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

[Hussar]

Why is that player able to force his or her ideas on the group to the point that the others don't get to play what they really want to?

I'm a little confused on how you consider it selfish on the part of the DM to choose to run a game he, along with every other player except one, want to play but for some reason you don't consider it just as selfish, if not more, for a single player to eliminate a certain type of game from ever being played by the group because they don't like it. To take another example... If everyone in the group enjoys running/playing horror games but a single player doesn't like them... how is it not selfish on his/her part to basically ban horror games from ever being played vs. sitting a single run of a horror game out or finding a group that similarly has no interest in horror games? Is it a "good DM" who allows a single player's preferences to minimize the groups fun? Am I missing something here?

Here's another perspective... if I as a player am in a group and we all discuss playing a horror game and everyone is good with it except player X who states they don't like horror games and won't play them... am I a bad player for leaving said group if I find one that will run Unknown Armies, Call of Cthulhu, Chill and Vampire? Are they a bad player for putting me in the position of having to make that choice? Was the DM a bad or good DM for letting one player's preferences dictate that for the entire group?

Because, the difference is (and this should answer [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION] as well) I'm saying that no one, player or DM, should be told that they should play something they don't like or leave the group. At no point is anyone being told to play something they don't want to play. Now, this presumes that players or DM's have broader tastes and that means that there are other options to choose from.

You want to be able to tell a DM that he or she must run a horror game for you even when they don't want to? You are a bad player. You want to be able to tell your players that you are going to run a horror game even when you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that at least one of your players hates horror? You are a bad DM. There's no difference AFAIC.

Why would you pitch ideas that you know at least someone at the table hates?

Even in the whole Backgrounding thing, it's still not forcing anyone to do anything. The exact opposite in fact. If X is backgrounded, then no one at the table has to do anything. No one is being forced into playing stuff they don't enjoy and the DM doesn't create materials and situations that he knows that the player won't enjoy.

But, I guess that's what it comes down to. I wouldn't pitch ideas to a group where I knew that one of the players would automatically hate. I value my players more than that. My players are not disposable. My play preferences don't trump my players. Just because I like pineapple on my pizza doesn't mean that I will only eat pineapple pizza and tell everyone who comes to my house that they can only eat pineapple pizza just because it's my house.

I like all sorts of pizza. If my friends don't happen to like a Hawaiian pizza, well, I value their company more so, I'll eat a different sort of pizza. Not a problem. No one is getting told, do this or out the door you go.

Obviously, others feel differently. Their players are disposable and only present so long as their preferences happen to line up with the DM's. And apparently being DM means that it's perfectly okay to force my preferences on the group. Just to roll this all the way back to the beginning of this very long thread - it's all about your ego.

 

[Hussar]

Wow, En World is not loving this thread. I keep getting redirect errors.

I think one of the fundamental differences here is how many DM's do you have at your table. Of the six at mine, 4 (including myself) DM on a pretty regular basis. If I pitched a game that one player hated, someone else would just pitch a game that everyone liked and we'd play that. There's no real option here to boot a player for not wanting to play something. We'd rather just play a different game that everyone buys into.

 

[Lanefan]

Well, the all caps thing ALMOST convinced me. But all you did was swap player statement of "I want to play a campaign with evil PCs" with "I want to play a campaign with good PCs".

There's no difference. The player I was referring to had played with our group for a couple of years and wanted to play a campaign where evil PCs were allowed. I said no. I don't see a reason to let one player dictate the campaign. I try to run campaigns that everyone enjoys but ultimately you can't please everyone.

Take a different scenario. When I DM I'm good at improv and like to have over-arching stories going on (that the PCs may or may not influence). Basically, the world is a living, breathing place that the PCs can help shape and influence but there will always be other things big and small going on. But I had a guy that wanted to have their PC "go to a bar and see what happens". I'm still not sure what they were looking for other than for their PC to run up a bar tab, or perhaps they only wanted to do dungeon crawls. I'm still not sure.

My guess is that it was done in hopes that an adventure/story hook would drift by that he could bite on. I've many times done pretty much just the same thing in one form or another.

And the resulting adventure doesn't necessarily have to be a dungeon crawl.

As a DM, I run game I will enjoy running. I don't force players to do anything (although I do limit some options that I'm clear on up front) and I try to make reasonable allowances for my players. But ultimately if I'm not invested in a campaign, I'm not going to be a good DM.

If I'm not invested in a campaign I'm not going to be its DM at all before long.

Lan-"my current theory is that we all largely run games we'd like to play in"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

I think one of the fundamental differences here is how many DM's do you have at your table. Of the six at mine, 4 (including myself) DM on a pretty regular basis. If I pitched a game that one player hated, someone else would just pitch a game that everyone liked and we'd play that. There's no real option here to boot a player for not wanting to play something. We'd rather just play a different game that everyone buys into.

I currently have 4 players. One is the DM I learned from, and in whose game I still play. Two others have very briefly tried DMing in the past and that's it. The fourth has never DMed at all.

But that said, we're not really into this whole "game-pitching" thing. We use one rules system; and while some of us pay more or less attention to some others, what's the point of everyone learning more systems if one is all we need. And, we run in cycles - sometimes we have more available players than we know what to do with while at other times a new campaign can't start due to no-one being available to play in it and-or there not being enough useful nights in the week.

 

[Hussar]

I currently have 4 players. One is the DM I learned from, and in whose game I still play. Two others have very briefly tried DMing in the past and that's it. The fourth has never DMed at all.

But that said, we're not really into this whole "game-pitching" thing. We use one rules system; and while some of us pay more or less attention to some others, what's the point of everyone learning more systems if one is all we need. And, we run in cycles - sometimes we have more available players than we know what to do with while at other times a new campaign can't start due to no-one being available to play in it and-or there not being enough useful nights in the week.

And hey, totally fair. Real life and all that gets in the way of gaming. Totally get that. And, since you have a group that has played together for some time, you presumably enjoy playing together and know each other's tastes. But, noticeably absent from your "can't start" is "Well, we started a game, but, the DM I learned from didn't play because I didn't invite him because I know he'd hate the game."

Another major issue, I think, is how many times do you game? I only get to play once a week. I've got my three hour time blocked off and jealously guarded. I've had to fight tooth and nail just to get that time. So, if I don't play at that time, I don't play period. The notion of the DM telling me, "Well, I'm going to run this game you will hate, so, too bad" really doesn't fly in our group. Like I said, when someone did pitch a game that I didn't want to play in, and I quite honestly and earnestly said that I'd take a break so they could play what they wanted to, the group as a group said, no, we either play together or we don't play.

To me, that level of loyalty and friendship is worth a HELL of a lot more than being able to run some idea that I have.

 

[pemerton]

Imagine a context where the GM says "It's the NPCs mage's turn. <rolls some dice> Tara, you take 11 hp from magic missiles!" That would not be atypical in D&D play, at least as I've experienced it. Presumably it doesn't preclude Tara's player declaring a Shield spell. Or an Uncanny Dodge.

And in the instant the DM says that, the result in the fiction is magic missiles streaking from the NPC to the PC, striking him for damage. Exactly how, other than to rewind time, does the shield spell help the PC? The damage has already been done.

But it's simply not true that, the instant the GM says that, the result in the ficiton is magic missile streaking from the NPC to the PC. That's a "rule" that you're making up - and clearly it's not a rule that is consistent with the 5e rules, precisely because it can't accommodate pretty mundane features of those rules (like the Shield spell).

Here's another, equally banal, example: a player delcares "I draw my sword!"

The GM happens to know that their are hidden archers who are ready to shoot as soon as someone's hand touches the hilt of their blade.

How to resolve that situation may be up for grabs and also may depend heavily on the context - the archery might be resolved as a readied action, or perhaps there is a check for surprise, or perhaps the GM calls for initiative rolls - but what is clear is that the player declaration, in those circumstances, doesn't ipso facto bring it about that the PC's sword is drawn.

The whole point of RPG mechanics is to mediate between statements of intention about the content of the shared fiction, and actual consensus on what content is. And a game with player-side interrupts - such as 5e - makes it especially obvious that that applies to the GM as much as to other participants.

 

[Oofta]

My guess is that it was done in hopes that an adventure/story hook would drift by that he could bite on. I've many times done pretty much just the same thing in one form or another.

And the resulting adventure doesn't necessarily have to be a dungeon crawl.

Great theory but I threw all sorts of hooks his way. He took great joy in rejecting them all. Eventually I would just throw things his way knowing he would not want to follow up on things so I didn't even bother prepping anything.

I think part of it was that he somehow thought I had everything pre-planned and was secretly railroading the game when I was just good at adjusting things on the fly. In any case, the moral of the story is that not all games work for all people.

 

[Oofta]

Because, the difference is (and this should answer @Oofta as well) I'm saying that no one, player or DM, should be told that they should play something they don't like or leave the group. At no point is anyone being told to play something they don't want to play. Now, this presumes that players or DM's have broader tastes and that means that there are other options to choose from.

You want to be able to tell a DM that he or she must run a horror game for you even when they don't want to? You are a bad player. You want to be able to tell your players that you are going to run a horror game even when you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that at least one of your players hates horror? You are a bad DM. There's no difference AFAIC.

Why would you pitch ideas that you know at least someone at the table hates?

Even in the whole Backgrounding thing, it's still not forcing anyone to do anything. The exact opposite in fact. If X is backgrounded, then no one at the table has to do anything. No one is being forced into playing stuff they don't enjoy and the DM doesn't create materials and situations that he knows that the player won't enjoy.

But, I guess that's what it comes down to. I wouldn't pitch ideas to a group where I knew that one of the players would automatically hate. I value my players more than that. My players are not disposable. My play preferences don't trump my players. Just because I like pineapple on my pizza doesn't mean that I will only eat pineapple pizza and tell everyone who comes to my house that they can only eat pineapple pizza just because it's my house.

I like all sorts of pizza. If my friends don't happen to like a Hawaiian pizza, well, I value their company more so, I'll eat a different sort of pizza. Not a problem. No one is getting told, do this or out the door you go.

Obviously, others feel differently. Their players are disposable and only present so long as their preferences happen to line up with the DM's. And apparently being DM means that it's perfectly okay to force my preferences on the group. Just to roll this all the way back to the beginning of this very long thread - it's all about your ego.

But there are just some people who want to play a game (or an evil character in my case) that is just incompatible with the type of game the DM wants to run. I don't view my players as disposable or replaceable, but I have limited time to game and at a certain point I simply can't cater to everyone. I explain to people that are interested in my game my general style and I'm very up front about what kind of campaigns I run. That I'm open to feedback and suggestions but that I prefer the PCs to be the heroes of the story, not "edgy/dark anti-heroes". In addition just because someone isn't interested in my campaign, doesn't mean they aren't welcome to come over for board game night or that I think any less of them.

When we discuss the campaign we're going to run we bounce around ideas, but ultimately as a DM I have to be inspired and have a vision so that I can paint the world as a living vibrant place. A player can have a PC that's little more than stats on a page and still be fun to play with. But if the campaign doesn't motivate the DM I don't think it's worth playing.

 

[pemerton]

The duchess in this scenario is an NPC, right? That puts her reaction to this news squarely under the purview of the GM, who plays all NPCs, right?

The duchess could slap the duke and make a scene; or she could wink and reply "I know. It was my idea."; or she could run away crying; or she could have the guards forcibly escort you from the premises; or she could put on a brave face and carry on with the party. Or any of a bunch of other possible reactions. Just because you don't get the particular reaction you're hoping for doesn't give you any reason to be skeptical of your GM.

Why do you think the world "you" refers to in your sentence?

Here is what I am sceptical of: that there is such a thing as farily refereeing the Duchess's reaction, which is comparable to fairly refereeing the result of poking a stone with a 10' pole. I think the reason is obvious, but in case it's not I'll spell it out: the reactions of stones to being poked are fairly simple, fairly obvious, and - once the size and position of the stone are known - generally agreed upon. Adjudication of dungeoneering depends upon this fact - we all know that poked stones will move (if they are mobile and not too big) and thereby fall to the floor, trigger traps, etc.

Whereas the reactions of people given bad news about their intimate relationships are incredibly complex and very hard to predict even for those with a rich knowledge of the person and the circumstances, and (unlike the case with stones) it is highly unlikely that any GM's notes contain that sort of rich information. Thus, the GM deciding that the Duchess does X rather than Y is not a case of the GM fairly adjudicating the fiction. It's a case of the GM unilaterally deciding how the fiction shall unfold.

Telling me that the Duchess is a NPC doesn't give me any reason to want to GM a game in this fashion, nor to play in a game GMed in this fashion. And - unsurprisingly - RPGs have had devices to take this sort of decision-making out of the exclusive hands of the GM from the very beginning. Consider reaction rolls. Classic Traveller (Book 3, p 22, 1978 printing of 1977 edition) says the following:

When non-player characters are encountered, their reactions will dictate their activity in terms of business deals, violence, assistance, charity, cooperation and a number of other actions. When an encounter occurs, throw two dice and consult the reaction table. . . .

DMs [= dice modifiers] can and should be created to deal with specific situations . . .

Reactions are used by the referee and by players as a guide to the probable actions of individuals. They may be used to determine the response of a person to business offers or deals . . .​

The rules don't expressly address what happens if a PC reveals to a NPC that her husband is having an affair, but they are easily extrapolated to deal with that case: the better the reaction roll, the closer the reaction of the NPC to that which the player hoped for (that being analogous to agreeing to a business offer or deal, or otherwise cooperating). And the player can also attempt to influence the roll with appropriate DMs, whether established by skilled play of the fiction (buttering up the Duchess) or by pointing to appropriate skills (in this context, Carousing and Liaison would both seem apposite) or other attributes (eg Social Standing).

if a player declares a readied action along the lines of "I leap in front of any attack against Tara that seems likely to do more than simply scratch her" I don't think the 5e rules provide any easy way to resolve that. Because we can't tell whether or not the attack is likely to do more than simply scratch Tara until we see the to hit and damage roll. At which point the "after the trigger has finished" rule suggests that Tara has been struck by the attacker and suffered the consequences of that.

To me this just means that Tara's defender simply has to (oh, the horrors!) guess which potential attack to leap in front of, with said guess most likely based on noticing someone targeting Tara before the to-hit roll even happens, and thus might guess wrong. This is realistic

Is it? Or is it realistic that a skilled combatant can recognise which attacks that are targetting Tara pose a real threat?

As I said, there are other systems where the threat that the attack poses to Tara can be known after the target is declared but before the dice are rolled - eg because there is the intermediate stage of putting dice into a pool; or because a successful roll to attack doesn't move straight on to damage but triggers a parry or dodge reaction, which the readied defence could contribute to. That D&D has no such stage is an oddity of its mechanics, and nothing to do with what is or isn't realistic.

 

[pemerton]

GMing is much harder than playing, after all

That's not my experience at all!