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

[Satyrn]

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.

Danggit. Now I regret editting my last post to remove my guess that he was incorrect about that.

 

[5ekyu]

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?

Well lets look at the two cases - take pickpocketing and the comment quoted you were responding to...

"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."

cIn my case, without the PLAYER stating they are in a certain stance, whether or not the info is given is determined by a check that depends on character abilities, situation etc. The character has a chance due to his abilities to notice the event and react to it without a specific keyword statement being made by the PLAYER. Success or failure is determined by the in-game stats - which can include auto-success and auto-fail. If the player describes specifically some type of deliberate action with effects that alter their chances - it might lead to advantage. if they describe some other effort or focus, it might provoke disadvantage. (Example being if they are focusing on an effort to see if someone is lying - insight check - especially with a progress with setback result Another example would be if a commotion started just out of sight and the character was descibed as pushing quickly thru crowd to get to the place or a clear view - again might be disad - might have been the point of the commotion too.)

On the other hand, if in order to have a chance, the PLAYER must state there characters are [insert keywords here - stance whatever] - then you have a case where its on the player preemptively to even have the character have a chance.

One recognizes general character comptence - the other focuses on the player basically GM-proofing his character with descriptives.

Much like ye olde "you did not say you looked up before the macguffins dropped so you did not notice the things on the ceiling"

 

[Satyrn]

Well lets look at the two cases - take pickpocketing and the comment quoted you were responding to...

"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."

cIn my case, without the PLAYER stating they are in a certain stance, whether or not the info is given is determined by a check that depends on character abilities, situation etc. The character has a chance due to his abilities to notice the event and react to it without a specific keyword statement being made by the PLAYER. Success or failure is determined by the in-game stats - which can include auto-success and auto-fail. If the player describes specifically some type of deliberate action with effects that alter their chances - it might lead to advantage. if they describe some other effort or focus, it might provoke disadvantage. (Example being if they are focusing on an effort to see if someone is lying - insight check - especially with a progress with setback result Another example would be if a commotion started just out of sight and the character was descibed as pushing quickly thru crowd to get to the place or a clear view - again might be disad - might have been the point of the commotion too.)

On the other hand, if in order to have a chance, the PLAYER must state there characters are [insert keywords here - stance whatever] - then you have a case where its on the player preemptively to even have the character have a chance.

One recognizes general character comptence - the other focuses on the player basically GM-proofing his character with descriptives.

Much like ye olde "you did not say you looked up before the macguffins dropped so you did not notice the things on the ceiling"

I'm not sure how that answers my question you quoted.

You don't say what happens if your players fail a check that winds up leaving them without enough information to act on. Won't your players wind up blundering about too?

 

[Maxperson]

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.

You can get around it.

DM: You walk into the room. In the room is a large desk and on it are some papers, a box, and a feather quill for writing. In the corner is a potted plant and on the desk is a feather quill. Behind the desk is a large chair right in front of the feather quill. Under the desk with the feather quill on it is a ornate rug. Oh, and feather quill. What do you want to do?

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Then what's the point of having skills that don't involve something physical?

 

[5ekyu]

I'm not sure how that answers my question you quoted.

You don't say what happens if your players fail a check that winds up leaving them without enough information to act on. Won't your players wind up blundering about too?

here was your question...

"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 post you were quoting referred to an example of a pickpocketing attempt.

These were not the sort of things which leave them blundering about.

So in one case - there is no chance the PC spots the check (barring keyword GM-proofing) - Not sure but likely if the keyword is passed there may be chances for advantage or disadvantage.

In one case, there is a chance the PC spots the attempt plus chances of advantage and disadvantages perhaps)

In either case failure may result in the same loss of goods.

In the check case, it might result in a - progress with setback from a failed check - possibly meaning any number of intriguing results later. perhaps they got your purse but you noticed it before they got away - leading to a sudden chase *if* you want to run them down into their turf - which could be worse for you rather than better.

But the difference is in what it sets up in the gameplay.

In the keyword gated approach - the character only gets into "the game" if the player GM-proofs his setup with the right keywords. It forces the player-side defense.

In the latter case, the presumtpion of competence on the character puts less of a pressure and screen time effort on the player to say the right words and avoid the next gotcha. "My character looks into the room" is enough and i do not have to say "My character looks north, south east and west and up and down into the room" to avoid not being given a chance to see things in either of those directions.

Similarly i do not have to declare my character is watching for picpockets in order to notice a pickpocket attempt.

Similarly i dont have to state that my character is searching their memories for knowledge of deities of earth and flame to determine if they know anything about the entity depicted in front of me" to recognize "its Magma, goddess of hot rocks"

But to each their own.​

​

 

[Satyrn]

Than what's the point of having skills that don't involve something physical?

To get info the players seek out. The info you'd give a player after he says something like "do I know anything about this?" and he rolls a successful check.

 

[5ekyu]

Then what's the point of having skills that don't involve something physical?

To some apparently to give out "nice to have" but not that important info - leaving the skills which are able to play more critical roles or more vital rolls to the physical ones.

Stealth, athletics, acrobatics - those are the skills you might see used in a make or break situation...

knowledge, arcana, nature - those are just for "nice to know" cases - extra stuff.

Not to my liking tho.

have seen it before tho - ye olde days it was not uncommon for many social encounters to be handles almost exclusively with "what player saays" and rarely with Cha checks (or if they were the cha check might nudge the result but the lions share of the success fail was the player's speechifiying skills.)

Sneak past guard - stealth vs perception - mostly character stuff
talk way past guard - player spins a yarn - mostly player based.

So, where do you put your pointsd - dex or cha?

hah!

 

[5ekyu]

To get info the players seek out. The info you'd give a player after he says something like "do I know anything about this?" and he rolls a successful check.

nah... my games you might get something more than whats "nice to know" on a successful check.

the division between having the physical skills sometime be critical but having the non-physical info skills be relagted to "do you know this other stuff thats nice to know" and not critical is the issue that seems to IMO seriously devalue them.

or do Gms decide "its important enough they sneak past here so its automatically given" to resolve sneaking and the same for climbing or jumping with athletics?

 

[Nagol]

You can get around it.

DM: You walk into the room. In the room is a large desk and on it are some papers, a box, and a feather quill for writing. In the corner is a potted plant and on the desk is a feather quill. Behind the desk is a large chair right in front of the feather quill. Under the desk with the feather quill on it is a ornate rug. Oh, and feather quill. What do you want to do?

Hmm. The plant sounds promising. Can I identify it?