Oops, I failed a Breathe check

[I'm A Banana]

I'm wondering if its the critical fumble rule, or the way the DM is applying it.

See, "everyday tasks" shouldn't really require a check. This is what the Take 10 rule is there for. It gives you a baseline of stuff you can basically accomplish when there's no big stress involved, given enough time, automatically. You don't roll a climb check to climb every tree -- you just roll a climb check to climb a tree in combat, while goblins are hacking at your ankles.

Rolls should only be for things that are especially dangerous or risky or chaotic to begin with, not for every-day wall climbing. You don't make a check for breathing because breathing is something automatic, like climbing a tree with a +15 Climb check when not fighting an orc should be.

So a 5% chance for something catastrophic to happen when you're engaged in a dangerous, risky, chaotic event makes a lot of sense, and can be "fun failure."

But it needs to be applied in situations where it makes sense.

I'd talk to your DM about revising the Take 10 Rules, personally. The RAW is that you take 10 on a skill check when you're not in a stressful situation, and you take 20 on a skill check when there's no consequence aside from time for failure. Use it!

 

[Elf Witch]

One of the worst that I have seen went the exact opposite way - nobody was happy with the GM of a Kindred of the East game, but each player assumed that everybody else was happy.

Then one week none of the players showed up, they were so annoyed.... A few weeks later the game was canned - the GM just could not accept that everyone thought that he was wrong.

The GM routinely gave half the suggested XP, then never gave an opportunity to spend the XP that he did give out. When confronted about folks wanting to spend XP he said that if he allowed folks to spend the XP then he couldn't be so generous with XP.

The final straw was his 'compromise' solution - he would spend the XP for the players, deciding where the points went....

The game itself was fun - when he allowed the players to actually play, but he was just way too controlling, and wanted to 'tell a story'.

The Auld Grump

So many problems could be avoided if people just open their mouth and communicated.

Back in 2008 I had to take a break because I was getting frustrated with two of my players who also happened to be really close friends.

After the game on the ride home they would tell me how much fun they were having.

Then I would hear from the other one , they were married, that their spouse didn't have fun, had issues what ever. Or worse I would read about on a forum.

I would tell them if there is an issue please come to me I am always open to hearing about issues or ideas that could make the game better.

But for some reason they never did. It got to the point that I was not having fun so I step down as a DM. They have now moved away and while I miss them I am also relived when it comes to gaming. I have started my game back up and so far everything is going fine.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

So many problems could be avoided if people just open their mouth and communicated.

Back in 2008 I had to take a break because I was getting frustrated with two of my players who also happened to be really close friends.

After the game on the ride home they would tell me how much fun they were having.

Then I would hear from the other one , they were married, that their spouse didn't have fun, had issues what ever. Or worse I would read about on a forum.

I would tell them if there is an issue please come to me I am always open to hearing about issues or ideas that could make the game better.

But for some reason they never did. It got to the point that I was not having fun so I step down as a DM. They have now moved away and while I miss them I am also relived when it comes to gaming. I have started my game back up and so far everything is going fine.

Yeah - communication is key.

The thing that is easy to forget is that communication goes both ways - before implementing a major house rule I always talk to the players first, sometimes putting it to a vote. I do not always win these votes. (I wanted to use piecemeal armor. The answering 'NO!' fair shook the rafters.) Listening is as important as speaking.

The Auld Grump

 

[FireLance]

It's not about what the players want....ever.

It's about what the DM/GM has decided to run and how he has decided to run it.

The only choice the players have is whether or not they play.

I think that's a pretty narrow and short-sighted take on DMing.

Players have a plethora of entertainment options these days, so much so that "the highway" can actually be a very pleasant experience. It's much, much harder for the DM to ensure that "my way" is the superior choice - especially so if he decides to ignore what the players want.

Edit to add: Unless he's extremely charismatic, of course. I'm sure charismatic DMs have an advantage when it comes to retaining players.

 

[aurance]

It's not about what the players want....ever.

It's about what the DM/GM has decided to run and how he has decided to run it.

The only choice the players have is whether or not they play.

I guess this is fine if you game with friends who like to issue ultimatums instead of talking things through. Or you game with enemies.

 

[Hussar]

It's not about what the players want....ever.

It's about what the DM/GM has decided to run and how he has decided to run it.

The only choice the players have is whether or not they play.

And people question why I tend to have a fairly negative opinion of DM/GM/whatevers.

Yeah, to the OP, it's sounds, at least based on the extremely limited information we have here that it's time to either pee or get off the pot. If the rest of the players are as unhappy as you, step up and run games yourself. Finish off the current adventure and then, before it ends, say that you want to run something. Then just continue running things.

To be 100% honest, the primary reason I became a GM was exactly this sort of thing. I just wasn't happy with the GM's I played with, so, figuring that I could do better, proceeded to run horribly railroady, completely crap campaigns. But, over time, I unlearned all the terrible habits I'd picked up from my GM's and managed to play with some really gifted GM's from time to time as well.

Some GM's refuse to learn. If it's to that point, it's time to change the guy in the big daddy chair.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

And people question why I tend to have a fairly negative opinion of DM/GM/whatevers.

Yeah, to the OP, it's sounds, at least based on the extremely limited information we have here that it's time to either pee or get off the pot. If the rest of the players are as unhappy as you, step up and run games yourself. Finish off the current adventure and then, before it ends, say that you want to run something. Then just continue running things.

To be 100% honest, the primary reason I became a GM was exactly this sort of thing. I just wasn't happy with the GM's I played with, so, figuring that I could do better, proceeded to run horribly railroady, completely crap campaigns. But, over time, I unlearned all the terrible habits I'd picked up from my GM's and managed to play with some really gifted GM's from time to time as well.

Some GM's refuse to learn. If it's to that point, it's time to change the guy in the big daddy chair.

Too be fair, most of the DM/GM/Whatevers that read that post seem to agree that it is, well, piffle. Most DMs do realize that they run the game so that it can be enjoyed.

There are players that need booting, and there are GMs that should be run out of town on a rail. The first game that ever I ran was because the DM was shown the door.

The Auld Grump, if it weren't for the honor of the thing, I'd just as soon have
walked....

 

[JamesonCourage]

Hmm... Pilgrim took a lot of flak for that statement. I tend to agree with the spirit of it. While I'll take input from the players, and while I'll try to run a game that they'll all enjoy, when it comes down to it, I'm going to run a style of game that I find the most enjoyable.

That's not to say that their wants don't matter (which is what Pilgrim said)... it's more of "their wants don't matter as much as mine do." And, that's not to be entirely selfish, or anything. It's so that I can enjoy the play experience, and so that they can have more fun since their GM is enjoying himself. Ever had a GM run a game that he didn't like playing? The play experience is worse than if he's having a great time.

Now, like I said, I'll try to run a game that they'll enjoy, but no way will their wants ever trump mine. If that's the case, they can run a game. I'd rather enjoy the game I'm running, letting me invest as much as I can, letting my creative juices flow, letting me feel inspired, than to ever run a game that they like but I don't like as much.

It's not to be controlling. It's so that we can all enjoy the game more. If my style doesn't match up with their preferred style, so be it. They can drop the game, or run a game that I'll be happy to play in.

So far, after years of GMing, I'm stuck with a full group who plays 10 hours once a week (and sometimes another session on weekends), and they always make me run the game. I've turned players away, kicked them out, or otherwise denied them access to my game, but I've never had a player walk out, or had a shortage of players. That means while my position might seem extreme, my execution probably isn't.

Regardless, if it ever comes to their wants or mine... my wants win the day. As far as me running any game, it's better for everyone that way. Not saying it's true for all groups, but I am saying that I sympathize with Pilgrim to a large degree. As always, play what you like

 

[Pilgrim]

D&D is a game played by a group of people.

Agreed. But it is a group by which the DM/GM decides which game is being played and how. The players then have the option to play or not. Sure they can voice opinions about certain elements, but ultimately, the DM/GM makes the call and the players should respect those decisions or not play.

The DM is not God.

Maybe not at your table.

Players are equally important, and each are responsable within their role to make the game enjoyable.

Only within the boundaries set by the DM/GM and his game.

There is no good reason that players can't communicate their playstyle preferences or issues with houserules with the DM.

Sure, but if the DM/GM decides that those issues or play styles are antithesis to how he wants the game to run, then the players can eat it and have fun or walk.

If folks are not having fun then why play the game?

Um, yeah. Thanks for reiterating my point. If the players don't want to play the game the DM/GM is running or in the style he is running it in, then they shouldn't play. They should avoid the game and let those players that do want to play, play without the less interested players causing problems by constantly whining or berating the game play and rules.

Same goes for a DM/GM who doesn't like the group's style of play. He can either deal with it and run them or drop the game and do something else, whether find new players or become a player, letting someone else run.

 

[billd91]

Hmm... Pilgrim took a lot of flak for that statement. I tend to agree with the spirit of it. While I'll take input from the players, and while I'll try to run a game that they'll all enjoy, when it comes down to it, I'm going to run a style of game that I find the most enjoyable.

That's not to say that their wants don't matter (which is what Pilgrim said)... it's more of "their wants don't matter as much as mine do." And, that's not to be entirely selfish, or anything. It's so that I can enjoy the play experience, and so that they can have more fun since their GM is enjoying himself. Ever had a GM run a game that he didn't like playing? The play experience is worse than if he's having a great time.

Notice that your answer implicitly includes a middle ground. It may be weighted in the DM's direction, and I agree that it should be, but there is still compromise being made.

I don't infer much of a middle ground in Pilgrim's statement.