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

[Aldarc]

Peasants weren't even allowed to leave their local lord's land, let alone the country, and the merchants/nobles generally didn't have reason to leave.

It depends on when and where we are talking about.

There is no issue. If you don't like it and you're the DM, change it. If you don't like it and you're a player, go find a game where it doesn't happen. If you do like it keep it. At no time is it actually a problem unless the DM is abusing his authority, and then it's only a problem briefly as you leave the game.

I disagree, but this merely brings us around full circle, with you repeating the same false talking point as before. You have shown no effort in listening or understanding my position. It's as if you have no interest in actually conversing in good faith, which is certainly frustrating to encounter from you.

 

[Sadras]

@Aldarc, I'm going to try discuss the topic from a different angle.
Please point where I might have presumed too much or gone off course.
I presume you play with a group of friends and there is a mutual respect for one another at the table.
I presume you trust these friends to be fair.
Do you find it that much of a stretch and that much less fun to have one of these play D&D in the traditional sense?

If the answer is yes, why?

 

[pemerton]

Collaboration happens, however the bolded part seems to be ignored by you, it requires DM approval at the end of the day.
I'm not sure why you seem to be insisting otherwise...

I said that Gygax doesn't assume that the GM is the sole author of the ingame fiction. In the example, who authored the existence of a high bluff overlooking a river suitable for the building of a small concentric castle? The player did, not the GM. That is not an example of GM-driven play!

 

[Sadras]

I said that Gygax doesn't assume that the GM is the sole author of the ingame fiction. In the example, who authored the existence of a high bluff overlooking a river suitable for the building of a small concentric castle? The player did, not the GM. That is not an example of GM-driven play!

Actually it was Gygax not the player.

 

[pemerton]

The ideal is not to have the foreknowledge of damage as that meta is likely to influence ones decision. By providing that information upfront you reduce the importance of the decision and by extension the fun IMO. The unknown variable provides a risk factor...

If someone casts a Sleep spell on you and rolled the sleep damage upfront, you would know if you would be affected and then it would be obvious if you should Counterspell or not. If the sleep damage is rolled only after you declined to Counterspell it makes for a more exciting resolution.

I agree that blind declaration is sometimes more exciting. If less tactical.

But that's not the argument that [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] and [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] were running. They were talking about "time travelling", not what makes for more or less fun at the table.

 

[pemerton]

Actually it was Gygax not the player.

So you're not actually interested in talking about the sort of play that Gygax advocated in his DMG?

 

[Sadras]

So you're not actually interested in talking about the sort of play that Gygax advocated in his DMG?

I am, but let's not kid ourselves, there is about as much player-driven storyline in the building of a concentric castle as there is in the player declaring his character fires off a magic missile.

 

[pemerton]

Doing things in retroactive response is the road to madness.

Yet that is exactly how the 5e Shield spell works:

Shield
1st-level abjuration
Casting Time: 1 reaction, which you take when you are hit by an attack or targeted by the magic missile spell

. . .

An invisible barrier of magical force appears and protects you. Until the start of your next turn, you have a +5 bonus to AC, including against the triggering attack, and you take no damage from magic missile.​

I'm talking about the play of this spell, not the possible workings of a hypothetical game that lacks interrupts.

 

[pemerton]

I am, but let's not kid ourselves, there is about as much player-driven storyline in the building of a concentric castle as there is in the player declaring his character fires off a magic missile.

Storyline is one thing that isn't part of the RPGing approach that Gygax advocates. I don't know what his actual play was looking like in 1978-79, but his PHB and DMG don't contemplate storyline play. They have detailed advice on dungeoneering play; some advice on hexcrawling; and have hints about urban play, but don't actually present urban environments as anything beyonds places to restock and try and deal with/recruit NPCs.

Within the context of hexcrawling and wargaming, castle design seems as big a deal as anything else.

 

[Sadras]

Storyline is one thing that isn't part of the RPGing approach that Gygax advocates. I don't know what his actual play was looking like in 1978-79, but his PHB and DMG don't contemplate storyline play. They have detailed advice on dungeoneering play; some advice on hexcrawling; and have hints about urban play, but don't actually present urban environments as anything beyonds places to restock and try and deal with/recruit NPCs.

Within the context of hexcrawling and wargaming, castle design seems as big a deal as anything else.

I view the content generated by the PC (castles, guilds, divine warhorses) as powers and abilities only acquired at a certain level not the type of freedom your players enjoy at your table. These "perks" are really not much different to spells. In fact my games have much more freedom in a sense that my fighter does not need be of a certain level in order to build a castle.