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

[Valmarius]

Not quite sure what you are asking here.

I'll try and rephrase my question to discount the rather specific series of events we've all started focusing on.

A player has stated they want to make a skill check.
As the DM you determined the DC, and what success and failure look like.
The player rolls, and you narrate the results of their actions.
But then the player interrupts; either the outcome is not something they anticipated, or your narration of their character doesn't match what they thought they were doing.

How do you react?
Keep the consequences you decided on, but shift the narration to better fit the PC's retcon.
Change the consequences (perhaps rolling again) based on the PC's retcon.
Or keep the consequences, the PC should have been more clear.
(Or some other reaction I haven't listed)


And the real question, I suppose:
Wouldn't the whole thing have been easier if the player was in the habit of stating their goal and approach.

 

[iserith]

So, how exactly do I avoid the rot grubs then? I need to state exactly what I'm doing every single time? I'm searching the rubble using this tool, taking this amount of time, while not doing X, Y and Z?

Like I said, I'd much, MUCH rather just that the DM assumes that I'm not a total incompetent and adjudicate accordingly.

As I pointed out in a post to you upthread, there's a standard of reasonable specificity in the rules. And with good reason, I would say. It keeps the DM and players on the same page. It makes it easier on the DM to adjudicate fairly. It adds to the conversation which is creating the story, sharing it more equitably between the game's participants.

The problem is that when seemingly any amount of specificity to achieve greater clarity is suggested, some people jump straight to "keywords" and "pixelbitching" as if that's the only result. Not only is that uncharitable discussion, it's just plain wrong.

The rot grubs are irrelevant and a distraction. Context will tell what is appropriate for the players to describe and, based on that, the DM to adjudicate. But I will demand reasonable specificity as to the goal and approach and will have telegraphed any threats so that there are no gotchas, as I have stated in this thread and countless others.

 

[Hussar]

RE the bold addressed to me - please do not presume that i like whatever you have conjured up about my games that i have not said.

If you think i said i want my players to do what you just accused me of - i suggest you reread any number of posts to correct that false idea you put forth.

If you notice, my latest suggestion was treating it as a setback on a failed ability check per the PHb definition of a failed ability check - not the "pre-approach" scriptures some follow.

Character competence is assumed in my games but is confirmed by the character ability check results.

I'm not "accusing" you of anything. I'm simply stating my own preferences and why I wouldn't enjoy your game, based on what you last said. It is not an insult to say that you wouldn't like someone's game. It's nothing personal, simply a difference in preferences.

I'm honestly not sure what "If you notice, my latest suggestion was treating it as a setback on a failed ability check per the PHb definition of a failed ability check - not the "pre-approach" scriptures some follow." means. I'm failing my reading comprehension check.

I'll try and rephrase my question to discount the rather specific series of events we've all started focusing on.

A player has stated they want to make a skill check.
As the DM you determined the DC, and what success and failure look like.
The player rolls, and you narrate the results of their actions.
But then the player interrupts; either the outcome is not something they anticipated, or your narration of their character doesn't match what they thought they were doing.

How do you react?
Keep the consequences you decided on, but shift the narration to better fit the PC's retcon.
Change the consequences (perhaps rolling again) based on the PC's retcon.
Or keep the consequences, the PC should have been more clear.
(Or some other reaction I haven't listed)


And the real question, I suppose:
Wouldn't the whole thing have been easier if the player was in the habit of stating their goal and approach.

To me, this is largely a DM trust issue. If the DM gives an outcome that you didn't anticipate, hopefully that outcome will be more interesting. Now, if there is a breakdown in communication, fine, that happens. We can sort that out. But, in most cases, so long as the DM presumes a fair degree of competence, this sort of thing just doesn't happen or doesn't happen very often.

Like I said, when you don't insist on detailing every single step, then it keeps things nice and abstract and everyone's happy because nothing ever gets actually contradicted. In the rot grub example, it's cut and dried - success means you notice the hazard and can react, failure runs into surprise. And, IMO, 99% of situations are going to be that cut and dried, particularly when the DM makes it absolutely crystal clear that the DM is not going to screw you over for not detailing out every single action.

The rot grubs are irrelevant and a distraction. Context will tell what is appropriate for the players to describe and, based on that, the DM to adjudicate. But I will demand reasonable specificity as to the goal and approach and will have telegraphed any threats so that there are no gotchas, as I have stated in this thread and countless others.

Again, I get that. And it works for you. Me, I'd much rather chew glass than deal with this on any ongoing basis. It would drive me to distraction to have to narrate that much. I'd tune out and start playing on my phone. At your table, I would be a TERRIBLE player. Conversely, at my table, your insistence on detail would annoy the crap out of everyone else at the table and you would be a terrible player at my table.

It's not about right or wrong here. It's simply different priorities. Your insistence on Q&A with the DM before checks would grind my game to a crawl (or what I consider to be a crawl) and would bore me to tears. I'm simply not interested in that level of detail. I'm not. And I'm not going to apologize for that either. It's all about playing what you want. There is no actual right answer here.

 

[iserith]

Again, I get that. And it works for you. Me, I'd much rather chew glass than deal with this on any ongoing basis. It would drive me to distraction to have to narrate that much. I'd tune out and start playing on my phone. At your table, I would be a TERRIBLE player. Conversely, at my table, your insistence on detail would annoy the crap out of everyone else at the table and you would be a terrible player at my table.

It's not about right or wrong here. It's simply different priorities. Your insistence on Q&A with the DM before checks would grind my game to a crawl (or what I consider to be a crawl) and would bore me to tears. I'm simply not interested in that level of detail. I'm not. And I'm not going to apologize for that either. It's all about playing what you want. There is no actual right answer here.

The weird thing about these discussions is that when the level of detail is actually parsed, we're talking like 4 to 10 words difference between asking to make a check where the DM has to take a guess at what the player wants to do and stating a goal and approach where the DM doesn't have to do that. If that. And those 4 to 10 words are basically transferring from the DM to the player. It's not actually extra words.

In other people's games, what I typically see is the player doesn't describe a goal and approach within the standard of reasonable specificity. Then the DM picks up the slack and assumes or establishes what the character does when narrating the result of the adventurer's action. If the player agrees, play continues. If the player doesn't agree with the assumption, there's an objection and that needs to be hashed out.

That is a very common approach but gets it backward in my view. The DM should not be assuming the important details of the character's action. The player should be more explicit to help the DM not do that and so adjudication is easier and more fair. And the DM should be the one to call for the ability check (or not, if one is not needed). That's what the rules support, but people are used to playing certain ways because of the influence of other games like D&D 3.Xe and 4e and I gather they don't really rethink their approaches when changing to a new game system to see if they are still applicable.

Which is not to say they're wrong, as you say. Anyone can play how they like. The approach I take avoids certain problems without creating new ones or adding more time to the game and is what I have derived from the rules text. If we were talking about D&D 3.Xe or 4e, I'd have a different position.

 

[guachi]

Actually the gun on the mantlepiece can have relevence here in the following aspect...

A GM can establish certain "common elements of a scene" that carry thru without repeating them over and over.

My favorite old adventures are by the UK TSR team. The only one I remember seeing at the time (can't remember reading) was U1 Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh a the title is so distinctive it'd be hard to forget seeing it at my friend's house. Since then, thanks to DMs Guild and ebay I've actually purchased U1-3 UK 3-4 and B10.

Their room descriptions are fantastic and do include things like "Unless otherwise noted, all rooms are...." The descriptions and the trappings are natural and serve not so much to provide the clues and telegraphing but to describe the room in a way that the characters can understand its purpose for being there aside from just some random room.

The good descriptions and trappings invite exploration and basically provide all the clues one could want without it seeming like that's what you're doing.

As opposed to X2 Castle Amber. It's a fun module. But good, thorough, logical room descriptions are not to be found. As I told my players "no logic was harmed in the making of this module".

 

[guachi]

To tie the UK modules into the rot grub discussion, U1 actually does have them. How they approach the thing that has them matters.

Though in three times running it the PCs blundered right into them each time.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

The player is not allowed to just roll the dice according to the rules. The rules also say that you only roll when the outcome is in doubt.

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?

No. You only roll when there's a chance of failure. If there is no fail, even on a 1, the DM does not call for a roll. If there is a roll, then per the rules there is a chance for failure, since you ONLY roll when the outcome is uncertain. Therefore, when the player rolls, per the rules the outcome must be uncertain and there is a chance for failure.

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"?

It's not an auto success no matter what. It's an auto success only if the DM doesn't call for a roll and lets you know that you succeed.

 

[Maxperson]

Why on earth would you assume that the PC is digging with his or her hands?

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You ask, "How are you searching the rubble?" Now I have to specifically state that I'm using a shovel and not my hands or I get attacked by rot grubs? Seriously?

Yeah, no thanks.

Or, you just tell him what you are doing in the first place. I mean, how hard is it to say, "I take out my shovel and sift through the rubble."?

 

[Hussar]

Or, you just tell him what you are doing in the first place. I mean, how hard is it to say, "I take out my shovel and sift through the rubble."?

Why bother? I mean seriously, why bother? And, what happens, generally, is that the DM will take any specificity as permission to start screwing over the players. "Oh, you used your shovel? Well, you cause sparks to fly when you smack your shovel into that rock, igniting the natural gas in the room. Roll a saving throw. hee hee hee"

No thanks. If "I search the rubble, I got X on my Investigate" is unacceptable at your table, that's fine. No worries. But, I have zero interest in playing at that table.

 

[5ekyu]

The player is not allowed to just roll the dice according to the rules. The rules also say that you only roll when the outcome is in doubt.



No. You only roll when there's a chance of failure. If there is no fail, even on a 1, the DM does not call for a roll. If there is a roll, then per the rules there is a chance for failure, since you ONLY roll when the outcome is uncertain. Therefore, when the player rolls, per the rules the outcome must be uncertain and there is a chance for failure.



It's not an auto success no matter what. It's an auto success only if the DM doesn't call for a roll and lets you know that you succeed.

I am not going to hun thru all the rules for all the various references but here is the section from ability scores that parallels the section you mentioned below.

"The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results."

Both they and you agree the roll is required *when* the outcome is uncertain.

In logic this is a "necessary" statement... it is not however a necessary and sufficient statement.

it does not say that when a dice is rolled the outcome is uncertain... it says a dice will be rolled when the outcome is uncertain.

So if you have a situation where a player tells the Gm their outcome and the gm would tell them "it is certain" (either way) but the player rolls a die this rule and your statement above do not say that this roll now requires that "outcome is certain" decision be changed (either way.)

If the Gm chooses to rule that way - that the player die roll makes it uncertain (either way) thats the GM... not the rule.

If the Gm decides to rule another way - that the player die roll makes it uncertain (but only for adding failure to a certainty) that is the Gm choosing to punish the player for the roll.

if the Gm decides to ignore the roll and tell the player "it was certain regardless of the roll the result is..." thats being relatively fair.

If you are going to allow the player roll to add "uncertainty" when there "might have been certainty" do you as Gm follow that through to also alow it to make a 20 a success on what you would have deemed an auto-failure before the roll or do you choose to just push your "roll made me do it" when it is going to work against the player?

If you want to claim this is how the rules work, then please show where that division - a roll can force you to decide "not an auto-success" but cannot force you to decide "not an auto-fail" otherwise... its a house rule to only apply it one way with the presumption of "necessary and sufficient".