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

[TwoSix]

For a more serious answer: Fire is wildly deadly and destructive, yet we use it extensively and often with great carelessness. Why would trolls be more sensible humans?

Yep. If I stick my hand in a fire, it's going to hurt a lot and I'm not going to regenerate it. If a troll sticks its hand in a fire, it's also going to hurt a lot and it's not going to regenerate it. I still use fire, why wouldn't the troll?

Just because trolls regenerate doesn't mean they don't have a pain response and learn to deal with it, just like any other creature. The convenience of light, warmth, and cooked food vastly outweighs the idea that killers might invade my cave and try to use my firepit against me.

 

[BookBarbarian]

Well now my players are going to encounter a Troll that is scared of the dark.

 

[Lanefan]

It doesn't need to be enforced if everyone agrees to it and abides by their agreement.

But if not agreeing to it is enough to bar one from joining the game, that counts as pretty heavy enforcement in my view.

I prefer to keep campaigns down to a year or less, preferably less. Six months or about 20 to 25 sessions is ideal in my view. Then I want to move on to something else. I'm not interested in anything open-ended anymore.

Hell, 20-25 sessions isn't enough time for me to even get nicely started into a campaign, either as player or DM. Never mind that as player I'd expect to likely still be 1st level after that time, and certainly still 1st level if I'd had few of my characters killed off; a common occurrence.

"From where I'm standing, I want to look for the source of the smoke." That is describing what you want to do so that I can adjudicate and narrate the result of the adventurers' action.

Sure, that works - just as well as saying "Can I discern the source of the smoke?".

Well, you did jump into an exchange I was having with someone who objected to exploration challenges and asserted that they negatively impacted pacing. As someone who is very concerned about pacing, I can say that they do not. Subsequent comments of mine should underscore that I am indeed concerned about it.

You and I at the same table would be an adventure, to say the least.

It's a game, so I want it to be fair. Gotchas are not fair. Luck comes into play after the player makes an informed choice and the outcome of that choice is uncertain and there's a meaningful consequence of failure. My telegraphing the hidden threat (or whatever) when describing the environment is what allows the player to make an informed choice.

This runs hard into the question of how much info is too much, with regard to metagaming and player-v-character knowledge. Telegraphing a hidden threat kinda doesn't make it hidden any more if one assumes player knowledge and character knowledge are the same.

I would say your definition of "railroad" is overly broad and your concerns about "metagaming" overblown.

Funny - I've been accused elsewhere of having a definition of 'railroad' that is too narrow, by posters who are in this thread no less!

As for metagaming concerns, AFAIC there's no such thing as overblown. Metagaming is bad and though there will always be some, eliminating the possibility for it where one can is always the right way to go.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Perhaps.

Are the characters going 1-20 in level during these runs? If not, were it up to me I'd probably want to keep the same ones going. (and if yes, that's a frighteningly fast advance rate!)

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.

It's not that hard, believe me.

The trick is to either not start with a defined end point(1), or start with one that's so far away it'll take ages to get there and in-game events might steer things away from it in any case(2). And slow level advancement to a dead crawl!

(1) - I did this in my first long campaign, and then about 7 years in an endpoint suggested itself which it then took 3 more years to reach.
(2) - my current campaign is like this, and 10 years in it's still got maybe 4 years left in it - though they just this month started waving at the storyline that'll eventually take them to said endpoint if nothing else intervenes...which almost certainly it will, at some point.

Lanefan

 

[Imaculata]

What do the actual rules for D&D 3.Xe say about this though? I'd be curious to know.

Well, I looked it up, and you may be surprised.

The Player Handbook only goes into detail on how skill checks work, but fails to mention anything regarding the DM making the call for one. So going by the PHB alone, I could see why players would think that taking an action == making a roll.

But the Dungeon master Guide contradicts itself on the topic of using skills, specifically in an example of play. It shows examples of both the DM asking for a skill check, and players deciding to roll Listen checks for themselves. But it never clarifies which of the two action resolutions is correct. So I guess this is where a lot of the confusion arises. Note that I checked the 3.5 DMG specifically, so they've had every opportunity to correct this in the book, but neglected to do so.

As you probably know a player can take 10 or 20 on skill checks when they are not under any threat, and have plenty of time. This means that they don't make a roll, and will auto-succeed at mundane tasks. But the DMG gives examples of DC's as low as -10, which calls the point of such a roll in question. Because that's a skill check you can't possibly fail.

I've also checked D20 Modern, but it seems they mostly just copied the text from the 3.5 DMG, and grouped it with the PHB information.

 

[Valmarius]

Perhaps.

Are the characters going 1-20 in level during these runs? If not, were it up to me I'd probably want to keep the same ones going.

Lanefan

Broadly speaking they go from 1st to about 11.
My campaigns tend towards having an end point in sight because the pitch is based around some big event, and sooner or later that event WILL occur. I actually started out my current home game as very open world with quests leading off in all directions, but as soon as my players got a hint of something grander going on that's all they wanted to chase. I've learned that my players really like following that epic tale to its conclusion, so I build towards making that finale as strong as possible. It helps that those are the kinds of stories I enjoy playing/telling.

 

[Valmarius]

As for metagaming concerns, AFAIC there's no such thing as overblown. Metagaming is bad and though there will always be some, eliminating the possibility for it where one can is always the right way to go.

Lanefan

I have two DMs in my current home game. It would be strenuous to say the least to try and have them pretend not to know everything they do, so I baked it into the concept of the game.
All the PCs started the game having just graduated from an adventuring academy. The Monster Manual is a real, in-world, book they can refer to and recall information from. Nevertheless, I throw enough curveballs with homebrew stuff that they confirm their theoretical knowledge when they aren't sure.

 

[Lanefan]

Broadly speaking they go from 1st to about 11.
My campaigns tend towards having an end point in sight because the pitch is based around some big event, and sooner or later that event WILL occur. I actually started out my current home game as very open world with quests leading off in all directions, but as soon as my players got a hint of something grander going on that's all they wanted to chase. I've learned that my players really like following that epic tale to its conclusion, so I build towards making that finale as strong as possible. It helps that those are the kinds of stories I enjoy playing/telling.

Fair enough.

Next step: during the adventures that run up to the conclusion of that epic tale, sow seeds for a second one that may or may not be at all related to the first. A brief (and maybe poor) example:

First few adventures are rather sandboxy, party get to know each other and solidify into a functional group. Then a grander quest arises, and about fifteen adventures later they've taken down a lich who had been raising undead that were terrorizing the north marches. But, somewhere around the eighth adventure in the lich story you start dropping hints and clues of a conspiracy to overthrow the well-liked king, but leave it unclear as to whether or not the undead and-or lich are involved. Then, when the lich falls, find a way to make it clear that it was not involved (maybe it had even been supporting the king somehow!), which should get the players/PCs wondering what's behind the overthrow attempt and whether they've just cost the king a powerful ally. And away you go on Big Story #2 in the same campaign...

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

I have two DMs in my current home game. It would be strenuous to say the least to try and have them pretend not to know everything they do, so I baked it into the concept of the game.
All the PCs started the game having just graduated from an adventuring academy.

OK, that's certainly a way of doing it I can get behind - if you can't beat 'em, join 'em and take over! But that only deals with one aspect of metagaming - pre-knowledge of monster capabilities - and not with others including the too-much-narrated-info example from earlier.

The Monster Manual is a real, in-world, book they can refer to and recall information from. Nevertheless, I throw enough curveballs with homebrew stuff that they confirm their theoretical knowledge when they aren't sure.

It's amazing how much you can throw 'em off just by changing the name of a common monster and never referring to its original name. Doing this also has the pleasant side effect of giving your game a certain uniqueness - nobody ever uses the word 'Ogre' in my game but 'Turvitian' (which are stock Ogres, just renamed) is heard often.

 

[iserith]

But if not agreeing to it is enough to bar one from joining the game, that counts as pretty heavy enforcement in my view.

Are there people you wouldn't play with?

Sure, that works - just as well as saying "Can I discern the source of the smoke?".

That leaves off the approach.

This runs hard into the question of how much info is too much, with regard to metagaming and player-v-character knowledge. Telegraphing a hidden threat kinda doesn't make it hidden any more if one assumes player knowledge and character knowledge are the same.

Funny - I've been accused elsewhere of having a definition of 'railroad' that is too narrow, by posters who are in this thread no less!

As for metagaming concerns, AFAIC there's no such thing as overblown. Metagaming is bad and though there will always be some, eliminating the possibility for it where one can is always the right way to go.

I don't concern myself with how the players make their decisions. I present a game that I think is difficult, but fair for the player. I warn them that verifying their assumptions with in-game actions is smart play. Beyond that, it's on them to do what they will for whatever reason they choose.