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

[5ekyu]

That is, in fact, exactly how I'd imagined your game play would be. There is, in fact, a red flag in your sample player response that makes me even more certain your style of DMing is incompatible with my style of play.



That I would have to, or be expected to, describe what I'm doing to the extent that I have to describe how I'm examining a thing without also moving closer towards, is the exact kind of pedantic, blow-by-blow detail of action I would feel obligated to narrate that is the reason why I describe your particular resolution mechanic as "not fun". Maybe it's because I have newer players, maybe it's because we all have very limited time to actually play, but pacing is extremely important to my games, and if that's the level of descriptive action I'd require of my players in terms of examining and interacting with every room (and every item in the room) we'd never get anything done.

Again, that's different from "badwrongfun", and you've both a) clearly put a lot of thought into how you handle these situations and b) don't seem to be maintaining it solely to play "gotcha" on your players, so it's entirely possible I could find myself settling in to your table eventually. But understand how this method of resolution might seem unfun to a player, or how it may be entirely unfair in the hands of a more dastardly (or at least antagonistic) DM. That's a legitimate style of play too, of course, but not one I personally enjoy in the slightest.

In ye olde days when dealing with the keyword playstyles, we would develop written out procedures, since we knew whether or not we got "got" was gonna depend more often than not on what we said than any sense of character ability.

Of course, back then, there were no or almost no character skills beyond ability scores, spells, gear and combat stats.

So we had "door procedure" pages scripts to follow, camping scripts to follow, etc etc etc.

 

[billd91]

Again, that's different from "badwrongfun", and you've both a) clearly put a lot of thought into how you handle these situations and b) don't seem to be maintaining it solely to play "gotcha" on your players, so it's entirely possible I could find myself settling in to your table eventually. But understand how this method of resolution might seem unfun to a player, or how it may be entirely unfair in the hands of a more dastardly (or at least antagonistic) DM. That's a legitimate style of play too, of course, but not one I personally enjoy in the slightest.

It may not look particularly "gotcha" in this instance, but his method of dealing with pickpocketing and not giving the PC a chance to notice without indicating their wariness sounds pretty much "gotcha" to me. I lost my taste for overly pedantic/pixel-bitching styles of play long ago. I frankly doubt iserith and I would see eye to eye on either of our DMing styles or would appreciate being in each other's games.

 

[iserith]

It may not look particularly "gotcha" in this instance, but his method of dealing with pickpocketing and not giving the PC a chance to notice without indicating their wariness sounds pretty much "gotcha" to me. I lost my taste for overly pedantic/pixel-bitching styles of play long ago. I frankly doubt iserith and I would see eye to eye on either of our DMing styles or would appreciate being in each other's games.

Except the PC did have a chance to notice, as determined by the task he or she chose to perform while traveling the city. Are you staying alert to dangers or are you doing something else? If it's the former, the PC has a chance to notice. If it's the latter, the PC doesn't. The DM telegraphed the danger and asked what the player wanted to do. The player made an informed choice. That is not a gotcha.

 

[Gradine]

If I struck out the line about not moving closer to the armor, would it be okay then? Because a player may or may not say that. If you've taken anything from my posts, certainly you will know I don't assume the character is moving closer, right? Because that would go against the entirety of my point?

You've got me there

As for pacing, an entire scene exploration scene like this takes less than 5 minutes to play out. How long should it take in your view? I will also add that most people comment that my games run exceedingly fast compared to others. It's possible you run even faster than mine, but I'd be willing to take up that challenge.

That particular scene shouldn't last a minute at my table, unless there's more going on in the room. I have limited time to play (3 hours every other week, at most) and a LOT of players who are mostly relatively new to the game, so there's enough slowdown in other parts of our sessions that I don't waste time on unnecessary chaff such as gatekeeping character knowledge.

Re the first graph on gatekeeping behind action declaration- I agree that is a bad practice for what **is judged to be** character knowledge. It's the equivalent and thinly repackaged modern flavor of "you didn't say you looked up" in my mind.

We agree I think on that... in my games what is character knowledge is basically same as any other character trait - an ability check with character traits taken into account, circumstances taken into account and definite possibilities for auto-success and auto-fail.

I do not require the player statement of action to recall/recognize and specific targets to pair up that others may preach. Please do not throw me in that church.

On the other hand, where you and I are in disagreement is whether this changes in games where the lore and creation and authorship is shared. Whether it becomes "less or more" a problem... having played both I would suggest that having a consistent non-keyword based resolution of character knowledge is critical even more over because instead of having one source, one person to do the keyword-tango with, you have three, four, five... because authorship csn come from any of the others - not filtered thru the GM necessarily.

The differences in how different people can rationalize our communication tests and keywords is the making of fun games (Dixit comes to mind) but to me does not serve rpg all that well in this context.

Again, I'm not sure I'm being clear here; but I'm talking specifically about player agency in character knowledge and how necessary or not it is on the basis of the system, not any specific mechanic or resolution process around them. One of the earlier assertions in the thread involved how asking characters to make knowledge roles interfered with player agency in deciding their character's knowledge. I've argued that D&D is not a game where player agency in character knowledge matters; in fact I think it unsporting to place that responsibility on them. Instead, I think that said player agency only really matters in systems with built-in shared world-building responsibilities, like the aforementioned Dresden Files.

In ye olde days when dealing with the keyword playstyles, we would develop written out procedures, since we knew whether or not we got "got" was gonna depend more often than not on what we said than any sense of character ability.

Of course, back then, there were no or almost no character skills beyond ability scores, spells, gear and combat stats.

So we had "door procedure" pages scripts to follow, camping scripts to follow, etc etc etc.

That sounds absolutely dreadful.

It may not look particularly "gotcha" in this instance, but his method of dealing with pickpocketing and not giving the PC a chance to notice without indicating their wariness sounds pretty much "gotcha" to me. I lost my taste for overly pedantic/pixel-bitching styles of play long ago. I frankly doubt iserith and I would see eye to eye on either of our DMing styles or would appreciate being in each other's games.

This about sums up my feelings on the subject as well.

 

[iserith]

That particular scene shouldn't last a minute at my table, unless there's more going on in the room. I have limited time to play (3 hours every other week, at most) and a LOT of players who are mostly relatively new to the game, so there's enough slowdown in other parts of our sessions that I don't waste time on unnecessary chaff such as gatekeeping character knowledge.

Would it be fair to say you don't spend much time on the exploration pillar? It's mostly social and combat challenges? (Not a judgment. I think that should be tailored to the game.)

I still submit that this is NOT gatekeeping character knowledge. It's getting out of the way so the players can play their characters and the DM simply describing the environment and narrating the results of the adventurers' actions, calling for mechanics to come into play as needed. If they want more information than what is provided, they can act to get it.

I, too, often have new players at the table as I run one-shots for pickup groups. (Though in truth I do favor players with at least some experience in my recruiting, there's usually one or two that are new or newer.) What I find is I set a high standard and the new players rise to the occasion. I don't play their characters for them. I don't assume they need my help unless they ask. All they have to do is describe what they want to do which shouldn't be difficult for most people ages 12 and up.

 

[MNblockhead]

Wow, I guess we just enjoy very different play styles. I don't want to make assumptions on how you run your games @Gradine, anyone who gives as much thought to the game as you do is likely to be run a good game and I can enjoy all manner of GM styles if the GM is dedicated and cares about everyone having a good time.

But I have to say that I love the style of play that [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] describes. From how he describes his style, it brings me back to how we played 1e but without the annoying prepubescent "gotcha" style that immature DMs have. I like having to explain how my character is acting with the world. It makes the game more immersive for me to have to give some thought to specifying not just that I do something but how I do it, not just that I may have some knowledge, but how I have that knowledge. When other players do this, it makes the game more immersive for me. When everyone does it, its magic.

What I feel is missing in many of the games I play in, is that everything seems on autopilot until there is a "big challenge" or "combat." Or everything is reduced for a call for rolls and the players stating roll results.

As a DM, in my 1st 5e campaign, and the first game I ran after a long time of not playing TTRPGs at all, I started to get bored and disillusioned with many dungeons crawls once you had rogues in the mid tiers. It seems I either had to set DC levels for traps crazy high, in which case I could force auto passive-perception fails or they would notice every trap on autopilot.

The way I handled it at the time, was I wanted to play 5e RAW. So I would just describe that he notices something off about a wall the floor, etc. Then he would have to use his Investigation to see if he could tell if there was a trap or secret door. I would also in my descriptions give red herring descriptions. I would describe discolorations, etc. and the player would make investigation roles. But really, it was just more of the same. You notice something. I investigate...I got an 18. Etc.

Something was missing.

Iserith has laid out a clear play loop, that follows RAW, and would solve something that has been holding my games back.

Now, I think I might go easier on my players. I might telegraph more heavily with newer players. Also, I might help by asking some leading questions. How are you searching the room? How are you examining the statue? How are you inspecting the non-matching tile? Also, I think Iserith's patient explanations in this and other threads also have helped me better understand how to use other passive checks besides perception.

Anyway, I don't have too much to add to this already monstrous thread tangent, I've not thought about it as deeply as you all and don't have as much experience as a DM, but I think the comments about the playability and enjoyability of Iserith's games are off base. For me, they sound fun and have given me some ideas on how I might improve my games.

That is, in fact, exactly how I'd imagined your game play would be. There is, in fact, a red flag in your sample player response that makes me even more certain your style of DMing is incompatible with my style of play.



That I would have to, or be expected to, describe what I'm doing to the extent that I have to describe how I'm examining a thing without also moving closer towards, is the exact kind of pedantic, blow-by-blow detail of action I would feel obligated to narrate that is the reason why I describe your particular resolution mechanic as "not fun". Maybe it's because I have newer players, maybe it's because we all have very limited time to actually play, but pacing is extremely important to my games, and if that's the level of descriptive action I'd require of my players in terms of examining and interacting with every room (and every item in the room) we'd never get anything done.

Again, that's different from "badwrongfun", and you've both a) clearly put a lot of thought into how you handle these situations and b) don't seem to be maintaining it solely to play "gotcha" on your players, so it's entirely possible I could find myself settling in to your table eventually. But understand how this method of resolution might seem unfun to a player, or how it may be entirely unfair in the hands of a more dastardly (or at least antagonistic) DM. That's a legitimate style of play too, of course, but not one I personally enjoy in the slightest.

 

[Gradine]

Would it be fair to say you don't spend much time on the exploration pillar? It's mostly social and combat challenges? (Not a judgment. I think that should be tailored to the game.)

I think that would be a fair assessment, to an extent, though this is more due to my player preferences than to my own. I don't do much dungeon crawling, for instance. Most of what I would do that I would consider exploration is usually centered around investigation (and thus has many aspects of the social pillar weaved in).

 

[5ekyu]

You've got me there



That particular scene shouldn't last a minute at my table, unless there's more going on in the room. I have limited time to play (3 hours every other week, at most) and a LOT of players who are mostly relatively new to the game, so there's enough slowdown in other parts of our sessions that I don't waste time on unnecessary chaff such as gatekeeping character knowledge.



Again, I'm not sure I'm being clear here; but I'm talking specifically about player agency in character knowledge and how necessary or not it is on the basis of the system, not any specific mechanic or resolution process around them. One of the earlier assertions in the thread involved how asking characters to make knowledge roles interfered with player agency in deciding their character's knowledge. I've argued that D&D is not a game where player agency in character knowledge matters; in fact I think it unsporting to place that responsibility on them. Instead, I think that said player agency only really matters in systems with built-in shared world-building responsibilities, like the aforementioned Dresden Files.



That sounds absolutely dreadful.



This about sums up my feelings on the subject as well.

" but I'm talking specifically about player agency in character knowledge and how necessary or not it is on the basis of the system, not any specific mechanic or resolution process around them. "

i have no comment on what "player agency" is or does or how it can be construed or defined or redefined etc etc etc. especially when it is divorced from any specifics of process or mechanics. "player agency" is an amorphous buzz word of e term that is like beauty and pornography in the eye of the behold and know when it is seen.

I believe that the mechanics to ascertain character knowledge are just as critical to shared authorship and lore games as they are in DnD and other game systems as well. I believe that because in a "role-playing game" I need to know what my character knows in order to play that role, play that character when said knowledge is of import - when it matters.

Since those mechanics serve as a determinant for whether or not i can role-play the character it really doesn't matter whether or not that game involves sole-lore-gm or shared world and authorship.

RE the door procedures

"That sounds absolutely dreadful."

Well, you will notice i did not say "ye **good** olde days"?!?!

it was necessary when gaming under keyword-resolution GMs in styles that did not put a lot on the character's skills - treated them more like game pieces than characters. In those games under those Gms the "characters" have different rules much like rooks, bishops and knights do in chess. But what happens in many cases fell on what they player chose to say, what keywords were used... |"did you say your rook looked up?" not much different than "did your rook take e3?" There was never a question that "your knight may decide to move f5 check instead" or that "your scout would have looked up when moving into a large cavern if you did not say so."

Other systems even then gave the "pieces" more "characteristics" and more emphasis on "character" and "role playing" instead of "piece moving."

We moved away from that, and those Gms and that style too, after not all that long overall as other systems and other styles are more "character focused" and deal more with the "character as an entity" than "the character as a chess piece."

never turned back.

others may have.

but not us.

 

[iserith]

I think that would be a fair assessment, to an extent, though this is more due to my player preferences than to my own. I don't do much dungeon crawling, for instance. Most of what I would do that I would consider exploration is usually centered around investigation (and thus has many aspects of the social pillar weaved in).

Those kinds of adventures tend to be easier to prep as well, which is why I think location-based adventures which naturally increase the amount of exploration challenges have fallen out of favor. A terrible history of poorly-designed and run dungeons doesn't help either. I do, however, think that location-based adventures are the best kind to run with D&D 5e given the design of the rules. I'd run more event-based challenges, of which mystery/investigation adventures are subset, with D&D 4e.

 

[Gradine]

Those kinds of adventures tend to be easier to prep as well, which is why I think location-based adventures which naturally increase the amount of exploration challenges have fallen out of favor. A terrible history of poorly-designed and run dungeons doesn't help either. I do, however, think that location-based adventures are the best kind to run with D&D 5e given the design of the rules. I'd run more event-based challenges, of which mystery/investigation adventures are subset, with D&D 4e.

Grain of salt: I never truly got a chance to DM 4e, so my perception might be skewed by how I only really planned to DM, not from actual play. That said, as a DM I would treat both systems in the exact opposite way. I would be hard pressed to name many systems better attuned to site-based adventures than 4e, nor more systems more poorly attuned to event-based challenges. And I liked 4e (again, more in concept than in real play).

But again, take that with multiple grains of salt: I have little experience playing 4e and no experience DMing, and my experiences with site-based are also fairly limited, both as a player and as a DM.

It may just be that our aesthetics of play and DM-ing styles are just as diametrically opposed.