk out of my game, I failed as a DM. Obviously, opinions differ.

 

[ExploderWizard]

As the DM, you are the imperfect window through which they view the entire world. If they miss some detail, that is at least partially your fault. The PC did something which had no chance of success, fair enough. But, how could he have known what else he could have tried? Obviously he, and no one else at the table, thought to look at the security cameras, yet, their super intelligent, Reed Richard's type character is only as smart as the player playing him?

I'm of the school of thought that says if I have a player blow a gasket and walk out of my game, I failed as a DM. Obviously, opinions differ.

If the players miss some detail because there was information which should have been available that the DM forgot to provide, then yes, it is a DM goof.

If the players HAVE all the relevant details but still don't put two and two together, then it is not the fault of the DM. The exception to this being that if the game comes to a grinding halt without other options then it would be the DMs fault for the poor design.

If a player blows a gasket and walks out of a game I was runing then I would ask the rest of the table if they thought it was my fault in whole or in part. Some people are simply unreasonable. If the majority of the table looked at me like it was my fault then it may be true. If the player who stormed out was getting the "you are crazy" stare from the other players, then why should the DM assume fault?

 

[KarinsDad]

As the DM, you are the imperfect window through which they view the entire world. If they miss some detail, that is at least partially your fault. The PC did something which had no chance of success, fair enough. But, how could he have known what else he could have tried? Obviously he, and no one else at the table, thought to look at the security cameras, yet, their super intelligent, Reed Richard's type character is only as smart as the player playing him?

While this is true, the window only shows them what the PCs are capable of seeing at the time they are looking. If they do not look in the proper direction, I'm not going to necessarily open the window wider or point to the area of importance. I do that on some occasions, but I do not think it is the DM's job to ensure that the players notice every little clue.

I do know of DMs who will not put a secret door in a dungeon unless they are positive that the PCs will find it. They figure, what's the point of having a secret door if the PCs don't find it? I'm not that type of DM. You find the secret door? Great. You don't? Great. There are more secret doors in the future. Very few things in my games hinge around the PCs being successful in gaining all or even most of the information.

I'm of the school of thought that says if I have a player blow a gasket and walk out of my game, I failed as a DM. Obviously, opinions differ.

If this was a reoccurring theme, I would agree with you. Over 35 years of DMing and it happened once. Sorry, this guy was a total prima donna jerk and it was not the only time he had a tissy (it was his most extreme tissy). I do not consider it failing if some guy takes his ball and goes home. He screwed over all of the players for a few hours. I have seen a player get frustrated now and then (I do myself once in a blue moon), but that's to be expected. This guy took it to a whole different level and I blame nobody but him. Some people are just screwy.

 

[Minigiant]

I game with my adult friends. I DM. I don't pour over their spell lists before we play, because I don't take the time. I generally trust them. My adult friends. I don't know what the crap they have prepared until they cast it, so I don't have my adjudications all prepped and ready to go.

But I do my best, and we all have a good time anyway.

Somehow.

Thaumaturge.

I also have a hairy beard.

I game with my adult friends, adult family, and nonadult family. I DM and play. But then I play I do look at what my players do with their PCs. I learn their likes and dislikes. Then I make sure the game fits their style if I intend on them staying. If a player wants to run a pyromancer, I jack up the fire resistant and fire vulnerable and make sense of it all (oh noes the fire guys and ice guys teamed up!).

I know my cousin like to play sneaky PCs and PCs who dual wield. So when I play with him I read the stealth rules and TWF rules. I told him how I'd rule stealth and invented a subclass just for him just to make both of us happy.

I know how my friend's fighter works. He has the great weapon feat and has the tendency of using the weapons of his enemies because that the PC's gimmick. So I have to decide how I will rule Polearm Master if he take it and uses one of the 3 magic glaives he has.

The DM has the final say and the ultimate responsibility. If you want a particular player to stay, you have to give them a glimpse of how you work and make sure they are happy with it. If you don't care if they leave, do whatever you want. But I find that understanding and informing your players before play causes you to have a low amount of interruptions and disagreements.

Heck. I've even seen players discuss in their planning how they expect me to rule for wonky RAW and weird RAI because they quickly know me so well (doesn't help them ).

 

[Elf Witch]

Look, I don't know the situation, because all I have to go on is what you've written here. But, going solely from what you've said, and nothing else, because I have no idea what else was going on, it looks like you prepared a fairly railroad situation - an unavoidable event that the players could not possibly counter with the idea that you were going to shine a spotlight on a specific player. This can work great and it can blow up in your face.
[MENTION=9037]Elf Witch[/MENTION] - the thing is, we really shouldn't focus on specific instances but on general behaviour. Yes, in any single instance, the group mind might be wrong, but, over the long term, if you find yourself at odds with your group frequently (and not at odds with simply one specific player) it really might not be them. If it's a problem with one player, then it's probably that player and not the DM. Could be simply a play style issue or it could be something larger, but, if the rest of the group isn't bitching, then likely it's simply a conflict between the DM and that one player.

If the players miss some detail because there was information which should have been available that the DM forgot to provide, then yes, it is a DM goof.

If the players HAVE all the relevant details but still don't put two and two together, then it is not the fault of the DM. The exception to this being that if the game comes to a grinding halt without other options then it would be the DMs fault for the poor design.

If a player blows a gasket and walks out of a game I was runing then I would ask the rest of the table if they thought it was my fault in whole or in part. Some people are simply unreasonable. If the majority of the table looked at me like it was my fault then it may be true. If the player who stormed out was getting the "you are crazy" stare from the other players, then why should the DM assume fault?

If it was one time then yeah you shouldn't focus on it but when it is more than it can become an issue. But I noticed you are really anti DM and tend to blame DMs. Group consensus does not necessary mean something is right.

The best way for a player who is always at odds with his DM and does not trust his DM to be fair is to walk out of the game. But many instead try and force the DM to change to their idea of how the game should run. That really bothers me if you don't like how the game is being run then don't play or even better DM your self. I have often noticed that some of the loudest and most complaining players have and won't DM.

I am not saying that DM should not listen and communicate with their players. They should but I still believe the final say should come from the DM on rules.

 

[KarinsDad]

The best way for a player who is always at odds with his DM and does not trust his DM to be fair is to walk out of the game. But many instead try and force the DM to change to their idea of how the game should run. That really bothers me if you don't like how the game is being run then don't play or even better DM your self.

The funny thing about this campaign was that I joined the group on week one, the DM ran an adventure, and then said he had personal problems and could not DM for a while. I took over DMing after a single session playing with these guys. None of them wanted to DM. I got to play my PC for one gaming session. They had a blog site and a lot of detail on old adventures and I tried to style my campaign around some of the things that happened in the past. But it was a bit daunting that this group of players could not come up with a DM who was real familiar with the campaign history. All of them wanted to play, none of them wanted to do the DMing work.

 

[prosfilaes]

Yup. Hindsight is so helpful.

Yes, the more you consider what you might have done better, the better you will be able to handle things in the future.