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

[Maxperson]

Why bother? I mean seriously, why bother?

Because.........you're roleplaying. Or maybe because..........it helps the DM and players visualize what your PC is doing.

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"

Um, no. That is not generally what happens. Maybe with the rare horrible DM, but not in general.

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.

That's fine. I have no interest in paranoid players, so we're good with this.

 

[Maxperson]

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

True, but those are still just "the outcome is in doubt" situations. It's just the type of outcomes that are in doubt.

 

[iserith]

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.

And that's how I run D&D 4e; however, I do say players can declare they want to make checks in D&D 4e (I haven't played 3e since 2008) since that is the expectation in that game. I don't do that in D&D 5e because it isn't the expectation set forth in the rules. My position will always be that the player needs to adequately perform his or her role by describing what he or she wants to do. But in some games that might include "I want to make an X check." As I mentioned upthread, I don't think that's very smart play, but it is part of some games' experience.

 

[robus]

I think it's a testament to the power of D&D that people are still playing even after being sorely abused by their DMs in some campaigns!

 

[GMMichael]

I think it's a testament to the power of D&D that people are still playing even after being sorely abused by their DMs in some campaigns!

People are still using Facebook too. What's your point?

Thread derailment rating: 98.63%

 

[robus]

People are still using Facebook too. What's your point?

Thread derailment rating: 98.63%

It's DMs that want to run a thread like a railroad that cause me to actually leave this one!

 

[CezarJ]

For me it's important that all the player characters get to shine in the campaign (that is, if I DM or what I expect the DM to fabricate). There is nothing worse of an evening of 4+ hours where you felt you haven't accomplished anything.

 

[Kobold Boots]

True, but those are still just "the outcome is in doubt" situations. It's just the type of outcomes that are in doubt.

Meh, I just think [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] is moving the goal posts.

DC12 swim.
I roll 1-11 - I fail and drown without someone to assist.
I roll 12-20 - I succeed and I'm wet.

DC12 perception check.
I roll 1-11 - I fail and don't notice anything unusual, but I still see what's right in front of me or obvious. If the sun's up and there are leaves on the ground I see that.
I roll 12-20 - I succeed and notice that there's something under the brush that's notable, but rolling a 20 doesn't make me find things that are behind me or down the road.

Unless I'm willing to completely add something new to my story on a 20 there's no reason for me to do so, just like there's no reason for me to be a jerk and tell someone they went blind or had a stroke on a 1. It's a DM prerogative to do what they will and non-binary checks unless there's a specific rule in play for the skill aren't necessary.

 

[S'mon]

>>Originally Posted by pemerton View Post
So at least as I read the DW rules, there is no reason why a player who declares I search the rubble shouldn't then pick up his/her 2d6 and roll them. If s/he gets an 11 or 12 (like the 20 in your example) then the GM is obliged to provide a certain sort of information, as specified in the rules (eg What here is not what it appears to be?). The pile of rubble matters (regardless of whether the GM thought it would or wouldn't) because the player has (i) decided to pay attention to it, and (ii) succeeded at a check.
<<

If a player rolls really high on a search check, I'll always give them something from the random dungeon contents chart - packet of peanuts or a houppelande (google it) - they're always happy.

 

[Baron Opal II]

I've only stepped away from a table for two reasons. First, was blatant favoritism show to the player who was sleeping with the DM. When it was minor, I could ignore it, but when the power curve started to shift, I left. The other was when my character died, and I had to wait three weeks for a "story appropriate" opening to rejoin the group. I can accept that I might not be able to jump right back in, but if I'm sidelined for a whole month I can find another game. Which, I did.

The times I've had a table disintegrate under me is when I had an argumentative player that couldn't accept the consequences of their actions, and when PvP entered the game. That causes enough strife and hard feelings that the players leave and go their own ways.

Some people have mentioned that the PvP adds a spice, but I've only been in one situation where that worked, and that was a special Champions game where Team Hero and Team Villian were going for the same goal, with the big reveal / throwdown on the last day of the campaign.