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

[The Crimson Binome]

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.

It says that the DM will call for a roll when the outcome is uncertain. That could mean that it's possible for a die roll to have a certain outcome, if the DM doesn't call for it.

The idea that someone might roll a die, without the DM calling for it, is beyond the scope of what the rules were designed to cover. Any policy that the DM adopts to address such a situation is necessarily going to be a house rule.

 

[Imaculata]

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.

So you never describe a room that has furniture in it? Because details about a room that aren't necessarily important for gameplay do occur plenty of times in my experience. Now, I tend to draw attention to the things that are really important, but a room can also contain things that aren't. And nothing is stopping the players from investigating those details.

But you can also use other examples. What if the players want to interrogate a prisoner who is willing to give them information, and does not need to be intimidated? Auto-success if they press him for information, right?

What if the players want to stealth past a bunch of knocked out drunk guards? Again, might be considered an auto-success, no roll required.

Or what if auto-fail is guaranteed? What if the players are trying to convince a guard that they didn't commit a crime, that the guard watched them do? I'd say no roll is going to convince that guard otherwise, even if they roll super high.

I think it is preferable that the players simply state what they want to do, and how they do it, instead of auto-rolling. Then I don't have to presume how they perform their action, or constantly have to ask them to clarify. And if a different roll is needed than the one they would presume, then we also dodge that problem as well.

But, I'm trying to explain why, in the way we play, expecting players to stop all the time and explain every detail about what they are doing before the DM will call for rolls is not something we enjoy.

That you enjoy it is fine. But, does not mean that I have to enjoy it too..

Oh come on, you know that is not what we're advocating for. All we ask for is that a player states their action and approach. That is a pretty basic standard for communication. All a player has to say is "I search the pile of rubble with my shovel" or "I put on gloves and carefully search the pile of rubble". Any detail will help us as DM to determine if there are complications in what you are trying to do.

But hey, maybe the following example will clarify things:

The players encountered a giant centipede sitting on the ceiling of one of the rooms of a dungeon. The Druid stated the following action:

Druid: "I try to pacify the centipede, so it knows we are not a threat. I try to approach it slowly and not make much noise".
DM: "Alright, make a handle animal check. I'll give you a +2 because of your approach."

Now consider the alternative:

Druid: I rolled a 20 on my handle animal!
DM: But what do you do?
Druid: Oh, ehm, I'm trying to pass the centipede without angering it.
DM: That will be a move silent check.
Druid: Can I still user the 20 I rolled earlier?

This is what I take issue with. I want to get my players out of this habit of focusing on rolls, and engage more with the fiction. This also avoids a situation where I want a different check.

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

What if instead there is something under the pile of rubble that requires a different check entirely, such as Iserith's rotgrub example? What if the approach as stated by the player is really important? Do I have to ask the player to clarify what they are doing after they've already rolled a 20 on their unstated action?

I'm saying this as someone who used to run the game the "old way" for many years. But honestly, reading these forums has changed my mind about it. Now that I'm running it with a focus on action and approach, I get much more meaningful interactions from my players. The game just runs more smoothly. And I run 3.5 mind you, which instructs the DM to do the opposite. The DMG and PHB literally tell the players to roll when taking an action. But I don't play that way any more.

 

[pemerton]

as for frustrating - if there's no frustration and no large-scale setbacks, where's the joy in success? Never mind that in any good story most of the frustration and setback for the protagonators happens in the early and mid stages. Sorry, no sympathy at all on this one.

I think you've completely missed my point.

I could spend my leisure time playing backgammon with my daughter. The last time we played, a few days ago, I had a piece on the bar and rolled double sixes on two or even three occasions. That's frustrating in the context of trying to win a game. But it is not frustrating my enjoyment of the game. I enjoy backgammon whether I win or lose. It's far and away my favourite traditional boardgame.

I am currently a player in a Burning Wheel game. My PC had a piece of masonry fall on him while exploring an old chapel. As a result he is carrying an injury that impedes his performance. That's frustrating in the context of wanting my PC to succeed. But it does not frustrate my enjoyment of the game. It doesn't stop me declaring actions for my PC, engaging the fiction, and finding out what happens.

But if a GM is going to run a game in which I can't engage the fiction in any meaningful way. Or in which the fiction sucks. Then that will frustrate my enjoyment of the game. And why would I waste my time on that? I'd rather play backgammon with my daughter.

Boring games? Well, if there's 4 players plus a GM at the table and the game is boring, 1/5 of the fault is yours...maybe even more, if the GM is intentionally trying to be just a neutral processor and to step back from being the entertainer so as to give the players the stage.

Again, you've completely missed my point.

I can sit around with people and enjoy a conversation. Why would I also want to include in that a back-and-forth with a referee who wants to read me his notes? (Or, more likely, the text of the module?) Just fax me the thing and I'll read it in my own time! Or not - if I wouldn't bother reading it in my own time because it's not very well written or interesting, why would I want to sit around and be read it in the context of ostensibly "playing" a game?

As I already posted, I'm not interested in emoting my PC while the GM tells me a story. Nor in seeing my friends do that. When I play a RPG I want fiction that is engaging, and that I can engage in a back-and-forth with the GM and fellow players.

That's not a sign that I'm a boring person. Personally, in fact, I think it's a sign that I'm an interesting person who is good company at the RPG table!

Bad games are one thing, though of your three examples only one comes across as demostrably bad and even that's just down to a single dumb move - though a big one - by the GM in what was by your owwn admission an otherwise good game.

I didn't "admit" the game was good. The game was fun enough in a context where I had a lot of spare time, but none of that was due to the GM. It was all due to the players doing their own thing, using the GM's contributions as props, and often just ignoring the GM who was running what was almost a "parallel" game for the player of the "chosen one" PC.

The GM was pretty bad.

In principle I suppose you're right, but in practice by joining the game in the first place you've kind of made a commitment to the DM and the other players that you're in for the long haul

Says who? If I join a chess club, and all the players suck, or (in my case) are far too strong for me to meaningfully play against, then I'm going to look for a different club.

If I turn up at a RPG club - as I did - and join a game that turns out to suck big time, then why would I keep wasting my time? If I can't find a better game, I can find a better way to spend my Friday evenings.

In this particular case, I offered to the other players to start a game for them, and they accepted the invitation. We invited the (ex) GM to join us, but he declined. That game that I started ran, with a gradually changing mix of players (a number of whom were also refugees from bad GMs in the club) but a high degree of continuity, for about 19 years, which I think would count as "long haul".

This idea that players have a moral obligation to play with GMs who suck is something I don't get. Especially on a forum where the most common response to suggestions that a GM should be responsive to his/her players is that if a player doesn't like it, s/he can leave. As soon as I post about some times when I did that, I get told that I was doing the wrong thing and instead should have wasted my time on bad RPGing rather than spending my time on good RPGing. Why?

 

[pemerton]

So you never describe a room that has furniture in it? Because details about a room that aren't necessarily important for gameplay do occur plenty of times in my experience.

No. What I'm saying is that if the players decide to pay attention to the furniture, then I'm not going to unilaterally decide that there's nothing interesting there.

Also, and referring back to my response upthread to [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION], I normally wouldn't describe the furniture in any more detail than I would describe the clothes or the crockery or the tablecloth. Classic D&D is obsessed with the details of furnishings (how many wardrobes, and where they are) for a gameplay reason, to do with the particular dynamics of dungeon exploration. GIven that that gameplay reason doesn't apply in my case, I don't have to place that same distinct focus on furniture.

What if the players want to interrogate a prisoner who is willing to give them information, and does not need to be intimidated? Auto-success if they press him for information, right?

<snip>

What if the players want to stealth past a bunch of knocked out drunk guards? Again, might be considered an auto-success, no roll required.[/QUOTE]From my point of view this is all about when to "say 'yes'" and when to tell the player to "roll the dice". If there is something interesting at stake, then I'll call for a roll of the dice. In a game with "subjective" DCs (eg 4e) I'll set the DC as the rules call for it to be set; in a game with "objective" DCs (eg Burning Wheel) then for the examples you give the DC woudl be very easy. (But as BW is a dice pool sytem, you can always fail if you get no successes in your pool.)

I don't approach the issue of calling for checks from the point of view of what is or isn't likely to happen in the fiction.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Though you wouldn't have to, as those editions can also function just fine with a higher level of detail in things like action declaration. It's just that in those two editions players can go into less detail if they like and let the dice cover for them, which isn't so easy in 0e-1e-2e-5e.

Put another way, I think your 5e approach* of getting players to describe both what their PCs are trying to do and how they're going about it could be seamlessly ported into 3e (for sure) and 4e (probably) without negative effects.

* - which is also very much a 1e approach.

 

[Imaculata]

I think your 5e approach* of getting players to describe both what their PCs are trying to do and how they're going about it could be seamlessly ported into 3e (for sure)

I can vouch for that. It has greatly improved the gameplay in my 3.5 game, for sure.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

By RAW, perhaps.

But one thing that's being overlooked here, whether intentionally or not, is the notion that not all rolls are going to be made in a strictly binary fail-succeed situation. Oftentimes the doubt lies not so much in the outcome but in the degree of said outcome.

An example might be a perception check or whatever when first seeing a room that has several elements that may or may not be noticed on first glance. Instead of checking for each one, blend it all into one roll - roll really well, you see 'em all. Roll badly and you miss the lot. Roll middling and you see some but not all.

Or, for a diplomacy or persuasion or whatever roll, instead of a straight up yes-no outcome put it on a sliding scale instead of a hard-edged DC - the higher you roll, the better things go. On a very high roll you might even get more than you're asking for! Of course, the risk here is that on a very low roll problems could arise...

Or even a strength check to swim across a river - on 5 or less you don't make it, but where you roll within the range from 6-20 shows how muich effort was involved and-or how long the crossing took.

This is something that, unless my memory fails me, the RAW don't handle very well.

Lan-"then again, a system that sets its DCs in jumps of 5 at a time rather than 1 at a time is already showing a distinct and annoying lack of granularity"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

It says that the DM will call for a roll when the outcome is uncertain. That could mean that it's possible for a die roll to have a certain outcome, if the DM doesn't call for it.

The idea that someone might roll a die, without the DM calling for it, is beyond the scope of what the rules were designed to cover. Any policy that the DM adopts to address such a situation is necessarily going to be a house rule.

Even if I-as-DM know the outcome is certain, the roll still holds information for me in terms of how easy or difficult the character found the task; and keep in mind that while I know the outcome is certain neither the player nor the character does and while just saying yes is fine sometimes, other times making them roll adds nicely to the tension.

Consider a narrow-ish icy bridge with no guardrails and a stiff breeze blowing that the PCs want to cross. Though I've narrated it as risky-looking I-as-DM already know they've all got enough going for them to make it across, but they don't know this; and so I'd have them roll anyway. Rolling really well means that PC skips across without any trouble at all. Rolling badly means there's some slipping and sliding; rolling a 1 maybe means the PC falls prone partway across and has to crawl the rest of the way. They're all going to get across, but there can still be a bit of drama in the process.

 

[Lanefan]

I think you've completely missed my point.

Wouldn't be the first time...

I could spend my leisure time playing backgammon with my daughter. The last time we played, a few days ago, I had a piece on the bar and rolled double sixes on two or even three occasions. That's frustrating in the context of trying to win a game. But it is not frustrating my enjoyment of the game. I enjoy backgammon whether I win or lose. It's far and away my favourite traditional boardgame.

I am currently a player in a Burning Wheel game. My PC had a piece of masonry fall on him while exploring an old chapel. As a result he is carrying an injury that impedes his performance. That's frustrating in the context of wanting my PC to succeed. But it does not frustrate my enjoyment of the game. It doesn't stop me declaring actions for my PC, engaging the fiction, and finding out what happens.

But if a GM is going to run a game in which I can't engage the fiction in any meaningful way. Or in which the fiction sucks. Then that will frustrate my enjoyment of the game. And why would I waste my time on that? I'd rather play backgammon with my daughter.

The sense I got, and maybe misread, was that the frustration example you were referring to was where the patron heel-turned once you'd done his mission. A deception like that is frustrating, for sure, but is - as I noted earlier - a common enough storytelling trope in all genres that hitting it in a game scenario shouldn't be any big deal.

Again, you've completely missed my point.

I can sit around with people and enjoy a conversation. Why would I also want to include in that a back-and-forth with a referee who wants to read me his notes? (Or, more likely, the text of the module?) Just fax me the thing and I'll read it in my own time! Or not - if I wouldn't bother reading it in my own time because it's not very well written or interesting, why would I want to sit around and be read it in the context of ostensibly "playing" a game?

As I already posted, I'm not interested in emoting my PC while the GM tells me a story. Nor in seeing my friends do that. When I play a RPG I want fiction that is engaging, and that I can engage in a back-and-forth with the GM and fellow players.

I don't think you mean to come across this way - or at least sincerely hope that you don't - but when you post things like this it more often than not sounds like you're saying that as a player you're more interested in playing your own story than that of the GM, who has (in a typical situation) very likely put far more effort into it than any of her players.

You're also completely dismissing the notion that a GM "reading from his notes" could in fact provide very engaging fiction for you and the other players to interact with, shape, change, and move forward.

That's not a sign that I'm a boring person. Personally, in fact, I think it's a sign that I'm an interesting person who is good company at the RPG table!

If a bit demanding...

I didn't "admit" the game was good. The game was fun enough in a context where I had a lot of spare time, but none of that was due to the GM. It was all due to the players doing their own thing, using the GM's contributions as props, and often just ignoring the GM who was running what was almost a "parallel" game for the player of the "chosen one" PC.

The GM was pretty bad.

Ah - you hadn't mentioned the "chosen one PC" aspect earlier. That changes my opinion significantly.

Says who? If I join a chess club, and all the players suck, or (in my case) are far too strong for me to meaningfully play against, then I'm going to look for a different club.

If I turn up at a RPG club - as I did - and join a game that turns out to suck big time, then why would I keep wasting my time? If I can't find a better game, I can find a better way to spend my Friday evenings.

This is why I only ever game with people who are either already friends from outside the game or are brought in by one: I pretty much know what I'm going to get and-or not get. You're right - an RPG club or an AL table is a different kettle of fish, and a feeling-out period there makes more sense.

In this particular case, I offered to the other players to start a game for them, and they accepted the invitation. We invited the (ex) GM to join us, but he declined. That game that I started ran, with a gradually changing mix of players (a number of whom were also refugees from bad GMs in the club) but a high degree of continuity, for about 19 years, which I think would count as "long haul".

19 years? Not bad! I thought the longest you'd done was 6 years.

This idea that players have a moral obligation to play with GMs who suck is something I don't get. Especially on a forum where the most common response to suggestions that a GM should be responsive to his/her players is that if a player doesn't like it, s/he can leave. As soon as I post about some times when I did that, I get told that I was doing the wrong thing and instead should have wasted my time on bad RPGing rather than spending my time on good RPGing. Why?

There's no obligation to play with GMs that suck, but I think there is something of an obligation to allow a GM to mess up more than once before bailing - the captured Kobold example leaps to mind here, unless there's more to that story as well.

And if the GM is new to it that obligation extends to cutting them some slack, letting them mess up, and forgiving them when they do; because trial and error is the best (and sometimes only!) way to learn. Hell, if my players had bailed on me after even the first several times I big-time messed up my DMing career would have ended well before 1990.

Lan-"just give me a beer, some dice to roll, some orcs to kill, and some treasure to spend and you've got the perfect game; nothing more is required"-efan

 

[pemerton]

Though you wouldn't have to, as those editions can also function just fine with a higher level of detail in things like action declaration. It's just that in those two editions players can go into less detail if they like and let the dice cover for them, which isn't so easy in 0e-1e-2e-5e.

I think this is exaggerated. Gygax in this DMG expressly describes two ways to adjudicate a search for secret doors - direct play of the fiction, or rolling a die - and says that either is fine.

In the 4e DMG the skill challenge rules make clear that a player has to say what it is that his/her PC is doing. Otherwise the GM can't properly narrate the consequences for the fiction of either success or failure.

(Which isn't to disagree with [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] that 5e is different from 4e - but the difference is about the method in which the mechanics are invoked, not the extent to which players have to describe what their PCs are doing.)