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

[MNblockhead]

We didn't walk out, but the group did unanimously vote to end the DMs game in favor of starting mine well before I was actually ready to run it. That was...interesting. Also a little annoying, but also it needed to be done, because the DM was so bad that in a month or two it would have torn the group apart; already had two players who stopped coming because it was so bad.

Wow. What made the DM so bad that made such an ego-crushing intervention was required? How did s/he take it? Offended or relieved to have the burden removed?

 

[MNblockhead]

I have a rule of thumb when it comes to sticking around in a game: We have to Get Stuff Done. It has to be funny.

Hmm, for me, I'd drop the "ny" at the end of that sentence. For a game to be fun it doesn't have to be funny. Also, one of my pet peeves is players or GMs that try to make everything a joke, especially if they are not good at it. Slap-stick gaming works better in some systems than others. For example, most Paranoia games end up on the slapstick side of things and may become frustrating if players take things too seriously. But that style of game would run, say, Curse of Strahd for me. There is room for humor in any game, but it ruins immersion for me if everyone is thumbing their nose and farting at dragons. I love Monty Python and the holy grail as much as the next nerd, but I don't always want to play in that kind of world.

 

[Gradine]

So I kind of agree with both Celebrim and Iserith here, in that what Iserith is describing is a viable (and one could argue subjectively preferable) style of play, but there was nothing really preventing it from being the style of play in 3.X or 4e nor is it explicitly codified within 5th edition. Again, my own experience DMing is mostly with newer players, so they often have to be reminded and prodded that they have proficiency in History or that they can check for traps walking down a hallway.

Where I lean more towards the Celebrim (and, it seems, the thread consensus) is treating calling for checks in any way as a deal breaker, which does strike me as a little strange, but hey, don't let me (or anyone else) yuck your yum dude. I would not, however, classify it in anyway as "bad" DM behavior.

 

[iserith]

Hmm, for me, I'd drop the "ny" at the end of that sentence. For a game to be fun it doesn't have to be funny. Also, one of my pet peeves is players or GMs that try to make everything a joke, especially if they are not good at it. Slap-stick gaming works better in some systems than others. For example, most Paranoia games end up on the slapstick side of things and may become frustrating if players take things too seriously. But that style of game would run, say, Curse of Strahd for me. There is room for humor in any game, but it ruins immersion for me if everyone is thumbing their nose and farting at dragons. I love Monty Python and the holy grail as much as the next nerd, but I don't always want to play in that kind of world.

Yeah, I don't try to take D&D too seriously. It's inherently silly in my view, both as a genre and as an activity. Curse of Strahd for me looks like a B horror movie, not some sweeping gothic tale. More Evil Dead than serious horror. Serious moments can arise in our games, but they are rare and arguably more impactful as a result.

I'm okay with a game that isn't funny, but where we get a lot of content covered in a session. That strikes me as a good enough game.

 

[Shiroiken]

Oddly enough, I've usually left only because of the other players, and seldom because of the DM. Of course, I've quit quite a few games as the DM due to players too. I suppose the few campaigns I left because of the DM were due to a difference of style.

One DM (who also periodically played in my games) liked the Dragonball Z style of gaming, where everything was BIG (things like +100 to hit and damage, but everything had way more HP and crazy AC). Mechanically it worked out very close to the standard game, but it just felt wrong to me.

Another DM liked using solo monsters (3.5E), but "cheated" like a fiend. We took down a troll at first level, with no one dying (or even dropping to negative HP). If a combat was too hard or too easy, he'd simply adjust everything on the fly, making many combats come out feeling the same. While I accept it's within his authority to do so, it just wasn't my kind of game.

I did play a game back in college where the DM's girlfriend was in the game, and he had a DMPC. Of course they were lovers, and the stars of the game. I was young and wanted to play, so I put up with it, but I wouldn't do so today.

 

[iserith]

So I kind of agree with both Celebrim and Iserith here, in that what Iserith is describing is a viable (and one could argue subjectively preferable) style of play, but there was nothing really preventing it from being the style of play in 3.X or 4e nor is it explicitly codified within 5th edition.

It's right in the section called "How to Play." The DM describes the environment. The players describe what they want to do. (The DM might call for a check at this point or might not.) The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions. Repeat, for every single kind of scene in the game. It doesn't say to call for a check before the players describe what they want to do because maybe the DM might describe the environment differently then.

Nobody has to play that way, but I do. Perhaps not surprisingly, the game runs very smoothly as a result.

Again, my own experience DMing is mostly with newer players, so they often have to be reminded and prodded that they have proficiency in History or that they can check for traps walking down a hallway.

I DM for new players in one-shots, too. I just ask them to tell me what they want to do (per How to Play). I'll take care of the rest.

Where I lean more towards the Celebrim (and, it seems, the thread consensus) is treating calling for checks in any way as a deal breaker, which does strike me as a little strange, but hey, don't let me (or anyone else) yuck your yum dude. I would not, however, classify it in anyway as "bad" DM behavior.

To be clear, calling for checks when I haven't even described an action for my character is the deal breaker. It's bad in my view because not only does it mean the DM has not read or internalized the section on "How to Play," which seems pretty fundamental to playing a game of any sort, it means the DM is not even aware what calling for an ability check necessarily establishes - that my character has done something with an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence of failure. Something that I haven't been given an opportunity to describe or otherwise establish, which means the DM is effectively playing my character for me.

To be even clearer, my position is not some principle that I apply to all games as Celebrim has suggested. In fact, such a suggestion completely misunderstands the underlying notion that each game should be, in my view, be played differently according to their rules and procedures. This is simply what is called for in D&D 5e. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[iserith]

Oddly enough, I've usually left only because of the other players, and seldom because of the DM. Of course, I've quit quite a few games as the DM due to players too. I suppose the few campaigns I left because of the DM were due to a difference of style.

Good observation. I too have probably left more games because of the other players than the DM. I've been very lucky with players in my own games though so I've never had to quit on them. Some pickup groups (I've run for hundreds of players on Roll20) have been better than others, but nobody was ever so bad that I couldn't continue DMing for them or had to give them the boot.

 

[Gradine]

It's right in the section called "How to Play." The DM describes the environment. The players describe what they want to do. (The DM might call for a check at this point or might not.) The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions. Repeat, for every single kind of scene in the game. It doesn't say to call for a check before the players describe what they want to do because maybe the DM might describe the environment differently then.

Nobody has to play that way, but I do. Perhaps not surprisingly, the game runs very smoothly as a result.

Well yes, that is essentially a "how to play"... basically any role-playing game, really. Except maybe the really experimental ones, I guess. Of course, while it does not explicitly say to call for a roll, it also doesn't explicitly say not to, which seems to be the contention. I'd say it's ideal, especially with ideal players, but there have been times, many times even, where I've felt it necessary to at least prod a player into declaring an action, if not actually saying "why don't you make a History check to see if you know more about it?"

I DM for new players in one-shots, too. I just ask them to tell me what they want to do (per How to Play). I'll take care of the rest.

I don't know if it's a style difference or difference between one-shots and long-running campaigns, or just a difference in players, such is the nature of anecdotal evidence.

To be clear, calling for checks when I haven't even described an action for my character is the deal breaker. It's bad in my view because not only does it mean the DM has not read or internalized the section on "How to Play," which seems pretty fundamental to playing a game of any sort, it means the DM is not even aware what calling for an ability check necessarily establishes - that my character has done something with an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence of failure. Something that I haven't been given an opportunity to describe or otherwise establish, which means the DM is effectively playing my character for me.

I think that's the significant difference and the source of the misunderstanding then. Part of it is the awkward way in which D&D handles non-active skills. Part of it is a style difference, and in the lack of appreciating (or simply just not liking) passive skill checks, and the way nobody at WotC figured that that might be a good mechanic for knowledge-type skills also. Especially since, in many cases, ability checks that are usually active (particularly in the case of tools, but others as well) might call for a passive check related to knowledge of the craft/field. I personally don't like withholding information that characters should know (or at least have a chance to know) but their players aren't able to make the connections on their character sheets.

But there's a pretty big difference between calling for a roll that is essentially passive and declaring a player's action for them, which I think most of us can agree is far from ideal, at best.

To be even clearer, my position is not some principle that I apply to all games as Celebrim has suggested. In fact, such a suggestion completely misunderstands the underlying notion that each game should be, in my view, be played differently according to their rules and procedures. This is simply what is called for in D&D 5e. Nothing more, nothing less.

You see, to me it would make much more sense if it were more of a principle than a quibble with how the rules are presented in one specific game. The former is all about personal preference and playstyle, while the latter just seems... pedantic. But then I guess that too can be part of a personal preference.

 

[iserith]

Well yes, that is essentially a "how to play"... basically any role-playing game, really.

Honestly, I would not make that assumption. That's right at the heart of my objection: DMs just dragging their approaches from other games into this game.

Of course, while it does not explicitly say to call for a roll, it also doesn't explicitly say not to, which seems to be the contention.

It doesn't say not to do literally everything it doesn't mention including not to set yourself on fire. I don't think that's a very good argument for doing something though.

If you look for support for asking players to make checks before they have described what they want to do, you won't find it in D&D 5e. You might find that in other games. You will find what I'm advocating right in the books.

I'd say it's ideal, especially with ideal players, but there have been times, many times even, where I've felt it necessary to at least prod a player into declaring an action, if not actually saying "why don't you make a History check to see if you know more about it?"

Definitely not my style. If the player can't perform his or her role adequately, they either aren't as successful as someone else who does or, if it's a drag on the play experience at the table, they get replaced. I never had to do that though really. Players tend to rise to the occasion in my experience, especially if the other players are setting a good example.

I think that's the significant difference and the source of the misunderstanding then. Part of it is the awkward way in which D&D handles non-active skills. Part of it is a style difference, and in the lack of appreciating (or simply just not liking) passive skill checks, and the way nobody at WotC figured that that might be a good mechanic for knowledge-type skills also. Especially since, in many cases, ability checks that are usually active (particularly in the case of tools, but others as well) might call for a passive check related to knowledge of the craft/field. I personally don't like withholding information that characters should know (or at least have a chance to know) but their players aren't able to make the connections on their character sheets.

But there's a pretty big difference between calling for a roll that is essentially passive and declaring a player's action for them, which I think most of us can agree is far from ideal, at best.

There are no checks to see what you know though. There are actions to recall lore about something and then an ability check, sometimes with a skill proficiency, to resolve any uncertainty as to the outcome if there is any and a meaningful consequence of failure. So it's on the player to say that they'd like to draw upon their experience as a sage, for example, to recall any useful lore about the vulnerabilities of trolls. That's in line with every other way of describing an action and adjudicating it as anything else in D&D 5e. Passive checks are for when the character is doing something repeatedly, such as keeping watch or searching for secret doors while traveling the dungeon.

You see, to me it would make much more sense if it were more of a principle than a quibble with how the rules are presented in one specific game. The former is all about personal preference and playstyle, while the latter just seems... pedantic. But then I guess that too can be part of a personal preference.

I would not say it's a quibble. It's a fundamental part of the game: The DM doesn't get to say what my character is doing, which is what the DM is doing by asking me to make an ability check without me describing what I want to do.

 

[Gradine]

If the player can't perform his or her role adequately, they either aren't as successful as someone else who does or, if it's a drag on the play experience at the table, they get replaced. I never had to do that though really. Players tend to rise to the occasion in my experience, especially if the other players are setting a good example.

I'm an educator by trade, so my inclination is have a bit more patience with my newer players. But I've found that even seasoned vets have off-days, and my personal approach to the fiction of the game tells me to at least prod a player if there character would have a chance at noticing or knowing something.

There are no checks to see what you know though. There are actions to recall lore about something and then an ability check, sometimes with a skill proficiency, to resolve any uncertainty as to the outcome if there is any and a meaningful consequence of failure. So it's on the player to say that they'd like to draw upon their experience as a sage, for example, to recall any useful lore about the vulnerabilities of trolls. That's in line with every other way of describing an action and adjudicating it as anything else in D&D 5e. Passive checks are for when the character is doing something repeatedly, such as keeping watch or searching for secret doors while traveling the dungeon.

Everything else I can chalk up to personal preference, but this here is a difference in an approach to fiction that, while I will admit the PHB spells out, is counterfactual to, well, actual reality. Which is to say; memory does that work like that. That's not to say that nobody actively attempts to recall lore or information about things, it's just that that is the exception rather than the rule, and one that is almost always prompted by a direct question (such as a school exam or trivia game). But memory, and knowledge, are generally much more passive. And while I am loathe to use passive checks in most instances, because this is a ultimately a dice game and I like it when I/my players get to roll dice to determine uncertain outcomes, I can recognize the role passive perception at least plays in not tipping one's hand too early as a DM. I do not like, however, "passive knowledge", at least not in D&D, because it treats one set of proficiencies differently than others, and I think a "you must have have this high a bonus to know this thing" DC sets knowledge skills apart from other more active skills that seems less than ideal to me. On the other hand, it strains my sense of and approach to the fiction of the world to treat character knowledge as a repository that only be accessed if players decide to boot it up.

I just think it's bad form (and bad for the game) to withhold from players knowledge their characters might (or do) know just because they don't think to use the "recall lore" action in the moment.