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

[Sadras]

But in any event, Gygax doesn't assume that the GM is the sole author of the ingame fiction. Here's one example, from his DMG (p 93):

Assume that the player in question decides that he will set up a stronghold about 100 miles from a border town, choosing an area of wooded hills as the general site. He then asks you if there is a place where he can build a small concentric castle on a high bluff overlooking a river. Unless this is totally foreign to the area, you inform him that he can do so.​

Collaboration happens, however the bolded part seems to be ignored by you, it requires DM approval at the end of the day.
I'm not sure why you seem to be insisting otherwise...

 

[Hussar]

Collaboration happens, however the bolded part seems to be ignored by you, it requires DM approval at the end of the day.
I'm not sure why you seem to be insisting otherwise...

Well, kinda sorta. The advice here is that unless there is some compelling reason not to, then the DM should say yes. And note, the location - 100 miles from a border town - isn't subject to the DM. He needs a bit more information about the area, but, if he had that information - say they had already scouted that location and knew there was a bluff there, then the DM wouldn't need to be consulted.

 

[pemerton]

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.

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.

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.

You pose the question "What else is the GM supposed to do?" and then ignore the answer I provided - use the system mechanics!

And it's not as if that answer is purely hypothetical - I've been running Classic Traveller that way, and there are other systems (some more modern than Traveller) that have even more elaborate social mechanics.

EDIT: noticed this in your post which hadn't registered the first time:

in this Duchess example the GM doesn't know what reaction the player is seeking

In my view nothing makes for crappier play than players not revealing what it is they're hopint to achieve via an action delcaration.

I'm looking for traps. I'm trying to kill the orc with my spear. I'm seeing if I can remove the door from its hinges. I pull out my wallet, hoping the clerk will accept the offer of a bribe. I want the Duchess to turn on her husband - so I'm going to tell her about the Duke's affair!

If the GM still isn't sure about what is intended, s/he can always ask!

 

[pemerton]

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

D&D keeps it simple

So the criterion is realism, except when it might contradict D&D rules, and then the criterion is simplicity?

If simplicity is the key, then it's simple to roll attack and damage together, and to allow the Shield spell to be declared in response to a hit even though the damage has been rolled.

(And to echo [MENTION=6688937]Ratskinner[/MENTION] - I think the "simplicity" of D&D is easily overstated.)

 

[pemerton]

Because the player is not the DM and cannot narrate the results.

This goes to the heart of your argument with [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION]. Where is this rule stated - that a player can't change the fiction?

 

[Sadras]

If simplicity is the key, then it's simple to roll attack and damage together, and to allow the Shield spell to be declared in response to a hit even though the damage has been rolled.

The ideal is not to have the foreknowledge of damage as that meta is likely to influence ones decision. By providing that information upfront you reduce the importance of the decision and by extension the fun IMO. The unknown variable provides a risk factor...

If someone casts a Sleep spell on you and rolled the sleep damage upfront, you would know if you would be affected and then it would be obvious if you should Counterspell or not. If the sleep damage is rolled only after you declined to Counterspell it makes for a more exciting resolution.

 

[pemerton]

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.

For me, the issue is not about whether or not a GM is playing a NPC "wrong". It's about who gets to influence the content of the fiction. In real life, people sometime act in surprising ways - surprising even to those who know them well. Sometimes people who seem unbreakable or incorruptible succumb to pressure, or to temptation.

This was at the heart of the debate in the Traveller thread I linked to upthread: if players want to influence a NPC, do they have to collect information about the NPC (= learn what ideas/plans the GM has for that NPC) which will tell them what is feasible; or can they declare actions which will then be resolved using the mechanics?

 

[Lanefan]

You pose the question "What else is the GM supposed to do?" and then ignore the answer I provided - use the system mechanics!

And it's not as if that answer is purely hypothetical - I've been running Classic Traveller that way, and there are other systems (some more modern than Traveller) that have even more elaborate social mechanics.

As I said before, the system mechanics can give you guidelines (if you need them, i.e. if you're not already well-versed enough in the character to know what its reacton would be) in terms of positive-negative or friendly-hostile but can't always give you the actual reaction particularly when there's more than one that'll fit the bill.

EDIT: noticed this in your post which hadn't registered the first time:

In my view nothing makes for crappier play than players not revealing what it is they're hopint to achieve via an action delcaration.

I'm looking for traps. I'm trying to kill the orc with my spear. I'm seeing if I can remove the door from its hinges. I pull out my wallet, hoping the clerk will accept the offer of a bribe. I want the Duchess to turn on her husband - so I'm going to tell her about the Duke's affair!

The first three of those are physical actions not involving inter-character roleplay. The fourth is a mess - the player is saying she's bribing the clerk without actually bribing the clerk; and were I the GM here my next words would be something like "Well - are you actually offering him a bribe (in which case say what your character would be saying) or are you just standing there wallet in hand, hoping he gets the hint?"

And the fifth one is badly done, IMO. The player and-or the PC in the fiction might want a particular outcome but the Duchess doesn't know what it is and thus there's no reason yet for the GM to know either. What the player has to do here is just play it out, hope for the best, and see what happens...just like it'd probably work in real life.

If the GM still isn't sure about what is intended, s/he can always ask!

In a case like this, where it's a PC and an NPC trying to roleplay off each other, it'd be best if neither the player nor the GM knew each other's intent going in and let the roleplay go where it may. In this instance the adage player knowledge = character knowledge should apply to the GM too!

 

[Lanefan]

So the criterion is realism, except when it might contradict D&D rules, and then the criterion is simplicity?

If simplicity is the key, then it's simple to roll attack and damage together, and to allow the Shield spell to be declared in response to a hit even though the damage has been rolled.

Doing things in retroactive response is the road to madness. This isn't M:tG (thank gawds), there's no "stack" for actions and reactions to go on (thank gawds), and the whole action-bonus-reaction business sails way too close to sorcery-instant-interrupt for my liking.

(And to echo [MENTION=6688937]Ratskinner[/MENTION] - I think the "simplicity" of D&D is easily overstated.)

Here I agree, but it's all relative. D&D could be made far more complicated if one wanted to do it, and sometimes has been in the past.

Lan-"that said, I confess to being mildly interested in what they do with Ravnica as a setting"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

For me, the issue is not about whether or not a GM is playing a NPC "wrong". It's about who gets to influence the content of the fiction.

Yet in the Duchess example the fictional content you're trying to influence is the roleplaying of an NPC - which in theory is supposed to be GM territory.

So I suppose I'd better ask, for clarity: do you agree or disagree that the roleplaying of NPCs is the purview of the GM?

This was at the heart of the debate in the Traveller thread I linked to upthread: if players want to influence a NPC, do they have to collect information about the NPC (= learn what ideas/plans the GM has for that NPC) which will tell them what is feasible; or can they declare actions which will then be resolved using the mechanics?

If the PCs want any hope of success beyond simple random chance they need to do both: get what info they can and then roleplay their interaction with the NPC(s) using that info where and how it best fits in order to sway the odds in their favour.

Which raises another angle to the Duchess-affair example that hasn't been touched on yet: did the player just pull this whole idea out of his hat on the spur of the moment, and completely invent the Duke-chambermaid affair just to see if he could cause a stir? Or did the player-as-PC actually have knowledge of such an affair ahead of time and-or had the player done any info-gathering regarding the Duchess' relationship with the Duke, etc., in order to try and assure she'd likely react as he hoped?