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

[iserith]

For those who provide clues and clearly telegraph threats what would happen if you described a room/area/encounter and the players said "nothing in this room seems interesting/dangerous. Let's move on"?

What if the room actually did have interesting/dangerous things in it? What do you do then?

Nothing. I've performed my role adequately and fairly. What the players do is up to them.

 

[iserith]

What if the dangerous thing was a trap or a monster that causes harm to the party?

If the players are oblivious to your telegraphing/clues does the harm still occur?

Yes, which is why it's a good idea to pay attention when the DM is describing the environment!

 

[Valmarius]

the campaign you're running is designed to last the rest of your life, isn't it? If not, why not?

This might just be the root of the divide between your two playstyles or approaches.
Of the three @iserith campaigns I've played, one ended at session 20, one at about 25, and the current one is at about 25 and feels like we're 80% through.
Each one told a self-contained story about dealing with a specific big threat. Afterwards, we typically retire the characters and start something new.
Maybe this approach requires a different handling of pacing.

While my homebrew campaigns run a little longer than that (roughly 70 sessions) I definitely keep an end point in mind.
I don't think I could run something indefinitely, but that's just me.

 

[guachi]

Yes, which is why it's a good idea to pay attention when the DM is describing the environment!

So heads you win tails they lose? If they don't get your telegraphing/clues then it's because they weren't paying attention and not because you didn't do an adequate job.

You can't fail; you can only be failed?

 

[iserith]

So heads you win tails they lose? If they don't get your telegraphing/clues then it's because they weren't paying attention and not because you didn't do an adequate job.

You can't fail; you can only be failed?

I have to assume in these discussions that the players and DM are doing an adequate job at their respective roles. If they aren't, then all bets are off.

 

[5ekyu]

This might just be the root of the divide between your two playstyles or approaches.
Of the three @iserith campaigns I've played, one ended at session 20, one at about 25, and the current one is at about 25 and feels like we're 80% through.
Each one told a self-contained story about dealing with a specific big threat. Afterwards, we typically retire the characters and start something new.
Maybe this approach requires a different handling of pacing.

While my homebrew campaigns run a little longer than that (roughly 70 sessions) I definitely keep an end point in mind.
I don't think I could run something indefinitely, but that's just me.

I am somewhere in between... i have not once really run a campaign where i came in with a definite ending point set in mind. i come in with some plot and setting ideas and events in progress - but about 75% of my "what your character see world" and story details get invented after i have PCs. That way the major themes can be angled and interwoven with what they bring in (background, race, class, backstory, traits like ideal, bond, flaw.) Additionally it is then a matter of what they choose to pursue.

I definitely do not run a sort of planned adventure to an end of short version game. A typical game of mine will run from 2-3 years of mostly weekly sessions. so maybe 100-150 sessions.

The shortest actually lasted only about six months. One of the major start-up seuqqences that was to launch an ongoing "pursue the evils you unleashed" was"foiled" when a player decided "no, my character will not prevent the apocalypse if it means a moral compromise" and the campaign shifted from a supernatural monster hunter campaign into a "apocalypse ongoing game. So, in many ways it could be seen as a route to the end type but that was at least in part a Player choice to allow it to happen.

 

[Imaculata]

If I remember correctly, you play D&D 3.Xe and (again, iirc) the expectation is that players "use skills" rather than describe what they want to do, or perhaps in addition to it. (I would have to re-read the corresponding PHB or DMG to be sure on this point.)

So if I'm playing D&D 3.Xe or 4e, I would be okay with players asking to make checks. I would still ask them to make sure they include a goal and approach so that I have an easier time adjudicating the action without assuming and establishing what the character is doing. In D&D 5e, I see no support for players asking to make checks, so I ask that they do not ask to make checks.

The problem is that the players start rolling their dice, the moment they want to take an action. They think taking an action == rolling a die. They start rolling for their perception before I have even asked for a roll. I'm trying to teach them that (as you often state) rolling a die is asking for a chance to fail. Sometimes the outcome of an action is not in doubt, and you auto-succeed or auto-fail. That is why I want my players to first state their action and approach, and wait for me to ask them for a roll. Because a roll might not be needed.

Basically, it seems like you are letting the meta drive the results - even on the very direct immediate local scale - the GM wants this found or spotted so it happens, the GM wants that character to get it so it happens etc. In our style of play we prefer that it's much more driven by what the character can give the player to work with than what the GM gives the player or group to work with - at least in the cases of the very direct what you see walking down the street level. (Obviously on the larger world building scale, that changes somewhat.)

I think that might be an exaderation, because I personally don't lean that way at all. I'm not in favor of forcing anything on my players that must be discovered, or must happen. I prefer to let the player's actions steer the flow of the game. But in some cases there might be a plot point I want to reveal, and I prefer to just straight up tell my players, instead of gating it behind a fake mass-perception check. I have seen how other DM's handle that badly. I hate the "everyone make a perception check"-style of playing, where the DM's intent is for one player to at least make their check, so he can reveal some exposition. Don't be that DM.

 

[5ekyu]

The problem is that the players start rolling their dice, the moment they want to take an action. They think taking an action == rolling a die. They start rolling for their perception before I have even asked for a roll. I'm trying to teach them that (as you often state) rolling a die is asking for a chance to fail. Sometimes the outcome of an action is not in doubt, and you auto-succeed or auto-fail. That is why I want my players to first state their action and approach, and wait for me to ask them for a roll. Because a roll might not be needed.



I think that might be an exaderation, because I personally don't lean that way at all. I'm not in favor of forcing anything on my players that must be discovered, or must happen. I prefer to let the player's actions steer the flow of the game. But in some cases there might be a plot point I want to reveal, and I prefer to just straight up tell my players, instead of gating it behind a fake mass-perception check. I have seen how other DM's handle that badly. I hate the "everyone make a perception check"-style of playing, where the DM's intent is for one player to at least make their check, so he can reveal some exposition. Don't be that DM.

Well, a difference between us is that in my games it's not a "fake" mass perception check. It's not an intent for one player at least to make the check...

It's a real perception check where the character's abilities (the actual representation of the players' choices) get to show their impact by tending to provide more info more often to those who chose to invest in that expertise.

It's a real percrption check that gives the characters who succeed at higher levels (different DCs for different aspects and details in the scene) to have info they can choose to share or to use as they see fit.

It's a real perception check in that info not found by failed checks will not be guaranteed to be given later because there is not a GM intent that it all be given with no reference to character abilities.

It's also a real perception check in that it is not uncommon for NPCs to also encounter the scene, maybe with the PCs maybe before or after, and this process creates the possibility that those NPCs may miss info organic other info - like the PCs based on in-game world factors.

Again, like stealth, like deception etc it's not simply decided based on GM wants it to go this way that the expertise in this skill is not going to be used here. Like other skills the determination of auyo-success is made based on in-game world factors, not just GM preferences.

Again, this won't make much of a perceivable difference in a game where the "gamepiece" is a "team of four" moving quickly thru a set of waypoints with speed and number of waypoints per session is a key goal but it is a significant difference in game where the characters are individuals with their own motivations and approaches.

That makes the mas perception checks very real in those games.

As GM, in a combat situation, I would not just decide "I want everyone to make the save vs this fireball, so y'all dont need to make saves this turn."

 

[Maxperson]

I think what I meant by "important" info is different than how you took it . . . and since Saelorn and 5ekyu don't seem to get my meaning either, the fault is clearly mine.


Like launching a land war in Asia, though, arguing the definition of a word on EnWorld is best avoided.

So, like, I accept I didn't get my point across.

I'm not trying to argue a definition. How about you just explain what you were trying to say? There are some others here who rather than try to explain things, try to alter definitions, so I argue that with them. You aren't one of those.

 

[Maxperson]

To drag out the ol' troll example, I can describe the troll in the cave as it moves into attack, carefully avoiding the brazier when it does. That's information sufficient to act. If the players want to know if the troll has any special weaknesses, it's on them to establish their characters as trying to recall such lore or make such deductions. I don't need to ask for checks out of the blue here. They have enough information to act.

I'm not seeing the point in asking to know troll weaknesses when you've given it to them with that description. For that matter, why does a troll have a lit brazier in the first place? If there's one race that won't be using fire, it's trolls.