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

[Satyrn]

Or to summarize it more succinctly... Someone brings up a play style (or component thereof) and decides to add that unless you play this way (or with these procedures) you are a bad DM... thread explodes.

IOW, since its very premise is to describe DMing horrendous enough to drive away a player, this thread was doomed from the start.

 

[Imaro]

IOW, since its very premise is to describe DMing horrendous enough to drive away a player, this thread was doomed from the start.

Pretty much... especially when the question is left open enough as to be a justification for listing anything a DM does that I personally don't like or agree with.

 

[Lanefan]

In other words, I don't play RPGs to describe what I want my PC to do. I play RPGs to (among other things) describe what my PC is doing.

Except that, as others have pointed out, describing what you want to do is as far as a player can go.

Now it's true that describing what you want to do and describing what you're doing can and often do sound just the same at the table; but when you-as-player say in character "I'm walking across the room and opening the door" what you're really saying is "I want to walk across the room and then I want to open the door", and if there's no impediment to either of those actions the DM will likely just say something like "OK. Opening the door reveals a short passage behind, that opens out into a room or chamber after about 10 feet."

But if there is an impediment to doing what you want e.g. a pit trap in the floor, or the door is locked, then the exchange boils down to Player: "I want to..." DM: "You can't, and here's why".

Put another way, "describ[ing] what my PC is doing" fairly strongly implies that nothing in the fiction can or will change this; and that success is a fait accompli. No. Saying "I'm jumping across the stream" (implying auto-success) really means "I'm trying to jump across the stream" (implying success is not guaranteed).

These are trivial examples, to be sure, in attempts to call out and challenge the overarching philosophy or attitude in the quoted statement: "I play RPGs to describe...what my PC is doing" carries a heavy undertone of "and the fiction can't stop me"; as opposed to "I play RPGs to describe what I want my PC to do" which carries the much more reasonable and realistic tone of "if the fiction will let me".

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

uhh... FWIW... regarding magic missiles, time travel shield spells and counterspells dancing on the head of an ettin - maybe we are alone in seeing it this way - but the "fiction" of events is based on the final results of what happens - so the fiction behind a magic missile vs shield spell would be "Celeste shielded off the lamia's magic missiles and then..." or for counter spell the "fiction" would be "Celeste countered tha lamia's magic missiles, unravelling the weave of the lamia's inferior magic even as it took shape - enraging the lamia even further." " while the case of magic missile hits would be more like "the lamia conjures three, no four, vicious darts that unerringly struck home and Celeste shuddered with pain."

The intervening steps in the resolution of an action-reaction sequence are not seen as actual fiction until they become final and resolved. In a more cinematic sense - the fiction is what is seen on the screen at the end, not the many different bits and rewrites and improvs and cuts and re-shoots and bloopers and edits (aka the mechanics process) that went into that scene as finally depicted.

thus we avoid some of these serious quandries.

If one accepts that the fiction all kind of resolves as a block after the mechanics are all dealt with, then what you say is true.

But if you want to have the fiction resolve side-along with the mechanics such that at any point in the mechanical resolution you can line up the fiction to suit it, then what you say just doesn't fly.

Put another way: instead of a movie shoot where you get edits and reshoots and clips, think of it as more analagous to improv theater where you only get one shot at it and there ain't no going back.

 

[pemerton]

If one accepts that the fiction all kind of resolves as a block after the mechanics are all dealt with, then what you say is true.

But if you want to have the fiction resolve side-along with the mechanics such that at any point in the mechanical resolution you can line up the fiction to suit it, then what you say just doesn't fly.

It's one thing to have preferences. It's a different thing to interpret a game system. Clearly 5e works more like [MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION] describes than as you might wish that it did.

Except that, as others have pointed out, describing what you want to do is as far as a player can go.

This is a little ironic given your other post that I've quoted! Because here you're saying that, in fact, the fiction does not unfold over the course of play, but is only established "as a block" when the GM decides what happens.

Now it's true that describing what you want to do and describing what you're doing can and often do sound just the same at the table; but when you-as-player say in character "I'm walking across the room and opening the door" what you're really saying is "I want to walk across the room and then I want to open the door", and if there's no impediment to either of those actions the DM will likely just say something like "OK. Opening the door reveals a short passage behind, that opens out into a room or chamber after about 10 feet."

In your example, how did it become true in the fiction that the PC walked across the room? The player's action declaration - according to you - didn't bring that about. But the GM hasn't said anything about it - in your example, the GM is taking for granted that the PC has crossed the room and is now at the door.

But if there is an impediment to doing what you want e.g. a pit trap in the floor, or the door is locked, then the exchange boils down to Player: "I want to..." DM: "You can't, and here's why".

In my experience, it would actually be like the following:

Player: I cross the room to the door.

GM: As you're half-way across the room, you fall into a pit!​

In other words, it's the player who makes it the case that the PC moves across the room. What the mechanism is that leads the GM to say what s/he does is a further question (eg is it the result of a failed check by the player; or the GM reading off his/her dungeon notes; or the GM making something up on the spur of the moment because it will be fun; or . . .).

Put another way, "describ[ing] what my PC is doing" fairly strongly implies that nothing in the fiction can or will change this; and that success is a fait accompli. No. Saying "I'm jumping across the stream" (implying auto-success) really means "I'm trying to jump across the stream" (implying success is not guaranteed).

These are trivial examples, to be sure, in attempts to call out and challenge the overarching philosophy or attitude in the quoted statement: "I play RPGs to describe...what my PC is doing" carries a heavy undertone of "and the fiction can't stop me"; as opposed to "I play RPGs to describe what I want my PC to do" which carries the much more reasonable and realistic tone of "if the fiction will let me".

You seem to be ignoring action resolution. In my experience that's a fairly important part of playing a RPG.

 

[pemerton]

Or to summarize it more succinctly... Someone brings up a play style (or component thereof) and decides to add that unless you play this way (or with these procedures) you are a bad DM... thread explodes.

Just to be clear: I posted about some experiences that had caused me to leave games. [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] and others then posted to say that I was wrong in my view that those experiences were examples of bad GMing, and that I did the wrong thing in leaving those games.

So I think you've got it slightly backwards - I've been told I'm not doing my duty as a RPG player because I don't want to play with (what I regard as) bad GMs who produce crappy play experiences.

Pretty much... especially when the question is left open enough as to be a justification for listing anything a DM does that I personally don't like or agree with.

I don't see what's wrong with that. As per the OP, this thread is about experiences of bad GMing that have led a player to leave a game. Of course people are going to post about what they don't like!

 

[pemerton]

There is nothing that cannot or must be done, since the DM has the authority to change any rule he likes.

<snip>

Rules that the DM is at liberty to change as he sees fit. So he is at liberty to declare that the spell has no effect, if that's what he wants to do. Why doesn't the DM do that? The social contract.

As I said, this is the crappiest approach to RPGing I can imagine. Fortunately, 5e doesn't mandate it. The Basic PDF doesn't state it or even imply it. The only edition of D&D that I'm aware of that comes close to this in its rules is 2nd ed AD&D, but I don't think even it comes out and says this quite so bluntly.

 

[Hussar]

Those two if's are incorrect, though.

There is nothing that cannot or must be done, since the DM has the authority to change any rule he likes. So there is no outcome of declared actions that are not at all at the discretion of the DM

/snip
Rules that the DM is at liberty to change as he sees fit. So he is at liberty to declare that the spell has no effect, if that's what he wants to do. Why doesn't the DM do that? The social contract.

So, the DM has the authority to change any rule he likes but, really can't because that would violate the social contract.

What's your point then? Does it really matter what the authority is when, in play, using that authority is considered bad play? IOW, saying "must" is a pretty accurate description of what's actually going on at the table. Bringing in "Well, DM's have authority to change any rule" is just a red herring that adds nothing to the conversation.

 

[Hussar]

Or to summarize it more succinctly... Someone brings up a play style (or component thereof) and decides to add that unless you play this way (or with these procedures) you are a bad DM... thread explodes.

Funny, the only, ONLY thing that I've claimed was bad DMing was booting a player for not wanting to play a specific campaign. But, hey, feel free to imply that the problem is the other side is unreasonable.

Other than that one specific example, show me where I've, or anyone else for that matter, has claimed that forcing a DM to play a certain way makes one a bad DM.

And, yup, I'll stand by the statement that booting a player just so you can play your pet campaign is a pretty bad thing to do.

 

[Maxperson]

As I said, this is the crappiest approach to RPGing I can imagine. Fortunately, 5e doesn't mandate it. The Basic PDF doesn't state it or even imply it. The only edition of D&D that I'm aware of that comes close to this in its rules is 2nd ed AD&D, but I don't think even it comes out and says this quite so bluntly.

First, no edition mandates anything. That's the whole point of the DM being able to change anything and everything. Second, invest in a PHB and I guess now a DMG. The 5e DMG is all about the game being the DMs, and the rules serving the DM, not the other way around(which means he isn't bound to any), and so on. So while 5e does not mandate it, it is the default.