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

[pemerton]

I haven't played Dungeon World, but this is disheartening. I was understanding it as a game that steps away from dice instead of one stepping toward them.

Well, to borrow from Ron Edwards, there are three basic ways to resolve action declarations in a RPG:

* Drama: someone narrates what happens;

* Karma: a number/rating determines the outcome;

* Fortune: dice, cards etc determine what happens.​

Drama resolution has its place (eg it's the "yes" in "say 'yes' or roll the dice"), but I don't think a game where it covers the field will be very satisfactory. Going back to the pile of rubble: if the player is allowed to just narrate what his/her PC finds, that seems a bit easy (and potentially quite insipid) unless it's pretty low stakes, in which case it's not the main action in any event; and if the GM just narrates what the PC finds, then we've got strongly GM-driven play, which can be fine in modest doses but certainly isn't the main thing I'm looking for in RPGing. And it's certainly not what Dungeon World is about!

So it's either karma or fortune - and DW goes with fortune. A strong success (10+) gives win. A modest success (7-9) gives small win, or win with cost. A failure (6 or down) gives 1 XP, and licenses the GM to make a move that is adverse to the interests of the PC in question.

I haven't played much DW, but am hoping to get a bit more experience with it maybe over the next year or so (maybe when my group finishes our Cortex+ Heroic Fantasy game, I'll be able to persaude them to try DW in its place). Both from experience and by reputation, it seems to play pretty well.

 

[pemerton]

It may just be part of the fluff description of the room, or it may be a decorative element visible on a bunch of dungeon tiles. Whatever the case may be, I think there are plenty of situations in which a room may contain objects that don't lead to riches. Is that really so odd for a DM to include in the room description?

Just in passing, I didn't say anything about "leading to riches". But on the main point, generally if I call something out, I think it's open for it to matter. I mean, maybe it won't because the players won't care about it, but if they do then I'm happy to see what happens.

Here's an actual play example from a while ago now:

As the PCs continue through the tunnels, I described them coming to a cleft in the floor, and got them to describe how they would cross it. The drow sorcerer indicated that he would first fly over (using 16th level At Will Dominant Winds) and then . . . before he could finish, I launched into my beholder encounter, which I had designed inspired by this image (which is the cover art from Dungeonscape, I think):

[section]

[/section]

I'm not sure exactly what the artist intended, but to me it looks as if the central beholder is hovering over a chasm, with uneven rocky surfaces leading up to it (archer on one side, flaming sword guy on the other). I drew up my map similiarly, including with the side tunnel (behind the tiefling) which on my version ran down into the chasm, and the columns, stalactites, etc.

I didn't use four beholders, only 2 - an eye tyrant (MV version) and an eye of flame advanced to 17th level and MM3-ed for damage. And also a 15th level roper from MV, introduced on a whim when the player of the wizard asked, before taking cover behind a column, if it looked suspicious. (Response to result of 28 on the Perception check before adding the +2 bonus for knowing what he is looking for - "Yes, yes it does!")

(Considered in the abstract, it's an open question whether noticing a roper when you're checking the suspicious nature of a stone column should count as a success or a failure. In some systems - eg classic D&D, and perhaps DW, it's clearly a failure. In the context of 4e, especially played among friends, I was happy to use it as a success! It's hard to overestimate how forgiving 4e is to players, especially of paragon and epic PCs.)

 

[5ekyu]

It's not a punishment. In 5e there is only ever a roll if the outcome is in doubt. By rolling, the player is letting me know that the outcome for this action is in doubt, so there has to be at least some small chance of failure.

That is to me circular reasoning. The DMG section on assigning DC when to roll etc provides a lot of examples and guidelines for a GM to choose when to ask for a roll and when to not to suit their need.

But it **never says** anywhere in the rules that a player rolling a dice is telling the GM i have to have a chance to fail.

In fact, consider...

5e makes a clear distinction between a natural 1 being a auto-failure for to-hit rolls but **not** for skill checks and saves.

**If** as you claim "In 5e there is only ever a roll if the outcome is in doubt" then why is the auto-fail on attacks but not on skills or saves a thing in their rules?

If you only ever make the roll when there is a chance of failure then a 1 on the kept die is always a fail, right, even for skills and saves?

Yet its clear that a roll of one is not for those.

So, applying the DnD 5e rules i reach the notion that if a task was going to be easy enough to be auto success then hey its going to succeed even if you make a roll.

As for it being a punishment, consider - the same guideline on "when to roll" that says outcome is in dpubt includes possible to succeed.

So, if the player rolls the die and you decide that means they now get a failure chance for what would have ruled an auto-success no matter what, do you follow the same logic and let them rolling change what you would have ruled no success possible to change to "ok they can succeed"?

No? It can only do that for changes to hurt their chances?

Uh huh.

Again, any gm can play how they like and they can reward players who do things that make the gm happy (wait patienly for permission and being allowed to do stuff) and punish them for doing stuff they dont... and as long as everyone is on board, thats fine... But its not at all called for by 5e rules.

 

[5ekyu]

Interesting idea.

How big are each of these shards - big enough to allow a reasonably wide variety of climates, cultures and geography? Or is it more like there's an arctic shard and a jungle shard and a plains shard etc.?

Perhaps - but depending on how it's done I might end up just seeing all the shards as part of the same overarching setting and thus not new at all, after having played in the first one or two. They'll share the same cosmology, the same pantheons (barring local variants), the same astronomy, the same creation history, etc.

My current setting is a binary planet, and while I or someone else could easily run a campaign on the planet I'm not using it would still, for me, be the same background setting.

The Atlantis shard is basically about a third to a half of north america eadt coast approximately florida to part of texas to parts of canada north of maine and near dakotas.

So you have the mid atlantic region butting up to the mountsins, you have the southern gulf, you have the lakelands in the center, icelands climbing in the north etc.

On this shard your broadest types of terrain include...
Mountains
Forests
Swamp (repurposed to swamp, rivers, lakes)
Arctic
Cultivated/Cililized

Additionally the more unusual and exotic types will include:

Shadow replaces coastal with unique chart of mostly bad - areas where the maelstrom and its type of effects manifest such as near the borders of the shard and other nefarious isolated places inland as well as during shadow storms

Shimmers replacing desert with its own unique chart of strange and deadly - where the massive magics holding it all together are unstable

Crossovers (replaces underdark) where for a variety of reasons some other shard gets manifested here.


Meanwhile a shard derived from the north american southwest would lose arctic but add desert back in.

Basically the larger the shard the more of the common terrains that can reasonably be found but all can have some exotics. Smaller shards may have only a couple types, maybe only one and may be,mostly unpopulated except by exotics that can survive there.

Of course, even,lifeless shards can be worth exploring since that really old advance magic til they blew up the world stuff - some of it survived.

Think of maybe if a really high magic world with ubiquitous magic (Eberron) blew itself up and ages later the survivors are back to a mostly medium to std dnd magic level.

If fact some of the, legends and myths are about how in the old times there were stars in the sky and those stars had worlds you could use jeweled rings to go visit - as a nod to this world once having been in the DnD prime worlds linked by,porting circles but then... were cut off.

"When the Traitors broke the world and poisoned the skies."

 

[5ekyu]

Let me illustrate with an example:

The players are in a dungeon, and they enter a room with (among other things) a pile of rubble in it. There is nothing in the pile of rubble, it is just dungeon decoration.

Tom: I search the pile of rubble! (Starts rolling Search check) 20!

DM: You find nothing of interest.

Tom: -But I rolled a 20!

All of this can be avoided if the DM is the one calling for a check, or in this case not-asking for a check. This also avoids situations where a player makes a skillcheck, when the DM wants him to make a different skillcheck, and cases where an action is going to auto-succeed. This can also help the players focus more on stating an approach to their actions, rather than immediately throwing their dice before an action has been properly stated.

Why does it need to be avoided? Just say "yes you rolled a 20 and your character is sure theres nothing there but rubble."

The issue you cite is a confusion over whether search is "do i find something interesting" check vs "i look and search thru it" check **and** part of that may come from the GM... Whether he describes what thet found or what they didnt find.

Additionally, it csn stem from the details a gm chooses to use or not. On a net 20, is there a clue to this scenery that can be found?

"Its just worn down crumbled stone, looks like one time a table but it looks cracked and weathered like stones exposed to severe westher swings sometimes do"

Obviously the specifics depend on the scenery, setting and skills/experience of the searcher.

I tend to go into a scenery with a few types of tidbits and clues to the overall story thst can be used as seasoning when appropriate.

I also tend to have a list of "ties" to PCs that i can drop in anywhere when i want to add a bit of fun and bring the "here and now" more into,that character's past or future. A broken trinket can do wonders for a pile of rubble.

You can choose to teach your player a lesson or to engage them and those are not exclusive unless the lesdon you teach is "dont do that".

 

[5ekyu]

Why didn't you initially describe that trap when you described the room? If I auto-succeed, why wasn't I told as soon as I could see it? And, note, an auto-success means that no matter what I rolled, I'd succeed anyway, so, again, it shouldn't make any difference whether I rolled or not.



But, the player cannot ever determine that. The player never knows if an action is in doubt or not. If it wasn't in doubt, no matter what the roll was, it succeeded. If the climb DC is 5 and I have a +4 climb skill, it doesn't matter if I roll or not, I move half my speed up whatever it is I'm climbing.



Meh, I'm not really concerned to be honest. If I get a 20 and there's nothing to find, then, well, I succeeded but there was nothing to find. Any player who complains about that is being a bad player. And, it's pretty rare that a player is going to use the wrong skill for something. It's not like the skills overlap to any great extent. I search the chest is an investigate check. End of story.

It seems to me that people are far too concerned with nailing things down instead of just going with it and, AFAIC, wasting the table's time. I see the chest, I search the chest. I shouldn't have to wait for the DM's permission to do so. Just do it and move on. Same with talking to the NPC or listening at that door or trying to find that secret door. It looks like, to me, unnecessary steps are being added that don't really add anything to the game. How you find that trap is a lot less interesting than the existence of that trap in the first place.

"Any player who complains about that is being a bad player."

I take a slightly different slant and see that player as misunderstanding what the check is for... What success means.

Remember in some gameplay (not so much in DnD) a skill check is an attempt to affect the scene, to determine an outcome. In such a game, success in a search does not mean "you looked thru the safe" but also "and you found a clue".

Compare the skill checks for searching the rubble and hunting/foraging in 5e.

Both cases specific actions are declared, skills rolled vs dc set by gm, but in the search you just get told whats there while in the foraging you get to,not only find stuff but hunt/gather/harvest it... Your forage is not "do i find anything" but "do i find, take down and gather food or water we can use?

If you told a player the foraging DC was 20 due to scarcity and he got a 23 but you told him he did not find anything woryh eating or drinking - would that be a "bad player" too if he said "but i got the 20".

Is it the player's bad if hecl sees over and over foraging be a DC success means get something but reacts when a high search yields nothing or is that a case of bad gm (assign really high dc to see if something is there like with foraging in barren area" or bad "system"?

Is it wrong or bad or not 5e if a gm chooses to treat searching/investigate like survival - foraging and set a dc bssed on what the gm knows of the scene but then allows the *check* to determine the outcome?

Thats why i say the example is not to me saying "bad player" just maybe misunderstanding the table rules.

 

[billd91]

And if that check failed? Do you as DM assume the character used his or her hands to search or the shovel?

I don't assume he uses either. But I also don't make any assumptions that using a shovel is sufficient as a contact prevention protocol. Thoroughly sifting through a pile of mixed rubble is almost certainly going to involve both the hands, feet, knees, and any shovel the PC might be using. With a trap in general, if the character fails to notice it and interacts with what it protects, that character is exposed to the trap and its effects. I would do the same with the contact poison-smeared rubble or rot grubs.

 

[iserith]

I don't assume he uses either. But I also don't make any assumptions that using a shovel is sufficient as a contact prevention protocol. Thoroughly sifting through a pile of mixed rubble is almost certainly going to involve both the hands, feet, knees, and any shovel the PC might be using. With a trap in general, if the character fails to notice it and interacts with what it protects, that character is exposed to the trap and its effects. I would do the same with the contact poison-smeared rubble or rot grubs.

I would almost certainly make a distinction in the results between using a shovel and one's bare hands in searching a poisonous or rot grub infested rubble pile. The approach the player offers matters in my view.

 

[Lanefan]

I've done three rejections of GMs. (Each against a different GM.)

(1) The GM was running some scenario involving kobolds raiding a city. We (the PCs) captured a kobold and tried to interrogate it - how many kobolds, maps of their encampment, etc. The GM played it as absolutely stupid, unable to tell us anything at all. The railroading was palpable. We dumped the GM and started a new game.

Seems a bit much to dump a GM over just one instance of this. Now if every time you ever tried to gain info from a captive the captive turned out to be dumb as a post your claim would be valid based on the pattern that had been established, but just once? Harsh.

I've taken to randomly rolling both for intelligence and for how much knowledge it has, whenever the PCs charm a monster or take one as a captive (a fairly common occurrence); and sometimes they do get a dumb one*. Other times they get a smart one* and-or a knowledgable one. Most often they get something close to average.

* - relative to the species average. A 'smart' Kobold might have average Human intelligence, a 'dumb' Kobold would be like the one you captured if not worse, and the average would be somewhere between those.

(2) The GM ran a fairly standard patron-mission scenario. At the end, the patron betrayed us (the PCs). We never initiated second scenario.

This is a standard trope in all kinds of fiction - the boss or patron isn't who or what you think s/he is - and has to be considered fair game. In this particular case it'd then be on the PCs (whether from their own volition of because the story demands it, it's the same end result either way) to track down the patron, who just became a villain. And even if they don't, they've learned a useful lesson: never trust anyone.

(3) The GM ran a game that was inspired by a campaign he'd run for an earlier group. The interest of the game was all in the interplay of the PCs (it was five or six players, most of whom weren't friends outside the game), and we gradually built up quite a rich dynamic among the players and in our conception of and relation to the gameworld. Then the GM "rebooted" the whole thing by sending the PCs 100 years forward into the future. This killed off everything we'd done as players, by completely resetting the context of play. I left the game not long after, and I don't think it lasted very long after that.

This one, on the other hand, makes no sense from the GM side. If things are going well, why mess with it? Dumb move.

Lanefan

 

[5ekyu]

BTW as a slight nod to this discussion and the recent examples of searching a pile of rubble and getting a 20 and what happens...

I brougth up the broader concept of "is there something to find?" and my approaches in another thread for discussion

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?653939-5e-GMs-Why-or-Why-Not-Wandering-Treasure