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

[Kobold Boots]

Yeah, but as I stated before, I'm only interested in playing official campaigns / modules.


Indeed, but it's demanded by me.

I respect your preferences. As a long standing DM that absolutely loves modules and adventure paths as well as the spirit of RAW, I almost feel the same way.

The issue with this approach is that a player who puts the time in to optimize or read all available subject matter is going to know exactly where the exploits are and what is coming in the adventure path. While this is absolutely ok in terms of a single player game, or in a MMO where a group may need to do such things in order to take down a raid boss, it loses some polish when you're at a table of people and expectations and time differ.

You've addressed this in terms of how you've found your own group so I applaud this. In terms of my groups I've had to change RAW a few times and have certainly expanded on adventure paths to keep everyone honest.

(ex. Monster manuals are a guide or bestiary - individual monsters may differ from what the lore is and you'll only learn by experiencing them. Good news is once you've experienced them, it's character knowledge and specifics won't change much other than common sense variation.)

Thanks,
KB

 

[Inchoroi]

The only time I've ever left a game due to a DM's style (rather than leaving because I realized I could no longer handle a noon - midnight+ game followed by a 40 minute drive home), was when I realized I wasn't having fun micromanaging my inventory by location on my character and having to make item saving throws for EVERYTHING when caught in an AOE attack. That level of granularity, while "realistic*," and a legit part of many AD&D 1st ed. games, just wasn't something I was ever into. I never used those rules when I played AD&D regularly and having to actually play a character by those rules, I realized that I wasn't missing out on anything. Plus, the entire campaign revolved around the DM's daughter's character and the rest of us where just supporting characters... but I could have dealt with that on its own.

* within a certain level of realism

Oh, lord. My head hurts already just thinking about dealing with inventory like that (although I'd love a 12+ hour session).

I can just imagine the conversation with my wife if I decided to leave my job because I wanted to become a pen and paper game designer. My brother has often chided me for not trying to get published, and my response has always been my expected return on initial investment is under $1 an hour. There is no way the writing would be anything other than a labor of love.

But I've a few writing examples here on EnWorld where I've helped somebody or shared something just for fun, and I'm fully arrogant enough to say that I don't think that you can tell my stuff from professional content.

My hat's off to anyone living that dream, and huge props to Tracy Hickman for packing his wife, his baby, and a bunch of manuscripts in a car and heading to Wisconsin, but yeah... that ain't going to be me.

I've gotten a little bit of my content in three books now, and judging from the little bit of money I've made from it, its definitely not something one could ever live off of. I desperately wish it was, but it isn't. My wife has always said that if she ever gets a job where I wouldn't have to work, she'd be fine with me staying home all day writing instead of working. I don't think I'm ever going to be lucky enough for that to happen, but a man can dream...

 

[Celebrim]

Oh, lord. My head hurts already just thinking about dealing with inventory like that (although I'd love a 12+ hour session).

These days, I could handle it by providing the players character sheets that did item saving throws for them with a button push (all my players use the excel character spread sheets I provided at the start of the campaign anyway).

The reason I've never gone hard core on item saving throws even though I conceptually love the idea of that is the design headaches it presents to the DM if they are running anything other than the semi-competitive haven/delve format that D&D was designed around. It's hard enough to keep all the elements implied by a character's 'inventory' balanced as it is without regularly destroying a portion of that inventory. How do you balance treasure acquisition around the idea of different items of different materials for different classes being destroy at some sort of assumed rate? R And then from a verisimilitude standpoint, if that is regularly happening to the PC's then you'd expect magical treasure to be logically far rarer in the environment rather than more plentiful, so you have an even bigger disconnect between treasure acquisition/placement and the logic of its presence in the environment.

Plus, from a pure player satisfaction standpoint, being left naked by a saving throw is actually harder to recover from than dying. Just like permanently maiming a character is something that you should really hesitate to do, destroying the 'rewards' of a player's play is not really something that makes the game more fun for the player. Not everyone is going to enjoy 'ultra-hardcore' mode any more than most people play video games in 'ultra-hardcore' mode. There is this weird sort of aspect of PnP games that even though they offer so many other potential aesthetics of play than challenge, you can't actually use that as an excuse for squashing basics aesthetics of play like affirmation because really above everything else that 'illusion of success' is the main reason people play. You can't really reliably substitute 'narrative', 'discovery', 'challenge' or whatever except as they feed into 'affirmation' and expect players to continue in the game for hour after hour. Maybe you can manage a one off where affirmation isn't part of it and explore failure and frustration as a core part of gameplay, but that doesn't work for a game that expects say 600 hours of investment (which is probably minimally what has been put in by my players on me 3e campaign). So really, 'taking away their stuff' regularly just doesn't work however realistic it might be - even if we ignore the book keeping aspect of it.

 

[neobolts]

Everyone has thrown out the big game-killers (railroading, inconsistent rulings, Mary Sue character, etc), so here instead are some specific tales of things DMs have done that got me to quit games...

These were public games at game stores, and I did not stay longer than one session:

• - (D&D 4e) New players start exceptionally lower level than current players, to the point where they cannot hit foes, pass checks, or survive an single hit due to the scaling. The DM wanted long-term players to feel rewarded for attending reliably, but came up with an unwelcoming system that punished me for the sin of moving to a new city.
• - (D&D 4e) The DM did not restrict character creation in any way and did not have players to coordinate what the were playing. Being new, I rolled a support bard. The veteran players new what to expect and all rolled CN or CE rogues that planned to betray the party.
• - (Paladium Fantasy) For a brand new game that was starting I watched what the other players made and then rolled a heroics-minded tanky dwarf fighter (as this is what the party lacked). The story opened with me traveling a snowy forest towards a city when I heard a cry for help and sounds of battle. I declared I was rushing to the battle to see if someone needed help, and was promptly informed that my character wouldn't do that, and that he instead would be climbing a tree and observing the battle from afar.

This one took place in a private game, in a carefully curated collaborative fantasy homebrew setting. A longtime player was trying their hand as a DM (did not quit, but the players revolted and the session was unanimously hand-waved as non-canon):

• - (D&D 3e) "My character reveals that he is secretly the most powerful sorcerer in the world. He takes you to a secret base where the cast of Final Fantasy IX descend in Gundams that they are going to give to each of you."

 

[Inchoroi]

Everyone has thrown out the big game-killers (railroading, inconsistent rulings, Mary Sue character, etc), so here instead are some specific tales of things DMs have done that got me to quit games...

These were public games at game stores, and I did not stay longer than one session:

• - (D&D 4e) New players start exceptionally lower level than current players, to the point where they cannot hit foes, pass checks, or survive an single hit due to the scaling. The DM wanted long-term players to feel rewarded for attending reliably, but came up with an unwelcoming system that punished me for the sin of moving to a new city.
• - (D&D 4e) The DM did not restrict character creation in any way and did not have players to coordinate what the were playing. Being new, I rolled a support bard. The veteran players new what to expect and all rolled CN or CE rogues that planned to betray the party.
• - (Paladium Fantasy) For a brand new game that was starting I watched what the other players made and then rolled a heroics-minded tanky dwarf fighter (as this is what the party lacked). The story opened with me traveling a snowy forest towards a city when I heard a cry for help and sounds of battle. I declared I was rushing to the battle to see if someone needed help, and was promptly informed that my character wouldn't do that, and that he instead would be climbing a tree and observing the battle from afar.

This one took place in a private game, in a carefully curated collaborative fantasy homebrew setting. A longtime player was trying their hand as a DM (did not quit, but the players revolted and the session was unanimously hand-waved as non-canon):

• - (D&D 3e) "My character reveals that he is secretly the most powerful sorcerer in the world. He takes you to a secret base where the cast of Final Fantasy IX descend in Gundams that they are going to give to each of you."

I had to reread that last line four times.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

I respect your preferences. As a long standing DM that absolutely loves modules and adventure paths as well as the spirit of RAW, I almost feel the same way.

The issue with this approach is that a player who puts the time in to optimize or read all available subject matter is going to know exactly where the exploits are and what is coming in the adventure path. While this is absolutely ok in terms of a single player game, or in a MMO where a group may need to do such things in order to take down a raid boss, it loses some polish when you're at a table of people and expectations and time differ.

You've addressed this in terms of how you've found your own group so I applaud this. In terms of my groups I've had to change RAW a few times and have certainly expanded on adventure paths to keep everyone honest.

(ex. Monster manuals are a guide or bestiary - individual monsters may differ from what the lore is and you'll only learn by experiencing them. Good news is once you've experienced them, it's character knowledge and specifics won't change much other than common sense variation.)

Thanks,
KB

Maybe I should add that I have the absolute requirement that none of my players know the adventure path. If I catch someone knowing something he shouldn't know, he's out. And just the rules... I never ran into an exploit problem so far with those. Not any that ruined the fun of someone anyway.

 

[neobolts]

With reference to this and your other posts in this thread, what are your thoughts on the following scenarios?

Scenario 1

GM: You see a statue of a woman holding a scythe.
Player: I have Religion, do I know who she is?
GM: Roll INT\Religion please, DC 17.
Player: I roll an 18.
GM: It is a statue of Kishar, the goddess of agriculture.

This is totally fine. Players can either act as a player as shown [requesting to use a mechanic] or instead act as a character [describing character activity and letting the DM pick the mechanic]. The two are equally valid from my perspective.

Scenario 2

GM: You see a statue of a woman holding a scythe.
Player: I have Religion, *rolls* I got an 18. Do I know who she is?
GM: It is a statue of Kishar, the goddess of agriculture.

I am okay with veteran players taking the initiative to roll. After all, if I don't care about the roll, they'll never know. I would not encourage new players to assume they should roll.
Side note: In combat, everyone should just roll as they declare their action to avoid slowing down the game. (e.g. avoid "I bring my mighty sword down upon the goblin's skull." "Okay, make an attack roll.")

Scenario 3

GM: You see a statue of a woman holding a scythe. Can I get an INT\Religion roll please?
Player: I roll a 18.
GM: Because of your knowledge of religions of this area, you know it is a It is a statue of Kishar, the goddess of agriculture.

I will do this if pressed for time. But a better solution would be to hand-wave the roll and just say "You see a statue of a woman holding a scythe. Because of your knowledge of religions of this area, you know it is a It is a statue of Kishar, the goddess of agriculture."

Scenario 4

GM: You see a statue of a woman holding a scythe. *rolls an INT\Religion roll on behalf of the player, gets 18*
GM: Because of your knowledge of religions of this area, you know it is a It is a statue of Kishar, the goddess of agriculture.

This is bad wrong fun. If you (as a player or DM) like this you are officially a "bad wrong fun haver".

 

[Kobold Boots]

Maybe I should add that I have the absolute requirement that none of my players know the adventure path. If I catch someone knowing something he shouldn't know, he's out. And just the rules... I never ran into an exploit problem so far with those. Not any that ruined the fun of someone anyway.

It depends on your players, but I consider an exploit any knowledge the use of any knowledge a player has which influences the outcome of an event, which the character would not have. OR alternatively, the use of system mastery to create a situation where the core tenets of the game mechanics do not apply.

(e.g. In a game with the expectation that most players will hit 55% of the time on average with up to 75% of the time due to skill boosts.. the player manages a build which allows near 100% likelihood of striking an enemy of system appropriate challenge rating)

In the above example, the players may have a good time, until the system mastery guy goes down and they suddenly face a TPK.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

But I've a few writing examples here on EnWorld where I've helped somebody or shared something just for fun, and I'm fully arrogant enough to say that I don't think that you can tell my stuff from professional content.

In my experience, the major difference between a big professional company and an amateur working in their basement is that the amateur is more concerned with making the best product they can while the big company cares primarily about profit. Any halfway competent designer can write a game that's significantly better than the current edition of D&D, but it might not appeal to as broad of an audience, and the published product may not look as shiny.

 

[5ekyu]

I'm a pretty hard core simulationist, and I believe that the purpose of game rules is to create a model of the world. For most things that we are modelling there should be a certain verisimilitude to the real world. That is the mechanics should model our own life experiences so that the results are familiar to us. You implicitly understand this when you write:



So I think we are in pretty strong agreement about what the process of play and the rules (ei, the fortune test and the resolution mechanics) are trying together to achieve.

Now consider the case you offered up as your first example, that of employing a weapon. When you employ a weapon against a target, isn't it the case that you get very immediate feedback regarding whether you hit or did not hit the target? You can in fact see that your blow landed, or that the arrow hit the bull's eye or otherwise know that you did well. So it's not at all wrong and indeed feels correct that a PC should see the result of his dice roll and have some feel for how he's doing.

But my contention is that not every real world test works that way - which is in fact something you seem to concede.



That's one example and one possible explanation but I don't think that is the sole explanation. Quite often in life you get things wrong, and sometimes you have a great feeling that you did well on a task which has a low DC and yet it turns out that you did poorly. There is actually an interesting psychological phenomenon called the Dunning-Kruger effect where the less skilled you are at something and the less well you do at something, the more confident you are that you did well at it.

With a little reflection I don't think it will be hard to remember cases where you thought you were doing well, only to discover you didn't. In my case I think of things like math exams where I made careless mistakes, programs I wrote that had stupid thoughtless errors in them, and playing 'pin the tail on the donkey' and thinking I was doing well when in fact I was wildly off. I don't think you can explain those just as 'misjudging the DC'.

It's my contention that in cases where the character can receive no immediate feedback as to how well they are doing, that the player should also receive no immediate feedback as to how well they are doing. So for a 'move silently' check or an attack roll or a climb check, sure I have no problem with the player rolling their own dice because as in real life, that character should be getting some sort of immediate feedback.

But in real life you have no way of knowing how well you are searching something. There is plenty of psychological experiments showing that people wildly misjudge how well they remember a scene or took in the details of something. How could you possibly know you were missing some obvious detail? I mean, haven't you searched a refrigerator before and felt you'd done so thoroughly, only to discover upon second look that the thing you were looking for was at eye level on the top shelf right in the front? Someone else pointed it out to you and you were like, "Oh that was obvious." It wasn't that the DC was higher than you thought it was, you just rolled poorly on your search check and missed an obvious detail. That sort of thing happens all the time. I would think life itself would refute your assertion without me having to.



Do you now have some idea how ridiculous this example is? Do you think I narrate an axe swing like that or ever roll the dice for a PC's ax swing in secret away from the player? To be quite blunt, you think you did really well in offering up this as an argument, but you actually "rolled a 1" and completely fumbled it. Yes, obviously for an axe swing a PC gets immediate visual feedback on the axe swing so there is no harm in giving the player the same immediate feedback. But that example only serves to show just how little you've actually considered this question.

PS: "i have left it with a good ferling, a goid sense of how i did" - Did you have a good sense of how well you'd spelled your response as well?

EDIT TO ADD - I misread the move silent reference thinking it was a case being put forth of a counter point to the attack roll. I leave my misread post here for evidence of my failure.

"It's my contention that in cases where the character can receive no immediate feedback as to how well they are doing, that the player should also receive no immediate feedback as to how well they are doing. So for a 'move silently' check or an attack roll or a climb check, sure I have no problem with the player rolling their own dice because as in real life, that character should be getting some sort of immediate feedback."

But you make my point.

You are assuming they have no immediate feedback on their move silently check.

Are they deaf?

How many times have we seen in movies or other sources the character sneaking thru the woods step on a twig and freeze dramatically aware they just may have screwed up? How many times did they creep up the stairs only to have a stair creek and them stop knowing they just screwed up? how many times did they slip up and something gets knocked off... etc etc etc

"How much noise did I make" is the epitome of the player knowing how good his "roll to move silently is - unless for some reason they cannot hear the noise they make.

Don't they also have an idea about the background level of noise? Whether they times their run with the thunder or passing train or missed the timing?

What they are missing is the other side of the equation - the DC the sensitivity of potential listeners.

It is almost a text book case of "i can tell how well i did but i do not know how good the other guy is." which is my "you know the d20" but you dont know the DC example.

"Do you now have some idea how ridiculous this example is? Do you think I narrate an axe swing like that or ever roll the dice for a PC's ax swing in secret away from the player? To be quite blunt, you think you did really well in offering up this as an argument, but you actually "rolled a 1" and completely fumbled it. Yes, obviously for an axe swing a PC gets immediate visual feedback on the axe swing so there is no harm in giving the player the same immediate feedback. But that example only serves to show just how little you've actually considered this question."

Actually i wonder if you have considered it much at all given the no immediate feedback on how well your move silently works example.

The point of the example is that in one case the Gm assumes no info can be gained - even for moving silently - and in the other they assume it absolutely can. That is a disconnect in presumptions i cannot justify myself.

"Can i as Gm provide (and should I provide) meaning ful feedback in the form of narration to reflect the difference between a 2 roll and a 19 roll?"

For a combat swing the answer is yes and that seems to be something we agree.
Most likely we are both also fine with that for saves and other combat related rolls.

But when it comes to "move silently" one of us says "yes and yes" and the other says "no" to at least one - even for move silently.

In my mind, why not use the same narrative sense to provide the same narrative feedback to the die roll when there are just as many possibilities of "stuff happens" to cover the 2 on search vs the 19 on search as there are for the swings?

"The closet was clean and well lit and easy to maneuver things around in - you are sure your search was thorough. 19"

"The closest looked clean and well orgnaized but when you started moving things stuff started falling apart, the light flickers every time there was a shift, and the search was the best you could get done in that time but far from what you would call thorough. 2"

"As you were looking back, a crowd came out and the wind kicked up so it while you failed to spot anyone following you at that point, you are far from confident. roll-2"

""The wind died down and the street cleared and given the turn of the road and clerar lines of sight you are pretty dang sure nobody is following you. roll-19"

The only reason there is "no feedback" in the cases where you as Gm "choose to not narrate the roll" is that you the Gm decided to not narrate the roll.

Again, whether or not the DC is met - different story. Whether or not the check matters - invisible inaudible trailer - someone with IRV seeing thru walls etc - different stories.

And no, i never feel good about my typing - being half blind with nerve damaged fingers - i dont GAF.

EIT i left out an answer - no i did not think you ran your games refusing to narrate the miss or treat that d20 roll as a unknowable thing. it was the point to show there is a disconnect between rolls that GMs choose to say "this d20 has an in-game narration" vs "that d20 has no in-game narration". As you ppinted out its somewhat odd to even assume an attack d20 would not be given narrative info. To me, it is equally odd to assume moving silently or lock picking or searching and a host of others do not have a narrative d20.