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

[Imaculata]

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 don't see how it is unfair. Any player can ask at any point "Do I know who this statue represents?". I can then either straight up tell them, or I might ask a check, if the knowledge is obscure. A player may also give a reason why he believes his character might already have this knowledge. This is where the players get to insert their own backstory into the game.

For example, a barbarian may ask "Have I heard of the person this statue portrays on one of my many travels?". Taking the barbarians travels into account, I may rule that he does have that knowledge, if it seems reasonable to me that he may have heard of the person. What I'm trying to get to is that as a DM I am not the one gatekeeping all knowledge. The players have some input regarding what their characters know.

But if the players ignore the statue, I don't really need to give them any information about it. I think this also sets up a good rule for how a DM should describe the environment: Don't waste too much time describing minor details, unless the players take an action to examine those details. This makes it easier for players to understand their surroundings, because you can keep the descriptions consise and to the point. But it also allows the flow of information to come directly from the actions of the players.

This is even more important if looking at the statue is dangerous for whatever reason. I don't presume the players automatically look at the statue. They first have to declare an action to look at it. (Though I often tend to ask for an extra confirmation if the player is about to attempt something really dangerous.)

 

[iserith]

Thanks. Yes. A Surprised creature can't even take reactions never mind actions, yet they roll an ability check on DEX to determine when their surprised state ends.

The same process applies with surprise. DM describes the environment. Players describe what they want to do (e.g. "Fight!", "Flee!", "Parley!", "Insert Joke About Spanish Inquisition!"), then that is adjudicated in light of the situation which includes what the players wanting to do going in a particular order as determined by the rules for determining surprise and initiative.

The issue at hand here is a lot of DMs it seems want to describe the environment (if that), then skip the step where the player has any say whatsoever.

 

[S'mon]

The same process applies with surprise. DM describes the environment. Players describe what they want to do (e.g. "Fight!", "Flee!", "Parley!", "Insert Joke About Spanish Inquisition!"), then that is adjudicated in light of the situation which includes what the players wanting to do going in a particular order as determined by the rules for determining surprise and initiative.

This is just garbage. When Surprised they cannot do anything, and the initiatve roll is made to determine when their Surprised condition ends, which is when they could attempt to do stuff.

You are insanely determined to fit your square peg into every round hole. 5e does not work like that.

 

[iserith]

I don't see how it is unfair. Any player can ask at any point "Do I know who this statue represents?". I can then either straight up tell them, or I might ask a check, if the knowledge is obscure. A player may also give a reason why he believes his character might already have this knowledge. This is where the players get to insert their own backstory into the game.

For example, a barbarian may ask "Have I heard of the person this statue portrays on one of my many travels?". Taking the barbarians travels into account, I may rule that he does have that knowledge, if it seems reasonable to me that he may have heard of the person. What I'm trying to get to is that as a DM I am not the one gatekeeping all knowledge. The players have some input regarding what their characters know.

But if the players ignore the statue, I don't really need to give them any information about it. I think this also sets up a good rule for how a DM should describe the environment: Don't waste too much time describing minor details, unless the players take an action to examine those details. This makes it easier for players to understand their surroundings, because you can keep the descriptions consise and to the point. But it also allows the flow of information to come directly from the actions of the players.

This is even more important if looking at the statue is dangerous for whatever reason. I don't presume the players automatically look at the statue. They first have to declare an action to look at it. (Though I often tend to ask for an extra confirmation if the player is about to attempt something really dangerous.)

Yes, the DM describes the environment which includes the basic scope of options. But you're not done describing the environment - once the players describe what they want to do, and the DM narrates the results of the adventurers actions, the DM circles back around to describe the environment again if anything is changed or revealed as a result of what the PCs chose to do. It's a loop. The DM doesn't have to ask for checks on the assumption the PCs are doing things just to get that description out up front.

 

[iserith]

This is just garbage. When Surprised they cannot do anything, and the initiatve roll is made to determine when their Surprised condition ends, which is when they could attempt to do stuff.

You are insanely determined to fit your square peg into every round hole. 5e does not work like that.

There is no "surprised condition," so I will assume that's just shorthand for the effects of being surprised. You will note that the players describe what they want to do, not what they did, then the DM determines what happens next and may implement mechanics as I stated to resolve when those things happen.

From How to Play: "This pattern holds whether the adventurers are cautiously exploring a ruin, talking to a devious prince, or locked in mortal combat against a mighty dragon. In certain situations, particularly combat, the action is more structured and the players (and DM) do take turns choosing and resolving actions." The structure for Combat Step by Step are employed here in the context of How to Play. The DM describes the environment. The players describe what they want to do. The DM determines surprise, initiative is rolled, etc., and then combat plays out as normal.

You really seem determined to prove that the players have no say here and that their actions are assumed. They are not. You can choose to play however you want though.

 

[Grognerd]

You are insanely determined to fit your square peg into every round hole. 5e does not work like that.

You are pretty determined yourself! I fully agree with you, but you do realize you are just banging your head on the wall at this point, right? As you said, iserith is simply going to ignore all of the many times throughout this thread that his position has been disproved.

 

[iserith]

You are pretty determined yourself! I fully agree with you, but you do realize you are just banging your head on the wall at this point, right? As you said, iserith is simply going to ignore all of the many times throughout this thread that his position has been disproved.

What it looks like to me is that the text supports my position, which I have shown. Then others have said "Nuh-uh, this thing I've been doing in other games is how it should be!"

The section on How to Play honestly couldn't be any clearer. Not that anyone is forced to play that way if they prefer something else. Plenty of people play the way you appear to agree with. I just don't think that's appropriate for this game and would leave a game where the DM was regularly assuming or establishing the actions of my character. That's all there is to it.

 

[Grognerd]

What it looks like to me is that the text supports my position, which I have shown. Then others have said "Nuh-uh, this thing I've been doing in other games is how it should be!"

The section on How to Play honestly couldn't be any clearer. Not that anyone is forced to play that way if they prefer something else. Plenty of people play the way you appear to agree with. I just don't think that's appropriate for this game and would leave a game where the DM was regularly assuming or establishing the actions of my character. That's all there is to it.

Aaaand my point is proven.

 

[S'mon]

You really seem determined to prove that the players have no say here and that their actions are assumed.

You don't get any actions when Surprised (unless high level Barbarian - he can choose to Rage when Surprised) - that's the whole point. The DEX ability roll for init comes before the statement of action and determines when the PC is allowed to decide to do stuff. To a lesser extent this is true of a regular init check, it's not intended that the PC can choose to not roll (though that's a fine house rule IMO).

Obviously I didn't really expect to get through to you, but I was interested to see your response. I'll shut up now.

 

[Nagol]

I don't see how it is unfair. Any player can ask at any point "Do I know who this statue represents?". I can then either straight up tell them, or I might ask a check, if the knowledge is obscure. A player may also give a reason why he believes his character might already have this knowledge. This is where the players get to insert their own backstory into the game.

For example, a barbarian may ask "Have I heard of the person this statue portrays on one of my many travels?". Taking the barbarians travels into account, I may rule that he does have that knowledge, if it seems reasonable to me that he may have heard of the person. What I'm trying to get to is that as a DM I am not the one gatekeeping all knowledge. The players have some input regarding what their characters know.

But if the players ignore the statue, I don't really need to give them any information about it. I think this also sets up a good rule for how a DM should describe the environment: Don't waste too much time describing minor details, unless the players take an action to examine those details. This makes it easier for players to understand their surroundings, because you can keep the descriptions consise and to the point. But it also allows the flow of information to come directly from the actions of the players.

This is even more important if looking at the statue is dangerous for whatever reason. I don't presume the players automatically look at the statue. They first have to declare an action to look at it. (Though I often tend to ask for an extra confirmation if the player is about to attempt something really dangerous.)

Have you ever walked through a crowd of people, say at a busy street, fair or concert, not looking for anyone and seen someone you knew? Have you ever not noticed them and had them approach you?