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

[The Crimson Binome]

If the party sees a statue of a historical figure, I might call for an Int (History) check to see if anyone recognizes the figure. There's no action required or implied there; it's simply a matter of who knows what.

The action is... whatever caused the statue to enter their sight. If they walk into a room with a statue, then the outcome of that action is uncertain, based on whether they recognize the statue. Do they walk into the room and recognize the statue? Or do they walk into the room and not recognize the statue? You should probably roll, unless the answer is certain.

Likewise, if they just stand there while someone brings a statue into the room, then the outcome of their standing there is uncertain, based on whether they recognize the statue.

 

[iserith]

If the party sees a statue of a historical figure, I might call for an Int (History) check to see if anyone recognizes the figure. There's no action required or implied there; it's simply a matter of who knows what.

I would not. The mechanics aren't for testing what a character knows, but what a character recalls. It isn't the "knowledge check" of previous editions of the game which tests what knowledge the character possesses. Here, following normal task resolution for D&D 5e, a player tries to recall lore on a particular thing and the DM determines as normal whether he or she succeeds, fails, or if there is an ability check. An ability check cannot precede a player describing his or her action.

A player can just say what a character knows or act on it without saying it, since it's the player who determines what the character says, does, and thinks. (It's just that he or she might be wrong.) The DM can also establish facts by describing the environment without reference to mechanics.

 

[Imaculata]

I think most of the time I would rule that the players are simply able to identify the statue without the need for a check. Mostly if it concerns important historical or religious figures, but this is where their class and character is important. For example, I would expect a cleric to be able to identify just about any religious statue, but a barbarian might not, unless he is a well learned barbarian.

If the statue is unknown however, they can ask me if they are able to identify the statue (an action), and then I decide if they need to make a roll.

If I were to ask them to make a roll first, before they declare an action, then I'm basically forcing them to identify the statue. But I don't think I should be declaring their actions for them.

Yeah, how alignment is used needs to be covered in session zero. I have two modes for alignment in my games.

1. Alignment as Flavor
- snip -

2. Alignment as a Core Mechanic
- snip -

I try to find a balance between the two. I will not bind the players to their character's alignment when it comes to taking actions, but it may affect how the world responds to them. I reason that even good people make wrong decissions occasionally. Sometimes the lawful good hero may spare the life of the villain, and sometimes he might not. One or two bad acts will not change their alignment, or cause alignment bound items to stop working. Generally I expect my players to care about how npc's view them, so as long as no one sees (or learns of) them commiting horrible acts, nothing bad happens.

I do try to reward the players for taking actions that are in line with their alignment. Especially if they are great roleplaying moments. I remember one time when one of my players made the controversial decision to wish a magic lamp away, much to the shock of the rest of the party. But he had determined that he didn't need anything the lamp could give him, and he had seen the harm that could come from wishing. So he did what he thought was best for him and the party. He made the difficult decission they couldn't make. I just applauded. What a fantastic moment. And his reasoning was completely in line with the character. Bonus exp for the whole party.

 

[iserith]

For alignment, I use it when it reinforces the theme of the campaign or the scene. In my ongoing Planescape campaign, we put a line on alignment in the character's Ideal and, given how I do Inspiration, it gives the players an additional way to gain Inspiration if they play to it. This is because in Planescape, alignment is kind of a big deal whereas in other campaigns I will tend to ignore it. The exception would be perhaps in dealing with planar creatures or creatures otherwise strongly aligned to the forces of good or evil, law or chaos. Angels, demons, devils, or the like may interact with the PCs different based on the PCs' alignment which can impact in particular social interaction challenges with such creatures.

 

[Gradine]

I would not. The mechanics aren't for testing what a character knows, but what a character recalls. It isn't the "knowledge check" of previous editions of the game which tests what knowledge the character possesses. Here, following normal task resolution for D&D 5e, a player tries to recall lore on a particular thing and the DM determines as normal whether he or she succeeds, fails, or if there is an ability check. An ability check cannot precede a player describing his or her action.

The problem with this approach, regardless of how enshrined it is in the rules, is that this is a really, tremendously awful way to model character knowledge.

I've played a wide range of games with a wide range of resolution mechanics or mechanical methods of simulating reality. Some of them I will admit simply did not click with me. A rare few, on the other hand, were just awful, in a "who could possibly think this would be a fun/immersive/fair addition to the game?" sort of way. I reserve this for the rare few that fail in all three regards: "Is this mechanic fun?" "Does this mechanic represent reality in a way that support immersion?" "Is this mechanic fair to the players?"

Treating "Recall Lore" as a deliberate action as the only way to access character knowledge, to me, fails all three of those measures. If asking players for relevant knowledge checks is a house rule then it is one I am glad to keep.

 

[iserith]

The problem with this approach, regardless of how enshrined it is in the rules, is that this is a really, tremendously awful way to model character knowledge.

I've played a wide range of games with a wide range of resolution mechanics or mechanical methods of simulating reality. Some of them I will admit simply did not click with me. A rare few, on the other hand, were just awful, in a "who could possibly think this would be a fun/immersive/fair addition to the game?" sort of way. I reserve this for the rare few that fail in all three regards: "Is this mechanic fun?" "Does this mechanic represent reality in a way that support immersion?" "Is this mechanic fair to the players?"

Treating "Recall Lore" as a deliberate action as the only way to access character knowledge, to me, fails all three of those measures. If asking players for relevant knowledge checks is a house rule then it is one I am glad to keep.

"I've read every book in the world's greatest libraries - I try to recall what I've read about the vulnerabilities of trolls..." That might even be worth Inspiration (sage personality trait). Good job, player!

I will add, again, that the DM can just establish facts without reference to mechanics. Be generous with the information PCs need to act with agency. If they want additional information, perhaps as a way to gain an edge in a particular situation, then they can describe as I suggest above.

What I don't want to see as a player is the DM describing the environment, then asking for checks that assume or establish character action (which it does because there can be no ability check without a task that precedes it), just because the DM feels he or she needs permission to dole out information. Because that's what I see when this technique is employed. It's totally unnecessary.

 

[Gradine]

What I don't want to see as a player is the DM describing the environment, then asking for checks that assume or establish character action (which it does because there can be no ability check without a task that precedes it), just because the DM feels he or she needs permission to dole out information. Because that's what I see when this technique is employed. It's totally unnecessary.

Except I'm not assuming or established character action, I'm helping to establish character knowledge, which is a different thing whether the 5e PHB wants to acknowledge it or not.

Note that I'm neither precluding nor banning "recall lore" as an action, just recognizing that that is not the human memory works, and that gating character knowledge behind a specifically stated character action is a terrible mechanic, for the reasons I've already stated.

I'm not disputing that this is the mechanic 5e has and how they've decided to handle character knowledge. I've even acknowledged that the way I have and will continue to manage character knowledge is a house-rule. What I am disputing is that my house rule is significantly better than the codified RAW on character knowledge because, again, gating character knowledge behind specific "recollection" as an action is neither fun, nor realistic, nor fair.

 

[iserith]

Except I'm not assuming or established character action, I'm helping to establish character knowledge, which is a different thing whether the 5e PHB wants to acknowledge it or not.

Note that I'm neither precluding nor banning "recall lore" as an action, just recognizing that that is not the human memory works, and that gating character knowledge behind a specifically stated character action is a terrible mechanic, for the reasons I've already stated.

I'm not disputing that this is the mechanic 5e has and how they've decided to handle character knowledge. I've even acknowledged that the way I have and will continue to manage character knowledge is a house-rule. What I am disputing is that my house rule is significantly better than the codified RAW on character knowledge because, again, gating character knowledge behind specific "recollection" as an action is neither fun, nor realistic, nor fair.

I'm not advocating "gating character knowledge behind specific 'recollection.'" I think the DM should provide sufficient information when describing the environment so that the players can have their characters act. And that, as part of that acting, the players can try to get more specific information if they want it which may involve recalling lore (or making deductions) justified by some aspect of their past. If anything, your house rule is the gating if you're doing it in the manner described by others in this thread where you give some information when describing the environment then ask for ability checks unprompted by a player describing what he or she wants to do to describe the rest of said environment. And fine if that's what you enjoy. I just don't see how it adds anything personally and in some ways takes away from the player.

 

[Satyrn]

Oh gods, I had forgotten (read: suppressed) those memories. For me it was back in AD&D 2nd, and I think it was only AoEs that we crit failed the save. But still, so many rolls, so much equipment going up in smoke.

I'd rather just skip all those rolls, say they all failed, and run around the dungeon naked. Especially if I was playing a monk.

Or a Paladin - "hey everybody, get a good look at my 17 Charisma!"

 

[5ekyu]

Except I'm not assuming or established character action, I'm helping to establish character knowledge, which is a different thing whether the 5e PHB wants to acknowledge it or not.

Note that I'm neither precluding nor banning "recall lore" as an action, just recognizing that that is not the human memory works, and that gating character knowledge behind a specifically stated character action is a terrible mechanic, for the reasons I've already stated.

I'm not disputing that this is the mechanic 5e has and how they've decided to handle character knowledge. I've even acknowledged that the way I have and will continue to manage character knowledge is a house-rule. What I am disputing is that my house rule is significantly better than the codified RAW on character knowledge because, again, gating character knowledge behind specific "recollection" as an action is neither fun, nor realistic, nor fair.

"gating character knowledge behind a specifically stated character action is a terrible mechanic, for the reasons I've already stated."

Seems like a way to guarantee or reward a 20 questions knowledge recall lore round robin of questions over and over - once the players figure out they need to correctly ask the question.

I have flashbacks now of "did not say you looked up"!!!