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

[S'mon]

Instead, it's an endless litany of nothing to find here. I mean, how often is something there to actually find? 10% of the time? 20%? IOW, 80% of the time, all that "We look here, do this, do that" is a complete waste of time, because there is actually nothing to find.

I love Stonehell Dungeon's "random container contents" table - ca 70% there is something to find, even though not mentioned in the room key, and players can be amazingly creative at turning a bag of salty peanuts on a dead mountain troll into a scenario-winning asset!

 

[Lanefan]

Instead, it's an endless litany of nothing to find here. I mean, how often is something there to actually find? 10% of the time? 20%? IOW, 80% of the time, all that "We look here, do this, do that" is a complete waste of time, because there is actually nothing to find.

Imagine if you applied that to the other 2 pillars. Even if 50% of the social interactions with NPC's were pointless, the players would be bored out of their tree. If 50% of the combat events were not actually doing anything - just mindless dice fapping with no real consequences - the players would be well within their rights to be bored out of their tree.

But, with this type of exploration, the majority of play time is pointless. There is actually nothing to find, but, because he players never know that, they are forced to spend the time and treat every single situation as important.

And if these characters were real people doing these things they would treat every single situation as important as going in they'd have no way of knowing otherwise. In hindsight yes, some things will be shown as less relevant than others...but that's hindsight, which doesn't apply to the here and now.

And while 50% of the combat situations might not be relevant to the plot, 100% of the combat situations are going to be relevant to the PCs who are in the process of fighting through them. Combat failures tend to have rather more dramatic consequences than do social failures or exploration failures.

From observing and playing in other people's games, what slows things down are all the other things that we've streamlined out of our games - {1}the player debates over what to do next, {2}the 20 Questions to the DM, {3}the endless worrying over gotchas, {4}the quirky cagey NPCs, {5}the asking to make checks instead of stating a goal and approach, {6}the dilly-dallying on a combat turn, and so on. Get rid of that stuff and you save so much time that you don't have to cut out the exploration pillar and have the DM assume and establish what the PCs are doing.

I took the liberty of inserting numbers in this quote so as to make it easier to break the different points out; because while streamlining out some of these will improve the game, taking out others will accomplish the opposite:

{1} for this one, do you mean metagame debates or in-character debates? If you're referring to in-character debates these are naturally going to arise as a function of playing characters as people capable of independent thought, and stripping these out somewhat curtails the players' ability to roleplay their characters. If Falstaffe wants to go after the evil wizard next while Grog wants to take out the southern orcs and Halfred would rather deal with the bandit troupe in the east marches, not allowing the characters to sort this out among themselves - even if it takes all session - cheapens the game IMO. Ditto for a smaller-scale debate e.g. do we go left, right, or straight ahead at this 4-way intersection of gloomy passages.

{2} this one's worth trying to curtail to some point, though it'll never be eliminated as no DM (and a shockingly low percentage of boxed text) is ever going to perfectly describe every environment in such a way as to answer every player's potential questions. That, and as a DM it's probably better to err on the side of giving too little info than too much (though either is bad) because giving too much info too soon can ruin the exploration and-or social sides of the game.

{3} if the characters are to be played as if they were real people engaging with the dangerous situations we put them in they should at all times be worrying about the things you like to call gotchas - assuming they have any sort of self-preservation instincts - because the parts of the game world that adventurers tend to interact with are otherwise likely to kill them dead.

{4} this one's a variable. Sometimes NPCs are straight up and easy to deal with, other times they're not so simple, and sometimes they're actively trying to mess up the PCs; all based on these NPCs' own motivations and personalities. It gets old fast if every NPC is dishonest or hard to deal with, but it also gets old fast if every NPC is an open book.

{5} reducing or eliminating this makes for a better game, though maybe not any faster.

{6} reducing or eliminating this makes for a better and faster game.

Lan-"slow down and smell the flowers...and then harvest them and turn them into deadly poison"-efan

 

[Imaculata]

Is searching a room actually interesting exploration? Really? After the fifteenth room in that adventure? I love exploration, but, actually make it exploration - finding unknown things and learning new stuff. Filling in that hex map, scouting ahead of the party, finding or making maps, discovering new information about the society that the PC's find themselves in - that's exploration.

Endless "I search the chest, I listen for traps at the door, I look for secret doors, Is the X trapped" is just as boring as endless meaningless combats or pointless NPC interactions.

I completely agree. If there's nothing of importance in the room, I straight up tell my players, and we move on. No rolls needed. If there's not a trap, then my players don't have to make a roll, because there is only one possible outcome. I try to move things along until they stumble upon something of interest.

When I design my dungeons (or any other explorable area), I try to also eliminate rooms that have nothing of importance in them. I'd rather have a small area filled with meaningful content, than a large space filled with a whole lot of nothing.

the player debates over what to do next, the 20 Questions to the DM, the endless worrying over gotchas, the quirky cagey NPCs, the asking to make checks instead of stating a goal and approach, the dilly-dallying on a combat turn, and so on. Get rid of that stuff and you save so much time that you don't have to cut out the exploration pillar and have the DM assume and establish what the PCs are doing.

My thoughts:

1 - "The player debates over what to do next"

I've never had a problem with players debating about what to do next. If it's an IC discussion between player-characters, I consider that gameplay, and my players are welcome to partake in it. If it is an OC discussion on what to do next, I try to give my players an occasional break to do this, when a serious situation calls for it (such as at the eve of a big battle). If it drags on too long though, I may break it up by having an npc move things along.

2 - "The 20 Questions to the DM"

I've completely eliminated these from my game, thanks to the great advice on these forums. For the most part, by listening a lot to Iserith's advice, and also Lanefan. By making it clear to my players that there are no gotchas, the players feel safer when exploring. I clearly telegraph threats, so they know when to be cautious and when they can feel safe. I also focus a lot more on getting the most important information across first: room size, doors, and imminent threats, -before going into details. The players know that if they want more information, all they need to do is investigate.

3 - "The endless worrying over gotchas"

My players have stopped doing this after I started following Isertih's example. Now that my campaigns no longer contain gotchas, and I clearly telegraph threats, my players feel more safe to trust my descriptions. When I say a place looks safe, it probably is. They no longer sleep in armor, with a knife under their pillow, or have someone stand watch in an inn. It's almost like getting rid of a trauma, haha.

4 - "The quirky cagey NPCs"

I've really changed up the way I play npc's. Nowadays I make it very clear to my players which npc's can be trusted, and which are possibly untrustworthy. I want to make sure that my players can feel safe in the knowledge that some npc's will never betray them, because it's simply not in line with their character. And some npc's are just straight up unlikable characters. I think it is important that the players can gauge the character and trustworthiness of an npc. Just like the plot of any superhero movie, there have to be trustworthy allies, and clear villains.

5 - "The asking to make checks instead of stating a goal and approach"

It is so difficult to get them to shake this habit. I have been trying very hard to get my players to stop doing this, and I have been some what successful. But then they play with another DM, and they are right back to doing it again. I find this a bit frustrating. I think this is because some of my players have been playing since 2nd edition, and so this style of play is deeply entrenched in their minds.

6 - "The dilly-dallying on a combat turn"

I don't think this ever was a problem for my players.

 

[S'mon]

5 - "The asking to make checks instead of stating a goal and approach"

It is so difficult to get them to shake this habit. I have been trying very hard to get my players to stop doing this, and I have been some what successful. But then they play with another DM, and they are right back to doing it again. I find this a bit frustrating. I think this is because some of my players have been playing since 2nd edition, and so this style of play is deeply entrenched in their minds.

I only see this occasionally, but it's annoying when it happens. I tell them to explain what they are doing and generally they then do so.

 

[Sadras]

Given that we only get to roleplay around twice in a month per campaign, and that is if we are lucky, pacing is critically important for me. For that reason much of the basic humdrum of exploration (the repetitiveness especially i.e. search the room, listen for noise, check for traps, check for tracks) is very much fast-tracked. I provide the details relatively quickly and upfront.
It is only where possibly time is a factor that I would hold back and wait on the players to prompt me.

Pacing has even affected combat, where the odd combat that would occur during a journey that is only included to reflect the dangers of the specific wilderness is glossed over and narrated for colour purposes, particularly if the characters are high enough level to deal with the threat and the resource drain is/will not be a factor.

So in our 10th level campaign, the journey to Icewind Dale was concluded with via a skill challenge with costs being resources (HD, hit points, a spell and/or time) and the resource drain only because I knew at the character's arrive in Brynn Shander they would immediately find themselves in the middle of a combat encounter, otherwise the only loss worthy of recording would be time.

In our 4th level campaign, the 15-16 day journey, which I ran over 5 hours (Chapter 3 Storm King's Thunder), every day had a small narration of something of interest and/or settlement stop-over and/or combat encounter. Certainly more detailed than my 10th level campaign but pacing was just as important.
Narrative colour, yes/no/maybe on skill checks, and quick combats help with pacing.

The characters travelling through the Dessarin Hills were ambushed by a trio of manticores who rather smartly kept their distance (flying or otherwise) while firing off their deadly spikes. The characters quickly realising that they were outmatched in this situation took full cover (hid) amongst the rock and hilly alcoves in the vicinity of the trail to avoid the spike threat.
With one of the manticores retreating from combat due to heavy damage sustained the remaining manticores, although untouched, were unwilling to close the range with the adventuring group and after a moment or two of circling the area decided to leave and look for easier food. That encounter was perfect to reflect the real dangers of travelling, it provided a resource drain, the players got to enjoy a combat encounter and to think on their feet on how to minimise the threat.

EDIT: As DMs we have endless stories, published or otherwise, we sometimes battle to get through them, so we have to think and plan smartly. Having characters investigate every cornice and crevice just doesn't make much sense given our limited time.

 

[iserith]

Seems to me it's not in the presentation; it's in the wandering monsters. That creates the time pressure where players don't have the luxury of examining every little thing, so the decision about whether and what to examine is meaningful and interesting.

An awful lot of traditional D&D simply does not work without time pressure of some kind.

I would say the wandering monster check at the end of every 10-minute "exploration turn" is part of the presentation (how the DM manages exploration challenges). The rest of the presentation is how concisely the environment is described, prompting players to describe what they want to do, resolving and narrating that quickly, resolving the wandering monster check, and looping back around to begin again.

In practice, the wandering monster check is only sometimes a consideration as to whether to stick around since it largely depends on how badly they're beat up. They're more willing to risk it when they're in good shape (or when they are close to leveling). But really, if they don't find much on the first pass, it's pretty rare that they stick around. Typically they stick around only if they do find something of note such as needing to figure out how a secret door opens, unlocking a chest they've just discovered isn't trapped, investigating a trap they spotted to discern its design, or the like.

In general though, I am a big fan of time pressure as it makes time a valuable resource for the players to manage and creates a sense of urgency.

 

[5ekyu]

Thanks for the questions as well.



I think you'll find cases where the DM wants something to 'happen' in almost any D&D campaign. But I think where I differ is how I deal with it. I've seen plenty of DM's try to force something upon the players by having them all roll perception checks until someone succeeds. My approach is to just not do that. Players roll only when they take an action. If I feel something needs to happen plotwise, or the players need to discover something, I just tell them.

I noticed this difference in yesterday's session, in which I was a player and not the DM. The DM had all of us make perception checks, because he obviously wanted to move the plot forward. Obviously someone is going to succeed at the check, and so the DM tells that player what they learn. But why even have these checks then? Why not either straight up tell the players what you want them to know, or wait until one player decides to investigate?



But you could still have that if only one player made a roll. Why force a roll on every player? Why not wait till one player takes an action first? I take issue with the idea of a DM presuming an action on the part of the player, and setting up a possibility for failure for something the players did not choose to do at all.

A GM choosing a player to give info to creates a different dynamic both in the play and the impression than checks based on character ability determining it - based on my experience.

Since character abilities and proficiencies are determined by the player (and checks rolled by the player) the latter puts the sense of that "given info" resulting from that combination of player choices (reflected in the character stats) plus luck and sometimes position/timing.

The GM simply choosing which player to give it seems in play to diminish that and make it seem more of a table-side than character-side result. If thebplayersxsee the most important info will be given, regardless of character, those skills become seen as second class since their greatest value is given.

I tried to answer the why roll if someone is going to make the result above - unless it's always going to be shared in character immediately, the characters who get the info get to choose how to use that info, just like the stealthy scout gets yo choose what to do when he comes across something before the rest.

Not gonna be as important if it's a team of pieces than a group of characters. But it's not at all uncommon in my games for those with "first access to info" to have options on how to use it.

Basically, it seems like you are letting the meta drive the results - even on the very direct immediate local scale - the GM wants this found or spotted so it happens, the GM wants that character to get it so it happens etc. In our style of play we prefer that it's much more driven by what the character can give the player to work with than what the GM gives the player or group to work with - at least in the cases of the very direct what you see walking down the street level. (Obviously on the larger world building scale, that changes somewhat.)

Our tastes follow thru even further - we have tried and generally found great disfavor for gimmick points (plot points, inspiration, drama points FATE points etc - particularly when they lead yo scene edits on demand.)

It's certainly more than flavor as far as we see it, but it's definitely a matter of preference. Our games would move much more quickly if the key bits were just given to the team who all moved to follow the leads as a group and through the waypoints one by one... but we tend to like the more catch as catch can style even when that means whole storylines font get picked up but other tangents become the focus of screen time due to the choices made.

 

[iserith]

I took the liberty of inserting numbers in this quote so as to make it easier to break the different points out; because while streamlining out some of these will improve the game, taking out others will accomplish the opposite:

{1} for this one, do you mean metagame debates or in-character debates? If you're referring to in-character debates these are naturally going to arise as a function of playing characters as people capable of independent thought, and stripping these out somewhat curtails the players' ability to roleplay their characters. If Falstaffe wants to go after the evil wizard next while Grog wants to take out the southern orcs and Halfred would rather deal with the bandit troupe in the east marches, not allowing the characters to sort this out among themselves - even if it takes all session - cheapens the game IMO. Ditto for a smaller-scale debate e.g. do we go left, right, or straight ahead at this 4-way intersection of gloomy passages.

Basically we've engineered it so that the players and their characters get on the same page very quickly. If Falstaffe's player puts forward the idea to go after the evil wizard, Grog's and Halfred's players will figure out a way to get Grog and Halfred to go along with that in a way that makes sense for the characters. Next time, Falstaffe will defer to Grog or Halfred instead.

As for spending an entire session on player or character debates, I'll take a hard pass on that. The second I hear a "Yeah, but..." my blood pressure goes up because I know we're headed toward a time-wasting debate.

{2} this one's worth trying to curtail to some point, though it'll never be eliminated as no DM (and a shockingly low percentage of boxed text) is ever going to perfectly describe every environment in such a way as to answer every player's potential questions. That, and as a DM it's probably better to err on the side of giving too little info than too much (though either is bad) because giving too much info too soon can ruin the exploration and-or social sides of the game.

The table rule is that if you can state something as an action, do so. Don't try to hide an action in a question to force the DM to assume what you're doing and potentially avoid consequences. If you legitimately did not hear the DM or don't understand a word or something, then ask. But otherwise, have your character do stuff to get the information you seek. This keeps things moving forward. Otherwise we're stopping the game for you to have a little side-chat with the DM and that's not going to work for us.

{3} if the characters are to be played as if they were real people engaging with the dangerous situations we put them in they should at all times be worrying about the things you like to call gotchas - assuming they have any sort of self-preservation instincts - because the parts of the game world that adventurers tend to interact with are otherwise likely to kill them dead.

However much some want to justify gotchas as being a thing that could really happen, they are still unfair game play in my view and tend to lead to players being overly cautious in a way that impacts game pacing. Telegraphing and the certain knowledge that the DM isn't trying to hit them with screwjobs all the time sorts that right out. If your character takes a beating, you can be sure in my games that you were fairly warned.

{4} this one's a variable. Sometimes NPCs are straight up and easy to deal with, other times they're not so simple, and sometimes they're actively trying to mess up the PCs; all based on these NPCs' own motivations and personalities. It gets old fast if every NPC is dishonest or hard to deal with, but it also gets old fast if every NPC is an open book.

DMs in my experience seem to have a problem separating a basic NPC interaction for color with an actual social interaction challenge. So everything's a challenge of one sort or another for no good reason and, often, it's just really annoying. You'll know if you're in a bonafide social interaction challenge in my games at which point you'll know you're trying to accomplish something important. (I've written a bit about how to structure these in other threads.)

 

[5ekyu]

I love Stonehell Dungeon's "random container contents" table - ca 70% there is something to find, even though not mentioned in the room key, and players can be amazingly creative at turning a bag of salty peanuts on a dead mountain troll into a scenario-winning asset!

A trick I try to do in my games is to have several "special drops" listed for each PC. These may be seeds for plots of they choose to follow up, may just be something interesting, may even be related to the immediate tasks and scenery or just surprising. These drops focus on class, race, background or backstory- sp st least four each.

So when any PC makes an exceptional check, of almost any sort of exploratory nature, i can drop one of theirs in adding a bit of wow.

Maybe that means the decaying armor on one of the skeletons around that dark altar takes on special meaning to one character but otherwise doesn't change the actual mission in any meaningful way - but it adds to the experience on personal to PC levels even if we dont knock off as many adventure waypoints per session.

 

[iserith]

5 - "The asking to make checks instead of stating a goal and approach"

It is so difficult to get them to shake this habit. I have been trying very hard to get my players to stop doing this, and I have been some what successful. But then they play with another DM, and they are right back to doing it again. I find this a bit frustrating. I think this is because some of my players have been playing since 2nd edition, and so this style of play is deeply entrenched in their minds.

If I remember correctly, you play D&D 3.Xe and (again, iirc) the expectation is that players "use skills" rather than describe what they want to do, or perhaps in addition to it. (I would have to re-read the corresponding PHB or DMG to be sure on this point.)

So if I'm playing D&D 3.Xe or 4e, I would be okay with players asking to make checks. I would still ask them to make sure they include a goal and approach so that I have an easier time adjudicating the action without assuming and establishing what the character is doing. In D&D 5e, I see no support for players asking to make checks, so I ask that they do not ask to make checks.