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

[iserith]

Then the player can decline to roll and auto-fail which both faster and is less onerous than having the same player say "I check...". The trouble with waiting for positive affirmation before providing contingent information is it teaches players to play whack-a-mole by saying "I check..." at every item in a description because there may be "gotcha" information available if only they had asked.

I would say that's only true if the DM fails to telegraph threats or fails to describe the basic scope of options that allows the players to meaningfully act. Give them what they need to make informed decisions. Anything more than that is unnecessary but helpful and can follow their choice to investigate further. Sometimes they will and sometimes they won't. I don't want to decide that for them and I don't want it decided for me.

 

[Satyrn]

Then the player can decline to roll and auto-fail which both faster and is less onerous than having the same player say "I check...". The trouble with waiting for positive affirmation before providing contingent information is it teaches players to play whack-a-mole by saying "I check..." at every item in a description because there may be "gotcha" information available if only they had asked.

True, that gotcha can be a problem. But that just means the DM needs to not play gotcha.

I believe Imaculata and iserith are saying that such gotcha information - the stuff the players need to know - just gets told to the players, though. It's the additional "nice to know" info that needs to gathered by playing whack-a-mole. That is, they readily hand out the important info, and the stuff the players have to "hunt for" is bonus info, helpful.


From what I'm reading, when it comes to getting enough information to work with as a player, their method actually looks to be more reliable than yours. That is, if the statue's identity is critical, they'd tell me it's identity in the description, while you'd only tell me if my check succeeded.

 

[Nagol]

True, that gotcha can be a problem. But that just means the DM needs to not play gotcha.

I believe Imaculata and iserith are saying that such gotcha information - the stuff the players need to know - just gets told to the players, though. It's the additional "nice to know" info that needs to gathered by playing whack-a-mole. That is, they readily hand out the important info, and the stuff the players have to "hunt for" is bonus info, helpful.


From what I'm reading, when it comes to getting enough information to work with as a player, their method actually looks to be more reliable than yours. That is, if the statue's identity is critical, they'd tell me it's identity in the description, while you'd only tell me if my check succeeded.

Thing is, gating information behind a direct request requirement is a gotcha. There's really no way around it. The players cannot know which items have more significance until they enquire about everything. Or as often happens, player fatigue sets in and they decide to just blunder around.

 

[5ekyu]

True, that gotcha can be a problem. But that just means the DM needs to not play gotcha.

I believe Imaculata and iserith are saying that such gotcha information - the stuff the players need to know - just gets told to the players, though. It's the additional "nice to know" info that needs to gathered by playing whack-a-mole. That is, they readily hand out the important info, and the stuff the players have to "hunt for" is bonus info, helpful.


From what I'm reading, when it comes to getting enough information to work with as a player, their method actually looks to be more reliable than yours. That is, if the statue's identity is critical, they'd tell me it's identity in the description, while you'd only tell me if my check succeeded.

In my games, whether or not your characters knows abc is determined by the nature of the abc and your character not how important i chose to make that abc be. this leads to players having a good sense of consistency based on inter-relations.

if my players thought the key bits of knowledge they need would always be there and that knowledge skills were only for "nice to knows" they would see that as a factor in prioritizing whether or not they took those skills. Stealth, athletics, acrobatics, deception, lock-picking - those can all be crucial at very critical situations - not just "nice to have".

Stealth after all - thats a case where they wont expect me to let them walk thru in plate armor because "its important they sneak by".

Climbing - if its important the make the climb they dont expect me to handwave their 8 strength, lack of proficiency and lack of rope.

Door is locked - if they have to get thru it, its auto-pick but if its just the side room with extra loot you need tp pick it??? not at my table. No way, No how.

etc etc etc etc etc.

Different ways to approach what skills/ability scores mean in the game and how much they matter and how consistently it is applied across skills.

 

[Satyrn]

Thing is, gating information behind a direct request requirement is a gotcha. There's really no way around it. The players cannot know which items have more significance until they enquire about everything. Or as often happens, player fatigue sets in and they decide to just blunder around.

I don't understand why you think that would be the result with their method, but not with yours. When describing something to the players, the info you'd give out on a successful check is info Imaculata and iserith give out automatically.

 

[Nagol]

I don't understand why you think that would be the result with their method, but not with yours. When describing something to the players, the info you'd give out on a successful check is info Imaculata and iserith give out automatically.

No. They won't tell the PCs what the statue is until directly asked. They won't allow a check to notice/prevent a pickpocketing attempt unless the PC is in a specific stance. Absent a player's positive action, the information remains undiscovered. Under my method, the players will receive the information if an appropriate fortune check is passed (which could be automatic if the math works out) without requiring any positive player action.

 

[iserith]

Thing is, gating information behind a direct request requirement is a gotcha.

According to the DM's notes, there's a key hidden beneath a set of folded clothes in the top drawer of a bureau in a chamber the PCs enter. When the PCs entered, the DM described the environment such that there is a bureau in the room, but not what is inside its closed drawers. The key makes it easier to access another part of the adventure location later.

Is that a gotcha? Or is that just laying out the basic scope of options that present themselves and letting the players decide what they want to do?

Should I just, after describing the environment, assume and establish that one of the PCs goes over, opens a drawer, and finds the key? If they don't bother to search the desk and move on to some other chamber, is not finding the key a gotcha?

If you don't think these are gotchas, then please explain why you think providing the basic scope of options when describing the environment and then leaving room for the players to describe what they want to do to discern additional information is.

 

[Satyrn]

No. They won't tell the PCs what the statue is until directly asked. They won't allow a check to notice/prevent a pickpocketing attempt unless the PC is in a specific stance. Absent a player's positive action, the information remains undiscovered. Under my method, the players will receive the information if an appropriate fortune check is passed (which could be automatic if the math works out) without requiring any positive player action.

I don't see how not getting told that info is any different than what happens when your players fail that check and don't get told that info. Won't your players wind up blundering about too?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Imaculata is waiting until her player makes clear that character actually is looking at the statue. I really don't see this as denying the player a possibility of success. It's just delaying that possibility until the player shows they care about succeeding.

DMing is based around reasonable assumptions. It would be unreasonable to assume that someone enters a room without looking around, in much the same way that it would be unreasonable to assume that they leave a room without opening the door first. If the DM isn't free to make reasonable assumptions, then the entire game grinds to a halt.

If a player says that they leave a room, and the DM describes them smacking their face on the door because they didn't explicitly state that they were opening it first, then that's the same category of DM pedantry as a player entering the room and the DM not mentioning that they obviously recognize a statue in the corner.

If someone is playing an idiosyncratic character, such that reasonable assumptions do not hold, then the burden is on them to stop me when that happens. After the first few instances, I'll stop making that assumption for that character.

I believe Imaculata and iserith are saying that such gotcha information - the stuff the players need to know - just gets told to the players, though. It's the additional "nice to know" info that needs to gathered by playing whack-a-mole. That is, they readily hand out the important info, and the stuff the players have to "hunt for" is bonus info, helpful.

That's not how the game is played, though. The DM doesn't make judgment calls about what is "important" or what might be "nice to know"; the judgement call which the DM makes is whether or not the outcome is uncertain. If the DM can't state the outcome of an action with a reasonable degree of certainty, based on everything that they know and don't know about the characters and the world, then the procedure for resolving uncertainty is a die roll.

 

[iserith]

No. They won't tell the PCs what the statue is until directly asked.

Incorrect. I tell them if that context is necessary to establish the basic scope of options. If that's not necessary to establish the basic scope of options, then I might not.

They won't allow a check to notice/prevent a pickpocketing attempt unless the PC is in a specific stance.

A "stance" the player chose after being reasonably informed of the threat.

Absent a player's positive action, the information remains undiscovered. Under my method, the players will receive the information if an appropriate fortune check is passed (which could be automatic if the math works out) without requiring any positive player action.

What happens if the check fails?