D&D 5E Your Biggest Gaming Pet Peeve

[was]

more:

1. DMs who make their favorite player characters into god-like NPC's.

2. Players who are late/no shows without advanced notice or with lousy excuses (i.e. taking 2 hours to pick up a bag of cat food).

 

[Shasarak]

How would you DM the same situation?

Maybe on a failed roll you could make it so you open the door but make a very loud noise that attracts a wandering monster.

 

[MarkB]

Maybe on a failed roll you could make it so you open the door but make a very loud noise that attracts a wandering monster.

Or just take a long time getting the door open.

[video=youtube;NJhGfjW1-fA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJhGfjW1-fA[/video]

 

[cmad1977]

How would you DM the same situation?

If there are no consequences for not opening the door I would run it like...
PLAYER: I want to open the stuck door, I'm pretty strong so I roll ...

ME: how do you want to open it?

PLAYER: I dunno... I'll give it firm kick.

ME: Grognak kicks the door in.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[iserith]

How would you DM the same situation?

First find out HOW the player has the character goes about opening the door. "I want to open the door" is a statement of a goal, but not an approach. You want the player to spell it out in a reasonably succinct way so that the DM doesn't make the mistake of presuming what the character is actually doing. The DM shouldn't be describing what the character is doing - that's the player's job.

Then the DM decides if achieving the goal given the approach is certain (auto-success or auto-failure). If it's uncertain, does it also come with a meaningful consequence of failure? If "Yes," then ask for an ability check. If "No," then just narrate the result.

Lacking any additional context, there doesn't seem to be any meaningful consequence for failing to open the stuck door. Therefore, no ability check is required. The DM can just say what happens. But if time is a factor, wandering monsters are in the area, or tools that might break are being used to open it, or any number of other situations that suggest failure might mean something consequential, then you might reasonably ask for a check.

 

[abirdcall]

My pet peeve is easy. Failed skill checks that don't advance the plot.

Player: "I want to open the door."
DM: "It's stuck. Roll athletics."
Player: "I rolled a 2, but I'm super strong so the result is 9."
DM: "You fail."
Other player: "Ok i'll try. I rolled a 16. My result is 16."
DM: "Ok, you pass. The door opens."

-______-

It's a good thing this is specifically how the 5e skill system works.

 

[RCanine]

How would you DM the same situation?

Player: "I want to open the door."
DM: "It's stuck. Roll athletics."
Player: "I rolled a 2, but I'm super strong so the result is 9."
DM: "You give it a mighty shove, but it's stuck tight. A couple heavy shoves later the door opens but your shoulder's sporting a nasty bruise. Take 1d6 bludgeoning damage."

The trick I find is to ensure failure is as interesting as success, but at a price: hp, time, disadvantage in the future or rewards.

 

[Satyrn]

Player: "I want to open the door."
DM: "It's stuck. Roll athletics."
Player: "I rolled a 2, but I'm super strong so the result is 9."
DM: "You give it a mighty shove, but it's stuck tight. A couple heavy shoves later the door opens but your shoulder's sporting a nasty bruise. Take 1d6 bludgeoning damage."

The trick I find is to ensure failure is as interesting as success, but at a price: hp, time, disadvantage in the future or rewards.

This is an example of why @iserith suggests clarifying with tbe player what the character is actually doing to open the door, though. If the player was picturing his character kicking in the door like @cmad1977 was above, then describing that damage as going to the shoulder could be irritating. Maybe not, though, of course. A flexible player would probably just roll with it, but still, why not make sure everyone is on the same page to start?

But yeah, what you say is good, is what I aim for.

 

[MarkB]

Player: "I want to open the door."
DM: "It's stuck. Roll athletics."
Player: "I rolled a 2, but I'm super strong so the result is 9."
DM: "You give it a mighty shove, but it's stuck tight. A couple heavy shoves later the door opens but your shoulder's sporting a nasty bruise. Take 1d6 bludgeoning damage."

The trick I find is to ensure failure is as interesting as success, but at a price: hp, time, disadvantage in the future or rewards.

That kind-of sounds like rolling low made the door more badly stuck, though. It also takes agency from the player, making his character so determined to break through the door that he's willing to fling himself at it hard enough to inflict personal injury. In that situation, I'd prefer for my character to just flat-out fail the check, giving me the option to try another tactic, whether that's stepping aside for the barbarian to have a go, or fishing out the handy pry-bar from my pack.

Sometimes it's okay for a check to fail, so long as it doesn't leave the players without other options.

 

[orderofthings]

The obnoxious NPC that you need to keep around usually because he/she is important to the current situation (has important info, we're being paid to protect him her, etc) We have a DM who is notorious for this. Last time this happened, the NPC travelled with us tied up inside trunk.

When the players insist upon bringing the NPC along even though they are the least fleshed-out inhabitant in the entire game-world

Sent from my SM-N920T using EN World mobile app