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

[iserith]

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.

A player describing what he or she wants to do isn't limited to actions in the mechanical sense of the word. I think that's where the disconnect is here.

 

[S'mon]

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?

If you did, your agency has been violated! The GM imposed a Passive Perception check on you!

 

[Nagol]

A player describing what he or she wants to do isn't limited to actions in the mechanical sense of the word. I think that's where the disconnect is here.

<DM describes something happening that the players can't interrupt>
DM: Roll for initiative!
<Players roll>
DM: Player 1: What do you want to do?

So, exactly where in the above did the players assert they wanted to do something prior to the initiative roll?

 

[Nagol]

If you did, your agency has been violated! The GM imposed a Passive Perception check on you!

Indeed! I wasn't scanning the crowd for friends or relatives! Informing me they were present either (a) must always be done as part of the environment description which means I'll never miss them, (b) is never done as part of the environment description which means I'll never notice them much like iserith appears to run pickpocketing, or (c) will be included arbitrarily in the environment description on some whim or other and my extra-special attribute has no effect.

 

[iserith]

<DM describes something happening that the players can't interrupt>
DM: Roll for initiative!
<Players roll>
DM: Player 1: What do you want to do?

So, exactly where in the above did the players assert they wanted to do something prior to the initiative roll?

In your example, nowhere, which I would say is unfortunate. There is space between describing what is happening and the call for initiative, where the players can describe what they want to do, telegraph their likely response, or otherwise add to the scene, fictional actions that may or may not fall into a particular order as determined by the rules for surprise and initiative. It's not like they are frozen in place after all. They just can't move or take an action in the mechanical sense.

 

[Nagol]

In your example, nowhere, which I would say is unfortunate. There is space between describing what is happening and the players describing what they want to do, telegraphing their likely response, or otherwise adding to the scene, fictional actions that may or may not fall into a particular order as determined by the rules for surprise and initiative. It's not like they are frozen in place after all. They just can't move or take an action in the mechanical sense.

There are no fictional actions a PC may take that lie outside of initiative order. Since one action can be "I ready in case <X>" where X can be literally any detectable action, there can't be a fictional action that falls outside initiative order.

They are effectively frozen in space because they can take no action that can affect or be affected by any other creature in the initiative count. Other than speaking out of character, the players may not affect the scene and the PCs are completely constrained to their initiative. At some tables even out of character speech is constrained such as players' advice for a different PC's action.

 

[iserith]

There are no fictional actions a PC may take that lie outside of initiative order. Since one action can be "I ready in case <X>" where X can be literally any detectable action, there can't be a fictional action that falls outside initiative order.

They are effectively frozen in space because they can take no action that can affect or be affected by any other creature in the initiative count. Other than speaking out of character, the players may not affect the scene and the PCs are completely constrained to their initiative. At some tables even out of character speech is constrained such as players' advice for a different PC's action.

I don't see any support for that in the rules text. It's certainly a common way to play though in my experience. Surprised creatures can't take an action or move on their first turns, or reactions until that turn ends. Initiative just determines the order of turns during combat. Between the DM describing the environment and the call for initiative, there is space for players to describe what they want to do. It's just that many DMs rush straight from describing the environment to rolling initiative. Myself included at one time. But since I don't see any support in the text for that, I endeavor to follow the text on How to Play. What this does in play is helps color the scene a little better and the telegraphing the players do helps get them all on the same page so the first round of combat kicks of smoothly.

The line of argument being put forth also strikes me as "Well, initiative assumes character actions, therefore the DM is free to assume character action whenev's." I don't buy that (if anyone's actually trying to make that case).

 

[iserith]

Indeed! I wasn't scanning the crowd for friends or relatives! Informing me they were present either (a) must always be done as part of the environment description which means I'll never miss them, (b) is never done as part of the environment description which means I'll never notice them much like iserith appears to run pickpocketing, or (c) will be included arbitrarily in the environment description on some whim or other and my extra-special attribute has no effect.

First, the DM doesn't need the permission of the mechanics to describe the environment. The rules serve the DM, not the other way around.

Second, if (b) is what you took away from the earlier discussion on this matter, then either I wasn't clear, you didn't understand, or my position is being caricatured here for effect. Please feel free to let me know which it is.

 

[Nagol]

First, the DM doesn't need the permission of the mechanics to describe the environment. The rules serve the DM, not the other way around.

Second, if (b) is what you took away from the earlier discussion on this matter, then either I wasn't clear, you didn't understand, or my position is being caricatured here for effect. Please feel free to let me know which it is.

If what I stated isn't how you run pickpocketing, you were not clear enough for me.

 

[Gradine]

I have no idea why there is a connection between rich world building and lore and players having more say or less keyword lock (vs skill check) to access "what my character knows." To me it seems that regardless of how much lore there is or whether its gm built or player built lore and world stuff the issue of "does this character know it" is just as important.

But that's fine.

Edit to add - some world in my 5e scfi space opera were built by players. Some by me. Some from core source. Whether characters know of those or not (and how we determine that) does not change with the source.

It's because I wasn't explaining myself very well.

So in games and systems with a lot of built-in world-building and lore, or where the onus on world-building and lore is on the GM, there will always inevitably (if not frequently) be a gap between player knowledge and character knowledge. Because players should be able to have their characters act on their knowledge, gatekeeping character knowledge behind character action is a poor mechanic, for all of the reasons I described up-thread. Such gatekeeping actively inhibits player agency.

In systems where the art of world and lore-building are shared by all at the table (and not just in occassional one-off example, but where this deliberately built into the system, again using Dresden Files as the typical example), player agency regarding character knowledge is much more desirable (if not necessary).

I am not the one gatekeeping all knowledge.

They first have to declare an action to look at it.

[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

[/URL]Unless the statue is hidden in some corner of the room or like... really really tiny, or otherwise obscured (like... it's one statue out of twelve with a minor discrepancy) the idea that my character would know something about the statue and not immediately notice said statue is absurd. If the statue is one of the only significant features in the room, and you still force me to declare that I am looking at the statue and actively recalling any knowledge I might have as to what it represents, that will annoy me to no end.

I'm not trying to badwrongfun anything, if that's the way the two of you play and it works for your players that's your prerogative. But stop trying to pretend that it isn't gatekeeping character knowledge; it is. You as DM have knowledge, the characters might also have that knowledge, but you don't give it to them until the player declares a specific set of actions. If they don't, there's no chance at all that the character would have that knowledge. I'm not sure how much closer to the literal definition of gatekeeping you expect to get. Again, if that works for you and your table, more power to you.

You and iserith might say that me calling for your character to make a knowledge roll would be a deal-breaker for you, as a player. Your gatekeeping of character knowledge behind player action is... well it's not exactly a deal-breaker for me (it would be endlessly annoying, even if I eventually got somewhat used to it), but it is indicative of a certain exacting style of DMing that, if present in aggregate, would be. And as I stated way up-thread back when this conservation was still on its original topic, there's very little that would get me to actually walk away from a game. A game which is not fun for me would be one of those.