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

[robus]

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.

Something I find very impressive with Critical Role is how rarely the players address the DM out of character, it's perhaps once an episode (if that). You'll hear a "OK this is Liam asking Matt..." and it'll seem so strange (of course there's the discussion when a mat comes out and the players want to get their characters positioned where they imagined them to be, but I see that as different). The players constantly have their characters engage with the world Matt's describing and it's a pleasure to see, because the world becomes richer because of it and the energy of the game is preserved.

 

[iserith]

Something I find very impressive with Critical Role is how rarely the players address the DM out of character, it's perhaps once an episode (if that). You'll hear a "OK this is Liam asking Matt..." and it'll seem so strange (of course there's the discussion when a mat comes out and the players want to get their characters positioned where they imagined them to be, but I see that as different). The players constantly have their characters engage with the world Matt's describing and it's a pleasure to see, because the world becomes richer because of it and the energy of the game is preserved.

For me, it's less about that experience as it is just keeping things moving forward. I mean, my games are highly comedic and not serious at all in the way that I've seen Critical Role can be serious. (I'm not a fan and don't watch much of it, but occasionally I tune in for a few minutes.)

I also see the questions in many cases as a form of cheating. If you can ask the right questions of the DM, you don't have to take action in the world. Since actions may have consequences, it's way safer to just play 20 Questions until you can suss out the best option and then take it. The player may not even realize he or she is doing this since it's such a common way to play. So the rule of thumb we have is "Can you get the answer to that question by taking action in the setting?" If you can, then describe a goal and approach instead of ask a question.

 

[Satyrn]

The thing is, any info that is important has already been given out for free. Sure, I can roll an arcana check on the magic globe, but because the DM has already divulged the important information in the room, I know that any answer is just going to be secondary at best.

I think what I meant by "important" info is different than how you took it . . . and since Saelorn and 5ekyu don't seem to get my meaning either, the fault is clearly mine.


Like launching a land war in Asia, though, arguing the definition of a word on EnWorld is best avoided.

So, like, I accept I didn't get my point across.

 

[iserith]

I think what I meant by "important" info is different than how you took it . . . and since Saelorn and 5ekyu don't seem to get my meaning either, the fault is clearly mine.


Like launching a land war in Asia, though, arguing the definition of a word on EnWorld is best avoided.

So, like, I accept I didn't get my point across.

I think you explained it well when you were paraphrasing my approach: The DM gives information sufficient to act. If the players want an edge, they can start applying their noodles to get more information. It's the "need to have" versus the "nice to have." Sometimes those "nice to haves" can really save the PCs some time and resources.

To drag out the ol' troll example, I can describe the troll in the cave as it moves into attack, carefully avoiding the brazier when it does. That's information sufficient to act. If the players want to know if the troll has any special weaknesses, it's on them to establish their characters as trying to recall such lore or make such deductions. I don't need to ask for checks out of the blue here. They have enough information to act.

 

[5ekyu]

I think what I meant by "important" info is different than how you took it . . . and since Saelorn and 5ekyu don't seem to get my meaning either, the fault is clearly mine.


Like launching a land war in Asia, though, arguing the definition of a word on EnWorld is best avoided.

So, like, I accept I didn't get my point across.

Agreed... Part of it as an isdue of understanding is that it has at times been described as critical for the story to advance, others as sort of without it the players character are left blundering about, others as the difference between simply a statue of a figure they recognize or not, others as enough for choices to be made, others as just info the GM wants them to get etc etc etc and while there may be a tiny intersection of cases which makes all of those true at once, it seems to be easy to take any one or two of them and end up someplace different outside that intersection.

I think s case in my games is that i dont usualky have chokepoint info or situations where unless abc the player characters cannot take action or do things as well as trying as much as possible to have anything close to "key info" available from several different avenues. So, its not ever or extrrmely rare for me to see "critical" info that without it the game stops. They can certainly hit dead ends and need to rethink and regroup, perhaps even redo, redirect or refocus or maybe just move on.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Yeah, if this 'agreement' was a DM-enforced thing that would certainly count in my books as a DM flaw, under 'severe violation of player agency', that would cause me to leave a game.

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.

That's because you're too worried about getting everything done right now. If a long in-character debate is looming then pour yourself a beer, sit back, and take it easy for a while. You've always got next session, or next month, or next year....the campaign you're running is designed to last the rest of your life, isn't it? If not, why not?

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.

This is fine.

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.

But how do you get from the last bit to this in one leap? Just because I'm the player asking the questions doesn't mean I'm the only player who wants the information, it means only that I'm the one who happened to ask. Also, an action can quite often be stated more succinctly as a question and-or simply contained within it. Example:

DM: "...and at the edge of your light is what might be a stone altar - it's hard to tell but there could be wispy smoke rising from its centre."
Player: "Can I see a source for the smoke - something burning, maybe - or is the smoke coming from solid stone?"

Here the player skips the words "I look more closely at the altar from where I'm standing" and just gets right to the point; and I don't mind this. If I-as-DM am uncertain whether the character is standing pat or moving closer, I'll just ask. And even though it's just one player asking, the whole table is likely interested in the answer.

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.

Again with the pacing - this seems to be a theme of yours.

It's quite realistic to posit that sometimes a character is going to take a beating simply due to sheer bad luck, and other times due to its own (via the player) misjudgement, and other times because it simply couldn't see or know what was coming. It's war, not sport. By the same token, it's reasonable to assume the characters are taking some precautions, and if the players want to detail these it's well worth the time spent.

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.)

To me this needlessly provides information to the players that the characters wouldn't have, leading to some metagame headaches that could very easily have been avoided.

They talk to three shopkeepers. One of those shopkeepers is a spy for the enemy. Telegraphing that there's a spy out there somewhere is fine in some situations but not in others; placing undue emphasis on the PCs' interaction with the spy over the other two is always wrong IMO, as you're in effect leading the players (and by metagame extension, the PCs) along what amounts to a soft railroad. Put another way, emphasizing that one interaction is - though slightly more subtle - roughly equivalent to putting a sign over that shop's door sayng "THE SPY IS IN HERE!" and narrating that.

One shopkeeper could be a jolly old lady willing to chat about nothing all day if you let her.
One shopkeeper could be a sleazy guy familiar with every shady sales technique ever invented.
One shopkeeper could be a no-nonsense military veteran whose fighting days are over.

Which one's the spy, if any? By what you're saying it would be the sleazy sales guy every time, and so much for that mystery. Were it me that guy might be a potentially-time-consuming red herring, as would the talkative lady: the ex-military guy has gone rogue against his old bosses and is now a secret agent.

And if the PCs take all session and half the next trying to figure this out, so what? And if they never figure it out or completely ignore it, too bad for them. But if they do figure it out they have an advantage - they can try to charm or turn the spy, or they can feed him false info, or they can report him to the militia...all kinds of fun can be had.

Lan-"secret agent man"-efan

 

[guachi]

For those who provide clues and clearly telegraph threats what would happen if you described a room/area/encounter and the players said "nothing in this room seems interesting/dangerous. Let's move on"?

What if the room actually did have interesting/dangerous things in it? What do you do then?

 

[Lanefan]

For those who provide clues and clearly telegraph threats what would happen if you described a room/area/encounter and the players said "nothing in this room seems interesting/dangerous. Let's move on"?

What if the room actually did have interesting/dangerous things in it? What do you do then?

Telegraphed or not, let 'em move on.

 

[guachi]

What if the dangerous thing was a trap or a monster that causes harm to the party?

If the players are oblivious to your telegraphing/clues does the harm still occur?

 

[iserith]

Yeah, if this 'agreement' was a DM-enforced thing that would certainly count in my books as a DM flaw, under 'severe violation of player agency', that would cause me to leave a game.

It doesn't need to be enforced if everyone agrees to it and abides by their agreement.

That's because you're too worried about getting everything done right now. If a long in-character debate is looming then pour yourself a beer, sit back, and take it easy for a while. You've always got next session, or next month, or next year....the campaign you're running is designed to last the rest of your life, isn't it? If not, why not?

I prefer to keep campaigns down to a year or less, preferably less. Six months or about 20 to 25 sessions is ideal in my view. Then I want to move on to something else. I'm not interested in anything open-ended anymore.

But how do you get from the last bit to this in one leap? Just because I'm the player asking the questions doesn't mean I'm the only player who wants the information, it means only that I'm the one who happened to ask. Also, an action can quite often be stated more succinctly as a question and-or simply contained within it. Example:

DM: "...and at the edge of your light is what might be a stone altar - it's hard to tell but there could be wispy smoke rising from its centre."
Player: "Can I see a source for the smoke - something burning, maybe - or is the smoke coming from solid stone?"

Here the player skips the words "I look more closely at the altar from where I'm standing" and just gets right to the point; and I don't mind this. If I-as-DM am uncertain whether the character is standing pat or moving closer, I'll just ask. And even though it's just one player asking, the whole table is likely interested in the answer.

"From where I'm standing, I want to look for the source of the smoke." That is describing what you want to do so that I can adjudicate and narrate the result of the adventurers' action.

Again with the pacing - this seems to be a theme of yours.

Well, you did jump into an exchange I was having with someone who objected to exploration challenges and asserted that they negatively impacted pacing. As someone who is very concerned about pacing, I can say that they do not. Subsequent comments of mine should underscore that I am indeed concerned about it.

It's quite realistic to posit that sometimes a character is going to take a beating simply due to sheer bad luck, and other times due to its own (via the player) misjudgement, and other times because it simply couldn't see or know what was coming. It's war, not sport. By the same token, it's reasonable to assume the characters are taking some precautions, and if the players want to detail these it's well worth the time spent.

It's a game, so I want it to be fair. Gotchas are not fair. Luck comes into play after the player makes an informed choice and the outcome of that choice is uncertain and there's a meaningful consequence of failure. My telegraphing the hidden threat (or whatever) when describing the environment is what allows the player to make an informed choice.

To me this needlessly provides information to the players that the characters wouldn't have, leading to some metagame headaches that could very easily have been avoided.

They talk to three shopkeepers. One of those shopkeepers is a spy for the enemy. Telegraphing that there's a spy out there somewhere is fine in some situations but not in others; placing undue emphasis on the PCs' interaction with the spy over the other two is always wrong IMO, as you're in effect leading the players (and by metagame extension, the PCs) along what amounts to a soft railroad. Put another way, emphasizing that one interaction is - though slightly more subtle - roughly equivalent to putting a sign over that shop's door sayng "THE SPY IS IN HERE!" and narrating that.

One shopkeeper could be a jolly old lady willing to chat about nothing all day if you let her.
One shopkeeper could be a sleazy guy familiar with every shady sales technique ever invented.
One shopkeeper could be a no-nonsense military veteran whose fighting days are over.

Which one's the spy, if any? By what you're saying it would be the sleazy sales guy every time, and so much for that mystery. Were it me that guy might be a potentially-time-consuming red herring, as would the talkative lady: the ex-military guy has gone rogue against his old bosses and is now a secret agent.

And if the PCs take all session and half the next trying to figure this out, so what? And if they never figure it out or completely ignore it, too bad for them. But if they do figure it out they have an advantage - they can try to charm or turn the spy, or they can feed him false info, or they can report him to the militia...all kinds of fun can be had.

Lan-"secret agent man"-efan

I would say your definition of "railroad" is overly broad and your concerns about "metagaming" overblown.