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

[Satyrn]

Well, the intention of my question was to separate pet peeves from game breakers. There have been lots of threads about pet peeves and annoyances, but what DM behavior has actually made you quit a game.

I should have known my audience better. For many, they are the same thing.

It has been an interesting and good thread at times. It helps me to see what things actually cause people to leave, because maybe that'll show me how to retain players (although I don't actually have a player retention problem at the moment; my table is more committed to each other than many a married couple).

Ironically, despite saying this could be a learning experience for me, more than once somebody's game breaker has had me saying "hey, that's me," yet I haven't decided to change my ways.

 

[Lanefan]

Ironically, despite saying this could be a learning experience for me, more than once somebody's game breaker has had me saying "hey, that's me," yet I haven't decided to change my ways.

Ditto.

Further, more than once what would be a game breaker for someone else has been something I'd be very disappointed if it weren't in a game. Allowing evil PCs is one example.

 

[MNblockhead]

Ironically, despite saying this could be a learning experience for me, more than once somebody's game breaker has had me saying "hey, that's me," yet I haven't decided to change my ways.

I'm still fairly 'new' as a DM. After 1990, I didn't play any TTRPGs until 5e and even now I can only run a game about once per month. Now, its an 8-hour game each month, but most of my time is spent on familiarizing myself with the setting, adventure, likely encounters for the session, etc. So, I find these discussions useful. It was another thread on ENWorld that convinced me to ditch fumble rules, but we still use a critical hit deck (the one by Nord games), because the players enjoy it.

This discuss is useful but I've found that many of the complaints would not change my style but rather would lead to say "well, this isn't the game for you." I would say that a good percentage of 5e players would not like my current campaign. And, so long as I can find a group that does enjoy the campaign I'm running, that's fine.

 

[Oofta]

I'm still fairly 'new' as a DM. After 1990, I didn't play any TTRPGs until 5e and even now I can only run a game about once per month. Now, its an 8-hour game each month, but most of my time is spent on familiarizing myself with the setting, adventure, likely encounters for the session, etc. So, I find these discussions useful. It was another thread on ENWorld that convinced me to ditch fumble rules, but we still use a critical hit deck (the one by Nord games), because the players enjoy it.

This discuss is useful but I've found that many of the complaints would not change my style but rather would lead to say "well, this isn't the game for you." I would say that a good percentage of 5e players would not like my current campaign. And, so long as I can find a group that does enjoy the campaign I'm running, that's fine.

Do you use the critical hit deck for the monsters, or just the PCs? I've always ruled that what works for team PC also works for team monster.

But I do agree with [MENTION=6801204]Satyrn[/MENTION], some of the things mentioned are just falls under the category "No DM works for every person". Sometimes people leave the game, sometimes it's bad DMing **cough** crit by monsters means you lose a limb or your head **cough**, but sometimes it's just a difference of preferences. Hopefully people only leave my games because of the latter.

 

[Savevsdeath]

So very many:

-Not D&D, but wouldn't matter because i'd leave a D&D game like this, too - Chronicles of Darkness - The ST and one player were buddies who played everything together, so the one player who was his buddy had a character that dominated every single scene and was super-overpowered and got preferential treatment in every situation and was generally allowed to overrule everyone at the table.

-Mutants and Masterminds 3E. Once again, a spotlight hog who made the game all about her to the point of rewriting the history of an established setting, to the detriment of other players and even their established backstories.

-DM got me and several others roped in, then hit us with nonsensical houserules that nerfed core mechanics into the ground and was not at all open to reconideration, then threw a tantrum when everyone said 'this changes or we walk'. So..we walked, every player but one RL friend of his.


These are recent ones, but over the years i've stood up and left a lot of tables, usually because of a bad DM. Poor houseruling always puts me off in any game. In D&D specifically, random chargen of any kind is a no-go. Nonsensical bans on core stuff like races/classes without a campaign-specific reason are a no-go. General inflexibility and lack of creativity as a Dm is a no-go. Joke campaigns are a no-go. Dungeon crawls are a no-go. There's a list of things i just don't play with, that DM's still keep springing on me for some reason.

And despite all this, finding games and DM's to run them hasn't been super hard, though that is often because I DM a lot, myself. If anything, finding a game where i can play that cool character concept i want to try is the hard part - it took me ...a year and some change? to get a game that would allow Artificers.

 

[MNblockhead]

Do you use the critical hit deck for the monsters, or just the PCs? I've always ruled that what works for team PC also works for team monster.

Yep. I do. I also roll in the open, so when they see that 20, they know a card is going to be drawn. This was the players' idea by the way. We played around with crit decks on and off in my prior campaigns but on player request they are standard for my current campaign.

 

[MNblockhead]

Is there no discussion about the campaign before you started playing? No session zero? Much of what you list is common and more a matter of group preference than a "bad DM." The only thing that would make these due to "bad" DMing would be if the DM somehow misled you on what kind of campaign was being run.

These are recent ones, but over the years i've stood up and left a lot of tables, usually because of a bad DM. Poor houseruling always puts me off in any game. In D&D specifically, random chargen of any kind is a no-go.

Random character generation is not poor house-ruling. It is a valid character-creation option and one that many players prefer. With my players it was the opposite. I was only going to allow point buy but they strongly preferred to roll up their characters, which we did together as part of session zero. Outside of Adventurer's League, I would think rolling up characters to be very common if not the norm. Or is it just us old folk who still roll our own?

Nonsensical bans on core stuff like races/classes without a campaign-specific reason are a no-go.

I'm glad you included the caveat about needing a "campaign-specific reason." I've loosened up a great deal with this myself--made easier by switching to more of a kitchen-sink style campaign world. But there are still some races that seem like a bad fit and which the players themselves are not comfortable with. Also, there are some groups who want to stick with the classic non-monstrous races. Which is fine as long as it is all made clear up front. But not joining a campaign because you want to play a kobold is not the same as walking out on a campaign because of a poor DM. It just wasn't the kind of campaign you wanted to play in.

General inflexibility and lack of creativity as a Dm is a no-go.

I can understand this. As a DM, however, I have to say that this is an area I'm sensitive about. I haven't the time, skill, or natural talent of a Matt Mercer. Also, I see myself as one player in the game. I'm not there to provide entertainment. I'm there to enjoy a game with friends. Personally, outside of games played for an audience (e.g. podcasts and streams), how well a group of players "gell" is more important than how great of an improvisational artist the DM is.

Joke campaigns are a no-go.

So, I shouldn't invite you to play in one of my Paranoia games? Got it.
Again, this is more about knowing what kind of campaign you are joining. Most slapstick issues I've experienced comes from players joining a non-slapstick campaigns who want to make a joke out of everything. Again, that's just expectations out of alignment. That same player might be a great person to play with in a different campaign.

Dungeon crawls are a no-go.

Which is what I'm running now. Again, make sure you understand what kind of campaign is being run.

There's a list of things i just don't play with, that DM's still keep springing on me for some reason.

Probably because a good number of people like those things. Were these "sprung" on you in the middle of a campaign? Otherwise, it seems you joined a campaign without understanding what it involved.

 

[Lanefan]

These are recent ones, but over the years i've stood up and left a lot of tables, usually because of a bad DM. Poor houseruling always puts me off in any game. In D&D specifically, random chargen of any kind is a no-go. Nonsensical bans on core stuff like races/classes without a campaign-specific reason are a no-go. General inflexibility and lack of creativity as a Dm is a no-go. Joke campaigns are a no-go. Dungeon crawls are a no-go. There's a list of things i just don't play with, that DM's still keep springing on me for some reason.

No dungeon crawls? Not even as a chapter within a larger campaign? That rules out a huge amount of pre-published adventure options for your DM, thus making her do more work as she now has to write more of her own.

So I should ask: what sort of campaign do you want?

And further to my point a few posts above about how some things can be deal-breakers either way: I'd look rather sourly on a game that did not have random char-gen and it'd take a lot of persuasion to make me stay aboard.

 

[Grainger]

I did the critical failure thing for one session - well, half a session - using the Pathfinder critical fumble deck, which I picked up with thevCritical hit deck because I figured they'd complement each other. Each card in the decks had different effects based on whether the attack was melee, ranged, magical or something else I can't remember.

Then, right after introducing the decks to the game, the wizard player had at least 3 fumbled spells in one combat. That was bad enough, made far worse because the effects produced by a randomly drawn card were, of course, random and did not relate at all to the wizard's spells. I dropped the idea fast.

Dice-rolling is fun, but I think D&D players can get too in love with the dice, and think rampant randomness is automatically going to give fun results. Well, I suppose it might for some players, but I think in general maximising randomness is overrated.

 

[Grainger]

This discuss is useful but I've found that many of the complaints would not change my style but rather would lead to say "well, this isn't the game for you." I would say that a good percentage of 5e players would not like my current campaign. And, so long as I can find a group that does enjoy the campaign I'm running, that's fine.

I'm like that too. I try to make it fun for my players, and am flexible, but there are certain things I won't do. I dislike "kitchen sink" fantasy settings (e.g. just pick a rough time period and stick to it) and I will not use minis or the grid to handle combats. They're kind of my red lines. However, other than that, I tailor my campaign so that it involves things my players will enjoy.