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

[Maxperson]

So, the DM has the authority to change any rule he likes but, really can't because that would violate the social contract.

That isn't what I said.

 

[Maxperson]

Or to summarize it more succinctly... Someone brings up a play style (or component thereof) and decides to add that unless you play this way (or with these procedures) you are a bad DM... thread explodes.

I don't think I've seen anyone say that unless you play X way, you are a bad DM. I've seen it implied via DM authority hate, but it hasn't been said straight out that I can remember.

 

[Imaro]

I don't think I've seen anyone say that unless you play X way, you are a bad DM. I've seen it implied via DM authority hate, but it hasn't been said straight out that I can remember.

Well it was supposed to be a summary not an exact quote...

 

[Lanefan]

It's one thing to have preferences. It's a different thing to interpret a game system. Clearly 5e works more like [MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION] describes than as you might wish that it did.

This is a little ironic given your other post that I've quoted! Because here you're saying that, in fact, the fiction does not unfold over the course of play, but is only established "as a block" when the GM decides what happens.

Fair enough - I can see how what I said might be interpreted that way. However, there's an important (well, I think so anyway ) distinction between the two examples.

The example with shield, magic missile, etc. is entirely built around mechanical actions/resolutions and how they mesh with the fiction; and my position is that they should match as far as possible all the way throughthe process.

The example with walking across a room, however, has no mechanics attached. This one's simply the player declaring an (attempted) action and the GM - skipping the mechanical action resolution step as she knows none is necessary in this case - narrating the result. In other words, 5e by the book and many other games by default.

In your example, how did it become true in the fiction that the PC walked across the room? The player's action declaration - according to you - didn't bring that about. But the GM hasn't said anything about it - in your example, the GM is taking for granted that the PC has crossed the room and is now at the door.

The GM hasn't said anything else about it because she doesn't need to.

In my experience, it would actually be like the following:

Player: I cross the room to the door.

GM: As you're half-way across the room, you fall into a pit!​

This one's different. There's a reason (an unseen pit trap) for mechanics to get involved, and so the GM invokes them. She may well (and in fairness probably should have) have rolled in secret to see whether your path across the room happened to hit or miss the trap; and if you hit it then whether you noticed the trap before falling in.

In other words, it's the player who makes it the case that the PC moves across the room.

No. The player makes the case that the PC TRIES TO move across the room and open a door, and the GM narrates the results.

What the mechanism is that leads the GM to say what s/he does is a further question (eg is it the result of a failed check by the player; or the GM reading off his/her dungeon notes; or the GM making something up on the spur of the moment because it will be fun; or . . .).

You seem to be ignoring action resolution. In my experience that's a fairly important part of playing a RPG.

In the example as given I ignored it because it wasn't relevant. The GM assumes the PC won't fall flat on his face while crossing the room, and that he's capable of operating a door handle. (very slightly more contentious to the truly pedantic among us, she also reasonably assumes the PC will look through the door he's just opened, if for no other reason to avoid being caught off guard by whatever might be lurking on the other side) As she knows there's no other in-fiction obstructions to the attempted action she skips past resolution straight to narrating the result: you cross the room, open the door, and here's what you see beyond it on first glance.

But if she knows the door's locked she'll instead narrate that you cross the room but that when to try to open the door it seems to be locked or stuck; at which point the player (or another player, same difference here) needs to declare another attempted action.

 

[S'mon]

double

 

[S'mon]

Funny, the only, ONLY thing that I've claimed was bad DMing was booting a player for not wanting to play a specific campaign.

Before the campaign starts there is no DM, so this cannot be bad DMing.

 

[pemerton]

The GM hasn't said anything else about it because she doesn't need to.

<snip>

The player makes the case that the PC TRIES TO move across the room and open a door, and the GM narrates the results.

<snip>

As she knows there's no other in-fiction obstructions to the attempted action she skips past resolution straight to narrating the result: you cross the room, open the door, and here's what you see beyond it on first glance.

I'm going to repost my post to which you replied (and will explain why I've bolded what I've bolded):

Now it's true that describing what you want to do and describing what you're doing can and often do sound just the same at the table; but when you-as-player say in character "I'm walking across the room and opening the door" what you're really saying is "I want to walk across the room and then I want to open the door", and if there's no impediment to either of those actions the DM will likely just say something like "OK. Opening the door reveals a short passage behind, that opens out into a room or chamber after about 10 feet."

In your example, how did it become true in the fiction that the PC walked across the room? The player's action declaration - according to you - didn't bring that about. But the GM hasn't said anything about it - in your example, the GM is taking for granted that the PC has crossed the room and is now at the door.

So I'll ask again, how did it become true, in this example, that the PC is moving across the room? You have once again said that the player's action declaration does not yield such a result. You have said (and I have bolded) that the GM narrates the results but in the original example the second of my bolded bits ("you cross the room") was not said by the GM. All the GM says is OK - but that is not narrating a result. In fact the most natural reading is that the GM is affirming the player's establishing of some fiction!

Which is exactly what I think actually happens at most RPG tables. The player puts forward a contribution to the shared fiction, and the GM accepts it. Just as, when the GM narrates results - ie puts forward contributions to the shared fiction - the players accept that by going on to declare new actions that presuppose the GM's proposed changes to the state of the fiction. That's everyone playing a game together as opposed to the GM playing with him-/herself but taking suggestions on the side.

 

[5ekyu]

Before the campaign starts there is no DM, so this cannot be bad DMing.

Yup... literally this is badwrongfunning a group's social contract as to how they pick what campaigns they will run and play in next. its bizarre.

 

[TwoSix]

And, yup, I'll stand by the statement that booting a player just so you can play your pet campaign is a pretty bad thing to do.

While I don't disagree with you, I do also think refusing to play in a game that everyone in your (presumably stable and long-standing) social group wants to play is a bit gauche. Unless the game or campaign concept is bringing up some kind of psychological issue, the fun of hanging with your social group should trump the relative negative feeling towards the game as a whole.

I think they key here isn't the DM's pet campaign or the player for whom the particular system is a bête noire, but the other players in the group. If they're ambivalent about the DM's concept, better for the DM to make a change. If they're enthusiastic, though, the player with the problem may have to be the one to change their attitude.

Granted, this probably points more to the importance of saving strong aesthetic considerations for the internet, and not bringing them into casual social encounters. Nobody wants to hear your "TLJ ruined Star Wars" diatribe at the office Christmas party.

 

[Imaro]

While I don't disagree with you, I do also think refusing to play in a game that everyone in your (presumably stable and long-standing) social group wants to play is a bit gauche. Unless the game or campaign concept is bringing up some kind of psychological issue, the fun of hanging with your social group should trump the relative negative feeling towards the game as a whole.

I think they key here isn't the DM's pet campaign or the player for whom the particular system is a bête noire, but the other players in the group. If they're ambivalent about the DM's concept, better for the DM to make a change. If they're enthusiastic, though, the player with the problem may have to be the one to change their attitude.

Granted, this probably points more to the importance of saving strong aesthetic considerations for the internet, and not bringing them into casual social encounters. Nobody wants to hear your "TLJ ruined Star Wars" diatribe at the office Christmas party.

This is pretty much where [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] 's blanket "Bad DM" characterization of this falls flat for me. There seems to be this sentiment that the DM is supposed to be extraordinarily flexible, accommodating, not really own anything, cater to players, etc. But I don't see this line of thinking ever reflected back towards players (admittedly by some though not all posters in this thread). As a player if I'm not feeling what the DM has suggested but the rest of the group is cool with it... why would I force him to change it and why is he a bad DM if he doesn't cater to me specifically? If I have that big of a problem with it (to the point that I refuse to play) why am I not being held to the same standard of... friendship, camaraderie and social enjoyment should trump your lpersonal wants... that apparently DM's should be held to?