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

[Hussar]

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 not worth playing.

Well, there is some truth to that. If you run into a situation where there just is no possible compromise, then fair enough.

I was presuming here though that, since the player had been playing good characters, the player didn't hate playing good characters, but, rather that the player just wanted to try an evil character.

The whole point is, no one, not the DM nor the players, should feel compelled to play something they don't enjoy. The player, in this case, should simply default to the second choice - play a good character - and no harm, no foul. Obviously trying to compel you to run the game is wrong.

But, it is equally wrong for the DM to try to compel the players into playing something they don't want to play. In your case, the player had been playing good characters before, right? So, the player wasn't opposed to playing a good character - the player didn't hate playing good characters. At least, that's the assumption I'm working off of. Therefore, the player pitches his idea, learns that someone at the table hates that idea, and moves on. The same way that a DM should do the same thing. Pitch an idea, if someone at the table hates the idea, move on.

Again, I'm presuming everyone at the table is working in good faith to make the game the most fun it can be for everyone at the table. No one, ever, should be forced to play something they really don't like. And, holding play hostage (you either play what I want to play, or there's the door) is a terrible model for how to DM or play.

 

[Lanefan]

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

Is the first word here supposed to be "Who"? If yes, then it's referring to you the person who posted what I quoted. If no, then this sentence doesn't parse - please try again.

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.

Highly unlikely, I agree. Which leaves the GM, when pitched a curveball like this, in the rather common position of having to make something up on the fly. Nothing wrong here.

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.

What else is she supposed to do? She's been tossed a curveball and now she has to hit it; she has to come up on the spur of the moment with a reaction from the Duchess, at least vaguely in keeping with whatever personality had already been played and-or the GM had in mind for her.

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).

The reaction roll determines a general level of positivity/negativity and mostly stops there, leaving it up to the GM to play out whatever reaction the dice lead to. In the case of something with a clear-ish yes-no answer such as a business deal, it's fairly simple to see where it'll go, ditto for co-operation or even simple level of friendliness.

But in this Duchess example the GM doesn't know what reaction the player is seeking* when the PC whispers to the Duchess; and while a reaction roll or even a series of rolls can give an idea of how well/badly the Duchess takes this info and-or how much she's predisposed to like/dislike the PC who is doing the whispering, the GM still in the end almost certainly has to make something up.

* - unless the player has dropped out of first-person and meta-declared the intent.

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).

And still get a different result than desired, even if positive.

Player OOC: "For what I'm about to do next I'm using every bit of Liaison and Persuasion I've got."
Player-as-character: "As the Duchess greets me I gently pull her closer and whisper in her ear 'Just thought you should know, I have it on excellent authority that your husband's having it on with the chambermaid'."
DM OOC: OK, roll your <insert appropriate social check here>
Player OOC: "18 on the die, and I can put 3 more on to that for skill and charisma!"
DM: <rolls reaction check for Duchess, it's really good>
DM-as-Duchess: "She leans into you a little and whispers back 'I know, he and I have an open relationship. How about you; do you have plans for later tonight?'"

More later...

 

[Maxperson]

Though I understand that you are arguing that a GM's power requires a governing consent, I don't think that the absolute power of monarchs, for example, is measured by the (in)ability for its people to leave.

Peasants weren't even allowed to leave their local lord's land, let alone the country, and the merchants/nobles generally didn't have reason to leave.

It's almost as if this is actually the problemic issue(s) that I have been talking about all along.

There is no issue. If you don't like it and you're the DM, change it. If you don't like it and you're a player, go find a game where it doesn't happen. If you do like it keep it. At no time is it actually a problem unless the DM is abusing his authority, and then it's only a problem briefly as you leave the game.

 

[Lanefan]

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

A skilled combatant would have better odds of such, but not guaranteed.

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.

D&D keeps it simple, which does have its advantages. Otherwise you get into crazy silly M:tG territory:

Player: I'm declaring an attack. <pause>
Player: I'm targeting Tara. <pause>
Player: <rolls> I roll 17 to hit, plus 2. <pause>
Tara: I cast shield in reaction!
DM: Even after the shield, that roll is still good enough to hit.
Tara: I declare a parry! <pause>
Tara-ally: I interpose to take the blow!
DM: Roll for success on interposing
Tara-ally: I roll a 3, plus 4 for skill - not good enough.
DM: Anything else, Tara? <pause>
DM: Well, despite everything you and your friends can throw at it Tara, that attack still gets through.
Player: <rolls> Damage comes to 7.
Tara: <knocks over her mini to signify she's down>

This would be tedious in the extreme to go through for every attack. It also gives too many chances to react to things that might not be known in the fiction but must be declared at the table; e.g. the attacker could all along appear to be targeting Tara but at the very last second switch to someone else standing nearby, in order to fool defenders, but as the actual target has to be declared before reactions this becomes a useless tactic.

 

[Maxperson]

It's a page and a half on table rules, similar to [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]'s table rule that roll results are entered into the fiction as specific outcomes upon being announced. I'm not sure what you mean by "happen at the same time", but the table rule suggested by the DMG is for the two rolls to happen at the same time. Presumably, in the fiction an attack hits and does damage at the same time as well, but if it misses of course no damage is done, and the intent of shield is clearly to turn a hit rolled at the table into a miss in the fiction.

Doesn't change the fact that it's a house(table) rule to run it that way.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah, I'm thinking that there's a significant level of bad faith going on when people are ignoring actual dictionary definitions and then doubling down by making ridiculous claims that even the definitions that they chose to use don't even come close to supporting their point. While I agree that there is some onus on the person making the claim to make sure that their point is clearly made, there has to be some degree of responsibility on the other person's part to actually make an honest attempt to see the point being made instead of jumping off of ludicrous tangents just so they can "win" the argument.

You can evade all you want, but not only do I not have absolute power, I don't have ANY power over the players.

 

[Maxperson]

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).

That's a DM error. Once you to "The DM Narrates the Results," you've gone past the point where shield could be used. The DM should have just narrated the missiles heading towards the player and not rolled and narrated the damage until after the player decided to use the shield spell or not.

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.

Because the player is not the DM and cannot narrate the results. The player can only make the declaration. Once the DM narrates the result of the declaration, the archery will be resolved however the DM determined. In the first example, it was the DM performing the action(casting the magic missile) and then narrating the result(magic missiles striking for 11 damage).

 

[S'mon]

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
(a) a wide variety of reactions from the Duchess would be reasonable and thus 'fair' and
(b) There are several fair ways to adjudicate this. The GM could roll some sort of reaction check if he's not sure how the Duchess will react. Or he may have a good sense of the internal state of mind of the Duchess and thus know her reaction. He may be playing the Duchess in-character and have a sense of her much as a player does for their PC, so the reaction feels clear and natural to him. In the latter case where the Duchess is a well developed character, the insightful player who knows the NPC likely also has a good idea of how she'll react to the news.

If I'm playing eg Queen Malenn of Ahyf IMC, I 'know' who she is, I have a very strong sense of her personality and how she'll react. I'd be pretty flabbergasted if a player told me I was playing her wrong. If I'm playing a new/random NPC where I don't know anything about them I might roll some dice to see how they react & get a sense of their personality.

 

[S'mon]

There's too much going on in this to unpack it all. So I'll just say a couple of things.

(1) The only meaning of author stance that I'm familiar with is Ron Edwards':

In Author stance, a person determines a character's decisions and actions based on the real person's priorities, then retroactively "motivates" the character to perform them.​

This can be contrasted with actor stance:

In Actor stance, a person determines a character's decisions and actions using only knowledge and perceptions that the character would have.​

This is only a partial fit with how I remember Edwards describing actor stance and author stance in Sorcerer & Sword. He did (I thought) seem to be relating actor stance to immersion, to being the character, and author stance to playing the character from an outside perspective. But maybe I misremember; Edwards always had trouble with the idea of immersion even being possible.

Anyway, I like being immersed in the character, whether PC or NPC.

 

[Hussar]

You can evade all you want, but not only do I not have absolute power, I don't have ANY power over the players.

Well, other than the power to eject them at any point in time. Plus the power to dictate what classes/races/details of their characters they may take. Plus the power to dictate the entire world around their characters.

But, other than that...