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

billd91 · Oct 4, 2018

iserith said:
Imagine that instead of there being nothing of interest in the rubble it is instead infested with rot grubs or covered with a contact poison. It would be helpful to know as DM whether the character is using a shovel or his or her hands, right?

I'd be more likely to use the success of that first search check to determine if that hazard was spotted before the PC was exposed to it. If they beat the difficulty of spotting the hazard, I'll let them know about it, then they can take whatever precautions/informed risks they want.

pemerton · Oct 4, 2018

MNblockhead said:
in many cases, the walk-out worthy behavior is something like "rail-roading", calling for perception checks before asking what the PCs are doing, or not using a DM screen. Really?!

So, a more interesting question to me is what real-life behavior has led you or a player you know to *ACTUTALLY* leave a game.

I've done three rejections of GMs. (Each against a different GM.)

(1) The GM was running some scenario involving kobolds raiding a city. We (the PCs) captured a kobold and tried to interrogate it - how many kobolds, maps of their encampment, etc. The GM played it as absolutely stupid, unable to tell us anything at all. The railroading was palpable. We dumped the GM and started a new game.

(2) The GM ran a fairly standard patron-mission scenario. At the end, the patron betrayed us (the PCs). We never initiated second scenario.

(3) The GM ran a game that was inspired by a campaign he'd run for an earlier group. The interest of the game was all in the interplay of the PCs (it was five or six players, most of whom weren't friends outside the game), and we gradually built up quite a rich dynamic among the players and in our conception of and relation to the gameworld. Then the GM "rebooted" the whole thing by sending the PCs 100 years forward into the future. This killed off everything we'd done as players, by completely resetting the context of play. I left the game not long after, and I don't think it lasted very long after that.

Bottom line for me: I'm not very interested in just emoting my PC through a GM's conception of what would be a good story.

iserith · Oct 4, 2018

billd91 said:
I'd be more likely to use the success of that first search check to determine if that hazard was spotted before the PC was exposed to it. If they beat the difficulty of spotting the hazard, I'll let them know about it, then they can take whatever precautions/informed risks they want.

And if that check failed? Do you as DM assume the character used his or her hands to search or the shovel?

iserith · Oct 4, 2018

pemerton said:
I've done three rejections of GMs. (Each against a different GM.)

(1) The GM was running some scenario involving kobolds raiding a city. We (the PCs) captured a kobold and tried to interrogate it - how many kobolds, maps of their encampment, etc. The GM played it as absolutely stupid, unable to tell us anything at all. The railroading was palpable. We dumped the GM and started a new game.

There's that quirky, cagey NPC I was referring to upthread.

pemerton · Oct 4, 2018

Imaculata said:
Let me illustrate with an example:

The players are in a dungeon, and they enter a room with (among other things) a pile of rubble in it. There is nothing in the pile of rubble, it is just dungeon decoration.

Tom: I search the pile of rubble! (Starts rolling Search check) 20!

DM: You find nothing of interest.

Tom: -But I rolled a 20!

All of this can be avoided if the DM is the one calling for a check, or in this case not-asking for a check.

My first thought in response to this was (1) why is the GM calling out stuff that s/he has already decided won't matter ("dungeon decoration") and (2) the player hasn't specified what s/he is looking for.

Like [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] I enjoy "fiction first" play, but I think that is a bit orthogonal to your example - because in Dungeon World a player who declares I search the rubble is closely studying a person or situation, which automatically triggers the Discern Realities move (DW p 68). And the Dungeon World rules say (p 18) that

When a player describes their character doing something that triggers a move, that move happens and its rules apply. If the move requires a roll, its description will tell you what dice to roll and how to read their results. . . . Everyone at the table should listen for when moves apply. If it’s ever unclear if a move has been triggered, everyone should work together to clarify what’s happening. Ask questions of everyone involved until everyone sees the situation the same way and then roll the dice, or don’t, as the situation requires.

So at least as I read the DW rules, there is no reason why a player who declares I search the rubble shouldn't then pick up his/her 2d6 and roll them. If s/he gets an 11 or 12 (like the 20 in your example) then the GM is obliged to provide a certain sort of information, as specified in the rules (eg What here is not what it appears to be?). The pile of rubble matters (regardless of whether the GM thought it would or wouldn't) because the player has (i) decided to pay attention to it, and (ii) succeeded at a check.

As I said, what strikes me in your example is that the player hasn't indicated what s/he is looking for, and so hasn't given the GM very much context to hang a response on. I find it easier to narrate successes (and failures) when I have some sense of what the player thinks is at stake in the situation.

pemerton · Oct 4, 2018

iserith said:
There's that quirky, cagey NPC I was referring to upthread.

I've cut straight from post 1 to post 430-odd, and so missed that!

iserith · Oct 4, 2018

pemerton said:
My first thought in response to this was (1) why is the GM calling out stuff that s/he has already decided won't matter ("dungeon decoration") and (2) the player hasn't specified what s/he is looking for.

Like [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] I enjoy "fiction first" play, but I think that is a bit orthogonal to your example - because in Dungeon World a player who declares I search the rubble is closely studying a person or situation, which automatically triggers the Discern Realities move (DW p 68). And the Dungeon World rules say (p 18) that

When a player describes their character doing something that triggers a move, that move happens and its rules apply. If the move requires a roll, its description will tell you what dice to roll and how to read their results. . . . Everyone at the table should listen for when moves apply. If it’s ever unclear if a move has been triggered, everyone should work together to clarify what’s happening. Ask questions of everyone involved until everyone sees the situation the same way and then roll the dice, or don’t, as the situation requires.

So at least as I read the DW rules, there is no reason why a player who declares I search the rubble shouldn't then pick up his/her 2d6 and roll them. If s/he gets an 11 or 12 (like the 20 in your example) then the GM is obliged to provide a certain sort of information, as specified in the rules (eg What here is not what it appears to be?). The pile of rubble matters (regardless of whether the GM thought it would or wouldn't) because the player has (i) decided to pay attention to it, and (ii) succeeded at a check.

As I said, what strikes me in your example is that the player hasn't indicated what s/he is looking for, and so hasn't given the GM very much context to hang a response on. I find it easier to narrate successes (and failures) when I have some sense of what the player thinks is at stake in the situation.

This isn't Dungeon World though. It's D&D 3.Xe (for [MENTION=6801286]Imaculata[/MENTION] at least). What is missing from the player's example in a D&D context in my view is an approach to the goal (and to some extent the goal more specifically). I would prefer to hear something like "I want to use my shovel to move the rubble around to see if I find anything useful or valuable." Maybe there's something valuable there, maybe there's not (the example scenario suggests there isn't). But at least the DM isn't assuming or establishing what the character is doing. In another context, one where there's something potentially dangerous in the rubble, I'd want to know how the player is having the character go about searching as per my preferred statement. This avoids issues of the DM and player disagreeing about what the character was doing after the danger is revealed. The DM may have imagined the player digging into the rubble with his or her hands; the player may have imagined using a shovel. That's going to be a problem when being stricken with rot grubs or contact poison is on the line.

GMMichael · Oct 4, 2018

Actually dropping GMs?

One GM had a palpable, if unstated, dislike for my playstyle, which I would describe as character-first-role-playing. I think he was looking for combat-first.

Another GM made the game feel like it was being run by a player instead of a GM. "Hey this would be cool" thinking instead of "this is what should happen" thinking.

pemerton said:
So at least as I read the DW rules, there is no reason why a player who declares I search the rubble shouldn't then pick up his/her 2d6 and roll them. If s/he gets an 11 or 12 (like the 20 in your example) then the GM is obliged to provide a certain sort of information, as specified in the rules (eg What here is not what it appears to be?). The pile of rubble matters (regardless of whether the GM thought it would or wouldn't) because the player has (i) decided to pay attention to it, and (ii) succeeded at a check.

I haven't played Dungeon World, but this is disheartening. I was understanding it as a game that steps away from dice instead of one stepping toward them. It also makes me appreciate FFG's narrative dice a bit more: if you're going to be looking at dice just to tell the story on a frequent (?) basis, seeing icons instead of numbers may be easier on the right-brain.

Imaculata · Oct 4, 2018

pemerton said:
My first thought in response to this was (1) why is the GM calling out stuff that s/he has already decided won't matter ("dungeon decoration")

It may just be part of the fluff description of the room, or it may be a decorative element visible on a bunch of dungeon tiles. Whatever the case may be, I think there are plenty of situations in which a room may contain objects that don't lead to riches. Is that really so odd for a DM to include in the room description?

pemerton said:
and (2) the player hasn't specified what s/he is looking for.

I don't think that's relevant at all here. It's only an example meant to illustrate the issue I have with this sort of action resolution.

iserith · Oct 4, 2018

DMMike said:
I haven't played Dungeon World, but this is disheartening. I was understanding it as a game that steps away from dice instead of one stepping toward them. It also makes me appreciate FFG's narrative dice a bit more: if you're going to be looking at dice just to tell the story on a frequent (?) basis, seeing icons instead of numbers may be easier on the right-brain.

I'm not sure what you mean by stepping away or towards the dice, but the way Dungeon World works is the players and DM have a conversation about what's going on with the characters in the context of the setting and sometimes that conversation will trigger moves. Those moves are typically resolved with dice. The GM doesn't get a say about whether a move triggers. It triggers when it triggers and the results stand. The GM is bound by the rules.

In this example, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s call that this is a Discern Realities move looks correct to me because the trigger is "When you closely study a situation or person...". If successful (10+ on 2d6+Wis), the player gets to ask 3 questions of the GM from a list of questions which include "What happened here recently?" or "What here is useful or valuable to me?" The answers you get are always honest ones, even if the GM has to make it up on the spot. An answer to the second question I mentioned might be "Nothing," and that's just fine.

If the player rolls 6 or less though, that's a failure. The character earns XP and the DM can now make a move - reveal an unwelcome truth (there are rot grubs in the rubble) perhaps or show signs of an approaching threat (the ground shakes and dust rains down from the ceiling). Now the players do their thing in the face of that which may trigger more moves.

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

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)

pemerton

Legend

iserith

Magic Wordsmith

iserith

Magic Wordsmith

pemerton

Legend

pemerton

Legend

iserith

Magic Wordsmith

GMMichael

Guide of Modos

Imaculata

Hero

iserith

Magic Wordsmith

Similar Threads