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

[iserith]

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

If I remember correctly, the example provided was that the PC was going from point A to point B in a city. I said that I would telegraph the threats when describing the environment and ask the player what he or she would want to do. If the player established the character as doing anything other than remaining alert for dangers that is at least as distracting as tracking, foraging, drawing a map, or navigating, then he or she has no chance of noticing the pickpocket. I telegraphed the threat. The player made an informed choice. That is the consequence of that choice. I believe I also said there may be times where some other task is in context actually more valuable than whatever the PC might lose to a pickpocket. Or that, having reasonably telegraphed potential threats when describing the environment, the PC takes precautions to obviate or mitigate the risk of such things so that he or she can just focus on some other task.

 

[robus]

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.

Actually, if this is an issue for particular tables, then pre-rolling initiative (at the beginning of the session, or at the end of the last combat) can greatly lessen the "swoosh"-iness of "Roll Initiative!". The threat of combat can build more organically, based off of actions of the PCs and NPCs.

 

[robus]

If I remember correctly, the example provided was that the PC was going from point A to point B in a city. I said that I would telegraph the threats when describing the environment and ask the player what he or she would want to do. If the player established the character as doing anything other than remaining alert for dangers that is at least as distracting as tracking, foraging, drawing a map, or navigating, then he or she has no chance of noticing the pickpocket. I telegraphed the threat. The player made an informed choice. That is the consequence of that choice. I believe I also said there may be times where some other task is in context actually more valuable than whatever the PC might lose to a pickpocket. Or that, having reasonably telegraphed potential threats when describing the environment, the PC takes precautions to obviate or mitigate the risk of such things so that he or she can just focus on some other task.

I think there is a disconnect between tables that have the understanding that passive perception is an always on radar, vs tables like yours (and mine when I remember ) where players have to declare a particular focus for their perception, i.e. what is taking their attention for this extended period of time. If you don't have to declare your passive perception action (for lack of a better term) then I can imagine people being confused by your approach. I believe you are correct, but it's a thing that is often overlooked/forgotten/ignored.

 

[iserith]

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.

I think inherent in your assumptions is that I'm being stingy with information. If anything, I'm generous with it. I can give you a direct example from one of my one-shots of how this all plays out because I think whatever you have in your head is not lining up with the reality of the play experience. Here is a description of the environment from one of the early chambers of the dungeon, which they know to be a ruin from a fallen civilization of orcs:

"A stone door amid debris from the ceiling and an archway bounded by dimly-glowing runes are the apparent means of entering or leaving this desolate chamber. Beyond the archway, a spiral staircase delves downward into darkness. A suit of dusty steel plate armor stands against the east wall, a sheathed longsword at its side. It holds a large shield emblazoned with many red eyes which eerily shift to observe any movement in their field of vision."

Above, per How to Play, I tell them where they are, what's around them, presenting them with the basic scope of options that present themselves. From there, they can describe what they want to do. A player might say, "Without going any closer to the armor, I try to get it in the light of my torch and examine that weird shield in more detail, drawing upon my study of Orcish history to identify it." At this point, I may decide if an ability check of some kind is appropriate. If I just say he or she succeeds or ask for a check, the result is:

"This is the storied Shield of He Who Watches which once adorned the arm of the High General of Chernoggar, the realm of the orc war god, Gruumsh. It was said that the shield could see what he could not - except for his own hubris."

So, I've described the environment, the player has described what he or she wants to do, I've adjudicated it and narrated the result of the adventurers' action. The player likely explains what he or she recalls to the rest of the group. At this point, nothing has changed in the environment, so I may recap what has already been stated and ask another player what he or she wants to do. That player might say, "Not to be outdone, I try to recall what I might know of that fine armor, given my experience as a blacksmith." Again, the DM decides if that's a success, fail, or if a check is required. Let's say it's a success and now I narrate the result of the adventurer's action:

"This appears to be the handiwork of Zodagh, a bastard of the orc god Ilneval, who was first among the war-smiths of Chernoggar. It is said the Son of Strife imbues his bastard's works with the strength to resist sword and spell both, and that his spirit gives them life... of a kind."

Then we start the loop again by describing the environment (probably just a recap at this point) before perhaps asking someone else "What do you do?" What I'm not doing here is describing the environment as per the first description I provided, asking for a bunch of checks, then giving out the next two bits of information. That skips over the player's role. They also don't need the more detailed information about the armor or shield to act with agency. They can do whatever they want in the context of the scene with this creepy armor and shield plus the glowing runes. The more detailed information may certainly help, however, given that it may suggest the shield is extraordinary in some way, if not magical, and that the armor may be animated and thus a threat. This encourages players to engage more fully with the exploration pillar in my experience since it can give them an edge.

Is that how you imagined things playing out in my game in your head? If so, would you still object to this approach to the play experience? If not, what did you imagine this would be like?

 

[iserith]

Actually, if this is an issue for particular tables, then pre-rolling initiative (at the beginning of the session, or at the end of the last combat) can greatly lessen the "swoosh"-iness of "Roll Initiative!". The threat of combat can build more organically, based off of actions of the PCs and NPCs.

I've tried all kinds of different initiative methods and found the standard one is the least worst of the lot.

But if I remember correctly, Nagol runs games that are heavy on combat so there is probably both an assumption that combat will be the result both in design and expectation of the players. So they may skip the in-between step in favor of going directly to initiative. Which is fine, lots of people do that. I love combat, myself, and am always spoiling for a dust-up. I just think there needs to be a little space in between the description of the environment and the call for initiative per the text on How to Play. I don't think that a lot of people skipping that step to go straight to initiative is in any way a good argument that, because that step is commonly skipped, it means players describing what they want to do can be skipped whenever the DM feels like it (if indeed that is the argument being put forward).

 

[Gradine]

Snipped because it's kind of long

That is, in fact, exactly how I'd imagined your game play would be. There is, in fact, a red flag in your sample player response that makes me even more certain your style of DMing is incompatible with my style of play.

S"A player might say, "Without going any closer to the armor, I try to get it in the light of my torch and examine that weird shield in more detail"

That I would have to, or be expected to, describe what I'm doing to the extent that I have to describe how I'm examining a thing without also moving closer towards, is the exact kind of pedantic, blow-by-blow detail of action I would feel obligated to narrate that is the reason why I describe your particular resolution mechanic as "not fun". Maybe it's because I have newer players, maybe it's because we all have very limited time to actually play, but pacing is extremely important to my games, and if that's the level of descriptive action I'd require of my players in terms of examining and interacting with every room (and every item in the room) we'd never get anything done.

Again, that's different from "badwrongfun", and you've both a) clearly put a lot of thought into how you handle these situations and b) don't seem to be maintaining it solely to play "gotcha" on your players, so it's entirely possible I could find myself settling in to your table eventually. But understand how this method of resolution might seem unfun to a player, or how it may be entirely unfair in the hands of a more dastardly (or at least antagonistic) DM. That's a legitimate style of play too, of course, but not one I personally enjoy in the slightest.

 

[iserith]

I think there is a disconnect between tables that have the understanding that passive perception is an always on radar, vs tables like yours (and mine when I remember ) where players have to declare a particular focus for their perception, i.e. what is taking their attention for this extended period of time. If you don't have to declare your passive perception action (for lack of a better term) then I can imagine people being confused by your approach. I believe you are correct, but it's a thing that is often overlooked/forgotten/ignored.

Yeah, no doubt. And that's certainly how it worked in other games. But in this one it has to, in my view, be taken in the context of the other rules that work with passive Perception and ability checks as you say.

 

[iserith]

That is, in fact, exactly how I'd imagined your game play would be. There is, in fact, a red flag in your sample player response that makes me even more certain your style of DMing is incompatible with my style of play.

That I would have to, or be expected to, describe what I'm doing to the extent that I have to describe how I'm examining a thing without also moving closer towards, is the exact kind of pedantic, blow-by-blow detail of action I would feel obligated to narrate that is the reason why I describe your particular resolution mechanic as "not fun". Maybe it's because I have newer players, maybe it's because we all have very limited time to actually play, but pacing is extremely important to my games, and if that's the level of descriptive action I'd require of my players in terms of examining and interacting with every room (and every item in the room) we'd never get anything done.

Again, that's different from "badwrongfun", and you've both a) clearly put a lot of thought into how you handle these situations and b) don't seem to be maintaining it solely to play "gotcha" on your players, so it's entirely possible I could find myself settling in to your table eventually. But understand how this method of resolution might seem unfun to a player, or how it may be entirely unfair in the hands of a more dastardly (or at least antagonistic) DM. That's a legitimate style of play too, of course, but not one I personally enjoy in the slightest.

If I struck out the line about not moving closer to the armor, would it be okay then? Because a player may or may not say that. If you've taken anything from my posts, certainly you will know I don't assume the character is moving closer, right? Because that would go against the entirety of my point?

As for pacing, an entire scene exploration scene like this takes less than 5 minutes to play out. How long should it take in your view? I will also add that most people comment that my games run exceedingly fast compared to others. It's possible you run even faster than mine, but I'd be willing to take up that challenge.

With regard to DMs not playing in good faith, there's nothing we can do about those but help them get better or not play with them.

 

[toucanbuzz]

I've DM'd for the past 20+ years now, and it hasn't always been perfect on my end. I learned a few things because either I had cool players who talked to me, or I found out the hard way, and I've played on occasion and walked out (once literally).

1. Railroading into MY story, not the PLAYER's story. If players in advance agree to a setup (e.g. we all agree the slavers kidnap us and that's how the campaign starts), that's one thing, but twice I've pissed off players by forcing them into a (very obvious) battle they couldn't win solely to either capture them or take an item. LESSON LEARNED: don't. You might as well say "the god Zeus comes down and takes your weapons away. You're now prisoners in a maze." Players should be consulted in advance on being part of a particular story, such as Curse of Strahd. They aren't going to Barovia to open up a tavern and delve into dungeons for loot. Fortunately, my players were cool enough to talk and give me an ultimatum of "be a better DM or we walk!" And I'm glad they said something, because I wasn't seeing it.

2. Telling my players what they should have done. Players had a bad battle and I (in my own world) thought it'd be best to share with them what they could have done differently by using the rules to their advantage and using class abilities. WRONG! Wrong to ever tell a player how to play their character. If players falter, don't compound it by sharing with them your superior knowledge of how you would have played their characters properly. Campaign ended, lesson learned.

3. NPC is the DM in disguise. A friend wanted to run a game and very quickly became clear the major NPC that he'd statted out and had fighting our battles for us was simply a proxy for him. Sounds like something out of a Knights of the Dinner Table comic strip, but yeah, it happens and it wasn't fun. He went back to playing, campaign ended.

4. Being a DM is about creating a story with the players. Moved to a new town and tried to find gamers by randomly sitting at tables where DMs were trying to find groups. Walked out twice. (1) First DM said we're in an arena, pulled out the Monster Manual, and announced the king was having us fight his monsters alphabetically. No story. Left before the first battle. (2) Another DM had a story but we never got to it as we had 3 random encounters a day getting to the starting point that all began with "you hear something in the bushes." Then a pointless battle. Wasted hours with no story.

 

[5ekyu]

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).



[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.

Re the first graph on gatekeeping behind action declaration- I agree that is a bad practice for what **is judged to be** character knowledge. It's the equivalent and thinly repackaged modern flavor of "you didn't say you looked up" in my mind.

We agree I think on that... in my games what is character knowledge is basically same as any other character trait - an ability check with character traits taken into account, circumstances taken into account and definite possibilities for auto-success and auto-fail.

I do not require the player statement of action to recall/recognize and specific targets to pair up that others may preach. Please do not throw me in that church.

On the other hand, where you and I are in disagreement is whether this changes in games where the lore and creation and authorship is shared. Whether it becomes "less or more" a problem... having played both I would suggest that having a consistent non-keyword based resolution of character knowledge is critical even more over because instead of having one source, one person to do the keyword-tango with, you have three, four, five... because authorship csn come from any of the others - not filtered thru the GM necessarily.

The differences in how different people can rationalize our communication tests and keywords is the making of fun games (Dixit comes to mind) but to me does not serve rpg all that well in this context.