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

[iserith]

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.

That's kind of what I remember. It was an expectation that players would "use skills" in that game. It's no wonder why that approach was brought forward into so many D&D 5e groups. Thanks for looking that up!

 

[Valmarius]

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

Oh I do that for sure!
So far they have uncovered a prophecy, defeated an invading plane-hopping Efreeti and his army, prevented the ascension of Yuan-ti cultists from poisoning a city, put down an orcish uprising with the help of a Black Dragon and eventually discovered the location of a sleeping God's physical form. It's just that each of those arcs fills between 15-20 sessions and has its own little resolution, with threads leading to the next few. And in the end they're all building and adding to the central conflict which is about to be resolved (this Sunday I might add).

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely COULD continue playing with these characters in this world. But I'd rather end on a high, let the players take their 280 hr earned victory, and look at starting something new.
I appreciate your advice, and your perspective. It's just personal preference.

 

[Lanefan]

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely COULD continue playing with these characters in this world. But I'd rather end on a high, let the players take their 280 hr earned victory, and look at starting something new.
I appreciate your advice, and your perspective. It's just personal preference.

Question: do you recycle the same world or setting when starting anew, or do you design a whole new setting every time?

I ask because for me at least designing a setting and-or world is enough work to make me only ever want to do it once, or at worst once per very long while.

 

[Valmarius]

Question: do you recycle the same world or setting when starting anew, or do you design a whole new setting every time?

I ask because for me at least designing a setting and-or world is enough work to make me only ever want to do it once, or at worst once per very long while.

Yeah, you've got me there. Creating and exploring new settings is one of the aspects I find most fun (outside of game time).

 

[TwoSix]

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.

That's a pretty good range.

Just as a counter-example, in my experience, a 70 session long campaign would be brutally long. Our campaigns are usually in the range of about 20-25 sessions. Our current Curse of Strahd game is at just about 30 sessions, and we're all pushing into the castle to put to an end to it.

 

[Maxperson]

Low Wisdom.

lol For some, I'll grant that. There are enough Darwins handed out that I will agree with you that some trolls would try fire out. Most low wisdom individuals don't engage in Darwin worthy acts, though.

 

[Maxperson]

Not a double post.

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?

It's not specifically a weakness for us, though. I've never read a Superman comic and seen Clark Kent wake up and turn off his glowing green kryptonite night light. Things that are poisonous to us are a weakness, and I handle poisons, especially those that give off fumes, with extreme care and would prefer not to have them around at all.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Sorry, but, I've never understood the issue with who calls for a skill roll. Why does it matter? I search for traps, I roll X on my Investigate skill vs I search for traps, DM asks me to roll, I roll X on my Investigate skill. What difference does it make?

Same with social skills. I try to sweet talk the NPC, I roll X on my Persuasion skill, do I succeed? At our table, it's always mixed. Sometimes players will just roll and tell me what they are doing and sometimes they will state an action and I ask for a roll.

Why is there this compulsive need, apparently, to nail down who calls for rolls?

 

[Hussar]

Question: do you recycle the same world or setting when starting anew, or do you design a whole new setting every time?

I ask because for me at least designing a setting and-or world is enough work to make me only ever want to do it once, or at worst once per very long while.

Start a new one. Every couple of years. Have done so now for about 30 years. Might go back and revisit an old setting with a new group from time to time, or recycle material from one setting to another, but, by and large, my campaigns will be 1-2 years of real time and each one will have a different setting.

Let's see, going back to the early days of 3e, we've played: Scarred Lands, Greyhawk, Homebrew (more than a few), Eberron, Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms (couple of times), Ravenloft, Dark Sun. So, that's what, 8 settings in 18 years?

Note a couple of those compaigns were run concurrently. But, yeah, the notion of staying with the same setting, never minding the same group of characters for more than about 200 hours of play is just not what I signed up for.

 

[Maxperson]

Sorry, but, I've never understood the issue with who calls for a skill roll. Why does it matter? I search for traps, I roll X on my Investigate skill vs I search for traps, DM asks me to roll, I roll X on my Investigate skill. What difference does it make?

When you do it, you're setting yourself up for failure. Not all traps require a roll to see, but if you roll for it, I get to set a DC and let you fail if you roll low enough. If you wait for the DM, you won't have failure chances at things that weren't in doubt before you rolled.