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

[Imaculata]

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.

I've left a game where the DM allowed another player to kill my character. It didn't help that the DM allowed my character to miraculously survive the assassination, because how did he expect our two characters to ever work together again? That is not a minor disagreement that you can just sweep under the rug and pretend it never happened.

This is why I establish a clear "no-pvp" rule during the session 0 of any campaign I run. Any player that objects to that, is welcome to leave my table.

 

[Maxperson]

Something I frequently see with [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]'s described approaches and with many others that share his or her principles is that they all decry "metagaming" as a sin against nature, but then use all manner of approaches that set the stage for it to occur regularly. Then they come up with kludges in an attempt to mitigate the very thing they're encouraging. (Phantom, meaningless rolls, for example, is a popular one wherein the DM calls for checks for no apparent reason to throw players off.) This was revealed again in another thread in the General Discussion forum a couple weeks back. It strikes me as an approach that is essentially cobbled together over a long period of time, isn't revisited even when changing games, and is likely in the context of a group that doesn't change players often who are also used to all the seeming contradictions.

Which is not to say Lanefan or others are "doing it wrong." It's just sometimes in these discussions the approaches appear nonsensical to others and I think that's why.

I think something people forget when talking about those of us who dislike the metagame, is that we play with players that have the same goals and desires. We don't have to "kludge" anything in an attempt to mitigate the metagame. There's no encouragement, because those we play with don't want to do it. We have the rules and the players simply abide by them, because of common interest.

 

[iserith]

I think something people forget when talking about those of us who dislike the metagame, is that we play with players that have the same goals and desires. We don't have to "kludge" anything in an attempt to mitigate the metagame. There's no encouragement, because those we play with don't want to do it. We have the rules and the players simply abide by them, because of common interest.

Maybe some do, but I'm not making up that bit about phantom rolls. People who don't like "metagaming" do that. If they all do as you say above, that wouldn't be necessary right?

 

[Maxperson]

Maybe some do, but I'm not making up that bit about phantom rolls. People who don't like "metagaming" do that. If they all do as you say above, that wouldn't be necessary right?

Having metagaming rules sets the expectations for the table. Everyone with a common interest in playing a horror game might choose the Call of Cthulhu rules, which then sets the expectations for what kind of horror game is going to be played. Metagaming is similar. Everyone has an interest in playing with no metagaming, but the rules set the expectations and boundaries.

 

[Kobold Boots]

I don't think he was moving the goal posts. And can see his point, as it's not uncommon for me to think that the PCs would know something about the situation without a roll, but how much they know is in doubt, so I have them roll for that purpose. From his response, though, I'm not sure if he sees that his examples still fall squarely into the "outcome is in doubt" category and require a roll.

Hi Max

Respect your opinions. All I’d add is that Lane agreed he was moving goalposts in a later post and my explanation for why I don’t do exactly the same thing (because who doesn’t like detail) is because it’s unwieldy enough to not be sustainable, increases risk of meta, and slows the game down.

If it works for you all though, power to you. I’d enjoy being a player and having the expectation of ranged results for everything.

 

[Kobold Boots]

Having metagaming rules sets the expectations for the table. Everyone with a common interest in playing a horror game might choose the Call of Cthulhu rules, which then sets the expectations for what kind of horror game is going to be played. Metagaming is similar. Everyone has an interest in playing with no metagaming, but the rules set the expectations and boundaries.

Perhaps so. But two things immediately come to mind

1. In order to have rules about meta gaming you have to address that it exists.
2. If you take steps to counter it, you’re doing it.

Better to not do things that increase the level of attention to it if you don’t want to do it. I’ve gotten by with “how would your character know to do that?” It’s generally enough. I will admit though that I’ve done the things that I see suggested, because phantom rolling is in the 1st ed dmg and meta is as old as the hills.

 

[pemerton]

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.

Are your random houppelandes fur-lined or not?

 

[S'mon]

Are your random houppelandes fur-lined or not?

So far they have not been.
The PCs did find a random self-cleaning starry wizard's robe last session, though.

 

[Lanefan]

Hi Lanefan -

I appreciate the example and get where you're coming from. If I can offer my opinion, I think that the approach sounds great in theory and when it comes time to practice it, it's unwieldy. Here's why.

1. When you adventure design you have a binary decision as to what is obvious and what requires a check. This is usually centered around what is necessary to advance the plot. Anything else you're making up on the fly and what fits any given tier of detail is subjective.

No. I design the adventure, or let a module do it for me. Only at the time do I decide what's obvious and what's not, based on circumstances e.g. are they arriving at night or during the day; and yes - a lot of the narration gets made up on the fly. And you're also assuming I care whether the plot gets advanced or not, which sometimes I do but more often I don't - I'm perfectly willing to let 'em twist in the wind for a while if they miss something, until they come up with a workable plan B or give up and go elsewhere.

2. Once you start doing this, players will start asking for multiple checks as what one player sees, another may not or they'll metagame it directly.. Lars rolled a 12, lets see if we can get a 20.

If they can come up with a valid reason for anothr check, or if something's materially changed, then fine. Otherwise, no go.

3. End of the day, not every opportunity is going to correspond to the amount of inspiration you're going to have in the moment to fill these tiers.

Please explain, as I'm not parsing something here.

So I'd say great idea but it needs to be simplified to be applicable to every use of a skill roll or you're going to slow down your game significantly if you're applying it to everything.

Two things here. First, it doesn't have to be applied to everything. Second, slowing down my game is the least of my concerns, as I prefer a slower-paced game anyway.

Something I frequently see with @Lanefan's described approaches and with many others that share his or her principles is that they all decry "metagaming" as a sin against nature, but then use all manner of approaches that set the stage for it to occur regularly. Then they come up with kludges in an attempt to mitigate the very thing they're encouraging. (Phantom, meaningless rolls, for example, is a popular one wherein the DM calls for checks for no apparent reason to throw players off.) This was revealed again in another thread in the General Discussion forum a couple weeks back. It strikes me as an approach that is essentially cobbled together over a long period of time, isn't revisited even when changing games, and is likely in the context of a group that doesn't change players often who are also used to all the seeming contradictions.

What approaches do you see in my examples that would allow metagaming to be regularly used?

But yes, I am coming from the context of a long-term group.

Respect your opinions. All I’d add is that Lane agreed...

FYI it's Lan, not Lane.

Lan-"doing it wrong for almost 35 years"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

I've left a game where the DM allowed another player to kill my character. It didn't help that the DM allowed my character to miraculously survive the assassination, because how did he expect our two characters to ever work together again? That is not a minor disagreement that you can just sweep under the rug and pretend it never happened.

Of course not. One or both of your characters probably has to leave the party at this point, or failing that there's gonna be a showdown at some point.

Which to me is all fair game. I've both won and lost these battles, and don't mind fighting more of them. That said, I usually don't initiate them these days but will fully and forcefully engage if provoked.

This is why I establish a clear "no-pvp" rule during the session 0 of any campaign I run. Any player that objects to that, is welcome to leave my table.

I'd be out. If it's true to what the character would do were it an NPC, AFAIC it's all just fine.

That said, if it comes out of character and becomes a player argument the DM smackdown hammer comes out quickly.