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

[iserith]

If there are 50 foot tall letters across a mountain saying Hollywood, describing what they say is part of describing the environment, even without a player actively saying "I read them".

Or not - asking the player if the character speaks Orcish (what they are written in) is not assuming player agency, it's using mechanical details about the characters to know what to describe.

Sometimes, instead of a boolean "speak orcish", it's something which is less sure and requires a check. For example, with the player description of "I go back to our inn", at some point they cross paths with a pickpocket. If this is noticed requires an ability check, even though the player's stated task for their character did not specifically call for it. The "tell me if I notice I'm getting pickpocketted, stabbed, or any other noticeable agency is working upon me" is inherent in the character being conscious in the world in the world.

Let's not lose the thread here: My objection is in asking for an ability check before I describe what I want to do, not to simply describing the environment without an unprompted ability check. The rules lay out what describing the environment is all about - where the adventurers are, what's around them (which I would reasonably say includes 50-foot-tall letters that spell something out), and presenting the basic scope of options that present themselves - and when the DM may ask for an ability check.

I would say the possibility of pickpockets needs to be telegraphed in the description of the environment (either before or during the scene) in order for the player to make a meaningful decision about it and for the challenge to be fair. After witnessing larcenies in other scenes or being informed by an NPC that the City of Thieves is no place for the unwary, a canny player might say he or she is keeping watch for hidden dangers while traveling the city in which case the DM can use a passive Perception check to resolve uncertainty as to whether the pickpocket is noticed. Or, failing some effort at telegraphing, the DM can simply ask, "While you're traveling the city, what sort of ongoing activity will you be engaged in?" as one might when the PCs are traveling through a dungeon or in the wilderness. A wise PC chooses to Keep Watch unless some other activity would be of more benefit than losing a few coins to a pickpocket.

To do otherwise is to effectively resolve the challenge based on what the player chose during character creation and/or advancement in my view, not what he or she chose to do while playing the game. I believe it should be a bit of both.

 

[machineelf]

"An ability check tests a character's or monster's innate talent and training in an effort to overcome a challenge. The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure." (Basic Rules, page 58)

Therefore, if you are calling for me to make an ability check, my character must be attempting an action of some kind. Otherwise, there can be no check. There are additional qualifiers in the DMG as to the task being somewhere between impossible and trivially easy and carrying with it a meaningful consequence of failure.

So, don't ask me to make a check until I've described what I want to do.

I sort of agree with a lot of your perspective. However, where you may go wrong (and I say "may," because I'm enjoying this discussion and I'm interested in your response) is that you are making a delineation between the DM making assumptions on one hand with things like saving throws (a fireball is hurled at you. Make a saving throw. No I didn't wait to hear you say you wanted to dodge out of the way, because the assumption is that you do want to take that action of jumping out of the way) vs knowledge skill checks (you see a statue of a multi-armed figure. Make a intelligence-religion check, because the assumption is you have not turned off your brain and you are going to maybe know what this is).

I know that saving throws are for reactions to something that happens to you, and skill checks are generally for something you actively do. But not always, such as knowledge checks. They function much more like saving throws in a way.

In fact, saving throws are much more like skill checks than knowledge checks are, because you can choose not to dodge out of the way of a fireball if you want. Or you can choose to take that action; the assumption is you do. Surely the DM does not have to wait for you to explicitly say it before calling for a roll? Whether it is tagged with the noun "saving throw" or "skill check"? It seems the assumptions made or not made is where this argument lies. I don't think you can choose not to recall knowledge of a multi-armed God you've studied about when you see a statue with its likenesses. Your mind is reacting to the sight of that statue being presented to you.

Having said that, I do overall like the idea you are advocating, that DMs only call for skill rolls after a player states they want to attempt something. I just don't know how a character can know things ONLY if they actively try to know them and state it explicitly. That, to me, is the rub.

 

[iserith]

I sort of agree with a lot of your perspective. However, where you may go wrong (and I say "may," because I'm enjoying this discussion and I'm interested in your response) is that you are making a delineation between the DM making assumptions on one hand with things like saving throws (a fireball is hurled at you. Make a saving throw. No I didn't wait to hear you say you wanted to dodge out of the way, because the assumption is that you do want to take that action of jumping out of the way) vs knowledge skill checks (you see a statue of a multi-armed figure. Make a intelligence-religion check, because the assumption is you have not turned off your brain and you are going to maybe know what this is).

I know that saving throws are for reactions to something that happens to you, and skill checks are generally for something you actively do. But not always, such as knowledge checks. They function much more like saving throws in a way.

In fact, saving throws are much more like skill checks than knowledge checks are, because you can choose not to dodge out of the way of a fireball if you want. Or you can choose to take that action; the assumption is you do. Surely the DM does not have to wait for you to explicitly say it before calling for a roll? Whether it is tagged with the noun "saving throw" or "skill check"? It seems the assumptions made or not made is where this argument lies. I don't think you can choose not to recall knowledge of a multi-armed God you've studied about when you see a statue with its likenesses. Your mind is reacting to the sight of that statue being presented to you.

Having said that, I do overall like the idea you are advocating, that DMs only call for skill rolls after a player states they want to attempt something. I just don't know how a character can know things ONLY if they actively try to know them. That, to me, is the rub.

So I've addressed saving throws in this and another similar thread in the General forum. I consider them inelegant design in D&D 5e given how ability checks are handled and figure it's just a nod toward nostalgia. I'd rather it be like Dungeon World's "Defy Danger" or perhaps D&D 4e's attacks versus defenses. But ultimately, they are what they are and they are the rules of this game which is otherwise fun to play.

That said, I don't actually have a preference per se on how to handle any of these matters except that I want to play how the rules lay things out so I can get at the intended play experience (which, again, is fun). If we were talking about some other game, I might take another position entirely. I want to make that point abundantly clear. This isn't a principled stance against DMs declaring actions for the characters or that ability checks have to work a certain way in every game. I'm playing the rules as I understand them for this game and a lot of DMs I've noticed, well, don't. Especially as it pertains to asking for ability checks without the player describing what he or she wants to do. Often times they picked up the approach they use from some other game and dragged it into this game which is not something I can recommend both with this matter and a number of others. We see problematic outcomes reported on the forums all the time as a result.

On knowledge checks, I think I addressed them in this thread as well, but it may have been the other. There really aren't "knowledge checks" in this game like in other games. You don't roll to see if a character knows something. Instead, the character tries to recall lore he or she has already been exposed to and, if a check is called for, makes an Intelligence check with an appropriate skill proficiency added if applicable. Alternatively, the character tries to make a deduction based on available clues which may call for an Intelligence (Investigation) check.

 

[machineelf]

Some of the stuff I find sub par is unrelated to this thread. But I try to avoid starting description or narration with "You," as a way to avoid potentially telling the players what their characters are doing. (That's a good trick in my experience.) Further, the player has not stated a complete goal (what he or she wants to accomplish) and approach (how he or she goes about achieving the goal) that I can adjudicate into success, failure, or an ability check. In fact, the player asks a question which is not describing what he or she wants to do. I would ask the player to try a little harder here.

It is otherwise okay. Certainly better than the rest, but still not great in my view.

I'm agreeing with a lot of your perspective, but man are those some hairs you're splitting with that answer. If she says, "Do I know who she is?", what more do you want her to say? "I would like to use my brain to try to pull out any memories I have of seeing this in the past."?

Take the snark with a grain of salt. I would really like to know your answer.

 

[iserith]

I'm agreeing with a lot of your perspective, but man are those some hairs you're splitting with that answer. If she says, "Do I know who she is?", what more do you want her to say? "I would like to use my brain to try to pull out any memories I have of seeing this in the past."?

Imagine a player saying something like "Drawing upon my previous life as an acolyte in service to the church on the Street of a Thousand Gods, I try to recall lore about the significance of this figure." Awesome. The player has stated how he or she might know something about who is depicted in the statue and has even offered a little bit of backstory which tells everyone at the table who this character is. Maybe the player doesn't need to roll at all, given that justification, and just succeeds, recalling that this is Kishar, the goddess of agriculture. Or maybe it's an Intelligence (Religion) check.

You might also imagine this is a good opportunity for the player to portray a personality trait, ideal, bond, or flaw and earn Inspiration. An acolyte character with the personality trait of "I am intolerant of other faiths and condemn the worship of other gods" might say "This looks like another false god - I give it a close look to spot any clues as to which deity it may represent so that I might destroy it if it is indeed abhorrent to my faith." Great. Take some Inspiration, player, and let's also see an Intelligence (Investigation) check to see if you can figure this out... or maybe the character just succeeds, no roll.

This is what you'd see if I were playing at your table. Or if some of my players were at your table. And it was a simple matter of thinking it through and then asking the players to things along these lines. Now imagine that a few of the players do this every session across a whole campaign, with some variations, establishing additional details to justify how they might have knowledge they can recall. It really adds up to paint a colorful picture of the characters over time.

"I'd like to use my brain..." is funny, but a missed opportunity in my view.

 

[S'mon]

I don't really want to get into specific examples for what should be in my view a simple point backed up by the game itself, but I would say these are all bad for various reasons.

At this point it doesn't sound as if any GM should want you in their game - there is literally no
satisfying you!

 

[S'mon]

With reference to this and your other posts in this thread, what are your thoughts on the following scenarios?

Scenario 1

GM: You see a statue of a woman holding a scythe.
Player: I have Religion, do I know who she is?
GM: Roll INT\Religion please, DC 17.
Player: I roll an 18.
GM: It is a statue of Kishar, the goddess of agriculture.

Scenario 2

GM: You see a statue of a woman holding a scythe.
Player: I have Religion, *rolls* I got an 18. Do I know who she is?
GM: It is a statue of Kishar, the goddess of agriculture.

Scenario 3

GM: You see a statue of a woman holding a scythe. Can I get an INT\Religion roll please?
Player: I roll a 18.
GM: Because of your knowledge of religions of this area, you know it is a It is a statue of Kishar, the goddess of agriculture.

Scenario 4

GM: You see a statue of a woman holding a scythe. *rolls an INT\Religion roll on behalf of the player, gets 18*
GM: Because of your knowledge of religions of this area, you know it is a It is a statue of Kishar, the goddess of agriculture.

I am fine with all of these. I like the player in #1, they are being proactive and helping the GM out. Player in #2 is similar but may come across a bit pushy, trying to insert a skill that may be inappropriate. Many players though don't think to ask for a check or are too shy etc; for that reason as GM I'll tend to go with #3 but I am particularly grateful to any #1 players. #4 is way too much effort for me in a tabletop game since it requires knowing the PC stats, but GMing online I may do it for greater speed & immersion.

#1 is an example of player best practice; all four are fine.

 

[iserith]

At this point it doesn't sound as if any GM should want you in their game - there is literally no
satisfying you!

Yeah, I don't know - my gaming schedule is pretty packed. I play in more games than I run right now.

I'm actually really easy to satisfy. All we need to do is get stuff done and/or the game needs to be funny. And if you can avoid asking for ability checks when I haven't described an action, that's even better. And really, really easy to boot. If you can't, no harm done. I got other games I can play in where DMs don't do that.

 

[S'mon]

Yeah, I don't know - my gaming schedule is pretty packed. I play in more games than I run right now.

Adventurers League only, though - so the GMs have to put up with this? Or you stay quiet when they ask for Religion/History/Perception/Survival/Arcana checks to know stuff?

 

[iserith]

Adventurers League only, though - so the GMs have to put up with this? Or you stay quiet when they ask for Religion/History/Perception/Survival/Arcana checks to know stuff?

I don't and have never played in Adventurers League.