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

Lanefan said:

Even if I-as-DM know the outcome is certain, the roll still holds information for me in terms of how easy or difficult the character found the task; and keep in mind that while I know the outcome is certain neither the player nor the character does and while just saying yes is fine sometimes, other times making them roll adds nicely to the tension.

Click to expand...

I would classify that as an advanced technique, and I'm fine with it technically being a house rule, if the alternative might serve to confuse people who are new to the hobby. If anything, it's the sort of thing that could show up in the DMG, where players are unlikely to ever see it.

Baron Opal II said:

I've only stepped away from a table for two reasons. First, was blatant favoritism show to the player who was sleeping with the DM. When it was minor, I could ignore it, but when the power curve started to shift, I left. The other was when my character died, and I had to wait three weeks for a "story appropriate" opening to rejoin the group. I can accept that I might not be able to jump right back in, but if I'm sidelined for a whole month I can find another game. Which, I did.

The times I've had a table disintegrate under me is when I had an argumentative player that couldn't accept the consequences of their actions, and when PvP entered the game. That causes enough strife and hard feelings that the players leave and go their own ways.

Some people have mentioned that the PvP adds a spice, but I've only been in one situation where that worked, and that was a special Champions game where Team Hero and Team Villian were going for the same goal, with the big reveal / throwdown on the last day of the campaign.

Click to expand...

I feel your pain as I've been through both of these things as I'm sure other players have.

- On the carnal knowledge impacting character knowledge/ability - I've not played in a group where we didn't have our spouses or significant others playing in almost 20 years, there's always some degree of favoritism and I think the best outcome I ever had was when the DM was told privately that the favoritism was obvious.. not that we didn't like it. The best way to lose a friend is to get caught up in the favoritism is bad conversation.

- PvP only works when it's noted at the beginning of a campaign or game and there are some guidelines around it. Alignment becomes very important as does story. No one minds conflict when it's expected - but when a player just ganks another for no reason and outside of the expectations the game dies every time.

Lanefan said:

I don't think you mean to come across this way - or at least sincerely hope that you don't - but when you post things like this it more often than not sounds like you're saying that as a player you're more interested in playing your own story than that of the GM, who has (in a typical situation) very likely put far more effort into it than any of her players.

You're also completely dismissing the notion that a GM "reading from his notes" could in fact provide very engaging fiction for you and the other players to interact with, shape, change, and move forward.

Click to expand...

That's the major difference between a traditional role-player, who wants to stay in character, because they're in it for the role-playing; and a radical new-age story-teller, who wants to co-author a narrative construct.

As expected, a radical new-age story-teller is going to be disappointed when they show up to a role-playing game, and everyone else just wants them to role-play.

Kobold Boots said:

Meh, I just think [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] is moving the goal posts.

DC12 swim.
I roll 1-11 - I fail and drown without someone to assist.
I roll 12-20 - I succeed and I'm wet.

Click to expand...

How binarily dull.

I roll 1-5 - I fail in the middle of the river, far from each bank and where the current is fastest
I roll 6-11 - I fail relatively close to one bank or the other, where the current is slower and rescuers (if there are any) can more easily aid me
I roll 12-16 - I make it across but I'm fatigued by the effort, and may have been carried farther downstream by the current than I'd like
I roll 17-20 - I make it across no problem and am ready to keep on truckin'.

DC12 perception check.
I roll 1-11 - I fail and don't notice anything unusual, but I still see what's right in front of me or obvious. If the sun's up and there are leaves on the ground I see that.
I roll 12-20 - I succeed and notice that there's something under the brush that's notable, but rolling a 20 doesn't make me find things that are behind me or down the road.

Click to expand...

I roll 1 - I successfully manage to miss something that should be obvious (we've all done this in real life)
I roll 2-6 - I see the basics and that's it - the sun's up and the path we're following bends to the left a little way ahead ('keep your eyes on the road')
I roll 7-11 - I see the basics plus note there's a thick covering of leaves on the ground around us
I roll 12-14 - I notice there might be something under the leaves worth checking into but have no idea what it is
I roll 15-17 - I notice there's a body under the leaves
I roll 18-19 - I notice there's a body under the leaves and possibly a trail of disturbed leaves leading away to the left of our original path
I roll 20 - as 18-19 plus I notice there's someone up a tree to the left, watching us (we've all done this, too: found something we weren't looking for while looking for something else)

(not the best example but I hope it'll do for these purposes)

I'm moving the goalposts not to move the goal itself - that's right where it started - but to spread them farther apart, giving a wider goal (or a spectrum) centered on the original goal.

Lanefan

Kobold Boots said:

Meh, I just think [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] is moving the goal posts.

DC12 swim.
I roll 1-11 - I fail and drown without someone to assist.
I roll 12-20 - I succeed and I'm wet.

DC12 perception check.
I roll 1-11 - I fail and don't notice anything unusual, but I still see what's right in front of me or obvious. If the sun's up and there are leaves on the ground I see that.
I roll 12-20 - I succeed and notice that there's something under the brush that's notable, but rolling a 20 doesn't make me find things that are behind me or down the road.

Unless I'm willing to completely add something new to my story on a 20 there's no reason for me to do so, just like there's no reason for me to be a jerk and tell someone they went blind or had a stroke on a 1. It's a DM prerogative to do what they will and non-binary checks unless there's a specific rule in play for the skill aren't necessary.

Click to expand...

I don't think he was moving the goal posts. And can see his point, as it's not uncommon for me to think that the PCs would know something about the situation without a roll, but how much they know is in doubt, so I have them roll for that purpose. From his response, though, I'm not sure if he sees that his examples still fall squarely into the "outcome is in doubt" category and require a roll.

Maxperson said:

I don't think he was moving the goal posts. And can see his point, as it's not uncommon for me to think that the PCs would know something about the situation without a roll, but how much they know is in doubt, so I have them roll for that purpose. From his response, though, I'm not sure if he sees that his examples still fall squarely into the "outcome is in doubt" category and require a roll.

Click to expand...

In these cases yes, the basic yes-no outcome's in doubt - I was just trying to broaden out [MENTION=92239]Kobold Boots[/MENTION] ' examples to encompass not just the basic yes-no outcome but the extent of said outcome, moving the roll's result beyond a binary yes-no onto more of a spectrum of outcomes. Do you barely make it across after a struggle (a roll of 12) or do you make it across with trivial ease (a roll of 20).

My example earlier of the icy bridge, however, takes something that's not in doubt (at least from the DM side) and puts a roll on it anyway; the success in crossing the bridge is guaranteed, the roll is just to determine the ease and grace of said success.

Side note: interesting that the example given has DC 12 as its base; 5e seems to want DCs to be set at 5, 10, 15, 20, or some other number divisible by 5.

Lanefan said:

Side note: interesting that the example given has DC 12 as its base; 5e seems to want DCs to be set at 5, 10, 15, 20, or some other number divisible by 5.

Click to expand...

I've always taken that to be part of the difficulty description range. Very easy would be 1-5, easy would be 6-10, etc. Clearly 5e is intended to have DCs outside of the multiples of 5, as spell and creature power DCs have all kinds of numbers that don't match up to 5's.

The one time I divided a knowledge check up into DC 5 10 15 20 25 one player rolled a 25 and got all the information anyway.

Basically a waste of my time (there was a LOT of information you could get) but we had a good laugh at the table about it.

Lanefan said:

How binarily dull.

I roll 1-5 - I fail in the middle of the river, far from each bank and where the current is fastest
I roll 6-11 - I fail relatively close to one bank or the other, where the current is slower and rescuers (if there are any) can more easily aid me
I roll 12-16 - I make it across but I'm fatigued by the effort, and may have been carried farther downstream by the current than I'd like
I roll 17-20 - I make it across no problem and am ready to keep on truckin'.



I roll 1 - I successfully manage to miss something that should be obvious (we've all done this in real life)
I roll 2-6 - I see the basics and that's it - the sun's up and the path we're following bends to the left a little way ahead ('keep your eyes on the road')
I roll 7-11 - I see the basics plus note there's a thick covering of leaves on the ground around us
I roll 12-14 - I notice there might be something under the leaves worth checking into but have no idea what it is
I roll 15-17 - I notice there's a body under the leaves
I roll 18-19 - I notice there's a body under the leaves and possibly a trail of disturbed leaves leading away to the left of our original path
I roll 20 - as 18-19 plus I notice there's someone up a tree to the left, watching us (we've all done this, too: found something we weren't looking for while looking for something else)

(not the best example but I hope it'll do for these purposes)

I'm moving the goalposts not to move the goal itself - that's right where it started - but to spread them farther apart, giving a wider goal (or a spectrum) centered on the original goal.

Lanefan

Click to expand...

Hi Lanefan -

I appreciate the example and get where you're coming from. If I can offer my opinion, I think that the approach sounds great in theory and when it comes time to practice it, it's unwieldy. Here's why.

1. When you adventure design you have a binary decision as to what is obvious and what requires a check. This is usually centered around what is necessary to advance the plot. Anything else you're making up on the fly and what fits any given tier of detail is subjective.

2. Once you start doing this, players will start asking for multiple checks as what one player sees, another may not or they'll metagame it directly.. Lars rolled a 12, lets see if we can get a 20.

3. End of the day, not every opportunity is going to correspond to the amount of inspiration you're going to have in the moment to fill these tiers.

So I'd say great idea but it needs to be simplified to be applicable to every use of a skill roll or you're going to slow down your game significantly if you're applying it to everything.

Thanks,
KB

Kobold Boots said:

2. Once you start doing this, players will start asking for multiple checks as what one player sees, another may not or they'll metagame it directly.. Lars rolled a 12, lets see if we can get a 20.

Click to expand...

Something I frequently see with [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]'s described approaches and with many others that share his or her principles is that they all decry "metagaming" as a sin against nature, but then use all manner of approaches that set the stage for it to occur regularly. Then they come up with kludges in an attempt to mitigate the very thing they're encouraging. (Phantom, meaningless rolls, for example, is a popular one wherein the DM calls for checks for no apparent reason to throw players off.) This was revealed again in another thread in the General Discussion forum a couple weeks back. It strikes me as an approach that is essentially cobbled together over a long period of time, isn't revisited even when changing games, and is likely in the context of a group that doesn't change players often who are also used to all the seeming contradictions.

Which is not to say Lanefan or others are "doing it wrong." It's just sometimes in these discussions the approaches appear nonsensical to others and I think that's why.