# Burning Questions: What's the Worst Thing a DM Can Do?



## dave2008 (Sep 18, 2018)

While in general I agree with most of your points, I have in issue with your example for issue #3.  A lack of energy is never fun, but simply reading the box text does not denote a lack of energy.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 18, 2018)

The absolute worst thing a DM can do is interfere with player decisions wrt his character.  Saying "Your character doesn't do that" or even "You feel X" better have a strong in-game reason that becomes apparent to the players.  The player gets exactly one chararacter (subject ot the game type), the DM has innumerable.  The player gets to decide how the chatacter feels and acts.


----------



## ajevans (Sep 18, 2018)

Some DM's fudge dice rolls, right or wrong is a different argument, however the DM letting it become apparent that they are fudging dice rolls is the worse thing!


----------



## Nagol (Sep 18, 2018)

ajevans said:


> Some DM's fudge dice rolls, right or wrong is a different argument, however the DM letting it become apparent that they are fudging dice rolls is the worse thing!



If a DM is fudging, I find it much better to be done in the open with the players in the know than trying to perform it surreptitiously


----------



## Rya.Reisender (Sep 18, 2018)

Nagol said:


> The absolute worst thing a DM can do is interfere with player decisions wrt his character.  Saying "Your character doesn't do that" or even "You feel X" better have a strong in-game reason that becomes apparent to the players.  The player gets exactly one chararacter (subject ot the game type), the DM has innumerable.  The player gets to decide how the chatacter feels and acts.



I would agree to this except for the "You feel X" part. The DM is eyes, ears, nose and skin for the PC and needs to transfer the knowledge of seeing, hearing, smelling and feeling to the player.


----------



## ajevans (Sep 18, 2018)

Nagol said:


> If a DM is fudging, I find it much better to be done in the open with the players in the know than trying to perform it surreptitiously




I think we may be talking at cross purposes.  By fudging I mean the DM rolling the dice then pretending a different result was rolled.


----------



## Rya.Reisender (Sep 18, 2018)

Nostalgia Ward said:


> *A major emphasis or strict adherence to specific rules. *I love the mechanics of D & D as much as the next guy, but an over emphasis on rules can render an otherwise fun adventure tedious.



I'm the opposite. I need a DM that absolutely strict with the rules and doesn't add any house rules (and rulings only when he can provide a source e.g. a tweet by Jeremy Crawford). I want to play the game as it was intended by the creators and not what the DM likes it to be.*




			The DM insists upon railroading the players and not accounting for their ingenuity.
		
Click to expand...


*


> Yeah, it sucks that on occasion, the players will completely bypass that insane dragon encounter you spent all afternoon building, but you have the ability as a DM to improvise right along with them and figure out a way to work that encounter back into a new path. As a DM, always has a contingency plan for unexpected player action. It doesn’t always work, but at least we have fun.



Depends for me. I think a DM doesn't need to accept everything. Like if the players are like "Let's not pursuit evil and instead let's run a bakery!" I think it's okay to tell them that's not going to happen in your games. Even dungeon order is okay to be railroaded by the DM (though of course it's cooler if the players at least think they are making that decision themselves), since going to a dungeon that's not too hard and not too easy is also in sake of maximizing fun.
However, smaller things like the players coming up with unique ideas to resolve the problem that the DM doesn't expect at all - here I'd say a good DM needs to be flexible and work with the player's ideas.

*



			A lack of energy in the game.
		
Click to expand...


*


> Simply reading the box text of an adventure, without emotion or flair, puts me to sleep. The DM’s job is to engage the players. Without engagement, the game is boring and easily



Sure a good DM is a great roleplayer. I'm not, but I tell my players that ahead of time (when recruiting them). I definitely read all box text of an adventure by the word. I find that's important because it might contain hints that I as DM didn't even recognize but my players might.
I don't think that's one of the worst things a DM can do.
*



			The DM gives special treatment to another player.
		
Click to expand...


*


> This has ruined far too many games in my own experience. The party is a team with each member possessing their own strengths and flaws and I’ve always had more fun when the party functions as a team, rather than individual units.



Yeah, that's pretty much a no-go. I agree with that.

For me the worst things are:
1. House ruling
2. Inability to properly interpret rules and make use of Sage Advice when in doubt
3. Hiding rolls / fudging dice
4. Not putting much effort into the game / lack of dedication (aka when I feel I invest more than the DM does)
5. Telling players what their PCs do (unless it's a spell effect)


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 18, 2018)

Rya.Reisender said:


> I would agree to this except for the "You feel X" part. The DM is eyes, ears, nose and skin for the PC and needs to transfer the knowledge of seeing, hearing, smelling and feeling to the player.




I think he means something like, "Your character feels worried about the Mayor's daughter."


----------



## Sadras (Sep 18, 2018)

> What's the Worst Thing a DM Can Do?



Prematurely end a campaign that I'm enjoying.


----------



## AriochQ (Sep 18, 2018)

Railroading is top of the list imho.  D&D is a co-construction of reality.  The player's control their characters, the DM controls everything else.  Removing player agency from the game results in forcing a group of people through 'your' story.  A good DM realizes that they story they are presenting WILL be changed by character actions.  That is the entire point of RPG's.

Fudging is #2.  Part of what makes the games we play interesting is the random factor.  If a given outcome is certain when it should be variable, you are once again forcing players through 'your' story.  Fate should play a role in how a given adventure plays out.  No one remembers that adventure session where everything went as planned, but they do remember the time the Halfling rogue ended up suspended 40 feet in the air by his left foot.


----------



## dwayne (Sep 18, 2018)

My rules I follow as a GM at the table.

1, let it roll; Never alter, fudge, or in anyway say the result is anything other than what was on the die. (This can lead to unbalance of the game and distrust of players, or the players knowing that no matter what the gm will alter the roll for what ever ends. 
2, I am a GM; a judge and applier of the rules of the game, if for any reason a rule does not cover a situation then it falls to me to use the spirit of the rules to apply in that case. I do not let my bias and personal preferences influence the situation. Be it due to my story, or die roll or the players completely foiling my best laid plans. 
3, Just a GM; I am not a writer of the story, i am not a video game designer, and i am not a director in a movie. I am her to determine the NPC's reactions, and to provide visual, tactile, and be it knowledge where needed on the given situation. Other wise i should go do those other things were the players freedom of choice is not infringed.
4, Fun; And the final rule is to all to have fun and to let them do so in a balanced and fair totally unbiased setting were they are freed to tell their own story within it.


----------



## jasper (Sep 18, 2018)

1. I have no problems for new dms (regardless how many years of being just a player) being strict with the rules. They can loosen up later. 
2. Again let the new dms railroad. They need to stay on track until they lose their training wheels.
3.The DM’s job is to engage the players,..... hahaa ha. You have to pay me to for it to be a job. It is everyone's job to engage with the game and players.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 18, 2018)

ajevans said:


> I think we may be talking at cross purposes.  By fudging I mean the DM rolling the dice then pretending a different result was rolled.




So do I.  Lying to me as a player is worse than saying "I think this would be more fun than what I rolled".


----------



## Nagol (Sep 18, 2018)

Rya.Reisender said:


> I would agree to this except for the "You feel X" part. The DM is eyes, ears, nose and skin for the PC and needs to transfer the knowledge of seeing, hearing, smelling and feeling to the player.



  I was a bit unclear the "feel" referred to PC emotions.  "As the grotesquely dismembered remains come into view, you feel a sense of nausea and purposelessness".


----------



## Nagol (Sep 18, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> I think he means something like, "Your character feels worried about the Mayor's daughter."




Yep!  Yep yep yep.  This!


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 18, 2018)

Nagol said:


> Yep!  Yep yep yep.  This!




The closest I get to that is something like, "You feel something oppressive in the air."  That's an environmental descriptive like, the walls feel slimy, or the air is humid.  It's not telling the the player how his character feels about something.  Baring magic or some other valid game effect, I don't tell people what their PCs feel or how they act.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 18, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> The closest I get to that is something like, "You feel something oppressive in the air."  That's an environmental descriptive like, the walls feel slimy, or the air is humid.  It's not telling the the player how his character feels about something.  Baring magic or some other valid game effect, I don't tell people what their PCs feel or how they act.




Same.  What the PC feels is up to the player unless an outside force is at work.  My players have come to recognize if I say "you want", "you feel", or provide an emotional descriptor "the T-rex is terrifying" then they are being influenced by an external force that still allows them choice in their declarations.


----------



## Ath-kethin (Sep 18, 2018)

Rya.Reisender said:


> I'm the opposite. I need a DM that absolutely strict with the rules and doesn't add any house rules (and rulings only when he can provide a source e.g. a tweet by Jeremy Crawford). I want to play the game as it was intended by the creators and not what the DM likes it to be.




Wow.

What, then, is even the point of having a DM? Or going further, what give you the impression that the game's intention _isn't_ to be tinkered with?

Where do you draw the line? The _Player's Handbook_ has "ask your DM" type points all over it, and the DMG is a toolkit for making up your own stuff. 

How exactly do you believe the game is "intended" to be played?


----------



## Hussar (Sep 18, 2018)

I guess, for me, probably the worst thing a DM can do is think that his or her campaign is more important than the characters at the table.  Be those NPC's, story, background, whatever.  If the PC's aren't the most important thing in the campaign, then that's DM fail.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 18, 2018)

And to respond to the OP, the worst things that a DM can do to me are...

1. Railroad
2. Play my PC
3. Abuse authority in the game/take things out on the players via the game


----------



## Inchoroi (Sep 18, 2018)

My biggest pet peeve is this: when the DM forgets that we're not playing his video game. It drives me insane.


----------



## Xaelvaen (Sep 18, 2018)

In those few instances where I get to play a character, the DMing that can make me eager to 'get back behind the wheel' so to speak, are the overly descriptive ones.

A fine balance between key details and immersion is important.  If this strange new land has purple grass that fans out at the tip instead of normal pointed grass, fantastic.  I don't need a 6 paragraph lecture about it, however.  By the time some DMs finish describing a scene to me, I've completely forgotten the plot and reason for being in certain places before.

This isn't necessarily my biggest irk of the lot, but thought I'd add one I hadn't seen anyone else mention.


----------



## Feeroper (Sep 18, 2018)

I dosagree with point 1 and think adherence to the rules is actually a good thing for the DM. I prefer that we are indeed following the rules. I also like house rules but prefer that they are upfront in the campaign or dealt with as a group as situations arise that may demand it. In fact house rules can really help a group to flourish. Here are my pet peeves:

1. Over use of rule-of-cool. Takes me right out of the game and often everything is just a cake walk with these games. What is the point of having any rules if anything goes? I get not wanting to stifle a players creativity but really some things are just ludicrously impossible.

2. DMs who don’t use a screen. I consider a DM different than the players. As a player it takes me out of the experience when I can see a d20 roll from the DM or monster stats opened. I prefer not seeing the results of rolls and letting the description rule the day. Keep in mind this is under the assumption that there is a certain level of trust between players and DM.

3. 5e specific: inspiration - on paper it’s a great idea and can be a great teaching tool for new players. However outside of that I have seen players feeling left out when they don’t get it thinking they did well with role playing a more subtle aspect of their character. Or players who aren’t as vibrant at the table, they often get left out and players who are more “alpha” in presentation get more recognition. This isn’t the DMs fault either as often the DM is just unaware of it or running too much other stuff that they overlook that player x has been knocking it out of the park but just not in a loud way. Another issue is with players who are constantly seeking inspiration and consistently note to the DM that they are doing so. I have a standing house rule with inspiration - my preference is to excise it completely but my group loves it, so when I dm I instead award it to the group as a whole when they work well as a team. When other players DM then I go with their preference.

apologies if there are any odd spelling issues, I am typing this from my phone.


----------



## iserith (Sep 18, 2018)

Nagol said:


> Same.  What the PC feels is up to the player unless an outside force is at work.  My players have come to recognize if I say "you want", "you feel", or provide an emotional descriptor "the T-rex is terrifying" then they are being influenced by an external force that still allows them choice in their declarations.




One way I've found to avoid getting into trouble with this sort of thing is to try to not start off descriptions with the word "You..." I try to focus solely on describing the environment or the character's impact on it after an action is resolved without reference to the character(s).


----------



## TerraDave (Sep 18, 2018)

Some of these seem more like Pet Peeves then "worst thing". Maybe 4, though again if unintentional its still just annoying. 

Worse would be more like:

* Being a generally unpleasant person

* Constantly running attention grabbing, but kicking NPC or NPCs that outshine the party

* Just not ready to DM. You all get together and things sputter pretty fast as its clear that he or she is just not ready

* Not ready to run a longer term game. This is extended version of the previous, and often comes from the DM being overly ambitious.


----------



## iserith (Sep 18, 2018)

Ath-kethin said:


> Wow.
> 
> What, then, is even the point of having a DM? Or going further, what give you the impression that the game's intention _isn't_ to be tinkered with?
> 
> ...




I don't take as hard a line as [MENTION=6801585]Rya.Reisender[/MENTION] does, but I would say that the first step in what I understand to be the intended play experience is that the DM decides _whether_ the rules need to come into play in the first place to resolve something and then, once he or she decides they must, I do greatly prefer the DM follow those rules (or agreed upon house rules, variant rules, table rules, etc.). Notably this doesn't mean the DM _must _use the rules to resolve something. He or she can simply narrate the result of the adventurers' actions without reference to the rules.


----------



## Jay Murphy (Sep 18, 2018)

Inserting a DM PC.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Sep 18, 2018)

Cosigned. To take away that basic agency of a player is a deep afront. Now, if the player is being disruptive, that’s another thing entirely. I still wouldn’t say “you don’t do that/you do X instead,” but I do have tricks I use when someone is being a butt at the table.

Railroading is pretty bad, too. Most players are pretty good about following the hook, but you need to be able to adjust and alter your adventure to account for PC actions.

However, on the converse, DMS that improv everything drive me up a wall as a player. I end up feeling the same as if I’m being railroaded, because again my actions don’t matter – there’s no defined world or plot for me to act upon. 



Nagol said:


> The absolute worst thing a DM can do is interfere with player decisions wrt his character.  Saying "Your character doesn't do that" or even "You feel X" better have a strong in-game reason that becomes apparent to the players.  The player gets exactly one chararacter (subject ot the game type), the DM has innumerable.  The player gets to decide how the chatacter feels and acts.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 18, 2018)

Ralif Redhammer said:


> Cosigned. To take away that basic agency of a player is a deep afront. Now, if the player is being disruptive, that’s another thing entirely. I still wouldn’t say “you don’t do that/you do X instead,” but I do have tricks I use when someone is being a butt at the table.
> 
> Railroading is pretty bad, too. Most players are pretty good about following the hook, but you need to be able to adjust and alter your adventure to account for PC actions.
> 
> However, on the converse, DMS that improve everything drive me up a wall as a player. I end up feeling the same as if I’m being railroaded, because again my actions don’t matter – there’s no defined world or plot for me to act upon.




I hope you meant improv; I like people who improve things!  Spelling Nazism aside, I take your point.  Poor improvisation can lead to a feeling of punching at a pressurised tent. Any success in one spot simply forces a different spot to billow out as the DM tries to keep the situation in stasis to maintain the conflict.


----------



## MNblockhead (Sep 18, 2018)

Well, the worst things a DM can do are similar to the worst things a person can do in any situation: abuse, boorish behavior, poor hygiene, etc.  I think "favoring one player over another" falls into the general social skills bucket. If you are favoring one person over another, you need some lessons in etiquette and empathy. 

As for issues specific to the art of running a TTRPG, many of the complaints are a result of misaligned expectations. With that in mind, I think the following are areas that present pitfalls to well-meaning and socially well-adjusted, but perhaps inexperienced, DMs:

1. Not clearly setting player expectations

Have a session zero or at least discuss the campaign with players before you start play. Make it clear what major homebrew rules will be used, the theme of the game, how open world it is (is it focused on some save-the-world plot line the party is expected to engage with or it is a full-on sandbox), do you have character limits (only official material, only PHB, no dragonborn, etc.).  There are plenty of articles and discussions online about what should be included in a session zero. 

2. Not prepping the session

Most DMs are not skilled improv artists. DMs that are able to just sit down with no prep and run great games tend to have a mixture of natural skill and years of experience. They also tend to have lots of tools and GM aids that help them run the game. Their preparation is often years of DM experience and having the tools they need ready. Most DMs, however, are running published material or modified published material. Most DMs need to spend time reading and rereading the material and marking it up to run the game smoothly. It isn't fun waiting for a DM to flip through the material and read it for the first time. It breaks the flow of the game. Even if you wrote the adventure yourself, you likely need to spend time preparing before the session.  This also includes having minis and battlemaps ready and organized. It is better to just throw and M&M or eraser or some other odd item to represent a monster than to have everyone wait 5 minutes while you go searching for the perfect mini. 

3. Playing the players' characters

I know that this has been brought up already, but it bears repeating. Do tell me my player is scared unless there is a magic or similar effect that imposes the fear condition.  Don't tell me I'm grossed out. Describe the scene so that I can decide how my character reacts. Perhaps more controversially, I would also say that I find it even unacceptable for the DM to say "your character would not do that." No. Your character may not BE ABLE to do that, but that's up to the game mechanics. You may say that your alignment is no longer X because alignment is a game mechanic and represents social norms or even cosmic reality. But a GM shouldn't be telling players what their characters would or would not do. 

Things become murkier when it comes to player vs character knowledge. There are long threads on the subject in this forum, with detailed arguments and counter-arguments on this. I think this goes back to point 1: agree with the players at session zero what level of metagaming is acceptable.  I would argue that unless you are playing with long-term friends who all enjoy deep-immersion games, don't get hung up on metagaming.


----------



## GMMichael (Sep 18, 2018)

Rya.Reisender said:


> For me the worst things are:
> 1. House ruling




Ow!  Oh!  You stab at my delicate GM heart!

Here's the worst thing.  Here's what turns a role-playing game into just a game:


> Me: I look across the hall.  Is anyone wearing a Wintercloak uniform?
> 
> DM: Roll.
> 
> ...


----------



## Koloth (Sep 18, 2018)

IMO the worst thing a DM/GM can do is forget that players always have the right to get up and walk away or if one of the players is hosting, telling the DM/GM to leave the place.  

Another bad thing is inconstancy.  If fireballs don't light cows on fire today, they shouldn't turn cows into raging running fire starters tomorrow, everything else being equal.  Now if unknown to the rest of the party, the thief snuck in to the corral and wet the cows down with oil, that's different.


----------



## iserith (Sep 18, 2018)

There are two things that bother me:

_*DM Fudging or Obviously Pulling Punches.*_ You rob me of the importance of my decisions as a player when you do this. I made some decisions, hopefully reasonably informed ones, and because you called for a roll and didn't like the result or because things are not headed toward an outcome you need to happen, you start ignoring or lying about dice results or having the monsters pull back. That will tick me right off. I'd rather my character die horribly, as long as I had a chance to avoid that fate at some point.

_*DM Asking for Ability Checks When I Haven't Declared an Action.*_ "Give me a Perception check, iserith." Why the heck are you asking for an ability check when I haven't described what I wanted to do? You're assuming or establishing what MY character is doing and that's not your role in this game. Describe the environment. Ask what I want to do. If I say I'm looking about for something or whatever, THEN you can ask for that Perception check - don't just assume! What if I wanted to do something else? Or how about this: You don't need a player to make a Perception check to describe the environment! The roll always follows the description by the player for what the character is trying to do, when the DM finds that outcome uncertain and decides there's a meaningful consequence of failure. You're totally jumping the gun otherwise. So just describe the environment. You don't need the dice's permission to perform your role.


----------



## Rya.Reisender (Sep 18, 2018)

Ath-kethin said:


> Wow.
> 
> What, then, is even the point of having a DM?



The DM has the following jobs:
1. Telling the players what their PCs perceive.
2. Making sure everyone abides by the rules.
3. Use educational skills that help everyone getting along and having fun.

It's definitely not the DMs job to make up or change the rules (at least not if you play by a ruleset which was not created by the DM).

As an analogy, the DM is like the referee in a soccer game. He can decide if something was offside or not if it wasn't clear, but he cannot decide that the offside rule does no longer exist.



> Or going further, what give you the impression that the game's intention _isn't_ to be tinkered with?



Common sense? Or rather, it's the usual case for all games. If I agree with a friend that we play a round of chess, I expect him to play by its rules and not suddenly make up "Hey I think it would be fun if the bishop could turn around 90° once while moving."



> Where do you draw the line? The _Player's Handbook_ has "ask your DM" type points all over it, and the DMG is a toolkit for making up your own stuff.



If a rule says that the DM decides it, then the DM deciding it is not changing the rule but abiding by it. Perfectly fine.

The DMG does not conflict with any of the rules. If any of the rule variants are used, I want to be informed before joining. The DMG also explains how to handle situation not covered in the PHB, those are just additional rules to abide by. The rest about "making up your own stuff" is basically agreed upon when joining a game. Like when I join a game that's supposed to be the Out of the Abyss campaign, then I want to play that campaign and not a setting the DM made up (I only join official adventure path games, meaning most of the DMG does not apply).



> How exactly do you believe the game is "intended" to be played?



Like with any game: How the creator of the ruleset intended it. Meaning if something is unclear, ask Jeremy Crawford.


----------



## Rya.Reisender (Sep 18, 2018)

iserith said:


> _*DM Asking for Ability Checks When I Haven't Declared an Action.*_ "Give me a Perception check, iserith." Why the heck are you asking for an ability check when I haven't described what I wanted to do? You're assuming or establishing what MY character is doing and that's not your role in this game. Describe the environment. Ask what I want to do. If I say I'm looking about for something or whatever, THEN you can ask for that Perception check - don't just assume! What if I wanted to do something else? Or how about this: You don't need a player to make a Perception check to describe the environment! The roll always follows the description by the player for what the character is trying to do, when the DM finds that outcome uncertain and decides there's a meaningful consequence of failure. You're totally jumping the gun otherwise. So just describe the environment. You don't need the dice's permission to perform your role.



In D&D 5e I'd apply passive perception to determine that. In other rulesets, it would probably be hidden rolls then? Rather than asking.

(Note: In my opinion, the description of the environment can vary depending on how perceptive the PC is.)


----------



## iserith (Sep 18, 2018)

Rya.Reisender said:


> In D&D 5e I'd apply passive perception to determine that. In other rulesets, it would probably be hidden rolls then? Rather than asking.
> 
> (Note: In my opinion, the description of the environment can vary depending on how perceptive the PC is.)




In my view, the DM can't call for a passive check until the player has established that the character is engaging in a task with an uncertain outcome, a meaningful consequence of failure, and is doing said task repeatedly over time. Simply put, there can be no checks, passive or otherwise, without the player describing what he or she wants to do.

So, in my games, you have to say you're keeping watch for danger while traveling the dungeon (for example) before I ever apply your passive Perception to resolving an outcome. To make sure this is done, I simply ask the players what they do in general while moving around the adventure location, make a note of it, and ask them to let me know if they decide to do something else instead.


----------



## belphanor (Sep 18, 2018)

I've had a GM say "your character wouldn't do that, it isn't what their personality would allow".  I've also had the same GM say, "If you guys didn't suck so badly, I wouldn't have to cheat to keep you alive."
(that last one was because he had set us against a 20th level dragon when we were 10th level in a 4th ed campaign.  If there had been ANY way to escape that combat, we would have used it.)
I'm also not a big fan of the whole "you need to solve this puzzle, out of character, based on some obscure bit of setting trivia, to get past this blockage" especially when the setting is a homebrew and the GM is not forthcoming with any setting info.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 18, 2018)

belphanor said:


> I've had a GM say "your character wouldn't do that, it isn't what their personality would allow".  I've also had the same GM say, "If you guys didn't suck so badly, I wouldn't have to cheat to keep you alive."
> (that last one was because he had set us against a 20th level dragon when we were 10th level in a 4th ed campaign.  If there had been ANY way to escape that combat, we would have used it.)
> I'm also not a big fan of the whole "you need to solve this puzzle, out of character, based on some obscure bit of setting trivia, to get past this blockage" especially when the setting is a homebrew and the GM is not forthcoming with any setting info.




I can't imagine letting the same DM say both.  Very shortly after saying either, he wouldn't be my DM.


----------



## Jay Murphy (Sep 18, 2018)

The Game Master running a PC in the game, I do not like that.


----------



## pogre (Sep 18, 2018)

The worst would be belittling a player in the real world - misogyny, racism, bigotry, etc. 

Assuming social norms are in play, I would go with robbing players of their PC agency to fulfill the DM's own personal story goals.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 18, 2018)

iserith said:


> _*DM Asking for Ability Checks When I Haven't Declared an Action.*_ "Give me a Perception check, iserith." Why the heck are you asking for an ability check when I haven't described what I wanted to do? You're assuming or establishing what MY character is doing and that's not your role in this game. Describe the environment.



It's not establishing anything about what your character is doing beyond simply taking in the environment around it - which is always assumed unless conditions dictate otherwise - when I ask for a perception roll before (or during) describing that environment.  The roll informs me whether or not you happen to notice, without intentionally trying to, some subtle or easy-to-miss element of the environment I'm about to describe.  If you happen to notice whatever it is then the description includes it, if not, then it doesn't.

I probably do this ten times a session.  Example, with the bolded part being the extra bits I'd include on a good initial perception roll:

"The door creaks open onto what seems to be some sort of shrine or temple chamber, about 20' wide and long enough that your light doesn't reach a far end.  There is a series of dust-covered wooden benches or pews aligned to face away from the door with a central aisle running between them, giving enough seating for at least forty people.  That said, the place appears currently unoccupied.  There are rather hideous-looking carvings and decorations on the side walls, and the air smells a little foul and musty.  At the very edge of your light is what appears to be an altar of some sort with a few things *including a statue and a small bell* on it.  *Thin wisps of smoke or steam are rising from the altar.*



> Ask what I want to do. If I say I'm looking about for something or whatever, THEN you can ask for that Perception check - don't just assume!



Unless your PC is blinded or otherwise unable to perecive its environment I'll always assume it is more or less looking at what's in front of it unless told otherwise.  If you're specifically looking at the floor or ceiling, for example, you need to tell me.



> What if I wanted to do something else? Or how about this: You don't need a player to make a Perception check to describe the environment! The roll always follows the description by the player for what the character is trying to do, when the DM finds that outcome uncertain and decides there's a meaningful consequence of failure. You're totally jumping the gun otherwise. So just describe the environment. You don't need the dice's permission to perform your role.



See above example.

Calling for a pre-emptive perception check simply takes into accout the reality that sometimes people notice subtle things and other times they don't.

Lan-"and sometimes they miss the obvious"-efan


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 18, 2018)

Rya.Reisender said:


> The DM has the following jobs:
> 1. Telling the players what their PCs perceive.
> 2. Making sure everyone abides by the rules.
> 3. Use educational skills that help everyone getting along and having fun.
> ...



Since day 1 the game has allowed and even encouraged DMs to change, invent, or delete rules in order to make the game her own.  TSR/WotC isn't FIFA, and at any given table a DM is free in fact to declare that there are no offsides.  Within any campaign I expect these things to be precedent-based - if something is ruled to work in a certain way once then barring unusual circumstances I expect it to work the same way throughout that campaign.

That said, it's then on the DM to be consistent with her own house rules; and this consistency is far more important.



> Common sense? Or rather, it's the usual case for all games. If I agree with a friend that we play a round of chess, I expect him to play by its rules and not suddenly make up "Hey I think it would be fun if the bishop could turn around 90° once while moving."



Ah, but D&D - and RPGs in general, for all that - isn't any other game; and one of the differentiators between D&D/RPGs and other games is in fact the malleability of the rules from one play-group to the next.



> If a rule says that the DM decides it, then the DM deciding it is not changing the rule but abiding by it. Perfectly fine.
> 
> The DMG does not conflict with any of the rules. If any of the rule variants are used, I want to be informed before joining. The DMG also explains how to handle situation not covered in the PHB, those are just additional rules to abide by. The rest about "making up your own stuff" is basically agreed upon when joining a game. Like when I join a game that's supposed to be the Out of the Abyss campaign, then I want to play that campaign and not a setting the DM made up (I only join official adventure path games, meaning most of the DMG does not apply).



Ah - that you only join official AP games explains our different outlooks, in that I only play home games with friends.



> Like with any game: How the creator of the ruleset intended it. Meaning if something is unclear, ask Jeremy Crawford.



Given some of the answers I've seen from that source you might be better off just making a ruling at the table and sticking with it.

Lanefan


----------



## iserith (Sep 18, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> It's not establishing anything about what your character is doing beyond simply taking in the environment around it - which is always assumed unless conditions dictate otherwise - when I ask for a perception roll before (or during) describing that environment.  The roll informs me whether or not you happen to notice, without intentionally trying to, some subtle or easy-to-miss element of the environment I'm about to describe.  If you happen to notice whatever it is then the description includes it, if not, then it doesn't.
> 
> I probably do this ten times a session.




I'd quit the game.



Lanefan said:


> Example, with the bolded part being the extra bits I'd include on a good initial perception roll:
> 
> "The door creaks open onto what seems to be some sort of shrine or temple chamber, about 20' wide and long enough that your light doesn't reach a far end.  There is a series of dust-covered wooden benches or pews aligned to face away from the door with a central aisle running between them, giving enough seating for at least forty people.  That said, the place appears currently unoccupied.  There are rather hideous-looking carvings and decorations on the side walls, and the air smells a little foul and musty.  At the very edge of your light is what appears to be an altar of some sort with a few things *including a statue and a small bell* on it.  *Thin wisps of smoke or steam are rising from the altar.*
> 
> ...




So if we're talking about D&D 5e, I would say the way to do this according to my understanding of How To Play is: Describe the unbolded bit. Ask "What do you do?" The player then describe what he or she wants to do ("I draw closer to the altar and cast my light upon it to see it in more detail...") at which point the DM can perform his or her role of adjudicating the action into success, failure, or an ability check. This way, there is no assumption about what the character is doing.

Do it that way and I wouldn't quit the game.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 18, 2018)

Worst things a DM can do:

Not show up for her own game, or show up and suddenly decide we're playing board games instead.
Blatantly favour (a) certain player(s) over others.
Be inconsistent or flighty with her on-the-fly rulings and ignore established in-campaign precedent.
Give away too much in-game information too quickly. (though in fairness this is sometimes a system problem rather than a DM problem)



Jay Murphy said:


> The Game Master running a PC in the game, I do not like that.



Fair enough, but this really limits the PC party's options for filling holes in the lineup.  If your party doesn't have a sneak because nobody wants to play one, for example, you're still probably going to need one and thus the logical thing to do is go and recruit one - which almost always means adding an NPC (i.e. DMPC) to the party.  A GM who allows this is to me doing a good job, not a bad one.

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 18, 2018)

iserith said:


> I'd quit the game.



See ya. 



> So if we're talking about D&D 5e



Though it's in the 5e forum I'd say this discussion applies equally to all editions, and maybe most if not all RPGs in general.



> I would say the way to do this according to my understanding of How To Play is: Describe the unbolded bit. Ask "What do you do?" The player then describe what he or she wants to do ("I draw closer to the altar and cast my light upon it to see it in more detail...") at which point the DM can perform his or her role of adjudicating the action into success, failure, or an ability check. This way, there is no assumption about what the character is doing.



I don't find the assumption that a PC is looking where it's going and paying attention to what's in front of it to be the least bit game-breaking. 

I'm just trying to be a tiny bit more efficient and save, on a good pre-emptive roll, one of those "what do you do" steps.  I also find it a bit more realistic in that sometimes on first glance someone will notice something subtle where other times they won't.

A third aspect is that regularly calling for pre-emptive rolls can help hide the rolls that matter among the rolls that don't matter, thus reducing the metagame "He called for a roll, there must be something here" business.



> Do it that way and I wouldn't quit the game.



Then siddown, shuddup, and pay attention! 

Lanefan


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Sep 18, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Not show up for her own game, or show up and suddenly decide we're playing board games instead.
> Blatantly favour (a) certain player(s) over others.
> Be inconsistent or flighty with her on-the-fly rulings and ignore established in-campaign precedent.
> Give away too much in-game information too quickly. (though in fairness this is sometimes a system problem rather than a DM problem)




I definitely agree with these. 




> <re the regular party NPC> Fair enough, but this really limits the PC party's options for filling holes in the lineup.  If your party doesn't have a sneak because nobody wants to play one, for example, you're still probably going to need one and thus the logical thing to do is go and recruit one - which almost always means adding an NPC (i.e. DMPC) to the party.  A GM who allows this is to me doing a good job, not a bad one.




Yeah, I agree. My favorite groups tend to be fairly small with only a few players. However, D&D really struggles with a very small group so a regular NPC can help fill those holes in the party that the players chose not to play. The main thing is that the DM needs to keep the fact that the PCs are the "main cast" and the NPCs are "supporting cast." This tends to mean that a group that's got primary combatants probably shouldn't have an NPC that's also a primary combatant. A character that resolves quickly and easily is helpful. I will often build an NPC without making them clearly dominant, too, either by making their stats not totally optimized or having them be a level or two back. 

One thing I do in 5E is to have relevant NPCs aid another for PCs on skills the NPC is proficient in. So, for instance, there's a valor bard that often runs with the party in the 5E game I run. She was sent by her father, a now retired and disabled from his combat wounds paladin, to chronicle the group led by another paladin (both paladins were played by the same player). She won't make Persuade checks, but when she's around and can speak, the PCs make Persuade checks with Advantage. That helps me avoid talking to myself. It also means, that she's helpful to the party but the players still do the talking and can't just rely on her skills.


----------



## iserith (Sep 18, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Though it's in the 5e forum I'd say this discussion applies equally to all editions, and maybe most if not all RPGs in general.




This isn't the 5e forum. And since the question is directed at DMs, this means D&D which may include its many editions. There are some things that are universally applicable like not being a jerk. But otherwise, I strongly recommend DMs not drag their approaches from one game into another without examining whether they apply in the current game. That's the source of many a problem at the table in my experience including but not limited to asking players to make checks when they haven't described what they want to do (which is putting the cart before the horse in D&D 5e).



Lanefan said:


> I don't find the assumption that a PC is looking where it's going and paying attention to what's in front of it to be the least bit game-breaking.
> 
> I'm just trying to be a tiny bit more efficient and save, on a good pre-emptive roll, one of those "what do you do" steps.  I also find it a bit more realistic in that sometimes on first glance someone will notice something subtle where other times they won't.
> 
> A third aspect is that regularly calling for pre-emptive rolls can help hide the rolls that matter among the rolls that don't matter, thus reducing the metagame "He called for a roll, there must be something here" business.




You're still effectively describing what the player wants to do (via assumption) which isn't the DM's role in D&D 5e. You may want to save some time and your players may be fine with that, but playing my character for me via asking for checks based on assumed actions won't fly with me at all. I get _one_ thing to do in D&D 5e - describe what I want to do. Please don't take that away from me.

If you engage the play procedure as prescribed in the rules, you also don't need to play dice games to "reduce the metagame." That's more appropriate to other games in my view, not D&D 5e, when played as prescribed. What you're doing is creating a problem by playing the game as if it's some other game, then coming up with a solution to the problem you created in the first place. Fine if that's what you're into, but not necessary at all.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 18, 2018)

iserith said:


> _*DM Asking for Ability Checks When I Haven't Declared an Action.*_ "Give me a Perception check, iserith." Why the heck are you asking for an ability check when I haven't described what I wanted to do?



My understanding is that a referee is allowed to call for a saving throw prompted by something in the environment that is external to the character. I think a significant number of GMs use WIS/Perception checks as a type of saving throw against surprise, ambush and the like. It's similar to a referee calling for a surprise roll in classic D&D.

Just as there is a default assumption that PCs are trying to jump out of the way of fireballs, avoid falling down pits, and the like, so the WIS/Perception-check-as-saving-throw assumes that the PCs have an eye out for danger.

I don't think it's too outrageous.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 18, 2018)

iserith said:


> I'd quit the game.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Don't let the door hit you on the way out.  

I mean, good grief, if the DM cannot make any assumptions at all, the game is going to grind to a mind numbing halt as every five seconds the DM has to stop and ask, "what are you doing?"  because he cannot assume that during the dinner scene, you have to tell the DM every single time you take a bite of food.

And, of course, then the DM gets in the poop for things like, "Well, you didn't _say_ that you were doing that..."  

Sorry, mind reading is not part of the DM's job.  And forcing the group to endure endless "what do you do" questions because I cannot make any assumptions is the fastest way for a player to suck all the fun out of a game.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 18, 2018)

iserith said:


> This isn't the 5e forum.



D'oh!  You're right, it's General.

Refer to my earlier points about sometimes missing the obvious... 



> And since the question is directed at DMs, this means D&D which may include its many editions. There are some things that are universally applicable like not being a jerk. But otherwise, I strongly recommend DMs not drag their approaches from one game into another without examining whether they apply in the current game. That's the source of many a problem at the table in my experience including but not limited to asking players to make checks when they haven't described what they want to do (which is putting the cart before the horse in D&D 5e).
> 
> You're still effectively describing what the player wants to do (via assumption) which isn't the DM's role in D&D 5e.



So do I then assume your PC is walking around with its eyes closed unless I'm told otherwise?

Of course not.

If I can't assume your PC is paying at least a modicum of attention to what's in front of it and on looking where it's going we're in a world of mess, which taken to its ridiculous extreme would have us take forever just to have the PCs walk down a hallway.

But if I can assume your PC is looking at what's in front of it then very often there's going to be some random chance involved as to what said PC happens to notice without intentionally trying to; much the same as when you have your PC intentionally look elsewhere e.g. at the ceiling.  Now I as DM could always do the rolling for the unintentional stuff behind the screen, I suppose, but then I have to worry about the metagame aspect that arises when I do call for a roll.

And sometimes pre-emptive perception can be extremely important, in situations where success or failure to notice something before any opportunity for closer examination makes the difference between being hosed or not.  An example might be as simple as on opening a door giving a pre-emptive perception check for whether or not anyone notices the faint smell of gas from the other side before the party's torches blow the room sky-high.



> You may want to save some time and your players may be fine with that, but playing my character for me via asking for checks based on assumed actions won't fly with me at all. I get _one_ thing to do in D&D 5e - describe what I want to do. Please don't take that away from me.



How am I playing your character for you if I'm merely adjusting my description to suit your PC's random-at-the-moment level of perception?



> If you engage the play procedure as prescribed in the rules, you also don't need to play dice games to "reduce the metagame." That's more appropriate to other games in my view, not D&D 5e, when played as prescribed. What you're doing is creating a problem by playing the game as if it's some other game, then coming up with a solution to the problem you created in the first place. Fine if that's what you're into, but not necessary at all.



You're assuming I'm playing 5e, speaking of assumptions... 

And in a broader sense I'm playing D&D as if it's D&D in any case.  For this particular example (perception) edition is - or most certainly should be - almost irrelevant: I know I'd handle things like unintentional perception pretty much exactly the same in any edition, that being by a die roll as to whether you happen to notice something or not.


----------



## iserith (Sep 19, 2018)

pemerton said:


> My understanding is that a referee is allowed to call for a saving throw prompted by something in the environment that is external to the character. I think a significant number of GMs use WIS/Perception checks as a type of saving throw against surprise, ambush and the like. It's similar to a referee calling for a surprise roll in classic D&D.
> 
> Just as there is a default assumption that PCs are trying to jump out of the way of fireballs, avoid falling down pits, and the like, so the WIS/Perception-check-as-saving-throw assumes that the PCs have an eye out for danger.
> 
> I don't think it's too outrageous.




Ability checks aren't saving throws.

But, yes, I'm not fond of saving throws either.


----------



## iserith (Sep 19, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
> 
> I mean, good grief, if the DM cannot make any assumptions at all, the game is going to grind to a mind numbing halt as every five seconds the DM has to stop and ask, "what are you doing?"  because he cannot assume that during the dinner scene, you have to tell the DM every single time you take a bite of food.
> 
> ...




I'm not asking for mind-reading. Just don't ask me to make a check before you ask me what I'm doing.


----------



## iserith (Sep 19, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> So do I then assume your PC is walking around with its eyes closed unless I'm told otherwise?
> 
> Of course not.
> 
> ...




I've already shown how to do all this in accordance with what the rules say about How to Play D&D 5e.



Lanefan said:


> How am I playing your character for you if I'm merely adjusting my description to suit your PC's random-at-the-moment level of perception?
> 
> You're assuming I'm playing 5e, speaking of assumptions...
> 
> And in a broader sense I'm playing D&D as if it's D&D in any case.  For this particular example (perception) edition is - or most certainly should be - almost irrelevant: I know I'd handle things like unintentional perception pretty much exactly the same in any edition, that being by a die roll as to whether you happen to notice something or not.




Which is what I would object to. In D&D 5e. In other games, I might not care.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 19, 2018)

iserith said:


> Ability checks aren't saving throws.



No they're not, but if a group would like a "save vs ambush" type mechanic - which is not an uncommon thing in RPGs, including various versions of D&D - and the game doesn't offer a literal saving throw of that type, it's not a shock that they improvise with the nearest mechanic available.



iserith said:


> But, yes, I'm not fond of saving throws either.



That makes sense. But I think their presence as an element of 5e - so that the resolution of "You duck down to avoid the dragon's breath" (probably a DEX save) is mechanically distinguished from "As I cross the corridor of doom, I duck low to avoid the scything blades" (probably a DEX check, assuming the GM takes the view that ducking is feasible but not automatically successful - cf a crawl) - does put a little bit of pressure on your claim about what is the canonical way to play 5e.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Sep 19, 2018)

I had a DM one time who asked each player to playan NPC along with our PCs. It all started out okay, and each of the NPCs was kind of an unusual character with some dynamic mechanics to them, so they werekind of fun to play.

It wasn’t too long before it became very obvious that the DM had designed the entire game around the NPCs. Everything revolved around them...the backstory related to them, the treasure we found was suited to them, and so on. Our PCs were simply along for the ride. 

That was an incredibly frustrating game. It didn’t last very long at all.


----------



## Mercule (Sep 19, 2018)

GMPC. If you're GMing, you get NPCs. If you're rotating GMing responsibilities, have your character sit out while you're GMing. No good ever comes out of mixing those roles. It will kill your game as fast as any of the other options, but is often glossed over. So, I'll call it out as a bad thing.

Runner up: Adversarial GMing. You're running the game. Of course you can kill/beat the players. You haven't proven anything other than you're an abusive SOB. Your job is to run a game that's engaging and fun.

Side note: The worst thing a player can do is be adversarial. The GM isn't your enemy. Don't keep secrets from them. Don't try to "play" them.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 19, 2018)

iserith said:


> I'm not asking for mind-reading. Just don't ask me to make a check before you ask me what I'm doing.



But that's just it.  When I narrate that you're at one end of a familiar 40' hallway that has empty suits of armour every 10' along the walls (that you've already carefully examined on a previous visit here) and ask what you're doing, on which you tell me you're walking to the other end of the hallway, am I allowed to assume that you're looking where you're going so you don't crash into a suit of armour?

Or, using the same example, how do I and-or you mechanically determine whether or not you randomly and-or unintentionally happen to notice that something subtle has changed about one of the suits of armour - for some reason the gauntlets have been removed from the third suit on the left - since you were last here?  Do I assume you're ignoring the armour completely unless told otherwise?  Do I assume you're checking the armour carefully every time you pass it?  Or do I ask whether you're examining it this time (as opposed to all the other times you've walked this hall except the first time) thus alerting you-as-player to the metagame realization that this time there might be something worth checking?

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 19, 2018)

Mercule said:


> Runner up: Adversarial GMing. You're running the game. Of course you can kill/beat the players. You haven't proven anything other than you're an abusive SOB. Your job is to run a game that's engaging and fun.
> 
> Side note: The worst thing a player can do is be adversarial. The GM isn't your enemy. Don't keep secrets from them. Don't try to "play" them.



To an extent, I disagree with these.

A GM who just flattens the PCs without their having any chance is doing it wrong.  But it's part of a GM's job to challenge the PCs (and, by extension, players), sometimes harshly, and to sometimes make it feel like the game world really is out to kill them dead.  A completely non-adversarial GM would have, I think, an impossible time trying to make this convincing and-or believable.  It's war, not sport, my friend. 

As for the player side it's on the players to do what they need to, within the bounds of good-faith play, to ensure their PCs survive; and sometimes this can include springing surprises on the GM.  Speaking as both GM and player, I've no problem with this.

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 19, 2018)

hawkeyefan said:


> I had a DM one time who asked each player to playan NPC along with our PCs. It all started out okay, and each of the NPCs was kind of an unusual character with some dynamic mechanics to them, so they werekind of fun to play.
> 
> It wasn’t too long before it became very obvious that the DM had designed the entire game around the NPCs. Everything revolved around them...the backstory related to them, the treasure we found was suited to them, and so on. Our PCs were simply along for the ride.
> 
> That was an incredibly frustrating game. It didn’t last very long at all.



That's where having an Assassin as your PC comes in handy...along, of course, with the resolve to use said Assassin to do a little pruning of the party...


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Sep 19, 2018)

Rya.Reisender said:


> The DM has the following jobs:
> 1. Telling the players what their PCs perceive.
> 2. Making sure everyone abides by the rules.
> 3. Use educational skills that help everyone getting along and having fun.




Agree with those. 



> It's definitely not the DMs job to make up or change the rules (at least not if you play by a ruleset which was not created by the DM).
> 
> As an analogy, the DM is like the referee in a soccer game. He can decide if something was offside or not if it wasn't clear, but he cannot decide that the offside rule does no longer exist.




Ah, that's totally not how I play. I often tinker with rules because I want to achieve something, and partly because I find tinkering fun for its own sake. I try very hard not to be arbitrary or capricious about it, but frequently the RAW don't get what I want and thus I change them. That depends on the group, as some groups are more tolerant of house rules than others. At the moment, I'm reasonably close to RAW with 5E, although there are some aspects I think the designers messed up, most notably the mid- to high-level math for saving throws and skills, which tend to violate bounded accuracy in a way attacks don't. So most likely I'll change those next time I start a campaign, assuming I run 5E.  




> (I only join official adventure path games, meaning most of the DMG does not apply).




Interesting... again, totally not me. I've played in games that drew on their releases and am currently playing Ravenloft, but I almost never run modules (though I'll steal from them). I've never played in anything "official" in the sense of organized play and seriously doubt I ever will. 




> Like with any game: How the creator of the ruleset intended it. Meaning if something is unclear, ask Jeremy Crawford.




He's quite possibly the last person I listen to... I find him really condescending specifically and basically don't care what the official rulings on things are anyway. Once I buy the game, it's mine. 

In the end it's interesting to note the differences. Neither person is right but I suspect we'd not get along at the same table.


----------



## iserith (Sep 19, 2018)

pemerton said:


> No they're not, but if a group would like a "save vs ambush" type mechanic - which is not an uncommon thing in RPGs, including various versions of D&D - and the game doesn't offer a literal saving throw of that type, it's not a shock that they improvise with the nearest mechanic available.




There's passive Perception in D&D 5e, but only if the character is Keeping Watch while traveling (which ranges in feet per minute to miles per day). Since a player has the choice to do that or some other task which might reasonably distract from Keeping Watch (in which case passive Perception does not apply to determining surprise), it's a simple matter of asking, "What are you doing in general when you are exploring the dungeon?" rather than just assuming.



pemerton said:


> That makes sense. But I think their presence as an element of 5e - so that the resolution of "You duck down to avoid the dragon's breath" (probably a DEX save) is mechanically distinguished from "As I cross the corridor of doom, I duck low to avoid the scything blades" (probably a DEX check, assuming the GM takes the view that ducking is feasible but not automatically successful - cf a crawl) - does put a little bit of pressure on your claim about what is the canonical way to play 5e.




I think saving throws are at odds with the design of the game, but figure they made it that way for nostalgia. I'd rather it be more like how Dungeon World handles it. The player describe what he or she does to avoid the effect and the appropriate check is made. Or how D&D 4e does it with attacks versus defenses. But the rules are what they are and I follow them.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 19, 2018)

iserith said:


> There are two things that bother me:
> 
> _*DM Fudging or Obviously Pulling Punches.*_ You rob me of the importance of my decisions as a player when you do this. I made some decisions, hopefully reasonably informed ones, and because you called for a roll and didn't like the result or because things are not headed toward an outcome you need to happen, you start ignoring or lying about dice results or having the monsters pull back. That will tick me right off. I'd rather my character die horribly, as long as I had a chance to avoid that fate at some point.




What about other reasons for fudging?  I won't fudge to invalidate decisions, bad or good.  However, sometimes the bad luck gods strike and 3 orcs threaten to kill the party because I start rolling multiple crits and the players suddenly can't roll over a 5.  I will fudge a little bit to give them a fighting chance.  They might still die, but at least it won't be entirely due to bad luck.


----------



## Ath-kethin (Sep 19, 2018)

Rya.Reisender said:


> The DM has the following jobs etc.




Huh. It's amazing how we can both read the same rulebooks and understand them so differently. Does Jeremy Crawford know that his Twitter feed is absolute law? I get the impression that the answer is no, but then, see above re: reading the same stuff and understanding it very differently.

Thankfully, there's room in the game for all of us.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Sep 19, 2018)

Nagol said:


> The absolute worst thing a DM can do is interfere with player decisions wrt his character.  Saying "Your character doesn't do that" or even "You feel X" better have a strong in-game reason that becomes apparent to the players.  The player gets exactly one chararacter (subject ot the game type), the DM has innumerable.  The player gets to decide how the chatacter feels and acts.



The word "feel" has multiple meanings. "You feel cold right now" is different than "You feel like she's the love of your life." But in general, you're right, PC autonomy should be respected, absent a charm. Even those need to be used sparingly.


----------



## CrimsonCarcharodon (Sep 19, 2018)

The first thing I thought of was taking control of players' characters. For example, if I declared an action for my character and a DM said "nope, your character does X instead." Unless there was a magical compulsion, for which I should definitely be made aware of ahead of time, this is a huge no-no for me. Like, I'd leave the table in a heartbeat.


----------



## iserith (Sep 19, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> But that's just it.  When I narrate that you're at one end of a familiar 40' hallway that has empty suits of armour every 10' along the walls (that you've already carefully examined on a previous visit here) and ask what you're doing, on which you tell me you're walking to the other end of the hallway, am I allowed to assume that you're looking where you're going so you don't crash into a suit of armour?
> 
> Or, using the same example, how do I and-or you mechanically determine whether or not you randomly and-or unintentionally happen to notice that something subtle has changed about one of the suits of armour - for some reason the gauntlets have been removed from the third suit on the left - since you were last here?  Do I assume you're ignoring the armour completely unless told otherwise?  Do I assume you're checking the armour carefully every time you pass it?  Or do I ask whether you're examining it this time (as opposed to all the other times you've walked this hall except the first time) thus alerting you-as-player to the metagame realization that this time there might be something worth checking?
> 
> Lanefan




So, the basic conversation of the game as laid out in D&D 5e is a loop. The DM describes the environment. The player describes what he or she wants to do. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions. Then it starts again. If you're the DM, how you describe the environment is up to you. How you narrate the results of my actions are up to you. But you don't get to describe my actions for me either directly or indirectly by calling for a check for actions I haven't taken. It's really very simple: Your call for a check follows me describing what I'd like to do. It does not precede it.


----------



## Connorsrpg (Sep 19, 2018)

As a player, railroading is my biggest issue.

So that is a problem with these all-encompassing long-term adventure paths. As a DM I can't stick to them either. 

I still buy them for ideas. I tried to run one, but had a lot of difficulty sticking to the main path. I prefer to go on tangents and let the players follow their whims. (I usually have a lot of hooks to tug at them). Justifying the next part of those long adventures is hard, especially ones where there are hundreds of miles b/w adventures.

Anyway... railroading.

(I understand it in game shop play, tournament, AL, etc. Just not at home campaign. ).


----------



## iserith (Sep 19, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> What about other reasons for fudging?  I won't fudge to invalidate decisions, bad or good.  However, sometimes the bad luck gods strike and 3 orcs threaten to kill the party because I start rolling multiple crits and the players suddenly can't roll over a 5.  I will fudge a little bit to give them a fighting chance.  They might still die, but at least it won't be entirely due to bad luck.




I'd rather the characters die. We chose to fight and/or chose to continue fighting when things looked dire. That's how it goes sometimes.


----------



## pming (Sep 19, 2018)

Hiya!

First, @Rya.Reisender,  I literally LOL'ed when you said: "_Like with any game: How the creator of the ruleset intended it. *Meaning if something is unclear, ask Jeremy Crawford*". _

Second, as my stance on the OP: The worst thing a DM can do is... Specifically do/decide that a PC or NPC lives.

To me, when a DM rolls that d20, gets a 20 and knows that the 8th level MU is down to only 4hp vs the very last Giant Rat, then rolls his damage and it's well over 4 points...and then says "It misses" or "It hits, for 1 point of damage". THAT is the worst thing a DM can do. When a DM starts to "save" PC's because it was "just some bad luck" or because the player "forgot an important clue he didn't write down", it's the same as the DM deciding the PC's decisions. Even worse than that. When a I discover a DM is doing this, it sucks ALL the excitement out of the game. I feel like my decisions will matter...but only up to a point. My decisions will matter right up until the point when my PC would/should die...and then the DM steps in to "save the story/campaign". Absolutely HATE that!

In short, death of a PC in an RPG like D&D is _*THE*_ deciding factor when absolutely everything else is done away with. The Life/Death of a PC is the final and ultimate determination of how well a Player played as well as how the campaign unfolds.

My runners-up: (1) A DM who thinks the Storyline and NPC's are more important than the Players choices. (2) A DM who says "yes" to everything a Player wants or tries to do. (3) A DM who swears/cusses a lot and/or gets drunk/high at the table.

^_^

Paul L. Ming


----------



## Jhaelen (Sep 19, 2018)

Rya.Reisender said:


> Sure a good DM is a great roleplayer. I'm not, but I tell my players that ahead of time (when recruiting them). I definitely read all box text of an adventure by the word. I find that's important because it might contain hints that I as DM didn't even recognize but my players might.
> I don't think that's one of the worst things a DM can do.



Maybe it's not one of the worst things, but I consider it one of the things that distinguishes a good DM from a passable DM. As the article indicates, it's especially bad if there's long texts being read in a monotonous voice. In fact it's almost ensured the players are going to miss important hints hidden in the text, because they're lulled to sleep!

Personally, I never read boxed texts. I either ignore them or paraphrase them in my own words. Imho, very few published modules have good text boxes. How often have you seen long, super-detailed room descriptions that end by mentioning there also happens to be a huge dragon in the center, as if it was an afterthought?
Or even better (i.e. worse) texts telling the characters how they feel or implying they take certain actions?

Imho, describing locations is really easy if you remember to think about the characters' different senses and describing the most obvious things first: What are the defining features, if any? Save the detailed descriptions for later if a character actually chooses to inspect something carefully.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 19, 2018)

iserith said:


> So, the basic conversation of the game as laid out in D&D 5e is a loop. The DM describes the environment. The player describes what he or she wants to do. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions. Then it starts again.



This answer neatly sidesteps all the questions I asked in the post you quoted, so I'll take a different tack and try again...



> If you're the DM, how you describe the environment is up to you.



Not entirely.  Some of the description is sometimes driven by random chance: that randomness being whether you by accident happen to notice something or not.  And because of this there needs to be some means of resolving this random chance, hm?  For this, wouldn't pre-emptive perception checks (or system equivalent) fit the bill perfectly?



> How you narrate the results of my actions are up to you. But you don't get to describe my actions for me either directly or indirectly by calling for a check for actions I haven't taken. It's really very simple: Your call for a check follows me describing what I'd like to do. It does not precede it.



In the example I used - which isn't the best but it'll do for these purposes - the stated action is walking down a familiar hallway that has empty suits of armour standing every 10' along the walls.

But that seemingly simple action involves by extension a whole lot of sub-actions that aren't usually referenced during play:
 - that you are looking where you're going so as to avoid crashing into a suit of armour
 - that you are paying general attention to your surroundings
 - that you are not paying specific attention to anything in particular (if you were, it would have been stated as part of your action)
 - that you continue breathing (thus able both to use your sense of smell and to not pass out from lack of oxygen) and hearing (thus able to notice any unusual sounds and-or converse with your comrades)

Given this, how are we to mechanically determine whether you notice the newly-missing gauntlets from the third suit of armour on the left, preferably without a) having to constantly reference all the sub-actions and b) provoking metagame concerns?

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 19, 2018)

Jhaelen said:


> Personally, I never read boxed texts. I either ignore them or paraphrase them in my own words. Imho, very few published modules have good text boxes. How often have you seen long, super-detailed room descriptions that end by mentioning there also happens to be a huge dragon in the center, as if it was an afterthought?



This isn't always a bad thing in one respect: if you mentioned the dragon first you'd never get to the rest of the description because the players would be interrupting all over the place.



> Or even better (i.e. worse) texts telling the characters how they feel or implying they take certain actions?



Worse yet are the boxed descriptions that always assume entry through a particular door and thus describe things as seen from that viewpoint, even though there's three other doors the party could come in through.



> Imho, describing locations is really easy if you remember to think about the characters' different senses and describing the most obvious things first: What are the defining features, if any? Save the detailed descriptions for later if a character actually chooses to inspect something carefully.



Good advice for when there's only one or two key features, or one feature whose importance overshadows everything else e.g. your dragon example.  But when there's lots of detail and nothing really stands out - e.g. the party enters a study full of fancy books and scrawled-on papers and shelves with interesting contents and a desk and a cabinet and a fancy mirror and a small table with a smoking bottle on it - it's probably better just to describe everything.


----------



## Rya.Reisender (Sep 19, 2018)

Ath-kethin said:


> Does Jeremy Crawford know that his Twitter feed is absolute law?



If you asked Jeremy Crawford he would reply what 99% of all board game creators would reply: They just state how the rules where intended to be, but you are free to change them if you think that's more fun for your group.

But that's not what I want. If I want to play chess I want to play by the chess rules. If I want to play Settlers of Catan, I want to play who play by the Settlers of Catan rules. If I want to play Magic: The Gathering, I want to play by Magic: The Gathering rules. And if I want to play D&D 5e, I want to play by the D&D 5e rules.

People who are like "hey, let's change this rule for fun" are disturbances for my enjoyment.


----------



## Mercule (Sep 19, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> A GM who just flattens the PCs without their having any chance is doing it wrong.  But it's part of a GM's job to challenge the PCs (and, by extension, players), sometimes harshly, and to sometimes make it feel like the game world really is out to kill them dead.  A completely non-adversarial GM would have, I think, an impossible time trying to make this convincing and-or believable.  It's war, not sport, my friend.



The important piece is that there is a line. Where that line gets drawn may vary by group, but there's a line. Part of the GM's job is to challenge the players and their characters. I'm talking about a combination of GMs who intentionally create encounters they don't think the PCs can survive, set up traps/puzzles that show how much smarter than the players they are, etc. I'm absolutely willing to kill off a PC or two. In fact, I think a very real chance of PC death is part of what makes the game interesting. I just keep it in the "challenge" window, rather than the "did you see what I did to you?" window.



> As for the player side it's on the players to do what they need to, within the bounds of good-faith play, to ensure their PCs survive; and sometimes this can include springing surprises on the GM.  Speaking as both GM and player, I've no problem with this.



I think I'm talking about the "good-faith play" thing, here. I once had a player ask me to leave the table so the group could plan how to sneak into a castle (or some such) without tipping their hand to me. My response was something along the lines of "Can you use this mini to show me where your last GM touched you?" I was totally floored by the request and found it highly inappropriate. We aren't playing Fortress America. My tactics are already largely set, other than as reactions. Just go ahead and plan. Also, if you do come up with something totally unexpected, I'd like to have a bit of a heads-up to figure out what the logical outcome is, rather than stammering and stuttering -- you're going to wait on my decision, either way. Creativity is awesome and I generally reward it, even if it means the BBEG turns into a non-event. 

Just don't explicitly try to turn the game into a competition with the GM. The GM is the referee and final arbiter of the rules. The GM builds the setting, including being the keeper of house rules. The GM creates the adventures. Even if using published settings and adventures, the GM has the final word on how to interpret and/or when to ignore any given line. There's, literally, no way to beat the GM if it's an actual competition. The GM needs to take that responsibility seriously and both sides need to not ratchet it above the level of a game.

As a note, while I suspect almost ever GM has spent some time discovering where that line is, my objection isn't from anything that's specifically happened at any table I've sat at regularly. I have had a couple of really off one-shots where the GM came off as a bit of an ass-hat. Mostly, though, my thoughts come from having experienced players show up at my table almost having some sort of gamer PTSD. I don't know what their prior GMs did, but they sure looked like victims of abuse.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Sep 19, 2018)

Connorsrpg said:


> As a player, railroading is my biggest issue.
> 
> So that is a problem with these all-encompassing long-term adventure paths. As a DM I can't stick to them either.




I totally agree. I do like some of the big modules and will steal from them but in general I don't like how on rails they are either as a player or DM.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Sep 19, 2018)

iserith said:


> So, the basic conversation of the game as laid out in D&D 5e is a loop. The DM describes the environment. The player describes what he or she wants to do. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions. Then it starts again. If you're the DM, how you describe the environment is up to you. How you narrate the results of my actions are up to you. But you don't get to describe my actions for me either directly or indirectly by calling for a check for actions I haven't taken. It's really very simple: Your call for a check follows me describing what I'd like to do. It does not precede it.




I think this often depends on the table. Folks I've played with for many years will often call for checks where there's something that the player seems to be missing and it is possible the character might know something. I'll also call for checks from out of seeming left field to stimulate the player or push them in a different direction than they're looking. For example:

Nattick Nimblefingers' player: "Search for traps." 
DM: "Make a History check." 
Nattick's player: <huh? what's going on?> "OK... uh... D20+1... 13...?" 
DM: "You notice a discharged trap done in the style of the Umpetfrotz Guild. There's some writing on it that you can't read, but you think it's written in Dwarf runes." 
Nattick's player: <to dwarf fighter's player> "Axebeard, get your face out of that mug of ale, stop leaning on your axe, and help me read what this says." 
DM: <to Axbeard's player> "The runes don't seem to say anything in Dwarven you recognize, but you can make a History check with advantage." 
Axbeard's player: <huh? what's going on?> "Why are ye chatterin' at me, gnome, can't ye see I'm drinkin' some strong Dwarven ale?" <rolls> "OK, max(D20,D20)-1... 18!" 
etc. 

This may not be a skill the player thinks to ask for either or the character is strong in. Again, this is a way to lay out the world, which is indeed the DM's job, but in a way that leaves it contingent based on the character's abilities. It can also be used to push characters out of their comfort zone, which is very helpful.


----------



## jasper (Sep 19, 2018)

Rya.Reisender said:


> The DM has the following jobs:
> ...3. Use educational skills that help everyone getting along and having fun.
> ....



Now I have to use EDUCATIONAL SKILLZ! 

I really should not. Do it! Do it. No I should not! Do it.  Ok evil little jasper in my head.
Homework.
Lanefan I feel you not are engaging with the group.  Read Getting Along 
https://www.amazon.com/Getting-Alon...swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1537361722&sr=8-1
I want 500 words on how it applies to a 5 person homebrew and 8 person AL table. MFLA format. 
Ray Reisender. I need a list of all school supply stores in the greater New York City, New York and London England.  Only include those who sell dice which can be used in D&D. Exclude those who only sell % dice which die within die. 
Jay Verkuilen using Chicago Style of documentation. Compare and Contrast the Weapon chart in the 5E PHB against the weapon chart on the 1E DM Screen. The 4 page and 2 page psionic version. Min 20 words per weapon. 
Maxperson. You brought devil cheese pizza. I hate cheese pizza. Detention report to Walston on Saturday. 
Everyone Read Chapters 4 -8 Of Saga of the Old City https://www.amazon.com/Saga-Old-Cit...TF8&qid=1537362606&sr=8-6&keywords=gary+gygax  Be prepared to give a 100 essay. 
All this is due MONDAY.  Now give me an “ARRRRRGH”. Class and game dismiss.  Have fun!


----------



## iserith (Sep 19, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> This answer neatly sidesteps all the questions I asked in the post you quoted, so I'll take a different tack and try again...




I can't be any clearer and your questions and examples only serve to muddy the waters of what is outlined in the rules which you are free to read on your own time.



Lanefan said:


> Not entirely.  Some of the description is sometimes driven by random chance: that randomness being whether you by accident happen to notice something or not.  And because of this there needs to be some means of resolving this random chance, hm?  For this, wouldn't pre-emptive perception checks (or system equivalent) fit the bill perfectly?




No, how you describe the environment is entirely up to you as DM. Ability checks come after Step 2: Players describe what they want to do. If they are needed at all. They frequently aren't.



Lanefan said:


> In the example I used - which isn't the best but it'll do for these purposes - the stated action is walking down a familiar hallway that has empty suits of armour standing every 10' along the walls.
> 
> But that seemingly simple action involves by extension a whole lot of sub-actions that aren't usually referenced during play:
> - that you are looking where you're going so as to avoid crashing into a suit of armour
> ...




Again, you describe the environment how you want - you're the DM! You don't need dice for permission on how much detail to give. You could just say that the armor is now missing some element. Or not. If you don't and if the player does not establish that the character is examining the armor, then you needn't provide any additional detail about that armor. If the player does describe the character as examining the armor, you can then decide an ability check is necessary if the outcome is uncertain and there's a meaningful chance of failure. Or you may decide no check is necessary and give the information after the player's action declaration.

You don't need to take my word on this. I encourage you to read the rules on "How to Play," Basic Rules page 3, and "Ability Checks," Basic Rules page 58. All the answers you seek are there.


----------



## iserith (Sep 19, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> I think this often depends on the table. For example, folks I've played with for many years will often call for checks where there's something that the player seems to be missing and it is possible the character might know something. I'll also call for checks from out of seeming left field to stimulate the player or push them in a different direction than they're looking:
> 
> Nattick Nimblefingers' player: "Search for traps."
> DM: "Make a History check."
> ...




Again, if the ability check follows an action declaration, I'm fine with it though I would say your example has some issues.

First, searching for hidden objects calls for a Wisdom (Perception) check in D&D 5e (which is the edition I'm referencing) if the outcome is uncertain and there's a meaningful consequence of failure. Second, after the trap is found, additional details can be revealed when the DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actons or when he or she loops back around to describe the environment. No check is required. The DM might say, for example, "There is a discharged trap here with dwarvish runes inscribed upon it." The player can then try to have the character read the runes or enlist the help of an ally who speaks dwarvish. Subsequent examination by the characters (_after _they have declared it!) of the discharged trap and/or any attempt at deducing clues or recalling lore about the information revealed might call for an Intelligence (Investigation) or Intelligence (History) check, again, only if the DM finds there is an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence of failure.

Something worth asking yourself is: What happens if Nattick's player fails the History check? You're right back where you started. This is not a good approach in my view. Simply following the basic conversation of the game as laid out in the rules resolves these issues.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Sep 19, 2018)

iserith said:


> You don't need dice for permission on how much detail to give. You could just say that the armor is now missing some element. Or not.




Much as I said about players, I often use dice to push me out of my own defaults as DM, too. If I haven't thought of an answer, I may have the players roll. If they roll very well, they'll get some extra information or insight that helps them going forward but that I might not have thought of initially: "This suit of armor has some recently repaired battle damage that suggests it was used for practice by knights". If they don't, they see "it's a suit of armor". I'll use them for reaction checks for NPCs---sometimes someone who you think is going to be uncooperative isn't, or vice versa. I often use a "1 in 20 well-conceived plans has a serious flaw" to help me decide if there's a hole in the plan that the players laid out or whether things go the way they go until combat starts. The dice both help inspire me to go in a direction I didn't foresee and keep me honest. This also helps break up patterns I might fall into unconsciously.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Sep 19, 2018)

Jhaelen said:


> Maybe it's not one of the worst things, but I consider it one of the things that distinguishes a good DM from a passable DM. As the article indicates, it's especially bad if there's long texts being read in a monotonous voice. In fact it's almost ensured the players are going to miss important hints hidden in the text, because they're lulled to sleep!




I remember when boxed text first appeared. It was clearly done as an aid to noob DMs. However, I think good DMs would learn to transcend it fairly quickly and rephrase it in their own words. (Or read it in a monotonous style for effect!) A passable to mediocre DM uses it as a crutch and never gets past it.


----------



## iserith (Sep 19, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> Much as I said about players, I often use dice to push me out of my own defaults as DM, too. If I haven't thought of an answer, I may have the players roll. If they roll very well, they'll get some extra information or insight that helps them going forward but that I might not have thought of initially: "This suit of armor has some recently repaired battle damage that suggests it was used for practice by knights". If they don't, they see "it's a suit of armor". I'll use them for reaction checks for NPCs---sometimes someone who you think is going to be uncooperative isn't, or vice versa. I often use a "1 in 20 well-conceived plans has a serious flaw" to help me decide if there's a hole in the plan that the players laid out or whether things go the way they go until combat starts. The dice both help inspire me to go in a direction I didn't foresee and keep me honest. This also helps break up patterns I might fall into unconsciously.




Personally, I don't care if the DM uses the dice to help him or her decide things. Just don't ask me to roll dice to resolve actions I have not declared for my character. That falls into the category of "Worst Things a DM Can Do" for me at least where D&D 5e is concerned (if not other games, depending on the rules).

With reference to boxed text you said in a subsequent post: "A passable to mediocre DM uses it as a crutch and never gets past it." Do you think the approach you describe that I quoted above is the same? If you do not, why don't you?


----------



## Caliban (Sep 19, 2018)

Rya.Reisender said:


> If you asked Jeremy Crawford he would reply what 99% of all board game creators would reply: They just state how the rules where intended to be, but you are free to change them if you think that's more fun for your group.
> 
> But that's not what I want. If I want to play chess I want to play by the chess rules. If I want to play Settlers of Catan, I want to play who play by the Settlers of Catan rules. If I want to play Magic: The Gathering, I want to play by Magic: The Gathering rules. And if I want to play D&D 5e, I want to play by the D&D 5e rules.
> 
> People who are like "hey, let's change this rule for fun" are disturbances for my enjoyment.




That's great...if Jeremy Crawford is your DM.   

If he's not, then you are playing the game the DM is running.  If you don't like it, don't play.   

I prefer the DM be consistent - if they want to house rule certain things, that's fine - as long as it's stated up front and they stick to it.   Having rules change from session to session due to the whim or poor memory of the DM is not something I enjoy.   And I have dropped out of games because of it - it's not my place to dictate how they run their game, but I don't have to play if I'm not enjoying it either. 

I've also quit a game because the DM effectively turned my Noble background character into his NPC puppet by having the king send him on ridiculous missions that required the character to do morally questionable things in order to succeed. My character would have done them because he was loyal to the king and it made a certain degree of sense within the culture of the campaign...but I as a player chose to quit the game because I found them personally upsetting and didn't see things getting any better, only worse.

But I think the worst thing a DM can do (for me personally) is be adversarial towards the players. I play for cooperative enjoyment, and if I feel the DM is targeting certain players or deliberately making things harder for them out of spite or personal issues ...I'm out. I just don't like that energy, it brings out the worst in me.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Sep 19, 2018)

iserith said:


> Personally, I don't care if the DM uses the dice to help him or her decide things. Just don't ask me to roll dice to resolve actions I have not declared for my character. That falls into the category of "Worst Things a DM Can Do" for me at least where D&D 5e is concerned (if not other games, depending on the rules).




So, you don't much care for having Perception checks when there's possible surprise? Or do you demand to say "Nattick starts swimming for the bank against the current" when dumped into a fast river before being asked to make an Athletics check? I tend to default to the notion that the PCs are actively looking/doing unless it's fairly obvious they aren't, so I'll call for check when there's potentially something to be seen or done that they might see or do. My players know this and react accordingly. If they would clearly notice or do something, I'll just say that.

However, if the DM is calling for checks constantly to do anything, that is definitely annoying at minimum. 





> With reference to boxed text you said in a subsequent post: "A passable to mediocre DM uses it as a crutch and never gets past it." Do you think the approach you describe that I quoted above is the same? If you do not, why don't you?




I feel this is much more of a mature DMing style for me. I'v played a lot of improvisational music and using chance is frequently done to push a player out of ruts. For instance, taking a lead sheet and marking out parts where the player should rest or play can be very helpful. Another would be to determine a metronome speed and/or time signature randomly and then try to establish a groove at that tempo. There are other examples, such as drawing cards with a few descriptive words and then having to figure out a scene in improv. Brian Eno and Peter Schmidt even made "oblique strategies" to help break out of ruts. 

I don't think I'm using it as a crutch (in the way reading the boxed text is), I'm using it to help prod me to think of things I wouldn't have otherwise or as a way to prod the players to look in surprising directions or to help fill in the world. A successful check can be fun, but a failed one can also build tension if used right, and, as I said, it can help push a particular character out of their strength, which is also useful. It's one reason I like some light personality mechanics that involve rolls (although I haven't implemented any in 5E). I am often unsure how a character should react. A check helps push me in a direction, sometimes not in the one I'd have preferred or thought of. IMO that helps make the world feel much less on rails and more organic. 

For example, in my planes-hopping game, the PCs had met some galeb duhr as a random encounter on their way to deal with some rogue Modrons, which was a planned encounter. This led to some negotiation. It turned out the galeb duhr had a Hammer of Thunderbolts which they were willing to trade for a _large_ sum of gems (galeb duhr really like gems). The PCs didn't have any at the time. The fact that they had an item of power was something determined by a roll that the PC wizard noticed---I can't recall if the player asked for that or not. I hadn't decided that but rolled the treasure and, rather than rejecting it, thought WTF... it sounds fun and wasn't what I'd planned but, cool. Well when they went back to try to cut a deal with the galeb duhr, it turned out they were in the middle of a fight with a horde of minotaurs, who had got the help of a goristro demon! This was also the result of a random encounter, though interpreted through the lens of the campaign. The fact that the galeb duhr had had conflict with minotaurs had already been established (minotaurs also really like gems... we're all a bunch of Heroes III nuts here), and it's not crazy something big showed up for the Hammer of Thunderbolts first. So, what started as a random encounter has escalated into a fairly big fight!

I'm not a slave to the dice, though: If the story is going a particular way, I don't usually roll to see what's happening outside of the usual mechanics of the rules.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Sep 19, 2018)

iserith said:


> Again, if the ability check follows an action declaration, I'm fine with it though I would say your example has some issues.
> 
> First, searching for hidden objects calls for a Wisdom (Perception) check in D&D 5e (which is the edition I'm referencing) if the outcome is uncertain and there's a meaningful consequence of failure.




I said the trap was discharged for a reason, and assumed it was found fairly easily. The meaningful consequence of failure is the _information_, not the _trap_.

The fact that the check was History, not Perception, is done to build tension. The _player_ won't expect to be asked to make _that_ check, which will leave them guessing, when otherwise it would simply have been a ho-hum trap in yet another dungeon. 




> Something worth asking yourself is: What happens if Nattick's player fails the History check? You're right back where you started. This is not a good approach in my view. Simply following the basic conversation of the game as laid out in the rules resolves these issues.




It depends on what you think the History check is doing. In this case, the check is probably providing information that's optional but useful. I'm cool with the outcome either way. So I'm using it more for foreshadowing or a way to provide a contingent piece of information. If it's a success, the check gives some information immediately, e.g., the Dwarven runes are actually a code, which can lead to them trying to decipher it. If it fails they learn that someone's using Dwarven but they probably should look for more information down the line.


----------



## iserith (Sep 19, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> So, you don't much care for having Perception checks when there's possible surprise? Or do you demand to say "Nattick starts swimming for the bank against the current" when dumped into a fast river before being asked to make an Athletics check? I tend to default to the notion that the PCs are actively looking/doing unless it's fairly obvious they aren't, so I'll call for check when there's potentially something to be seen or done that they might see or do. My players know this and react accordingly. If they would clearly notice or do something, I'll just say that.
> 
> However, if the DM is calling for checks constantly to do anything, that is definitely annoying at minimum.




I addressed determining surprise upthread. In D&D 5e, passive Perception applies only when the character is Keeping Watch, so this is necessarily something the player must declare _at some point_ prior to the passive check. It cannot be assumed since there are other activities the player could choose to do that does not allow for the character to Keep Watch. (Rangers in favored terrain have a nice benefit here in that they can Keep Watch and perform another task.) Now, not a lot of DMs do this, which I think is unfortunate, but that's the rules.

As for the your river example, yes, I have the right to describe what I want to do. That's also the rules. You don't get to tell me I'm swimming against the current or whatever by asking for an Athletics check. I may want to cast _water walk_ instead. So please just describe the environment, then ask me what I want to do. If I do something that draws upon Strength and/or Athletics that has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequences of failure, then by all means ask for the ability check and then narrate the results of the adventurer's action. Then the loop starts again by describing the environment.


----------



## iserith (Sep 19, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> I said the trap was discharged for a reason, and assumed it was found fairly easily. The meaningful consequence of failure is the _information_, not the _trap_.




That raises the question of why the player was searching for a trap when a discharged trap was already apparent when the DM described the environment. Unless the DM didn't describe it in the environment. Which raises the question of why he or she didn't. There's just a lot going on here that is not being presented or adjudicated well in my view.



Jay Verkuilen said:


> The fact that the check was History, not Perception, is done to build tension. The _player_ won't expect to be asked to make _that_ check, which will leave them guessing, when otherwise it would simply have been a ho-hum trap in yet another dungeon.




It would just leave me annoyed, not guessing. I didn't say I was trying to recall lore about the discharged trap. I (if I'm playing the role of the player in your example) said I was searching for traps. Again, for some reason that is unclear given that you implied the discharged trap was found fairly easily. 



Jay Verkuilen said:


> It depends on what you think the History check is doing. In this case, the check is probably providing information that's optional but useful. I'm cool with the outcome either way. So I'm using it more for foreshadowing or a way to provide a contingent piece of information. If it's a success, the check gives some information immediately, e.g., the Dwarven runes are actually a code, which can lead to them trying to decipher it. If it fails they learn that someone's using Dwarven but they probably should look for more information down the line.




There is no call for a History check in my view (based on what I understand of the rules) unless the player says he or she is trying to recall lore about some aspect of the discharged trap, and that action has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence of failure.

I've otherwise laid out how I think this example is best presented and adjudicated in accordance with D&D 5e's prescription on How to Play in the post you've quoted.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Sep 19, 2018)

iserith said:


> I addressed determining surprise upthread. In D&D 5e, passive Perception applies only when the character is Keeping Watch, so this is necessarily something the player must declare _at some point_ prior to the passive check. It cannot be assumed since there are other activities the player could choose to do that does not allow for the character to Keep Watch. (Rangers in favored terrain have a nice benefit here in that they can Keep Watch and perform another task.) Now, not a lot of DMs do this, which I think is unfortunate, but that's the rules.




From Googling, this doesn't seem to be nearly so cut and dried given how much question and debate there is. For example here. Even Jeremy Crawford thinks that Passive Perception is always "switched on" so I don't know I buy your interpretation as being what RAI is. I tend to assume that unless you declare you're clearly not watching it would apply and use it to determine an adversary's Stealth DC accordingly.  




> As for the your river example, yes, I have the right to describe what I want to do. That's also the rules. You don't get to tell me I'm swimming against the current or whatever by asking for an Athletics check. I may want to cast _water walk_ instead.




Ah, what I would mean by "roll for Athletics" would be "roll for Athletics, unless you want to do something else instead" with the latter implied. My players know this so if they say "I want to cast Water Walk instead" or "I'm going to dive into the water and ride the current instead" my answer would be "sure, go ahead." 

Basically, my call for a check isn't to make that particular check specifically (in general) but to make that or offer an alternative.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Sep 19, 2018)

iserith said:


> That raises the question of why the player was searching for a trap when a discharged trap was already apparent when the DM described the environment. Unless the DM didn't describe it in the environment. Which raises the question of why he or she didn't. There's just a lot going on here that is not being presented or adjudicated well in my view. <...>
> 
> It would just leave me annoyed, not guessing. I didn't say I was trying to recall lore about the discharged trap. I (if I'm playing the role of the player in your example) said I was searching for traps. Again, for some reason that is unclear given that you implied the discharged trap was found fairly easily.




Nope, what I did there was a dramatic turn. The player ends up getting asked to do something that wasn't expected. 





> There is no call for a History check in my view (based on what I understand of the rules) unless the player says he or she is trying to recall lore about some aspect of the discharged trap, and that action has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence of failure.
> 
> I've otherwise laid out how I think this example is best presented and adjudicated in accordance with D&D 5e's prescription on How to Play in the post you've quoted.




Yep, and I am saying that I guess don't much care for prescriptive interpretation of the rules provided by WotC. Those are suggestions IMO... evidently they run a much more free wheeling game at their own tables, though I suspect I wouldn't be happy with the way they make a lot of calls either. That's just the way things work. 

I think you want a DM who's much more of a neutral arbiter of the rules and presenter of the world. I tend to use rolls to anticipate and generate tension and release and often to inspire myself, though as I said, if the player wants to suggest something else that's plausible, they're free to do so. 

Suffice it to say I think we'd find each other's styles incredibly frustrating. Which is, of course, totally fine as we aren't at each other's tables.


----------



## Rya.Reisender (Sep 19, 2018)

Caliban said:


> That's great...if Jeremy Crawford is your DM.



No. Jeremy Crawford is the creator, so he makes the rules. Not the DM, that's what I explained in my last something posts.

DMs that feel entitled to mess with the ruleset just piss me off and that's why it's my top 1 "Worst thing a DM can do". And yes I don't like it and thus don't play.


----------



## GMMichael (Sep 19, 2018)

Arrrrr...


belphanor said:


> I've had a GM say "your character wouldn't do  that, it isn't what their personality would allow".  I've also had the  same GM say, "If you guys didn't suck so badly, I wouldn't have to cheat  to keep you alive."
> (that last one was because he had set us against a 20th level dragon  when we were 10th level in a 4th ed campaign.  If there had been ANY way  to escape that combat, we would have used it.)
> I'm also not a big fan of the whole "you need to solve this puzzle, out  of character, based on some obscure bit of setting trivia, to get past  this blockage" especially when the setting is a homebrew and the GM is  not forthcoming with any setting info.




Can we please pool our resources and make sure belphanor gets a good GM next time?



Caliban said:


> I've also quit a game because the DM effectively turned my Noble  background character into his NPC puppet by having the king send him on  ridiculous missions that required the character to do morally  questionable things in order to succeed.




Oh, were you thinking _fantasy_ noble?  Your DM must have been thinking _real_ noble.


Jay Verkuilen said:


> Ah, what I would mean by "roll for Athletics" would be "roll for Athletics, unless you want to do something else instead" with the latter implied.



Sorry to wade into your conversation, mateys, but shouldn't this statement be, "what do you do?"  This also implies "unless you want to do something else."

Also, in case you haven't been keel-hauled off the thread yet, to those of you who think a GM should use only the rules or officially-sanctioned rulings, have you ever tried GMing?  How did it go?


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Sep 19, 2018)

Rya.Reisender said:


> No. Jeremy Crawford is the creator, so he makes the rules. Not the DM, that's what I explained in my last something posts.
> 
> DMs that feel entitled to mess with the ruleset just piss me off and that's why it's my top 1 "Worst thing a DM can do". And yes I don't like it and thus don't play.




You should hook up with iserith! I think you two have similar perspectives.


----------



## Caliban (Sep 19, 2018)

Rya.Reisender said:


> No. Jeremy Crawford is the creator, so he makes the rules. Not the DM, that's what I explained in my last something posts.




And you would be incorrect.   Jeremy isn't "the creator".  He helped some other guys update and modify some existing rules.  He's not infallible and he's not the one running the game you are playing. 

The one who makes the actual rules of the game you are actually playing is the actual Dungeon Master.  Not some guy who wrote some guidelines months ago and isn't present at the game.



> DMs that feel entitled to mess with the ruleset just piss me off and that's why it's my top 1 "Worst thing a DM can do". And yes I don't like it and thus don't play.





I get the feeling you don't play much.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Sep 19, 2018)

DMMike said:


> Sorry to wade into your conversation, mateys, but shouldn't this statement be, "what do you do?"




Yeah, that is arrrr-guably better, though sometimes I just ask for the most likely action with the assumption that the players could suggest something else. Folks I play with are fairly used to that and often say "can I use XYX instead?" or "I'm going to use PQR instead" if they intend to do something else and most of the time I'll just say sure, go ahead. I'm not bothered by it as a player, either, as long as a meaningful choice is provided, even if it's not explicitly asked for. 




> Also, in case you haven't been keel-hauled off the thread yet, to those of you who think a GM should use only the rules or officially-sanctioned rulings, have you ever tried GMing?  How did it go?



IMO that's a very good question, especially when one tries to run a home game. With the hardcore "official or nothing" logic one would not be using any third party material, either, presumably. I know someone who's like that, partly because of past experiences with people bringing in really OP third party material back in the 3.X days.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 19, 2018)

Allow me to engage in a bit of setting of perspective...

The *worst* things a GM can do have nothing to do with amending rules, or fudging... they have nothing to do with play.  The worst things the GM can do are more around being a horrible person.

For example, the GM can come to your house unwashed, and reeking of stale sweat and cigarettes.  Lots of people playing at cons have perhaps experienced this.

Or, also unfortunately common, a GM can sexually harass a player. 

So, I submit that anything having to do with not playing the game exactly the way you want is a mild annoyance compared to the really bad things they can do.


----------



## iserith (Sep 19, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> From Googling, this doesn't seem to be nearly so cut and dried given how much question and debate there is. For example here. Even Jeremy Crawford thinks that Passive Perception is always "switched on" so I don't know I buy your interpretation as being what RAI is. I tend to assume that unless you declare you're clearly not watching it would apply and use it to determine an adversary's Stealth DC accordingly.




Passive Perception is always "switched on" _in combat_ (see "Hiding" sidebar, Basic Rules, page 60). But _outside of combat_ it would fall under the rules for "Activities While Traveling" (Basic Rules, pages 64-65) which includes traveling overland or through dungeons at paces ranging from feet per minute to hours per day. If you perform an activity other than Keeping Watch, you "don’t contribute their passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to the group’s chance of noticing hidden threats."

Therefore, it's a very good idea in my view to make sure the players establish what their characters are doing in these situations.



Jay Verkuilen said:


> Ah, what I would mean by "roll for Athletics" would be "roll for Athletics, unless you want to do something else instead" with the latter implied. My players know this so if they say "I want to cast Water Walk instead" or "I'm going to dive into the water and ride the current instead" my answer would be "sure, go ahead."
> 
> Basically, my call for a check isn't to make that particular check specifically (in general) but to make that or offer an alternative.




You could just describe the environment and ask "What do you do?"


----------



## Caliban (Sep 19, 2018)

DMMike said:


> Oh, were you thinking _fantasy_ noble?  Your DM must have been thinking _real_ noble.




Pretty much.  And it wasn't like my character was being asked to do blatantly evil things.  In the context of the game world he would have bitten his tongue and done what needed to be done. 

I just realized that it was bothering me much more than my character, and finally there was a situation that crossed a line (a line I didn't realized mattered to me until it happened), and I just wasn't enjoying the game at all anymore.  So I withdrew.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Sep 19, 2018)

iserith said:


> Passive Perception is always "switched on" _in combat_ (see "Hiding" sidebar, Basic Rules, page 60). But _outside of combat_ it would fall under the rules for "Activities While Traveling" (Basic Rules, pages 64-65) which includes traveling overland or through dungeons at paces ranging from feet per minute to hours per day. If you perform an activity other than Keeping Watch, you "don’t contribute their passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to the group’s chance of noticing hidden threats."
> 
> Therefore, it's a very good idea in my view to make sure the players establish what their characters are doing in these situations.



Ah, yeah, I didn't recall the exact terminology but that's basically how I handle it, with the proviso that you don't need to explicitly say "I'm on guard". If you're engaged in something else then you're not but otherwise you are. See below about "defaulting". 




> You could just describe the environment and ask "What do you do?"




I frequently do say exactly that. 

I think the big point of disagreement here is the use of defaults. I fall on the side of "DM suggests a default action with the proviso that the player can provide an alternative" whereas you seem to fall on the side of "DM should always say 'what do you do?' and players then declare actions." In some respects this is the same thing but there's a difference in tension implied by "make a roll or (implied) make a  counteroffer of some sort" and "what do you do?" The latter is fairly passive and puts it back on the players to evaluate the situation. I want to keep the game going because IMO execution speed  is a huge energy loss, particularly in a stress situation. "Make an Athletics check to start swimming" _implies _urgency.


----------



## MNblockhead (Sep 19, 2018)

jasper said:


> Now I have to use EDUCATIONAL SKILLZ!
> 
> I really should not. Do it! Do it. No I should not! Do it. Ok evil little jasper in my head.
> Homework.
> ...




Extra XP for the style-guide mentions. But you forgot:

"MNBlockhead, using the Harvard Bluebook system of legal citation, write a publishable law review paper on the correctness of my stealth rulings and whether an invisible golem requires a perception check. Then, after you are done, report immediately to detention for rules lawyering!"


----------



## MNblockhead (Sep 19, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> I remember when boxed text first appeared. It was clearly done as an aid to noob DMs. However, I think good DMs would learn to transcend it fairly quickly and rephrase it in their own words. (Or read it in a monotonous style for effect!) A passable to mediocre DM uses it as a crutch and never gets past it.




I'll readily admit that I may be only a passable to mediocre DM. I'm certainly no Chris Perkins or Matt Mercer. Well, Chris Perkins will read from the boxed text, but he wrote it, does he get a pass?

But, in this mediocre DM's opinion, sometimes the boxed text is cool. Sometimes it contains detailed clues that to impart without reading the text would basically require rewriting it. 

I'll also say as a player that more annoying than a pulseless reading of the boxed text is the DM who is winging it. Who avoids the boxed text and then has to go back part way through an encounter and to point out things s/he forgot to mention or retcon to make up for missed details. 

Boxed text is a tool to be used, or not, at the DM's discretion and which can be abused. 

I posit that using or not using boxed text isn't an indicator of good DM, but rather how the DM presents the room, with or without the boxed text. 

By making use of boxed text one of the "worst" things a DM can do, you risk creating more DMs with lack of awareness of their own poor improv and descriptive abilities ignoring it to their and their player's detriment.


----------



## 77IM (Sep 19, 2018)

Mercule said:


> Of course you can kill/beat the players.




You can?!?!?! Yikes!! I'd have to call killing/beating the players the worst behavior on this thread, by far!


----------



## MNblockhead (Sep 19, 2018)

Umbran said:


> Allow me to engage in a bit of setting of perspective...
> 
> The *worst* things a GM can do have nothing to do with amending rules, or fudging... they have nothing to do with play. The worst things the GM can do are more around being a horrible person.
> 
> ...




Well yes, which is why I distinguished between character flaws that apply to any social settings and those that are (more) specific to the role of the GM. I read the question to be what is the worst thing that a DM can do in the context of the game mechanics and role of the DM that would turn you off on that game, rather than what kinds of terrible people would you not want as a GM.  There are people that I like to hang out with and who are fun as players, but I would not want to be a player in their game if they were GM. Most of these are people who are disorganized, don't prepare, and are terrible at improv. Anyone who takes the role seriously and comes prepared will generally be fine by me. 

I can enjoy all kinds of play styles and play under all manner of homebrew. As long as the DM is generally a good socially well-adjusted person who comes prepared, I can have fun.  This is because I understand my part of the social contract. I have a responsibility as a player to abide by the GMs ruling and let the DM run the game and to actively engage in the game, pay attention, and come prepared. One thing that kinda bothers me about this thread is that we are heaping so much responsibility for a games fun on a GM. I would rather play with a group who is more flexible and forgiving, who will work together to make the most of any situation, and can find fun in any game. When I read comments citing not using a DM screen as a dealbreaker, I have to scratch my head. Really, THAT is what controls your ability to have fun? 

Part of this may be that I don't get to play often, so I need to make the most out of any opportunity to play. You know what, that makes my games very enjoyable for me. Some on this thread seem too jaded.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 19, 2018)

jasper said:


> Lanefan I feel you not are engaging with the group.  Read Getting Along
> https://www.amazon.com/Getting-Alon...swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1537361722&sr=8-1
> I want 500 words on how it applies to a 5 person homebrew and 8 person AL table. MFLA format.



Teacher, I'm sorry but I'm not familiar with the Mind Flayers' Legal Action format - could you explain it to me please?


----------



## ajchafe (Sep 19, 2018)

jasper said:


> 3.The DM’s job is to engage the players,..... hahaa ha. You have to pay me to for it to be a job. It is everyone's job to engage with the game and players.




I agree 100%. I want my players to engage the world more than me as the DM.  I want them to indicate to me what they are interested in so I can draw on that.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 19, 2018)

iserith said:


> Something worth asking yourself is: What happens if Nattick's player fails the History check? You're right back where you started.



So what?

Not everything has to succeed, and not everything the players/PCs try is necessarily going to move the story forward.

In this case, if the history check fails the PCs just have to carry on without whatever clues might have been hidden in the Dwarven runes - if any.  This is why pre-emptive checks can be useful - sometimes things just get found (or missed) by random chance en route to doing something else unrelated.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 19, 2018)

MNblockhead said:


> I'll readily admit that I may be only a passable to mediocre DM. I'm certainly no Chris Perkins or Matt Mercer. Well, Chris Perkins will read from the boxed text, but he wrote it, does he get a pass?



This obliquely raises a point thus far missed: we're assuming with this boxed-text debate that there's in fact boxed text to read and that the boxed text is accurate.  Not all modules have it, and of those that do there's all kinds of instances where the boxed text is either in disagreement with the map (e.g. map shows room as 30x40', boxed text says 30x30') or disagreement with the DM-only information given below (e.g. DM info talks about a large statue in the room, big enough that nobody could fail to notice it, but the boxed text doesn't mention it).



> But, in this mediocre DM's opinion, sometimes the boxed text is cool. Sometimes it contains detailed clues that to impart without reading the text would basically require rewriting it.



Yes; when done well boxed text can be very useful.



> I'll also say as a player that more annoying than a pulseless reading of the boxed text is the DM who is winging it. Who avoids the boxed text and then has to go back part way through an encounter and to point out things s/he forgot to mention or retcon to make up for missed details.



True, but as noted above this might not always be the DM's fault. 



> Boxed text is a tool to be used, or not, at the DM's discretion and which can be abused.
> 
> I posit that using or not using boxed text isn't an indicator of good DM, but rather how the DM presents the room, with or without the boxed text.
> 
> By making use of boxed text one of the "worst" things a DM can do, you risk creating more DMs with lack of awareness of their own poor improv and descriptive abilities ignoring it to their and their player's detriment.



Yeah, using boxed text isn't in and of itself a bad thing.  Using it blindly without amending to account for errors or for which direction the party's coming from or for the fact the party just filled the room with vision-blocking smoke is, however, not that great.

Lanefan


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Sep 19, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> In this case, if the history check fails the PCs just have to carry on without whatever clues might have been hidden in the Dwarven runes - if any.  This is why pre-emptive checks can be useful - sometimes things just get found (or missed) by random chance en route to doing something else unrelated.



100%, that's exactly what I use an informational check for, as well as tension building. A failed check often does move the tension up. The players know there were failed checks with potential information missed, which makes them start to wonder what's going on. (Well at least I would hope so, but clearly that would depend on the player.) 

I've definitely curbed my own propensity for calling for rolls where there isn't any consequence but in this case or when the player's description is just fluff, but something like the check I outlined has consequences.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Sep 19, 2018)

MNblockhead said:


> By making use of boxed text one of the "worst" things a DM can do, you risk creating more DMs with lack of awareness of their own poor improv and descriptive abilities ignoring it to their and their player's detriment.




Sorry for any confusion. I really wasn't trying to imply it's one of the worst things, just noting that it's something that can be a sign of mediocrity. I've played with people who _only _read the boxed text, mostly because they're just following the module as a script. That gets old really, really fast.

As Lanefan noted, it's not all that unusual for the boxed text to be wrong, too.

An analogy which makes sense to me, but possibly not to others: I have played a lot of jazz. One thing you often encounter is people who think that jazz is found on the page of a chart. It's not there, though.


----------



## jasper (Sep 19, 2018)

Rya.Reisender said:


> No. Jeremy Crawford is the creator, so he makes the rules. Not the DM, that's what I explained in my last something posts.
> 
> DMs that feel entitled to mess with the ruleset just piss me off and that's why it's my top 1 "Worst thing a DM can do". And yes I don't like it and thus don't play.



No. There as Rules as Written. RAW. Rules as Intented. RAI. And sage advice. While JC may have wanted passive perception to be always on. RAI. He did not write them that way. So Accept Dm variations.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Sep 19, 2018)

Take away player agency to protect his anticipated outcome.


----------



## iserith (Sep 19, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> So what?
> 
> Not everything has to succeed, and not everything the players/PCs try is necessarily going to move the story forward.




I didn't assert that.



Lanefan said:


> In this case, if the history check fails the PCs just have to carry on without whatever clues might have been hidden in the Dwarven runes - if any.  This is why pre-emptive checks can be useful - sometimes things just get found (or missed) by random chance en route to doing something else unrelated.




My point is that there is no need for the History check here. It is superfluous, and arguably any purpose it may serve relies on the kind of "metagaming" you're rolling all those extra dice trying to avoid. Not only did the player not describe an action that would call for such a check, the information can be imparted as I described: There is a discharged trap. It has dwarvish runes on it. What do you do?


----------



## iserith (Sep 19, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> Ah, yeah, I didn't recall the exact terminology but that's basically how I handle it, with the proviso that you don't need to explicitly say "I'm on guard". If you're engaged in something else then you're not but otherwise you are. See below about "defaulting".
> 
> When it comes specifically to Keeping Watch and passive Perception, I think it is okay as default if that's an understanding worked out with the players beforehand. But I would use such defaults very sparingly.
> 
> ...




The way I see it, other than simply being how I understand the game is played based on my understanding of the rules, is that as DM I already control two-thirds of the basic conversation of the game. The players only get one-third. I don't want to take from them the one thing they're supposed to do in the game: Describe what they want to do.


----------



## Benji (Sep 19, 2018)

iserith said:


> Again, you describe the environment how you want - you're the DM! You don't need dice for permission on how much detail to give. You could just say that the armor is now missing some element. Or not. If you don't and if the player does not establish that the character is examining the armor, then you needn't provide any additional detail about that armor. If the player does describe the character as examining the armor, you can then decide an ability check is necessary if the outcome is uncertain and there's a meaningful chance of failure. Or you may decide no check is necessary and give the information after the player's action declaration.




The problem with this Iserith, is that if you play it your way (do not assume players are examining until told), the players always fail to spot the gloves. The DM describes a hall the players have walked down many previous times, perhaps in a castle they've lived in for years. No player would think much of it, let alone think to check all the furnishings again. No player has ever entered the castle of a king they've been in before and made a poin of checking all the furnishings. So they'd NEVER spot it. 

Unless of course, in the fiction ofthe world, they spot it by accident when moving past. What mechanic exists like that? A Perception check. Or at the very least, a dm examination of passive pereception, maybe giving a different description to a play with a passive score of over 15. Or at least, that's the way I'd do it. How would YOU do deal with this situation without that?


----------



## Benji (Sep 19, 2018)

Rya.Reisender said:


> No. Jeremy Crawford is the creator, so he makes the rules. Not the DM, that's what I explained in my last something posts.




Back in the day you couldn't just contact the writers and ask their opinion - you just compromised. Who writes the rules then? Does that mean all D&D played before twitter didn't count?


----------



## iserith (Sep 19, 2018)

Benji said:


> The problem with this Iserith, is that if you play it your way (do not assume players are examining until told), the players always fail to spot the gloves. The DM describes a hall the players have walked down many previous times, perhaps in a castle they've lived in for years. No player would think much of it, let alone think to check all the furnishings again. No player has ever entered the castle of a king they've been in before and made a poin of checking all the furnishings. So they'd NEVER spot it.
> 
> Unless of course, in the fiction ofthe world, they spot it by accident when moving past. What mechanic exists like that? A Perception check. Or at the very least, a dm examination of passive pereception, maybe giving a different description to a play with a passive score of over 15. Or at least, that's the way I'd do it. How would YOU do deal with this situation without that?




As to the PCs never spotting it, to quote [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] since this is his example you're talking about, "so what?" If I need them to be aware of it for some reason, then I won't gate that information behind an ability check. To do so is to create a problem that one then has to solve by creating another problem - calling for an ability check for an action the player hasn't described. As I've said several times, the DM doesn't need the permission of the dice to describe the environment. Just describe it as missing if you need to and you avoid all those issues entirely. You don't need a mechanic to describe this scene.

I would also say that I am not as comfortable as you in saying "No player would much think of it, let alone think to check all the furnishings again." I don't know what the players will do. Maybe they will check, maybe they won't. That's up to them.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Sep 19, 2018)

iserith said:


> The way I see it, other than simply being how I understand the game is played based on my understanding of the rules, is that as DM I already control two-thirds of the basic conversation of the game. The players only get one-third. I don't want to take from them the one thing they're supposed to do in the game: Describe what they want to do.



I tend to run, or at least prefer to run, fairly player-directed campaigns. They get many opportunities to push the game in various directions. 

My use of defaults has generally built up over many years of dealing with pointless fights or "oh, wait, what was happening? ... let me think about it" combined with a strong desire to keep the action going. As I said, they're free to propose something else when a "make an Athletics check" comes up and quite often do. If they're not under time pressure, I would most likely let them control the pace more. 

I use rolls for information, sometimes kind of out of left field, often to prompt them to consider something other than what they would just default to do, which "what do you do?" elicits. That puts it back on the player and, in my experience, many are just as stuck in their ruts as DMs can get without things that push them to think laterally. I'll sometimes throw an unlikely character advantage on the roll, too. 

I don't mind some meta-game thinking either, as long as it's not egregious (e.g., introducing seriously anachronistic modern technology). The game is played by the _players_. After all, they're the ones feeling the tension, not their avatars.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Sep 19, 2018)

iserith said:


> My point is that there is no need for the History check here. It is superfluous, and arguably any purpose it may serve relies on the kind of "metagaming" you're rolling all those extra dice trying to avoid. Not only did the player not describe an action that would call for such a check, the information can be imparted as I described: There is a discharged trap. It has dwarvish runes on it. What do you do?




Lanefan may be avoiding meta-gaming. My motive---I don't think I really totally understood it until going through this thread, though---is to induce lateral thinking and potentially introduce something surprising. I don't have much of an issue with a bit of meta-gaming either. The example that started this all was a bit weird, of course. I'd suspect that the vast majority (90%) of rolls called for when I'm DMing is just normal skills aligned to tasks as expected.


----------



## Benji (Sep 19, 2018)

iserith said:


> As to the PCs never spotting it, to quote @_*Lanefan*_ since this is his example you're talking about, "so what?" If I need them to be aware of it for some reason, then I won't gate that information behind an ability check. To do so is to create a problem that one then has to solve by creating another problem - calling for an ability check for an action the player hasn't described. As I've said several times, the DM doesn't need the permission of the dice to describe the environment. Just describe it as missing if you need to and you avoid all those issues entirely. You don't need a mechanic to describe this scene.
> 
> I would also say that I am not as comfortable as you in saying "No player would much think of it, let alone think to check all the furnishings again." I don't know what the players will do. Maybe they will check, maybe they won't. That's up to them.




That's a much clear clarification of what you were saying above, thank you. Maybe Lanefan take a more gamist approach - he views a failed perception check in this type of roll as the same as a miss during combat, it's not about what he needs to deliver but instead a test of the characters abilities as they relate to the narrative. But I'm putting words in his mouth and I'm not about to argue an assumption. 

 I'm not sure I follow about holding information behind an ability check though. in previous examples you were saying you don't assume people are going to find anything hidden in a room without first declaring they are searching and then making an ability check. That's hiding information in your description behind both a specific action they describe and then an ability check. Or would you just describe what's hidden in the room to them if they said they were looking? 

Ok, I was I assuming stuff about players but in over 25 years of gameplay I have never seen that happen without some kind of outside prompt. I'm only going on ancedotal though, so calling me on it is valid, I guess.


----------



## iserith (Sep 19, 2018)

Benji said:


> I'm not sure I follow about holding information behind an ability check though. in previous examples you were saying you don't assume people are going to find anything hidden in a room without first declaring they are searching and then making an ability check. That's hiding information in your description behind both a specific action they describe and then an ability check. Or would you just describe what's hidden in the room to them if they said they were looking?




I never assume there will be an ability check. I can't determine whether an ability check is required without the players first describing a reasonably specific goal and approach. I also never assume the players will look for it. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. Maybe they do and I have to call for a check (because their approach to the goal has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence of failure). Maybe they do and I don't have to call for a check (because their approach to the goal succeeds or fails outright, no roll).

If, however, I need them to have some kind of information, then there's simply no reason to put that behind a check. If I _need_ them to have it, why leave it up to chance? (Truly though, I try not to ever _need_ anything in this regard.)


----------



## Benji (Sep 19, 2018)

iserith said:


> I never assume there will be an ability check. I can't determine whether an ability check is required without the players first describing a reasonably specific goal and approach. I also never assume the players will look for it. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. Maybe they do and I have to call for a check (because their approach to the goal has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence of failure). Maybe they do and I don't have to call for a check (because their approach to the goal succeeds or fails outright, no roll).
> 
> If, however, I need them to have some kind of information, then there's simply no reason to put that behind a check. If I _need_ them to have it, why leave it up to chance? (Truly though, I try not to ever _need_ anything in this regard.)




Ok, I get what you're saying and it's good advice for dm's to never assume a point of reference. But if the the 'gloves' example, the gloves are instead just a clue the players can gather to make the solving of a mystery easier (they don't need it, but it might help) then it's a slightly different discussion. Then the 'meaningful failure' is 'we don't find clue'. 

Here's where we differ, I think. I view perception (and other skills) as a fundamentally different player resource than you. You use it to determine if a player has suceeded at and action, which is fine but I also view it (and I'm not saying my way is the only way) as a way to differentiate characters from each other. Players who have higher passive perception scores are generally more alert individuals and therefore I tend to describe a scene in basic and then say to players who have a high score things like 'but you notice'. Just the same if a player has higher arcana I'd tell them a few things about magical items on a table that other players might not know. This means players who have higher perception get to be the scouts of the group, sensing stuff before anyone else. They feel like the choice to have perception as a proficent skill was worthwhile. That said, I think it'd only be in the area of passive perception we differ and where that becomes real perception role. This is getting off topic but if you say that players who are actively taking watch use their passive perception, when do they get to actually roll a perception check? Do they have to be stood attention not talking to anyone to get the good numbers?

I would also note that I've had players tell me they aren't paying attention in a scene and want to take a disadvantage or straight up fail. I've never had a problem with that.


----------



## iserith (Sep 20, 2018)

Benji said:


> Ok, I get what you're saying and it's good advice for dm's to never assume a point of reference. But if the the 'gloves' example, the gloves are instead just a clue the players can gather to make the solving of a mystery easier (they don't need it, but it might help) then it's a slightly different discussion. Then the 'meaningful failure' is 'we don't find clue'.




To call for a check, the DM needs three things (again, in D&D 5e): A player to describe something that isn't impossible or trivially easy, an uncertain outcome, and a meaningful consequence of failure. So here, you'd still be missing the player's description. I'll grant you the uncertain outcome.



Benji said:


> Here's where we differ, I think. I view perception (and other skills) as a fundamentally different player resource than you. You use it to determine if a player has suceeded at and action, which is fine but I also view it (and I'm not saying my way is the only way) as a way to differentiate characters from each other. Players who have higher passive perception scores are generally more alert individuals and therefore I tend to describe a scene in basic and then say to players who have a high score things like 'but you notice'. Just the same if a player has higher arcana I'd tell them a few things about magical items on a table that other players might not know. This means players who have higher perception get to be the scouts of the group, sensing stuff before anyone else.




I'm not sure I've seen any support for this approach in the D&D 5e rules. When did you first start thinking about it this way out of curiosity?



Benji said:


> They feel like the choice to have perception as a proficent skill was worthwhile.




It's almost always worthwhile to have Perception as a skill proficiency. You will notice that every time you've opted to Keep Watch and the DM determines surprise - you'll have a better chance of not sitting there in the first round of combat while the orcs or whatever hit you with axes. Further, you will feel any skill was worthwhile when you undertake tasks in which you have a supporting skill proficiency and have to roll to achieve success. (Ideally, you should be trying to achieve success _without_ rolling.) I don't think that one need describe the environment differently based on who has what skill proficiency. That will work itself out when the players begin describing what they want to do.



Benji said:


> That said, I think it'd only be in the area of passive perception we differ and where that becomes real perception role. This is getting off topic but if you say that players who are actively taking watch use their passive perception, when do they get to actually roll a perception check? Do they have to be stood attention not talking to anyone to get the good numbers?
> 
> I would also note that I've had players tell me they aren't paying attention in a scene and want to take a disadvantage or straight up fail. I've never had a problem with that.




Keeping Watch while traveling the dungeon, for example, means the character is on guard for any hidden dangers as he or she moves about. He or she therefore has a chance to avoid hidden traps (if he or she is in the appropriate rank of the marching order) or avoid surprise if sneaky monsters come calling. If the player decides to have the character in any task that is at least as distracting as drawing a map, navigating, foraging, or tracking, the character is not Keeping Watch and has no chance to avoid traps or surprise. Passive Perception no longer applies.

A player might make a Wisdom (Perception) check when trying to find a trap, a secret door, when taking the Search action in combat to find a hidden creature, or listen to something happening on the other side of a door. Again, only if the description the player offered isn't impossible or trivially easy, has an uncertain outcome, and a meaningful consequence of failure. So, a good strategy as a player is to try to remove any uncertainty as to the outcome or the meaningful consequence of failure. Then the player doesn't need to roll and leave his or her fate up to a fickle d20.


----------



## Benji (Sep 20, 2018)

iserith said:


> I'm not sure I've seen any support for this approach in the D&D 5e rules. When did you first start thinking about it this way out of curiosity?




Mainly through observation of players. They value those distinctions, so I play to them. I'd say that there probably isn't any support for it in the D&D rules - but also the rules as written get an effective challenge ratings very wrong, so I don't hold that much stock in them -that's sort of another point we so clearly differ on, I'm not sure I want to get into because it belabours worthwhile discussion. 



iserith said:


> I don't think that one need describe the environment differently based on who has what skill proficiency. That will work itself out when the players begin describing what they want to do.




I tend to find that describing it differently depending on different passive skills tends to stop information required for educated action hiding behind any kind of role or set of prescriptive instruction set. That way I'm heightening agency. In my mind anyway.



iserith said:


> Keeping Watch while traveling the dungeon, for example....




Sorry, didn't make myself clear. How would this play out to your mind if the characters are setting watch in a wood at night? what stages do they get perception, passive perception and nothing? Is passive in your game 'I'm now keeping watch' or does that count as a proper-full blooded check if enemies approach? What about to spot the fact that someone slipped poison into their drink at a banquet, when would that check happen? I include these two because I think discussion of perception in a dungeon environment is a bit of a weird bottle environment. I think in a dungeon, the rulings are clearer. It's outside of that environment that I think the discussion of perception in play becomes more fruitful.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Sep 20, 2018)

iserith said:


> I think saving throws are at odds with the design of the game, but figure they made it that way for nostalgia. I'd rather it be more like how Dungeon World handles it. The player describe what he or she does to avoid the effect and the appropriate check is made. Or how D&D 4e does it with attacks versus defenses. But the rules are what they are and I follow them.




Given your preferences I can definitely see you not liking saving throws. I agree they kind of messed them up in 5E, in particular the fact that six of them makes it pretty hard to balance them out. Initially only three seemed to really matter, Con, Dex, and Wis. Later on they have slowly added things that affect the other saves, but in general many of them are rather weak sauce. 

Also, there are times when I'm pretty sure they would have been better off with a save but decided to make it an opposed roll. For example, avoiding being knocked down by a Push attack. I think if I were doing it all over I'd make Push an attack of some sort with a nominal amount of damage and a Strength save to avoid being moved or proned. 

4E style defenses were a pretty good idea, too, or making proficiency being something like Body, Mind, and Spirit, keyed to Str and Con, Dex and Int, and Wis and Cha, respectively. Then give one strong, one medium, and one weak proficiency in Body, Mind, and Spirit. 

One bennie of having things that require saves is that they can be used when you're affected by something that imposes disadvantage, such as using a ranged ability in melee, and saves can also be made by characters that are, say, unconscious. But still, I agree, the 5E save system is messy.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Sep 20, 2018)

Rya.Reisender said:


> No. Jeremy Crawford is the creator, so he makes the rules. Not the DM, that's what I explained in my last something posts.



Jeremy Crawford _was_ the creator. (Among others.) He (and they) _made_ the rules.

As it stands, right now, the official Rules-As-Written are just what's in the book; and the official Rules-As-Intended are that the individual DM is free to interpret wherever the rules are unclear. Individual DMs are also empowered to ask Jeremy Crawford for his perspective, if they want some advice or insight on how they could address such things, but Twitter does not constitute official errata. This isn't Fourth Edition.

I'm not saying you can't do your own best to figure out what he would have done, when you're the DM. The DM is allowed to use any criteria they feel like, when interpreting unclear rules. But just because you choose that one method does not mean that any other DM's interpretation is less valid. Fifth Edition is explicitly not written to those standards.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 20, 2018)

iserith said:


> I never assume there will be an ability check. I can't determine whether an ability check is required without the players first describing a reasonably specific goal and approach. I also never assume the players will look for it. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. Maybe they do and I have to call for a check (because their approach to the goal has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence of failure). Maybe they do and I don't have to call for a check (because their approach to the goal succeeds or fails outright, no roll).
> 
> If, however, I need them to have some kind of information, then there's simply no reason to put that behind a check. If I _need_ them to have it, why leave it up to chance? (Truly though, I try not to ever _need_ anything in this regard.)



Going back to the silly missing-gauntlets example for a moment, maybe there's something that'll play out differently if the gauntlets are noticed missing sooner rather than later.  Notice it today and it's relatively easy to track them down and disrupt whatever whoever took them is doing with them.  Notice it next week and the trail's colder, harder to follow and the gauntlets may have - pun intended - changed hands a few times.  Notice it next month and it's a mystery - when were they taken, why were they taken, who took them, and where are they now?

Another, perhaps more obvious example.  The princess, unhappy with her upcoming forced marriage, takes elaborate steps to hide her departure and make it look like she's still in the palace and elopes a month before her scheduled wedding day.

If she's noticed missing tonight she'll be easy to find, she can't have got far.
If she's noticed missing tomorrow it'll be a bit harder to find her but still not too bad.
If it takes three days before anyone notices she's missing she's got a good head start and tracking her down could be difficult.
If it takes five days before anyone notices she's missing she could have made it to the coast and now be on a ship for anywhere.

How would you handle this, assuming for these purposes you or a player is trying to determine whether - and, randomly, when - her absence is noticed on a day-by-day basis?

And [MENTION=6793743]Benji[/MENTION] , my concerns aren't so much gamist as they are realist - it's possible in real life to sometimes notice something subtle amongst the obvious but it's not going to happen every time; and pre-emptive perception checks (or equivalent) can nicely reflect this in the mechanics.

Lanefan


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Sep 20, 2018)

Umbran said:


> Allow me to engage in a bit of setting of perspective...
> 
> The *worst* things a GM can do have nothing to do with amending rules, or fudging... they have nothing to do with play.  The worst things the GM can do are more around being a horrible person.




This is certainly true and I think way upthread folks made that point. IMO it's very important because, well, people can be jerks (or worse), but this is hard to have much of a discussion on. Not too many people will argue "hey, let's hang out with my thieving, drug-addicted, sexually harassing DM."


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Sep 20, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Going back to the silly missing-gauntlets example for a moment, maybe there's something that'll play out differently if the gauntlets are noticed missing sooner rather than later.  Notice it today and it's relatively easy to track them down and disrupt whatever whoever took them is doing with them.  Notice it next week and the trail's colder, harder to follow and the gauntlets may have - pun intended - changed hands a few times.  Notice it next month and it's a mystery - when were they taken, why were they taken, who took them, and where are they now? <snip>




Good examples and very much how I approach things. 




> And @_*Benji*_ , my concerns aren't so much gamist as they are realist - it's possible in real life to sometimes notice something subtle amongst the obvious but it's not going to happen every time; and pre-emptive perception checks (or equivalent) can nicely reflect this in the mechanics.




Yeah, this is very much how I think of pre-emptive informational rolls, as a way to simulate exactly this kind of situation. I consider uncertain tasks to be something for which I can assign a probability and then, having done that, check to see what happens. Of course, I'm a statistician IRL so I am fairly comfortable thinking this way.


----------



## Shasarak (Sep 20, 2018)

iserith said:


> So, the basic conversation of the game as laid out in D&D 5e is a loop. The DM describes the environment. The player describes what he or she wants to do. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions. Then it starts again. If you're the DM, how you describe the environment is up to you. How you narrate the results of my actions are up to you. But you don't get to describe my actions for me either directly or indirectly by calling for a check for actions I haven't taken. It's really very simple: Your call for a check follows me describing what I'd like to do. It does not precede it.




I can see how an initial description of an environment could call for a check before a player gets to decide how their character is going to react.  I guess a player could choose to not make a check and on the other hand I have never seen that happen.


----------



## Shasarak (Sep 20, 2018)

Benji said:


> Back in the day you couldn't just contact the writers and ask their opinion - you just compromised. Who writes the rules then? Does that mean all D&D played before twitter didn't count?




In Knights of the Dinner Table, the RPG company Hard 8 Enterprises runs a phone line that you can ring to get official rulings.


----------



## iserith (Sep 20, 2018)

Benji said:


> I tend to find that describing it differently depending on different passive skills tends to stop information required for educated action hiding behind any kind of role or set of prescriptive instruction set. That way I'm heightening agency. In my mind anyway.




The rules admonish the DM to present the basic scope of options when describing the environment well before the need for ability checks comes up. So I would argue that if the DM is following that rule, the players will have enough information for "educated action" and sufficient agency to act in the setting. Ability checks, passive or otherwise, may then follow whatever actions the players have their characters take.



Benji said:


> Sorry, didn't make myself clear. How would this play out to your mind if the characters are setting watch in a wood at night? what stages do they get perception, passive perception and nothing? Is passive in your game 'I'm now keeping watch' or does that count as a proper-full blooded check if enemies approach? What about to spot the fact that someone slipped poison into their drink at a banquet, when would that check happen? I include these two because I think discussion of perception in a dungeon environment is a bit of a weird bottle environment. I think in a dungeon, the rulings are clearer. It's outside of that environment that I think the discussion of perception in play becomes more fruitful.




As I mentioned in another similar thread, I don't want to get bogged down in examples because they usually serve to muddle the discussion rather than clarify, but as I feel you're engaging in the discussion in good faith, I'll give these a crack with the understanding you'll give my responses a charitable read knowing we're missing almost all the context that would be present in an actual play session. Let's assume the characters are taking a long rest in the wilderness and one or more PCs are Keeping Watch for hidden dangers (their players said so). Why are they keeping watch? Because at some point before now, I have telegraphed that this wilderness is dangerous and travelers are known to be attacked at night. That's part of me describing the environment so that the players can act with agency and aren't "gotcha'ed" by the DM. So they make a solid decision to Keep Watch.

I roll for a random encounter and a stealthy, hostile monster is indicated. Because we are both (1) dealing with a declared task that is being performed over time (however long the watch is), (2) the monster is trying to be stealthy, and (3) we are shortly going to be in combat, we use passive Perception to resolve whether the characters Keeping Watch are surprised per the rules for hiding and determining surprise, then follow the remaining rules for Combat Step by Step. Those PCs who are not Keeping Watch are surprised automatically without reference to ability checks, passive or otherwise.

Now we have the banquet and someone is trying to poison the PCs' drinks. As with telegraphing the danger of the wilderness, here I would also telegraph the potential danger at the banquet at some point beforehand. An NPC warns the PCs of a dire plot that may be unfolding against them, but has little in the way of details. Or perhaps word on the street is that the duke throwing the banquet was suspects of poisoning his rivals to amass more power. And so on. In the abstract this may sound a little clunky and obvious, but as I say above, in the appropriate context of the play session this information is imparted with subtlety while describing the environment. If the players pick up on that take the appropriate precautions, such as putting their keenest eye or observer of human nature out there to watch for potential poisoners while other PCs set about interacting with the gathered nobles for favor (or whatever their goal is), then they may be able to notice the plot unfolding before it's too late. A passive Perception check or passive Insight check might be used (depending on what the players declare their characters are trying to do) to resolve any uncertainty as to the outcome since these are tasks that are presumably taking place over a span of time and that's appropriate for a passive check. Drinking some antitoxin before Happy Hour is probably a good idea, too, in case all else fails.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Sep 20, 2018)

iserith said:


> I'm not sure I've seen any support for this approach in the D&D 5e rules. When did you first start thinking about it this way out of curiosity?




I won't speak for [MENTION=6793743]Benji[/MENTION] but I have a similar interpretation and have done it for... no clue how long. So long I can't recall. As DM, I'll provide different information to characters with different skills. A wizard with high Arcana will just notice certain things or may be asked for one of those informational checks you don't like, with a higher value providing more information. Same for a ranger with high Nature. etc. In some circumstances I'll ask which of a selection of skills is being checked (e.g., Arcana, Nature, or Religion), with different information being provided depending on which is chosen. Of course, the player could make some other suggestion if that seems relevant, too (as I've said before). 

The 5E rules don't really deal with degrees of success in a meaningful way but IMO this is a major missed opportunity and one of the glaring weaknesses in the skill system's inability to maintain bounded accuracy well. Notice how massive skill bonuses get at medium to high levels for some characters while for others they don't budge at all, leading to really large gaps? That's been a persistent problem since the 3.X days and something they didn't really fix in 5E. Degrees of success and more use of things that are like the 4E skill challenge (without all the hokey setup those often seemed to have) would help allow these numbers to stay smaller.


----------



## iserith (Sep 20, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> Given your preferences I can definitely see you not liking saving throws. I agree they kind of messed them up in 5E, in particular the fact that six of them makes it pretty hard to balance them out. Initially only three seemed to really matter, Con, Dex, and Wis. Later on they have slowly added things that affect the other saves, but in general many of them are rather weak sauce.
> 
> Also, there are times when I'm pretty sure they would have been better off with a save but decided to make it an opposed roll. For example, avoiding being knocked down by a Push attack. I think if I were doing it all over I'd make Push an attack of some sort with a nominal amount of damage and a Strength save to avoid being moved or proned.
> 
> ...




Just to be extra clear, I don't have a preference one way or another per se. If the game is fun enough to play as-is, I play it. But I do play by the way I understand the game to work based on the rules. So when it comes to ability checks, in D&D 5e they follow a task described by the player. They do not precede it. In some other game, they might precede it because that's what the rules say and that's okay by me as long as the game is fun enough to play as-is. 

Saving throws in D&D 5e just seem to go against that design so I would say it's inelegant. I can live with it though.


----------



## iserith (Sep 20, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Going back to the silly missing-gauntlets example for a moment, maybe there's something that'll play out differently if the gauntlets are noticed missing sooner rather than later.  Notice it today and it's relatively easy to track them down and disrupt whatever whoever took them is doing with them.  Notice it next week and the trail's colder, harder to follow and the gauntlets may have - pun intended - changed hands a few times.  Notice it next month and it's a mystery - when were they taken, why were they taken, who took them, and where are they now?




Man, again, if you need your players to notice some stuff, just say so. You don't need mechanics to describe the environment. And if you're asking them to roll for some mysterious reason when they walk past the armor for the umpteenth time, you're creating the environment for the sort of "metagaming" you take additional steps to obscure with meaningless rolls. And if you're using passive checks with a group of regular players and characters, you're setting the DC which also means you're effectively choosing whether and which PCs succeed anyway. So why not just skip all this and just describe the gauntlets as missing? There is literally no upside for you in doing this so far as I can tell.



Lanefan said:


> Another, perhaps more obvious example.  The princess, unhappy with her upcoming forced marriage, takes elaborate steps to hide her departure and make it look like she's still in the palace and elopes a month before her scheduled wedding day.
> 
> If she's noticed missing tonight she'll be easy to find, she can't have got far.
> If she's noticed missing tomorrow it'll be a bit harder to find her but still not too bad.
> ...




There's just not enough context to say and I think I'm at my limit of discussing examples for this month.


----------



## iserith (Sep 20, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> I can see how an initial description of an environment could call for a check before a player gets to decide how their character is going to react.




How? And we're talking about ability checks here, not saving throws to be clear.


----------



## Keldryn (Sep 20, 2018)

hawkeyefan said:


> It wasn’t too long before it became very obvious that the DM had designed the entire game around the NPCs. Everything revolved around them...the backstory related to them, the treasure we found was suited to them, and so on. Our PCs were simply along for the ride.
> 
> That was an incredibly frustrating game. It didn’t last very long at all.




So you played the Avatar Trilogy of 2e modules then...


----------



## Shasarak (Sep 20, 2018)

iserith said:


> How? And we're talking about ability checks here, not saving throws to be clear.




Could be anything really, a perception check to notice something, a nature check to recognise something, a dex check to see if you fall over something, an initiative roll to see who gets to go first.


----------



## iserith (Sep 20, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> Could be anything really, a perception check to notice something, a nature check to recognise something, a dex check to see if you fall over something, an initiative roll to see who gets to go first.




I disagree. (See every other post I made in this thread for details.)


----------



## Shasarak (Sep 20, 2018)

iserith said:


> I disagree. (See every other post I made in this thread for details.)




I am not here to yum your yuck, I have never seen this particular problem.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 20, 2018)

iserith said:


> Man, again, if you need your players to notice some stuff, just say so. You don't need mechanics to describe the environment.



Often, no.  But sometimes yes, and it's those sometimes I'm trying to discuss here.

You basically say "just tell them" but that's not always the answer.  Sometimes the "when" something is learned or noticed becomes important, and that "when" is a random element.  Sometimes the specific "what" that gets noticed is important, and whether it gets noticed now, later, or not at all is also a random element.


> And if you're asking them to roll for some mysterious reason when they walk past the armor for the umpteenth time, you're creating the environment for the sort of "metagaming" you take additional steps to obscure with meaningless rolls.



In this particular example I'd probably just have them roll every so often as they move about the castle in general, rather than each time someone walks down the specific hallway, in order to not point attention at that particular hallway.


> And if you're using passive checks with a group of regular players and characters, you're setting the DC which also means you're effectively choosing whether and which PCs succeed anyway.



To a point, perhaps.


> So why not just skip all this and just describe the gauntlets as missing? There is literally no upside for you in doing this so far as I can tell.



I could just arbitrarily decide which PC notices them missing, and when; but having the players roll takes that decision somewhat out of my hands - which in this case I don't mind.  It puts the "when" aspect into the realm of sheer luck, which is realistic - the missing gauntlets might be noticed almost immediately or they might not be noticed for ages.



> There's just not enough context to say and I think I'm at my limit of discussing examples for this month.



Without examples, discussion becomes rather pointless.

Lan-"by the way, I've got these spare gauntlets I'm looking to sell..."-efan


----------



## iserith (Sep 20, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Often, no.  But sometimes yes, and it's those sometimes I'm trying to discuss here.
> 
> You basically say "just tell them" but that's not always the answer.  Sometimes the "when" something is learned or noticed becomes important, and that "when" is a random element.  Sometimes the specific "what" that gets noticed is important, and whether it gets noticed now, later, or not at all is also a random element.




It strikes me as making something simple more complicated than it needs to be for absolutely no benefit and possibly to some detriment.



Lanefan said:


> In this particular example I'd probably just have them roll every so often as they move about the castle in general, rather than each time someone walks down the specific hallway, in order to not point attention at that particular hallway.




Which strikes me as a kludge to fix something that went awry which you could have avoided in the first place.



Lanefan said:


> I could just arbitrarily decide which PC notices them missing, and when; but having the players roll takes that decision somewhat out of my hands - which in this case I don't mind.  It puts the "when" aspect into the realm of sheer luck, which is realistic - the missing gauntlets might be noticed almost immediately or they might not be noticed for ages.




You don't even need to decide which PC notices it. You can just describe it in the environment. If the PCs investigate it further, great. If they don't, no big deal. I mean, you don't _need_ for them to succeed, right? "So what?" you said.

As for what is and isn't "realistic," I find that people can be oddly choosy about what they consider realistic in their games about elves and dragons. It doesn't hold up to very much scrutiny.



Lanefan said:


> Without examples, discussion becomes rather pointless.




_With_ examples, discussions often become muddled and full of goalpost-moving until it loses the thread.


----------



## Benji (Sep 20, 2018)

iserith said:


> As I mentioned in another similar thread, I don't want to get bogged down in examples because they usually serve to muddle the discussion rather than clarify,




I actually feel that in providing the answers to the examples I have given, you've clarified your playstyle for me: I understand you rpoint of view now and have found it more favourable than I thought. 



iserith said:


> I roll for a random encounter and a stealthy, hostile monster is indicated. Because we are both (1) dealing with a declared task that is being performed over time (however long the watch is), (2) the monster is trying to be stealthy, and (3) we are shortly going to be in combat, we use passive Perception to resolve whether the characters Keeping Watch are surprised per the rules for hiding and determining surprise, then follow the remaining rules for Combat Step by Step. Those PCs who are not Keeping Watch are surprised automatically without reference to ability checks, passive or otherwise.




But this example means that you never use an actual skill check for players who are purposefully keeping watch, meaning that they will only ever stand sentry as if they had rolled a ten - meaning access to those higher rolls aren't happening. Your groups are getting surprised a lot more easily than my groups by the same foes. Becuase, I believe, you are using passive perception wrong. But then I don't necessarily think you are doing it wrong with regard to the rules. I think the rules are badly written and need tobe intereprted. The fact we both get very different ideas about this shows they aren't well defined.



iserith said:


> Now we have the banquet and someone is trying to poison the PCs' drinks. As with telegraphing the danger of the wilderness, here I would also telegraph the potential danger at the banquet at some point beforehand. An NPC warns the PCs of a dire plot that may be unfolding against them, but has little in the way of details. Or perhaps word on the street is that the duke throwing the banquet was suspects of poisoning his rivals to amass more power. And so on. In the abstract this may sound a little clunky and obvious, but as I say above, in the appropriate context of the play session this information is imparted with subtlety while describing the environment. If the players pick up on that take the appropriate precautions, such as putting their keenest eye or observer of human nature out there to watch for potential poisoners while other PCs set about interacting with the gathered nobles for favor (or whatever their goal is), then they may be able to notice the plot unfolding before it's too late. A passive Perception check or passive Insight check might be used (depending on what the players declare their characters are trying to do) to resolve any uncertainty as to the outcome since these are tasks that are presumably taking place over a span of time and that's appropriate for a passive check. Drinking some antitoxin before Happy Hour is probably a good idea, too, in case all else fails.




In my mind, their are so many things wrong with the way you describe DMing this situation but 1) it's largely a taste thing, the situation would play out differently in my game as the way you're describing it and I don' think I can get you to see it 2) I can see you are fed up of discussing examples and I think it could get recursive from here on in. Agree to disagree?


----------



## S'mon (Sep 20, 2018)

iserith said:


> I addressed determining surprise upthread. In D&D 5e, passive Perception applies only when the character is Keeping Watch, so this is necessarily something the player must declare _at some point_ prior to the passive check. It cannot be assumed since there are other activities the player could choose to do that does not allow for the character to Keep Watch.




From the SRD - sorry for formatting but I wanted a direct C/P:

_Passive Checks
Passive Checks
A
passive
check
is
a
special
kind
of
ability
check
that
doesn’t
involve
any
die
rolls.
Such
a
check
can
represent
the
average
result
for
a
task
done
repeatedly,
such
as
searching
for
secret
doors
over
and
over
again,
or
can
be
used
when
the
GM
wants
to
secretly
determine
whether
the
characters
succeed
at
something
without
rolling
dice,
such
as
noticing
a
hidden
monster.

Passive
Perception. When
you
hide,
there’s
a
chance
someone
will
notice
you
even
if
they
aren’t
searching.
To
determine
whether
such
a
creature
notices
you,
the
GM
compares
your
Dexterity
(Stealth)
check
with
that
creature’s
passive
Wisdom
(Perception)
score,
which
equals
10
+
the
creature’s
Wisdom
modifier,
as
well
as
any
other
bonuses
or
penalties.
If
the
creature
has
advantage,
add
5.
For
disadvantage,
subtract
5.
For
example,
if
a
1st-­‐level
character
(with
a
proficiency
bonus
of
+2)
has
a
Wisdom
of
15
(a
+2
modifier)
and
proficiency
in
Perception,
he
or
she
has
a
passive
Wisdom
(Perception)
of
14.

Perception.
Your
Wisdom
(Perception)
check
lets
you
spot,
hear,
or
otherwise
detect
the
presence
of
something.
It
measures
your
general
awareness
of
your
surroundings
and
the
keenness
of
your
senses.
For
example,
you
might
try
to
hear
a
conversation
through
a
closed
door,
eavesdrop
under
an
open
window,
or
hear
monsters
moving
stealthily
in
the
forest.
Or
you
might
try
to
spot
things
that
are
obscured
or
easy
to
miss,
whether
they
are
orcs
lying
in
ambush
on
a
road,
thugs
hiding
in
the
shadows
of
an
alley,
or
candlelight
under
a
closed
secret
door.
_

So this "Only when Keeping Watch" thing is not true at all and completely unsupported in the text. It sounds as if you are playing a different game.


----------



## Benji (Sep 20, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> In Knights of the Dinner Table, the RPG company Hard 8 Enterprises runs a phone line that you can ring to get official rulings.




Knights of the Dinner Table is a parody. This is a parody of a certain type of gamer. Can you guess who falls under that type here?


----------



## S'mon (Sep 20, 2018)

Rya.Reisender said:


> No. Jeremy Crawford is the creator, so he makes the rules.




No, *Mike Mearls* is listed before Jeremy Crawford under Lead Designers in the PHB, so Mearls 
makes the rules! Mearls trumps Crawford! IA IA MEARLS FTHAGGN!!


----------



## iserith (Sep 20, 2018)

Benji said:


> I actually feel that in providing the answers to the examples I have given, you've clarified your playstyle for me: I understand you rpoint of view now and have found it more favourable than I thought.




I'm not so sure it has.



Benji said:


> But this example means that you never use an actual skill check for players who are purposefully keeping watch, meaning that they will only ever stand sentry as if they had rolled a ten - meaning access to those higher rolls aren't happening. Your groups are getting surprised a lot more easily than my groups by the same foes. Becuase, I believe, you are using passive perception wrong. But then I don't necessarily think you are doing it wrong with regard to the rules. I think the rules are badly written and need tobe intereprted. The fact we both get very different ideas about this shows they aren't well defined.




I think the misunderstanding here is - correct me if I'm wrong - you see passive checks as resolving the characters acting passively which is not actually true. It means they are performing a task repeatedly, such as keeping watch for danger over time. "Passive" refers to there being no dice, not that the characters aren't "purposefully" doing something. To that end, I would say my ruling is correct and based on the rules as written, especially as it relates to the rules for passive checks, hiding, and determining surprise (q.v.). I think these rules are as well defined as they can be given the design paradigm. I think a lot of DMs think of them as if they were the rules in other games though. I can't say that's the case with you for sure but it's been my experience more often than not. It leads to a lot of dissatisfaction with passive checks. I've written more posts on how to handle passive checks than almost any other on these forums, I bet.



Benji said:


> In my mind, their are so many things wrong with the way you describe DMing this situation but 1) it's largely a taste thing, the situation would play out differently in my game as the way you're describing it and I don' think I can get you to see it 2) I can see you are fed up of discussing examples and I think it could get recursive from here on in. Agree to disagree?




In all likelihood, we're imagining the banquet entirely differently. Such is the problem with examples without all the context that we'd have at the table.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 20, 2018)

MNblockhead said:


> I read the question to be what is the worst thing that a DM can do in the context of the game mechanics and role of the DM that would turn you off on that game, rather than what kinds of terrible people would you not want as a GM.



Agreed. We don't need to list all the things that can make a person an unpleasant person to spend time with.



MNblockhead said:


> I understand my part of the social contract. I have a responsibility as a player to abide by the GMs ruling and let the DM run the game and to actively engage in the game, pay attention, and come prepared. One thing that kinda bothers me about this thread is that we are heaping so much responsibility for a games fun on a GM.



On rulings I prefer a more "first among equals" approach - I don't mind if a player queries a ruling, as maybe they've thought about it more clearly than I have! But if someone has to exercise veto power, then in the end - in a relatively traditional game - that is going to be the referee.

I certainly agree with you about players actively engaging, paying attention, etc. As a GM I don't see my job as being one of providing entertainment to an audience - I want to be an audience being entertained by the players just as much! (If an individual player is tired from work and nods off on the couch, or has to go and wrangle kids, or whatever, of course that's fine - I'll just engage with the other players until that player returns to the game.)



MNblockhead said:


> When I read comments citing not using a DM screen as a dealbreaker, I have to scratch my head. Really, THAT is what controls your ability to have fun?



I found that one weird too. I've used a GM screen once in 35 years of GMing - when I got one as part of some 4e boxed set (Essentials DM Kit?) I thought I'd try it to see how it worked. It just got in the way, and was folded up and put away before the end of the session.

Sometimes I might write something down that I'd rather the players not read, but I just rely on the fact that it's on a bit of paper in front of me and so not readable by them as long as they don't try.


----------



## iserith (Sep 20, 2018)

S'mon said:


> From the SRD So this "Only when Keeping Watch" thing is not true at all and completely unsupported in the text. It sounds as if you are playing a different game.




The rules for Hiding establish that characters are keeping watch for danger when in combat. Outside of combat, such as when traveling in a dungeon or wilderness (anywhere between feet per minute or miles per day), characters must keep watch to avoid hidden danger. Character who turn their attention to other tasks do not contribute their passive Perception to noticing hidden threats. That's in the rules for Activities While Traveling. Only rangers in favored terrain can both Keep Watch and perform some other task as noted in the class entry.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 20, 2018)

iserith said:


> The rules for Hiding establish that characters are keeping watch for danger when in combat. Outside of combat, such as when traveling in a dungeon or wilderness (anywhere between feet per minute or miles per day), characters must keep watch to avoid hidden danger. Character who turn their attention to other tasks do not contribute their passive Perception to noticing hidden threats. That's in the rules for Activities While Traveling. Only rangers in favored terrain can both Keep Watch and perform some other task as noted in the class entry.




OK I have just reread the section in the PHB (it's not in the SRD afaict). There is no Keeping Watch Action - you just made that up. There is default use of Passive Perception - "Use the passive Wisdom (Perception) scores of the characters to determine whether anyone in the group notices a hidden threat". Then there are specific activities characters can attempt which prevent a character from using their Passive Perception, as you note.


----------



## iserith (Sep 20, 2018)

S'mon said:


> OK I have just reread the section in the PHB (it's not in the SRD afaict). There is no Keeping Watch Action - you just made that up. There is default use of Passive Perception - "Use the passive Wisdom (Perception) scores of the characters to determine whether anyone in the group notices a hidden threat". Then there are specific activities characters can attempt which prevent a character from using their Passive Perception, as you note.




"Keep Watch" is my shorthand for "remain alert to danger," "watching for danger," or "notice hidden threats" which are referenced in this section and the ranger entry. It's what you can choose to do if you're not doing those other listed activities or an activity that is at least as distracting as the ones in that section, as determined by the DM.

These rules are both in the PHB and Basic Rules.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 20, 2018)

iserith said:


> "Keep Watch" is my shorthand for "remain alert to danger," "watching for danger," or "notice hidden threats" which are referenced in this section and the ranger entry. It's what you can choose to do if you're not doing those other listed activities or an activity that is at least as distracting as the ones in that section, as determined by the DM.
> 
> These rules are both in the PHB and Basic Rules.




It is very clear in the text that players DO NOT have to declare they are using Passive Perception.  Having PP active is the default. You are not following the RAW when you require players to declare some kind of 'keeping watch action' before PP becomes applicable. 
And those Actions prevent use of PP for *noticing hidden threats* - if someone is creeping up on you in the open but making some noise, they are not a hidden threat, and you could still hear them via PP. Indeed you might hear a noise while fast asleep.


----------



## iserith (Sep 20, 2018)

S'mon said:


> It is very clear in the text that players DO NOT have to declare they are using Passive Perception.  Having PP active is the default. You are not following the RAW when you require players to declare some kind of 'keeping watch action' before PP becomes applicable.
> And those Actions prevent use of PP for *noticing hidden threats* - if someone is creeping up on you in the open but making some noise, they are not a hidden threat, and you could still hear them via PP. Indeed you might hear a noise while fast asleep.




It is only the default in combat as pointed out in the rules for Hiding (and even then it hedges by saying "most creatures"). Otherwise it follows the rules for any ability check which is that the player must describe an attempt at a task. You can't have an ability check, passive or otherwise, without the player establishing what he or she wants to do. Those are the rules for ability checks, and passive checks are just a subset of ability checks.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 20, 2018)

iserith said:


> It is only the default in combat as pointed out in the rules for Hiding (and even then it hedges by saying "most creatures"). Otherwise it follows the rules for any ability check which is that the player must describe an attempt at a task. You can't have an ability check, passive or otherwise, without the player establishing what he or she wants to do. Those are the rules for ability checks, and passive checks are just a subset of ability checks.




You are ignoring the wording in the very PHB section you referenced, and inserting a "Keep Watch Action", in order to create your own game. I don't have a huge problem with GMs personalising the game to their preference, but you claim to be doing the opposite. I hope you tell players they don't get to use PP without declaring an action, since there is nothing in the book telling them that.


----------



## iserith (Sep 20, 2018)

S'mon said:


> You are ignoring the wording in the very PHB section you referenced, and inserting a "Keep Watch Action", in order to create your own game. I don't have a huge problem with GMs personalising the game to their preference, but you claim to be doing the opposite. I hope you tell players they don't get to use PP without declaring an action, since there is nothing in the book telling them that.




Well first, players don't get to "use PP." They get to describe what they want to do. If they're remaining alert for danger by some means - for which "Keep Watch" is my shorthand - then their passive Perception may apply for resolving whether they spot a trap or notice a monster. The exception is combat, where it is assumed the characters are alert to danger because it's combat. Passive Perception would apply if a monster tries to hide during the fight or if there are traps in the terrain.

I make players very much aware of when they are exposed to the threat of being surprised or the like when they undertake an action other than remaining alert to danger. I'm ignoring nothing of the rules under discussion and am, in fact, including the actual rules for ability checks and passive checks in my interpretations here. There is no check, passive or otherwise, without a player describing what he or she wants to do, with the exception being when the characters are in combat and the default is that they are alert to danger.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 20, 2018)

Er...guys...how did this turn into a rules argument specific to 5e when this is an all-editions discussion in General?


----------



## cbwjm (Sep 20, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Er...guys...how did this turn into a rules argument specific to 5e when this is an all-editions discussion in General?



Honestly, it's surprising this didn't happen sooner.


----------



## Aenghus (Sep 20, 2018)

Ignoring the clearly stated preferences of a player and attempting to change them into the player the DM (thinks s/he) wants.

Demanding trust from players while not giving them reason to trust him or her in return.


----------



## Rya.Reisender (Sep 20, 2018)

Benji said:


> Back in the day you couldn't just contact the writers and ask their opinion - you just compromised. Who writes the rules then? Does that mean all D&D played before twitter didn't count?



Back then it was simply harder to figure out how RAI is. That doesn't change much about the situation, though. You should always try to abide by the rules. Plus it's a combined effort of players AND the DM to interpret the rules. The problem for me is only if the DM feels entitled to intentionally change them. Or if he doesn't listen to his players when they try to explain how the rule works.


----------



## Rya.Reisender (Sep 20, 2018)

jasper said:


> No. There as Rules as Written. RAW. Rules as Intented. RAI. And sage advice. While JC may have wanted passive perception to be always on. RAI. He did not write them that way. So Accept Dm variations.



RAW, RAI and Sage Advice do not conflict with each other. RAI / Sage Advice are just an additional explanations for those who didn't understand what was meant by reading the rules. They all should take priority over what the DM says.


----------



## Rya.Reisender (Sep 20, 2018)

Saelorn said:


> Jeremy Crawford _was_ the creator. (Among others.) He (and they) _made_ the rules.
> 
> As it stands, right now, the official Rules-As-Written are just what's in the book; and the official Rules-As-Intended are that the individual DM is free to interpret wherever the rules are unclear. Individual DMs are also empowered to ask Jeremy Crawford for his perspective, if they want some advice or insight on how they could address such things, but Twitter does not constitute official errata. This isn't Fourth Edition.
> 
> I'm not saying you can't do your own best to figure out what he would have done, when you're the DM. The DM is allowed to use any criteria they feel like, when interpreting unclear rules. But just because you choose that one method does not mean that any other DM's interpretation is less valid. Fifth Edition is explicitly not written to those standards.



First of all: Realize I'm not saying what is valid behavior and what is not - I'm just saying it's the worst thing a DM can do from my perspective. Groups in which I'm not a player can do whatever they are happy with.

Second: The point where I start to disagree would be where you say that the DM is free to interpret unclear rules. I'd say if anything, it should be a combined effort of all players including the DM, where the DM maybe makes the final call if no agreement on the interpretation could be found. However, I also say if there's is Sage Advice available that explains already how the unclear rule was meant to be interpreted, then that should be used and save everyone the trouble of discussing it in the first place. That's also because it's an objective source.

Third: Trying to interpret rules correctly and failing to do so is still better than intentional house ruling or not listening to your players when they try to point out a mistake.


----------



## Rya.Reisender (Sep 20, 2018)

S'mon said:


> No, *Mike Mearls* is listed before Jeremy Crawford under Lead Designers in the PHB, so Mearls
> makes the rules! Mearls trumps Crawford! IA IA MEARLS FTHAGGN!!



For me the decision was made when Mike Mearls said: "Jeremy is the rules guy."


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Sep 20, 2018)

pemerton said:


> On rulings I prefer a more "first among equals" approach - I don't mind if a player queries a ruling, as maybe they've thought about it more clearly than I have! But if someone has to exercise veto power, then in the end - in a relatively traditional game - that is going to be the referee.



I agree. One guy I play with has a propensity for misreading rules. He's generally fairly good as DM but there have been some doozies where his interpretation was... off and we've had to consult the books and then decide what we're doing. I won't claim I always read a particular rule clearly either. There are a lot of rules and it's easy to not be super familiar with a part. The DM has final say but in general we try to stick to the rules as intended. One big "keep the game going" thing that helps is to make a ruling in the moment that's good enough but not setting any precedent and then visit it offline out of the session, which gives time to reread the rules, consult Sage Advice (for what its worth), etc. 

I am more pro customization than many other folks I know, but I'd note that WotC themselves presumed a fairly substantial amount of customization themselves.


----------



## belphanor (Sep 20, 2018)

gonna have to put a trigger warning here, some kinda mature stuff. sorry in advance.



Nagol said:


> I can't imagine letting the same DM say both.  Very shortly after saying either, he wouldn't be my DM.




well, the rest of the group read him the riot act and said they wouldn't play with him as GM if he did the first bit again.  The other, well...



DMMike said:


> Arrrrr...
> 
> 
> Can we please pool our resources and make sure belphanor gets a good GM next time?




ok, so to be honest these are 3 separate events spread out over like 5 years, and only with one GM.  Many of the other GMs I've had were much better as GMs.  I was just going with what the worst things a GM has done AS A GM, not as a person.
The guy who said all those things? Verbally abusive to everyone in the group, both in and out of the game. Physically abusive towards me. When he was threatened to be kicked from the group he said that we were his only friends and without us he would kill himself, so you can add emotional blackmail as well.

2 different GMs (who admittedly were roommates, were brought up on charges of possession of child pornography. Apparently someone had broken into their apartment, and while ransacking the place, while they were at a con, the bugler found their stashes, and called the cops.  this was just weeks after one of their very good friends, who got them into the hobby (they say the hobby in question is RPGs, but I'm not so sure) was caught in an FBI sting that had him charged with 37 counts of possession of child porn.  Those two went on to open an RPG / anime / manga store that would hold My Little Pony viewing parties that were advertised in the local paper as 'pony parties'. and yes, they were aware of the other meaning of that phrase. (the store crashed and burned in no small part to one of them being charged with sexual harassment by a customer, but the lack of ANY business skills on the part of the two other than working the counter at fast food restaurants was probably a factor as well.)

and the number 1 worst GM that I've ever had would be the guy who raped his 8 year old stepdaughter.  None of us in the group saw that coming. I mean how can you think that one of your friends would be a monster like that?  After something like that, having an abusive GM (while still bad) doesn't seem like that big a deal you know?

Now, those are 4 GMs out of probably around 15 or so regular GMs I've had, and this is the thread for the WORST.  I've also had GMs who were open with creative solutions to problems, especially solutions that they hadn't thought of.  I've had GMs who were willing to scrap their entire campaign because the PCs wanted to go off in a different direction.  I've had GMs who felt that the players deserved to have some input on the creation of the world that they had built.  

But those worst ones all happened in the span of about 5 years, and are more recent than the good ones.  
I have, however, decided that if anyone I've played RPGs with gets involved in a child related sex crime, I'm gonna find a new hobby and sell all my RPGs cheap, cos 3 times is too many.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Sep 20, 2018)

iserith said:


> Just to be extra clear, I don't have a preference one way or another per se. If the game is fun enough to play as-is, I play it. But I do play by the way I understand the game to work based on the rules. So when it comes to ability checks, in D&D 5e they follow a task described by the player. They do not precede it. In some other game, they might precede it because that's what the rules say and that's okay by me as long as the game is fun enough to play as-is.
> 
> Saving throws in D&D 5e just seem to go against that design so I would say it's inelegant. I can live with it though.




I think the really big difference here is "as-is". My general mindset is that the game designers lay out a framework and it's up to me to interpret that or alter to suit my needs. I do know a number of folks who are much more "as-is" players, though. 

In my view, the designers lay out different levels of rule. Many things they lay out are primarily just suggestions or basic guidance. The general "the DM asks 'what do you do?' and the player calls for something" is basic guidance. Most of the time it's a good idea. In your case you consider it something the DM should do all the time; I'm willing to violate it in some cases when I think it heightens tension or moves the game along faster, though from thinking about it most of the time I'm probably in the 'what do you do?' camp. I'm also a user of things like informational rolls, which, while not directly listed in the rules, aren't a massive stretch from them. Other things the designers write are much more binding, such as how a particular power works. I would obviously think more carefully about an outright rule change, such as something that shifts the math or would markedly alter the power level of a character type. 

Some things fall into the "live with it" category. (Even Mike Mearls said he considers cyclic initiative a "live with it" for him.) You've indicated that the way saves work in 5E is like that for you. I too dislike them and have, at the current time, chosen to live with them rather than fix them up to be more to my liking. Partly this is because the people I play with haven't been enamored of a substantial change. 

By contrast, I think your choice is really about whether you like the game as written or not. I don't actually much care about that. If I don't like something or want it to shift, I change it. 

My favorite game is the heavily house ruled 2E I've played for many years. It's recognizably build on the 2E chassis, but it's definitely its own thing, having borrowed ideas from later editions (e.g., 4E movement rules or delay and ready). Of course, I'm not running this in any kind of organized play and have run it with a fairly small group of players, all of whom know how things go from long use. 

Anyway, interesting discussion.


----------



## Caliban (Sep 20, 2018)

Rya.Reisender said:


> RAW, RAI and Sage Advice do not conflict with each other. RAI / Sage Advice are just an additional explanations for those who didn't understand what was meant by reading the rules. They all should take priority over what the DM says.




I generally prefer to play by the rules as written and I do give a lot of weight to Jeremy Crawford's opinions - but the DM is the final arbiter at their table.  Not Jeremy Crawford.  

This is especially true in Adventure League (where the DM is explicitly allowed to use or ignore sage advice as they see fit), but it also holds true any regular game.  

You may not like it, but that is the way it is, despite your preference to the contrary.  

And if you were a player in my game and tried to pull this BS about some twitter or Facebook post taking priority over my ruling at a game I'm running...well, let's just say you wouldn't be happy with the result.


----------



## iserith (Sep 20, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> I think the really big difference here is "as-is". My general mindset is that the game designers lay out a framework and it's up to me to interpret that or alter to suit my needs. I do know a number of folks who are much more "as-is" players, though.
> 
> In my view, the designers lay out different levels of rule. Many things they lay out are primarily just suggestions or basic guidance. The general "the DM asks 'what do you do?' and the player calls for something" is basic guidance. Most of the time it's a good idea. In your case you consider it something the DM should do all the time; I'm willing to violate it in some cases when I think it heightens tension or moves the game along faster, though from thinking about it most of the time I'm probably in the 'what do you do?' camp. I'm also a user of things like informational rolls, which, while not directly listed in the rules, aren't a massive stretch from them. Other things the designers write are much more binding, such as how a particular power works. I would obviously think more carefully about an outright rule change, such as something that shifts the math or would markedly alter the power level of a character type.
> 
> ...




For the record, I do make changes to the game, just not to the core rules surrounding ability checks, saving throws, and attack rolls. My changes vary by campaign according to the desired play experience and are mostly centered on the inclusion of official variant rules (like encumbrance) or my house rule for Inspiration.


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 20, 2018)

Rya.Reisender said:


> If you asked Jeremy Crawford he would reply what 99% of all board game creators would reply: They just state how the rules where intended to be, but you are free to change them if you think that's more fun for your group.
> 
> But that's not what I want. If I want to play chess I want to play by the chess rules. If I want to play Settlers of Catan, I want to play who play by the Settlers of Catan rules. If I want to play Magic: The Gathering, I want to play by Magic: The Gathering rules. And if I want to play D&D 5e, I want to play by the D&D 5e rules.
> 
> People who are like "hey, let's change this rule for fun" are disturbances for my enjoyment.




I get what you are saying but the rule book also gives the DM unilateral power to change any rule as he sees it.  All editions have. 

When you play the games you mentioned you are in direct competition with the players, and those rules sets are set for fairness to all.  The DM is NOT in competition with anyone, the ruleset is written as a framework and guide for the players to participate in and the DM to narrate, direct and adjudicate a fantasy improv play.

This is an overriding issue.  In another thread about MC the argument is essentially players who want to MC hexblade believing RAW descriptive text in all the books is irrelevant and DM who disagree with them are railroading them.  What those players essentially believe is they are in direct individual competition with the DM and they need to get every advantage they can to “win” because that is the goal.  They always say the DM must slavishly follow only RAW at all times, otherwise the DM is cheating them out of their advantages so the DM can “win.”  

You see this all the time.  If you play out a situation wrong like “DM that’s a ranged attack against a prone creature so it’s disadvantage” that’s fine for a player to correct.  But if the DM says this creature attacks with advantage for some reason the DM determines “Hey that’s not in rules, that’s not allowed, it’s unfair.”  I had a player quit because he thought it was unfair the mindflayer in his lair ambushed the 10th level group with his mind blast through a peephole, arguing the cone effect wouldn’t fit through the peephole according to the rules and since his PC couldn’t be surprised he can’t be ambushed either.  He might have stayed if he made his saving throw but I don’t know.

As a DM I am not out to “win.”  In only think of the terms win/lose as a DM I always lose.  When all my creatures and nefarious plots are beaten by the sly, tricky, guidance spamming players, I am beaten.  If the players all die is a fair fight I “lost” as the group is now dead and we have to start over.  Worse is if I miscalculated something and just TPKed everyone then I really lost, we start over and the players say “What the hell  was that?”  The DM only “wins” when the players are happy they got a real run for the money, when you hear through someone else “So and So said you really had them going the another night.”

The DM who believes he is in competition with the others players for “victory” is the worst kind of DM.  Running the Tomb of Horrors and killing everyone is only fun for the DM because everyone knows going in it’s essentially a giant railroad and everyone is in on it.



Jeremy Crawford rules decisions sometimes make no sense and to me reflect little knowledge on the current state of the game and how it’s being played.  This makes sense though, I doubt he actually has time to read these forums and all others and probably wants to get away from the game after work closes.  Sometimes the problems are long running, say beast master ranger, which many would like to play but is just terrible and worse unwieldy at the table.  But let’s appreciate what he has done since 5e is a great edition to the game.


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 20, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> This answer neatly sidesteps all the questions I asked in the post you quoted, so I'll take a different tack and try again...
> 
> Not entirely.  Some of the description is sometimes driven by random chance: that randomness being whether you by accident happen to notice something or not.  And because of this there needs to be some means of resolving this random chance, hm?  For this, wouldn't pre-emptive perception checks (or system equivalent) fit the bill perfectly?
> 
> ...




I see the disagreement with Iserith.  

I have never played with Iserith so I don’t know, but he/she is clearly rules intensive to a fault. You however appear to be less strict rules oriented and more “flow of play oriented.”

I am more along the flow of play group.  If you tell me you opened the door I won’t ask if you touched the handle, that’s how doors open.  In the example of the hallway if a PC states “walking down the hallway keeping an eye out” that’s good enough to notice the gauntlets missing.  If they have a high passive I would just let them know anyway.  If they are specifically distracted “as we walk down the hallway we talk to the minister” maybe have them make a check, it depends.   

There is a balance in the middle that each group will choose.


----------



## Rya.Reisender (Sep 20, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> I get what you are saying but the rule book also gives the DM unilateral power to change any rule as he sees it.  All editions have.



I'm not sure the rules do give the DM that kind of power (except for certain situations where it clearly states that the DM decides what to do). In any case, that's not a game I'd like to play, I want to play a game with fixed and clear rules.



> When you play the games you mentioned you are in direct competition with the players, and those rules sets are set for fairness to all.  The DM is NOT in competition with anyone, the ruleset is written as a framework and guide for the players to participate in and the DM to narrate, direct and adjudicate a fantasy improv play.[...]



Oh, but then your mindset it a bit different than mine. If I play a game, I do play it to win. Even P&P. However, I don't think it's necessarily Player vs. DM, but rather Player vs. Adventure, whereas the DM is supposed to be a neutral element not siding with either.

So instead of the games I mentioned earlier, think of single player / co-op board games. I want to beat them at default difficulty without anyone changing any of the rules.

Edit: By the way, as DM I don't go easy on my players at all. I do try to get them killed. But I still don't see myself in competition with them. I'm actually happy if they win even though I went all out.


----------



## cmad1977 (Sep 20, 2018)

Rya.Reisender said:


> In D&D 5e I'd apply passive perception to determine that. In other rulesets, it would probably be hidden rolls then? Rather than asking.
> 
> (Note: In my opinion, the description of the environment can vary depending on how perceptive the PC is.)




Sounds like a house rule.


----------



## Rya.Reisender (Sep 20, 2018)

cmad1977 said:


> Sounds like a house rule.



What sounds like one?


----------



## MNblockhead (Sep 20, 2018)

Originally Posted by *Shasarak* 


_In Knights of the Dinner Table, the RPG company Hard 8 Enterprises runs a phone line that you can ring to get official rulings.

_


Benji said:


> Knights of the Dinner Table is a parody. This is a parody of a certain type of gamer. Can you guess who falls under that type here?




I think this is a reference to how in the early days of D&D players would call Gary Gygax at his home, day or night, and ask for rules clarifications. It is pretty cool that he took those calls, though I suspect it didn't last long. 

Also, I thought WoTC used to take rules questions on their support hotline. I suspect Twitter has that function now.


----------



## iserith (Sep 20, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> I see the disagreement with Iserith.
> 
> I have never played with Iserith so I don’t know, but he/she is clearly rules intensive to a fault.




I don't think anyone who has played with me would say that though. I'm strict on "How to Play." Because, well, that's _how to play_ and that's good for both the DM and the players since they each clearly know what to do for their particular roles and can focus on being the best they can be in that role (which improves the play experience for all). As for the rules, as I think I said in this thread or the other very similar one, the rules are used at the discretion of the DM. By that I mean the DM only brings the rules into play when they need to come into play. But when they do come into play, I strive to follow them.

What players in my games would say (and have said, even recently) is that my games are very _consistent_. The play loop (DM describes, player describes, DM narrates) is always there. You're always making reasonably informed decisions. You can always count on consistent rulings and, when the rules are brought into play, pretty good accuracy on implementation (I'm not perfect and frequently drunk). I highly value consistency so this was good feedback to hear.


----------



## MNblockhead (Sep 20, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Agreed. We don't need to list all the things that can make a person an unpleasant person to spend time with.
> 
> On rulings I prefer a more "first among equals" approach - I don't mind if a player queries a ruling, as maybe they've thought about it more clearly than I have! But if someone has to exercise veto power, then in the end - in a relatively traditional game - that is going to be the referee.




One reason that I prefer the term "judge" over "referee" is that that I think the role of the judge (at least in the Anglo-American common law) is more analogous to the role of DM than a referee. A referee closely monitors a game for rules violations and arbitrates on matters arising from play. But a referee is not a player in the game. A judge is a far more active participant. A judge runs the show, can ask questions, give instructions. Yes, a judge makes rulings on the law, but it is the lawyers who make the arguments. Lawyers have the primary burden of researching the law and arguing how to apply it to the facts of the case. They inform the judge, allowing the judge to make rulings. 

"Rule lawyers" is a bad word for many gamers. But I think what people object to is someone who argues a rule, refusing to accept a GMs ruling, and disrupts the game with disagreements over minutia. That's not lawyering. Such behavior would get you sanctioned or even removed from court. 

In my games, I am not only fine with players arguing rules, I expect them to. I will often lean on them when I come across an uncommon situation. Many of my players play much more than I do and have a firmer grasp of some of the rules, especially how spells work. If the RAW is unclear, I'll ask, how do you want to do this? They can disagree with my ruling and if they can quickly cite the rule, I'll be happy to change. But the important thing is that that we all agree that once I make a ruling we roll with it. We have a more detailed discussion after the game and may change things in future sessions, but it is my role to make a ruling and move on with running the game. 

Too many players expect DMs to have an encyclopedic knowledge of the rules. In my opinion, these players are shirking their responsibilities as players and are not showing courtesy to the DM or other players. I expect players to have a working knowledge of the basic rules of play and a thorough understanding of their character's abilities and spells. I expect that players will have whatever published material they need to run their character, but I also have physical copies of all published rulebooks for 5e at the table and I have a DnD Beyond account, so all my players have access to all the rule books in a searchable format on their smartphones or tablets. Everyone at my table shares the responsibility for understanding and interpreting the rules of the game we are enjoying together.


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 20, 2018)

Rya.Reisender said:


> I'm not sure the rules do give the DM that kind of power (except for certain situations where it clearly states that the DM decides what to do). In any case, that's not a game I'd like to play, I want to play a game with fixed and clear rules.
> 
> 
> Oh, but then your mindset it a bit different than mine. If I play a game, I do play it to win. Even P&P. However, I don't think it's necessarily Player vs. DM, but rather Player vs. Adventure, whereas the DM is supposed to be a neutral element not siding with either.
> ...





So you are the win at all costs type, this type:

*Gamesmanship* is the use of dubious (although not technically illegal) methods to win or gain a serious advantage in a game or sport. It has been described as "Pushing the rules to the limit without getting caught, using whatever dubious methods possible to achieve the desired end".​[1] 


You say you want your DM "whereas the DM is supposed to be a neutral element not siding with either" then state a DM "I do try to get them killed."  So you want it both ways depending on where you sit.  I bet your a great guy at the table also ​​*
*​


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 20, 2018)

iserith said:


> I don't think anyone who has played with me would say that though. I'm strict on "How to Play." Because, well, that's _how to play_ and that's good for both the DM and the players since they each clearly know what to do for their particular roles and can focus on being the best they can be in that role (which improves the play experience for all). As for the rules, as I think I said in this thread or the other very similar one, the rules are used at the discretion of the DM. By that I mean the DM only brings the rules into play when they need to come into play. But when they do come into play, I strive to follow them.
> 
> What players in my games would say (and have said, even recently) is that my games are very _consistent_. The play loop (DM describes, player describes, DM narrates) is always there. You're always making reasonably informed decisions. You can always count on consistent rulings and, when the rules are brought into play, pretty good accuracy on implementation (I'm not perfect and frequently drunk). I highly value consistency so this was good feedback to hear.





Ok, but does it take 3 hours to walk down one hallway into one room and have an encounter?


----------



## MNblockhead (Sep 20, 2018)

belphanor said:


> But those worst ones all happened in the span of about 5 years, and are more recent than the good ones.
> I have, however, decided that if anyone I've played RPGs with gets involved in a child related sex crime, I'm gonna find a new hobby and sell all my RPGs cheap, cos 3 times is too many.




Yeah...for THREE out of FIFTEEN DMs to have been involved with that, seems insane. The fact that they were in the same group together may make this more like one incident, rather than three separate, independent incidents but it would make me a bit paranoid and suspicious. I'd probably be looking for a completely different community to draw players from.


----------



## Rya.Reisender (Sep 20, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> You say you want your DM "whereas the DM is supposed to be a neutral element not siding with either" then state a DM "I do try to get them killed."  So you want it both ways depending on where you sit.  I bet your a great guy at the table also



Trying to get the players killed IS being a neutral element not siding with either. That's because the monsters do want the players to be killed. If I went easy on the players so they survive I'd side with them, I have to go all out, but without messing with what's given to me (no adding additional monsters that aren't there for example).

I dunno about great guy. So far I've only DMed myself (particularly because I have yet to find a DM I find acceptable) and usually get positive feedback. But of course when I recruit players I directly state that I'm a combat focused DM that does not go easy on the players, so obviously the people who join my games get what they want.


----------



## iserith (Sep 20, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> Ok, but does it take 3 hours to walk down one hallway into one room and have an encounter?




Haha, no. I've seen plenty of games like that though. Most people who play in my games, both regular and pickup players in one-shots marvel at how fast we go. We cover A LOT of content in one session.

When I was posting my transcripts of an entirely _text-based_ Roll20 game a couple years ago on WotC forums, people were reporting that we got through more content in a 2-hour session than they did in in-person sessions that were twice as long. Which was... shocking.


----------



## MNblockhead (Sep 20, 2018)

iserith said:


> Haha, no. I've seen plenty of games like that though. Most people who play in my games, both regular and pickup players in one-shots marvel at how fast we go. We cover A LOT of content in one session.
> 
> When I was posting my transcripts of an entirely _text-based_ Roll20 game a couple years ago on WotC forums, people were reporting that we got through more content in a 2-hour session than they did in in-person sessions that were twice as long. Which was... shocking.




Yeah, I believe it. I don't understand how folks are coming to the conclusion that a consistent play loop where the DM decides to describe the scene and decides when a roll is necessary means getting lost in the weeds of minutiae. 

In my experience, take the time to think a bit deeper about rules, especially the play loop, makes it easier to be consistent, which in turn help you move along quickly in the game. You can start to focus more on engaging descriptions and listing to the players and the players will fall into the flow of the game an more naturally be ready for their turns.


----------



## smbakeresq (Sep 20, 2018)

Rya.Reisender said:


> Trying to get the players killed IS being a neutral element not siding with either. That's because the monsters do want the players to be killed. If I went easy on the players so they survive I'd side with them, I have to go all out, but without messing with what's given to me (no adding additional monsters that aren't there for example).
> 
> I dunno about great guy. So far I've only DMed myself (particularly because I have yet to find a DM I find acceptable) and usually get positive feedback. But of course when I recruit players I directly state that I'm a combat focused DM that does not go easy on the players, so obviously the people who join my games get what they want.




If you TRY to get them killed then that's not a neutral statement, its a statement of intent.  That's why.  

The DM shouldn't be neutral, ever.  Saying that you are being neutral means you view it as a competition, it isn't.  

"Playing D&D is an exercise in collaborative creation."

" Together, the D M and the players create an exciting story of bold adventurers who confront deadly perils."


Its about what's good for the story and the collaborative creation, you as DM should be biased towards that, at all times.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 20, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> If you TRY to get them killed then that's not a neutral statement, its a statement of intent.  That's why.
> 
> The DM shouldn't be neutral, ever.  Saying that you are being neutral means you view it as a competition, it isn't.
> 
> ...




Not at my D&D table.  My D&D table is more like "Let's see what this group of plucky protagonists can force from the dangerous and uncaring world."  Other games with other precepts are adjudicated differently and often in more the style you advocate.  But when I use D&D, at the table I am a neutral arbiter.


----------



## Rya.Reisender (Sep 20, 2018)

Yep, what Nagol said.


----------



## iserith (Sep 20, 2018)

MNblockhead said:


> Yeah, I believe it. I don't understand how folks are coming to the conclusion that a consistent play loop where the DM decides to describe the scene and decides when a roll is necessary means getting lost in the weeds of minutiae.




I imagine it has something to do with shared assumptions at their given tables. "Can I make a Religion check?" means something to them. It's shorthand for "try to recall lore about X by drawing upon Y." I don't want the shorthand in general because (1) assuming character action is not the DM's role and can lead to conflict and (2) this is a game about storytelling and I want the players to do their part to tell that story. (I also don't think it's very smart play to ask to make ability checks, but that's a whole other issue.) To anyone used to the shorthand, even just a few extra words may seem like it adds an unreasonable amount of time to the game.



MNblockhead said:


> In my experience, take the time to think a bit deeper about rules, especially the play loop, makes it easier to be consistent, which in turn help you move along quickly in the game. You can start to focus more on engaging descriptions and listing to the players and the players will fall into the flow of the game an more naturally be ready for their turns.




Totally agree. Focusing on the fundamentals creates a solid foundation for your game. Everything else flows so much smoother once you have it down. Everyone knows what they need to do and the game runs so fast.


----------



## iserith (Sep 20, 2018)

Nagol said:


> Not at my D&D table.  My D&D table is more like "Let's see what this group of plucky protagonists can force from the dangerous and uncaring world."  Other games with other precepts are adjudicated differently and often in more the style you advocate.  But when I use D&D, at the table I am a neutral arbiter.




Unless I'm missing something about the context of the discussion, I don't think your approach is in conflict with the goals of play outlined in the D&D Basic Rules (page 2) part of which [MENTION=28301]smbakeresq[/MENTION] cited. The DMG goes on to add that the DM is "impartial yet involved" with regard to everyone playing by the rules, is in the "referee role," and as such "acts as a mediator between the rules and the players." In some cases, "mediating the rules means setting limits." 

If you are pursuing the goals of play as DM (which is how you aim at "winning" D&D), you're likely making choices that are fun for everyone at the table (which may include presenting challenges of significant difficulty) and creating an exciting, memorable story during play (which is emergent, based on the DM's and players' choices plus mechanical resolution). If you're making such choices, then arguably you're not "neutral" as smbakeresq suggests, but then I suppose that depends on how you define "neutral."


----------



## sleypy (Sep 20, 2018)

It's probably been said, but I think not showing up, cancelling at the last minute or showing up and cancelling are the worst things the GM can do. This is assuming the GM doesn't have a good reason. Even if it is a good reason, I would probably suggest putting the game on hold or switching DM to take some the stress off them.

Constant Perception check is slightly annoying, but not really on its own. When it becomes the Worst Thing a DM Can Do it's when the DM lets perception or arcane checks replace other checks that have fewer applications. If the DM won't let Sense Motive be used for Perception then the alternative needs to also be true. Same for history and arcana.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 20, 2018)

iserith said:


> Unless I'm missing something about the context of the discussion, I don't think your approach is in conflict with the goals of play outlined in the D&D Basic Rules (page 2) part of which [MENTION=28301]smbakeresq[/MENTION] cited. The DMG goes on to add that the DM is "impartial yet involved" with regard to everyone playing by the rules, is in the "referee role," and as such "acts as a mediator between the rules and the players." In some cases, "mediating the rules means setting limits."
> 
> If you are pursuing the goals of play as DM (which is how you aim at "winning" D&D), you're likely making choices that are fun for everyone at the table (which may include presenting challenges of significant difficulty) and creating an exciting, memorable story during play (which is emergent, based on the DM's and players' choices plus mechanical resolution). If you're making such choices, then arguably you're not "neutral" as smbakeresq suggests, but then I suppose that depends on how you define "neutral."




I take no care in "creating an exciting, memorable story during play" as a DM or, frankly, as a player.  

As a DM at the table, I present the situation fairly, adjudicate disinterestedly, and extrapolate plausibly.  As a scenario designer for D&D, I design naturalistically and without regard to the capacities of the PCs.  Sometimes the PCs steamroll the opposition; sometimes they get steamrolled by the opposition.  Most often, they find a threat and reward level that was telegraphed to and accepted by the players.  The roles I adopt when I GM and design for other games like CHAMPIONS, Conspiracy-X, Pendragon, or FATE vary considerably from the roles I adopt for D&D.

As a DM, I "win" at D&D when the players decide to return to my table.  As a player, I "win" at D&D when my character can be played the next session.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 20, 2018)

Rya.Reisender said:


> RAW, RAI and Sage Advice do not conflict with each other. RAI / Sage Advice are just an additional explanations for those who didn't understand what was meant by reading the rules. They all should take priority over what the DM says.



Hmmm...first we had the combat-as-war vs combat-as-sport debate.

Do I detect an oncoming rules-as-law vs rules-as-guidelines debate?


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 20, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> If you TRY to get them killed then that's not a neutral statement, its a statement of intent.  That's why.
> 
> The DM shouldn't be neutral, ever.  Saying that you are being neutral means you view it as a competition, it isn't.
> 
> ...



Yeah, I've gotta go with Rya on this one - the DM should ideally be neutral, in knowledge that ideals and practice don't always line up.

As soon as a DM starts paying attention to "what's good for the story" she's put herself on a slippery slope towards heavy railroading and-or plot-protecting the PCs, neither of which are all that desireable.

For my part, I say play the game, let the chips fall where they may, and the story will almost certainly end up taking care of itself.

Lanefan


----------



## Shasarak (Sep 20, 2018)

S'mon said:


> I hope you tell players they don't get to use PP without declaring an action, since there is nothing in the book telling them that.




Wouldnt using an action to use Passive Perception be an oxymoron?


----------



## eayres33 (Sep 21, 2018)

iserith said:


> I'd rather the characters die. We chose to fight and/or chose to continue fighting when things looked dire. That's how it goes sometimes.




But you are aware that this may not be the most popular option? I actually agree, I would rather have my character die, but the players I GM for would not.


----------



## eayres33 (Sep 21, 2018)

Rya.Reisender said:


> If you asked Jeremy Crawford he would reply what 99% of all board game creators would reply: They just state how the rules where intended to be, but you are free to change them if you think that's more fun for your group.
> 
> But that's not what I want. If I want to play chess I want to play by the chess rules. If I want to play Settlers of Catan, I want to play who play by the Settlers of Catan rules. If I want to play Magic: The Gathering, I want to play by Magic: The Gathering rules. And if I want to play D&D 5e, I want to play by the D&D 5e rules.
> 
> People who are like "hey, let's change this rule for fun" are disturbances for my enjoyment.




Then perhaps 5E of D&D isn't the game for you, since the overall saying is rulings not rules. Also, chess and all of the other games you mentioned are by no ways comparable.


----------



## eayres33 (Sep 21, 2018)

iserith said:


> That raises the question of why the player was searching for a trap when a discharged trap was already apparent when the DM described the environment. Unless the DM didn't describe it in the environment. Which raises the question of why he or she didn't. There's just a lot going on here that is not being presented or adjudicated well in my view
> 
> 
> It would just leave me annoyed, not guessing. I didn't say I was trying to recall lore about the discharged trap. I (if I'm playing the role of the player in your example) said I was searching for traps. Again, for some reason that is unclear given that you implied the discharged trap was found fairly easily.
> ...




HaHa?


----------



## eayres33 (Sep 21, 2018)

iserith said:


> I addressed determining surprise upthread. In D&D 5e, passive Perception applies only when the character is Keeping Watch, so this is necessarily something the player must declare _at some point_ prior to the passive check. It cannot be assumed since there are other activities the player could choose to do that does not allow for the character to Keep Watch. (Rangers in favored terrain have a nice benefit here in that they can Keep Watch and perform another task.) Now, not a lot of DMs do this, which I think is unfortunate, but that's the rules.
> 
> As for the your river example, yes, I have the right to describe what I want to do. That's also the rules. You don't get to tell me I'm swimming against the current or whatever by asking for an Athletics check. I may want to cast _water walk_ instead. So please just describe the environment, then ask me what I want to do. If I do something that draws upon Strength and/or Athletics that has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequences of failure, then by all means ask for the ability check and then narrate the results of the adventurer's action. Then the loop starts again by describing the environment.




PP also applies whenever the DM thinks it does because rulings not rules. So take your law book and your rule lawership and when you DM it all applies and when you do not DM STFU.


----------



## MNblockhead (Sep 21, 2018)

sleypy said:


> It's probably been said, but I think not showing up, cancelling at the last minute or showing up and cancelling are the worst things the GM can do. This is assuming the GM doesn't have a good reason. Even if it is a good reason, I would probably suggest putting the game on hold or switching DM to take some the stress off them.




Especially at a convention.


----------



## Rya.Reisender (Sep 21, 2018)

eayres33 said:


> Then perhaps 5E of D&D isn't the game for you, since the overall saying is rulings not rules. Also, chess and all of the other games you mentioned are by no ways comparable.



Of course they are comparable. Why would it be okay to change the rules in one game and not in another game?

The only reason D&D 5e isn't for me as a player is that there aren't any other DMs that want to play by the rules.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 21, 2018)

Rya.Reisender said:


> Of course they are comparable. Why would it be okay to change the rules in one game and not in another game?
> 
> The only reason D&D 5e isn't for me as a player is that there aren't any other DMs that want to play by the rules.



And could that be because there's one or two significant written rules in 5e that seem to have some issues, based on what I've read in here, to the point that any decent DM is going to at least look at if not fix before running her game? (the biggest of these, from what I can tell, being various aspects of resting)

Or could it be because 5e intentionally leaves some things a bit vague to allow DMs some space to make rulings to suit their own games?

Or could it be because 5e was written with the specific intent of being kitbashable - at least, that's what was said during the playtest - with DMs then encouraged to do so?

Here's another question for you: if a DM had made up her own entire rule-set from scratch and thus by default had to be playing by the rules as written seeing as she's the one as wrote 'em, would you play in that game?


----------



## pemerton (Sep 21, 2018)

I've found this discussion/debate about the role of Perception and similar checks quite interesting.

As I understand it, [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] treats it all as an issue of GM framing - it is the GM's job to establish the scene ("describe the environment" is the term used in the Basic Rules, but I think the GM can reasonably add in other stuff too, even in 5e, eg after a particular bit of action has been resolved the GM might narrate "You've outrun the imperial guards and are back at the castle, panting and sweaty. What's next?")

If the GM wants the scene to include the PC's noticing missing gauntlest, then s/he incorporates this in his/her framing. Otherwise s/he doesn't - but if the players want to mention that they look around the castle for strange stuff that might give clues to whatever-it-is-that-matters, then they're free to do so and the GM might tell them some stuff, or call for a check, as seems appropriate depending on the details:

[sblock]







iserith said:


> how you describe the environment is entirely up to you as DM.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Again, you describe the environment how you want - you're the DM! You don't need dice for permission on how much detail to give. You could just say that the armor is now missing some element. Or not. If you don't and if the player does not establish that the character is examining the armor, then you needn't provide any additional detail about that armor.





iserith said:


> As to the PCs never spotting it <snippage> If I need them to be aware of it for some reason, then I won't gate that information behind an ability check. To do so is to create a problem that one then has to solve by creating another problem - calling for an ability check for an action the player hasn't described. As I've said several times, the DM doesn't need the permission of the dice to describe the environment.



[/sblock]As I understand it, the contrary view is driven mostly by the idea that "in real life" people may or may not notice things, depending on how much sweat is dripping into their eyes after a hard run, and whether or not they're distracted by the chirping of the birds as they walk down the corridor, and the phases of the moon, and myriad other causal factors. And so the GM's narration of the scene should reflect that, which is achieved by the use of Perception checks:

[sblock]







Benji said:


> The problem with this Iserith, is that if you play it your way (do not assume players are examining until told), the players always fail to spot the gloves.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Unless of course, in the fiction ofthe world, they spot it by accident when moving past. What mechanic exists like that? A Perception check. Or at the very least, a dm examination of passive pereception, maybe giving a different description to a play with a passive score of over 15. Or at least, that's the way I'd do it.





Lanefan said:


> Some of the description is sometimes driven by random chance: that randomness being whether you by accident happen to notice something or not.





Lanefan said:


> if the history check fails the PCs just have to carry on without whatever clues might have been hidden in the Dwarven runes - if any.  This is why pre-emptive checks can be useful - sometimes things just get found (or missed) by random chance en route to doing something else unrelated.



[/sblock]There is another reason being suggested for GM-called for/deterined Perception-type checks, by [MENTION=6873517]Jay Verkuilen[/MENTION], which is that they serve a metagame purpose of mixing things up and putting the players on edge:

[sblock]







Jay Verkuilen said:


> that's exactly what I use an informational check for, as well as tension building. A failed check often does move the tension up. The players know there were failed checks with potential information missed, which makes them start to wonder what's going on. (Well at least I would hope so, but clearly that would depend on the player.)
> 
> I've definitely curbed my own propensity for calling for rolls where there isn't any consequence but in this case or when the player's description is just fluff, but something like the check I outlined has consequences.





Jay Verkuilen said:


> I think this often depends on the table. Folks I've played with for many years will often call for checks where there's something that the player seems to be missing and it is possible the character might know something. I'll also call for checks from out of seeming left field to stimulate the player or push them in a different direction than they're looking. For example:
> 
> Nattick Nimblefingers' player: "Search for traps."
> DM: "Make a History check."



[/sblock]I think iserith's reply to Jay Verkuilen on this particular point perhaps misfires a bit:

[sblock]







iserith said:


> there is no need for the History check here. It is superfluous, and arguably any purpose it may serve relies on the kind of "metagaming" you're rolling all those extra dice trying to avoid. Not only did the player not describe an action that would call for such a check, the information can be imparted as I described: There is a discharged trap. It has dwarvish runes on it. What do you do?



[/sblock]Unlike [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] and others, Jay Verkuilen seems to _want_ the metagame effect of the players knowing that something is afoot. But that said, I tend to sympathise more with [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] in respect of this particular GMing technique: if I want to put the players on edge I'd normally try and do this via narration than by calling for checks (or rolling dice secretly "behind the screen", which was a popular technique at least back in the late 70s and early 80s).

But on the main issue, about the GM choosing the narration vs "letting the dice decide" so as to simulate the vagaries of "real life": the "let the dice decide" approach makes some sense, I think, in the context of (mega)dungeoneering play. If there is an expectation that the players will play through some bit of dungeon multiple times, gradually trying to map it fully and loot it dry, then having some stuff gated behind random chances to notice it can make sense and be part of the GM's approach to "content revelation". And in a system that measures PCs' perceptive skills, connecting that random chance to those perceptive skills also makes sense.

But as soon as we move even a little bit in the direction of "story driven" play, where the GM has some sort of affirmative responsibility to present the players with situations that are engaging in ways that go beyond simply "there's the dungeon, have at it!", then [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]'s approach seems more rational to me. And Gygax noticed this back in 1979, in his DMG (the passage is from p 110):

_t is your right to control the dice at any time and to roll dice for the players. You might wish . . . to give them an edge in finding a particular clue, eg a secret door that leads to a complex of monsters and treasures that will be especially entertaining._​_

Consistently with how I understand iserith's posts above, I want to say: if the complex of monsters and treasures will be especially entertaining, then why gate it behind a random chance of having fun? Just tell the players that their PCs notice the secret door! (If the GM wants to achieve this by providing the information to the player whose PC has the best Perception score, as a tip-of-the-hat to that PC's build, then that seems harmless enough, but very much a secondary consideration.)

I should add that this idea of the GM wishing that the players have some information, and so giving it to them, is different from the idea of the players needing the clue so the game can progress. The latter idea is what motivates the GUMSHOE approach of the GM narrating the (basic) clues without calling for checks; but the idea that the GM willl just provide, via narration, information  that s/he thinks is interesting for the players to know needn't be connected to the idea that there is something the players must do with it, or that the information is a clue of some sort.



Lanefan said:



			As soon as a DM starts paying attention to "what's good for the story" she's put herself on a slippery slope towards heavy railroading and-or plot-protecting the PCs, neither of which are all that desireable.
		
Click to expand...


And apropos of the immediately above, this is just nonsense. Gygax deciding that the it would be fun for the players to know how to get to the "especially entertaining" bit of the dungeon isn't railroading anyone into anything. Me starting my last Prince Valiant session by establishing a scene that was salient for both knight PCs, the squire PC and the travelling entertainer PC wasn't railroading anyone into anything.

Nor does framing scenes with an eye to them being exciting and engaging rather than not have anything to do with "plot protection". (Which may or may not be a bad thing, although it's weird for someone who plays only D&D, which has at the heart of its resolution system the most famous plot-protection mechanic of all time - hit points - to say that it's undesirable.)_


----------



## pemerton (Sep 21, 2018)

Mercule said:


> I once had a player ask me to leave the table so the group could plan how to sneak into a castle (or some such) without tipping their hand to me. My response was something along the lines of "Can you use this mini to show me where your last GM touched you?" I was totally floored by the request and found it highly inappropriate.



This wouldn't both me except from the practical point of view that if it goes on for very long then I might get bored.

But I certainly think nothing of a situation in which two players discuss ideas among themselves while I'm dealing with another player. And I know that sometimes my players come up with plans over email between sessions that I'm not privy to. This isn't a big thing in games without wargaming elements (eg Prince Valiant) but I know they do it for 4e, which does have a significant wargaming element in the context of combat resolution. Just as I don't tell them in advance everything that I'm planning to do with my NPCs and monsters, so I've got no objection to them wanting to keep their tactical ideas secret until they come out in play.

Burning Wheel - another system that we play - uses various resolution systems that depend on blind scripting. If it's PC vs NPC, then I script for the NPC while the player scripts for his/her PC. It's absolutely the players' prerogative to keep the script secret from me until the rules call for revelation; and I take it for granted that players might discuss their scripting among themselves, just as I might call on an uninvolved player to help me with my NPC's script.

(Because I'm a bad wargamer with a poor poker face, while some of my players are pretty good at this stuff, that means my BW NPCs often find themselves a bit hosed. C'est la vie!)



MNblockhead said:


> In my games, I am not only fine with players arguing rules, I expect them to. I will often lean on them when I come across an uncommon situation. Many of my players play much more than I do and have a firmer grasp of some of the rules, especially how spells work. If the RAW is unclear, I'll ask, how do you want to do this?



The last example I can remember like this - that is, where it wasn't just about working out how a rule works, but making a _choice_ about how to handle an unclear case - was the 4e dazed rules. If a character starts the turn dazed (ie limited to one action), and then has the condition lifted during his/her turn, does s/he get to take additional actions before his/her turn ends?

The first time this came up we talked about it and decided yes. (I think to the benefit of the PCs.) Then some time quite a bit later it came up again, involving a NPC, but there was some reason why our original ruling really didn't seem to make sense in the context. (I can't remember now what that reason was.) So we discussed again and decided that your suite of available actions is settled in the start-of-turn phase, and having daze be lifted after that made no differenced - and I also told them that I wasn't going to have any flip-flopping on this new ruling when it came back to bite their PCs!


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 21, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I've found this discussion/debate about the role of Perception and similar checks quite interesting.



I kinda thought you might... 




> And apropos of the immediately above, this is just nonsense. Gygax deciding that the it would be fun for the players to know how to get to the "especially entertaining" bit of the dungeon isn't railroading anyone into anything. Me starting my last Prince Valiant session by establishing a scene that was salient for both knight PCs, the squire PC and the travelling entertainer PC wasn't railroading anyone into anything.



In and of itself, I'm sure it wasn't.

My point was more that once a DM starts concerning herself with what's good for the story ahead of concerning herself with just running the game, it's not a big leap from there for a DM to start deciding on her own what's good for the story and then forcing the story to go there; with player choice largely going out the window.  Railroading.  Usually considered as not desireable.



> Nor does framing scenes with an eye to them being exciting and engaging rather than not have anything to do with "plot protection". (Which may or may not be a bad thing, although it's weird for someone who plays only D&D, which has at the heart of its resolution system the most famous plot-protection mechanic of all time - hit points - to say that it's undesirable.)



I was talking about the kind of plot protection that comes once those hit points run out.  Once a DM starts concerning herself with what's good for the story ahead of concerning herself with just running the game, it's not a big leap from there for a DM to want to make sure the protagonists - the PCs - stick around for the sake of continuity, and not get killed; and then to act on this desire by in effect not allowing PCs to die or otherwise get taken out of action even when they otherwise would.  Plot protection.  Often seen as not desireable.

It's a long slippery slope, and not all DMs end up sliding all the way down it.  But to know it exists is useful in itself.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 21, 2018)

Rya.Reisender said:


> Of course they are comparable. Why would it be okay to change the rules in one game and not in another game?
> 
> The only reason D&D 5e isn't for me as a player is that there aren't any other DMs that want to play by the rules.




Fundamentally, because unlike chess, the rules for D&D are incomplete.  Every legal move in chess is described.  Anything that is not a described move is illegal.  This is obviously untrue in D&D.

Even worse,  unlike some RPG systems, D&D uses unique subsystems rather than a universal system which means that how you extend the rules to cover a legal but undescribed move is non-obvious.  So extending the game to cover an undescribed move requires a _ruling_.  If that ruling becomes a consistent response to the move, it becomes a _house rule_ and you've just changed the game.  

The secondary reason to change the rules of D&D, much like chess, is you want to change the strategy/flavour of the game.  Since D&D is a much more expansive game, to shift genres and/or conceits and tropes is relatively straightforward alterations to the ruleset.


----------



## Rya.Reisender (Sep 21, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> And could that be because there's one or two significant written rules in 5e that seem to have some issues, based on what I've read in here, to the point that any decent DM is going to at least look at if not fix before running her game? (the biggest of these, from what I can tell, being various aspects of resting)



I've yet to see an issue that cannot be resolved without breaking the rules. I mean I run into these problem as DM myself and resolved them all so far.



> Or could it be because 5e intentionally leaves some things a bit vague to allow DMs some space to make rulings to suit their own games?



It intentionally leaves things a bit vague and leaves various decision to the DM because playing is faster and consequently more fun if you don't have to look up rules all the time to determine what modifiers to apply. If anything it makes it easier for the DM to abide by the rules, since he has already enough flexbility even without breaking any. In no way it's an indication that they were written to be broken. The opposite is the case.



> Or could it be because 5e was written with the specific intent of being kitbashable - at least, that's what was said during the playtest - with DMs then encouraged to do so?



Those are for the cases were DMs make their own campaign (which I'm not interested in at all).



> Here's another question for you: if a DM had made up her own entire rule-set from scratch and thus by default had to be playing by the rules as written seeing as she's the one as wrote 'em, would you play in that game?



If I selected the ruleset as the ruleset I want to play with, then yes.
Or in other words, if Jeremy Crawford offered to DM me, I'd love to be a player!


----------



## Nagol (Sep 21, 2018)

Rya.Reisender said:


> I've yet to see an issue that cannot be resolved without breaking the rules. I mean I run into these problem as DM myself and resolved them all so far.
> 
> 
> It intentionally leaves things a bit vague and leaves various decision to the DM because playing is faster and consequently more fun if you don't have to look up rules all the time to determine what modifiers to apply. If anything it makes it easier for the DM to abide by the rules, since he has already enough flexbility even without breaking any. In no way it's an indication that they were written to be broken. The opposite is the case.
> ...




Except he uses house rules.  They all do.


----------



## Rya.Reisender (Sep 21, 2018)

Nagol said:


> Fundamentally, because unlike chess, the rules for D&D are incomplete.  Every legal move in chess is described.  Anything that is not a described move is illegal.  This is obviously untrue in D&D.
> 
> Even worse,  unlike some RPG systems, D&D uses unique subsystems rather than a universal system which means that how you extend the rules to cover a legal but undescribed move is non-obvious.  So extending the game to cover an undescribed move requires a _ruling_.  If that ruling becomes a consistent response to the move, it becomes a _house rule_ and you've just changed the game.



Maybe it's a semantics issue - for me a house rule is a rule that is in conflict with an existing rule. A ruling is just deciding how to handle something that's not in any rule. I don't mind the latter.

And yes, in D&D it's harder to figure out how something works compared to an easier ruleset - but that doesn't really mean you shouldn't try to figure it out first.

You can also declare before the game which rule expansions apply for your game. Someone saying he only uses the PHB rules is just as good to me as someone who says the rules in Xanathar's Guide on what can be done with tools apply, as long as you know what kind of ruleset you are playing when you start to play.

That still works similar in board games. Maybe not chess because it's so popular every corner case is already covered, but occassionally you will also run into corner cases in board games that aren't handled by the rules or unclear. Then you'll have to make a decision on the fly. Also, the board game creator might later update the rules and resolve that issue. For me that doesn't justify changing any of the clear rules, though. And also after the rules update is published I'd expect everyone to use that.


----------



## Rya.Reisender (Sep 21, 2018)

Nagol said:


> Except he uses house rules.  They all do.



You think he'd go against what he posted on Sage Advice?


----------



## Benji (Sep 21, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Consistently with how I understand iserith's posts above, I want to say: if the complex of monsters and treasures will be especially entertaining, then why gate it behind a random chance of having fun? Just tell the players that their PCs notice the secret door! (If the GM wants to achieve this by providing the information to the player whose PC has the best Perception score, as a tip-of-the-hat to that PC's build, then that seems harmless enough, but very much a secondary consideration.)




Right, I have an example. It has numbers and it's quite long but it serves to demonstrate my concerns with this. I'd like to say I think you're right some of this is just taste and framing but here's where I think it can become problematic. SO hang on with me and I think you'll see where I am coming from:

A group of five 5th level heroes are sneaking through a dungeon. They have a party member who is maxed out: has a wisdom of 20 and is proficent in perception. They have announced the are keeping watch. They enter a room with several column in it and behind one is an drow assassin - using the assassin statblock, which xanathar's says is 'balanced'. The group announce they are still keeping watch and moving through the room. there are a few ways to handle this -

a) The DM is a bit railroady and decides to frame the attack as a surprise without actually using any rules.
b) We do things the way I undrrstand iserith's stance - the players use their passive perception when the attack happens. The are keeping watch and being alert but the dm isn't going to ask for a perception check
c) We do it the way I'd do it - The  skill example for perception on PG178 of the players handbooks suggests that you can make a perception roll to detect hidden creatures - we allow a roll
d) You want to frame this encounter but are a 'narrative' dm and want to avoid being the person from example a)

So let's run through this - 

a) the assassin attacks and becuase no dice are rolled, it has surprise, uses it's abilities and sneak attacks/posions someone and kills them without the players having any agency. The feel railroaded.

In b) the dm allows passive perception. Given the assassin has a +11 in stealth, the DM will beat the highest perception on a roll of 7. or if the dm just wants to frame it as an 'Average challenge' There's a high chance the assassin does the same functional thing as example a) except the player this time said they were keeping watch but they functionally had no input in the ambush. the dm either rolled a dice or as I understand the way some people play it, eyeballed and average score for the assassin (21) and ruled a successful ambush. Players feel they had no agency.

c) players roll perception checks at DM's behest to spot the assassin in hiding. Their range of failure success on the highest party member is now between 9 and 28. they might succeed or fail but they felt like the fact they were keeping check had an in world effect. If they succeed, it's because they were allowed to roll against a 'gate'. if they failed they still feel like they had a chance to effect the outcome but understand they at least had a run at the gate.

d) the dm doesn't want the assassin to kill anyone and decides to frame it as no surprise or only a few people surprised. In this case, why both with stealth as a score? Why bother with these rules at all?

I think some of my problem comes with 'we have to stick to the rules. but if I feel like not using the rules and framing something pre-combat or socially instead, that's fine'. it's a double standard in my mind.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 21, 2018)

Rya.Reisender said:


> You think he'd go against what he posted on Sage Advice?




In his home game?  Probably.  Sage Advice is for those who would like a slightly clearer understanding of RAW for the rules presented.  

The developers fiddle because that's what they like to do.  They know the RAW, they know the RAI, and they also know what they would like to do differently.  So they change the rules to better reflect RAI (which Sage Advice explicitly said it wouldn't do) and where they have different intentions from the common published rules they build house rules to fit their intention.    So they adopt a different initiative system or redesign a class, or alter how particular feats work, or whatever the particular proud nail might be that they want to pound flat.


----------



## Benji (Sep 21, 2018)

Rya.Reisender said:


> Back then it was simply harder to figure out how RAI is. That doesn't change much about the situation, though. You should always try to abide by the rules. Plus it's a combined effort of players AND the DM to interpret the rules. The problem for me is only if the DM feels entitled to intentionally change them. Or if he doesn't listen to his players when they try to explain how the rule works.




Wait, earlier you were saying it's sage advices way or no way. This is ashifting of that position. You used ot be able to ring up Gary Gygax. His advice seemed to be universally always 'What did/would you do? That seems fine.'


----------



## Mercule (Sep 21, 2018)

pemerton said:


> But I certainly think nothing of a situation in which two players discuss ideas among themselves while I'm dealing with another player.



Eh, it wasn't the side conversation aspect that bothered me. It was the "you aren't permitted to hear" implication.


----------



## Rya.Reisender (Sep 21, 2018)

Benji said:


> Wait, earlier you were saying it's sage advices way or no way. This is ashifting of that position.



No, my position is still the same.

The order of priorities is:
1. Rule is clear? Yes -> Use the rule
2. Sage Advice exists? Yes -> Use sage advice
3. Rule not clear and no sage advice? Discuss with your players.
4. Agreement -> Use agreement
5. No agreement -> DM decides


----------



## iserith (Sep 21, 2018)

eayres33 said:


> But you are aware that this may not be the most popular option? I actually agree, I would rather have my character die, but the players I GM for would not.




Sure, but I can only speak for myself. And I would add that this isn't even necessarily an issue that I want character death in the game. I'm quite fine with taking it off the table completely in favor of some other form of stakes for winning or losing. But when the dice are employed to determine the win or loss condition, I would rather they fall where they may.


----------



## Benji (Sep 21, 2018)

Rya.Reisender said:


> No, my position is still the same.
> 
> The order of priorities is:
> 1. Rule is clear? Yes -> Use the rule
> ...




Ok, thanks for clarifying, the mistake in interpretation is likely mine. In that case, I'd disagree because I'd hate to be dm'ed by someone who stopped the action/play regularly to consult sage advice rather than just making a decision on the fly. But I'm aware that's a taste thing.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 21, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> once a DM starts concerning herself with what's good for the story ahead of concerning herself with just running the game, it's not a big leap from there for a DM to start deciding on her own what's good for the story and then forcing the story to go there; with player choice largely going out the window.



This is like saying that once you start doing pastel sketches in your spare time, it's not a big leap for you to start painting all over your living room walls and curtains - so beware the slippery slope!

As far as I'm concerned _concerning myself with what is "good for the story_ (ie what might be engaging, or exciting, or create thematic or narrative pressure given what's come before) is part and parcel of "running the game". This is spelled out as part of the GM's job in every system I'm GMing at the moment (4e, Burning Wheel, Classic Traveller, Prince Valiant, Marvel Heroic RP/Cortex+ Heroic).

For as long as the game has been played GMs have placed creatures in dungeon based on aesthetic judgement as well as random rolls. The basic principle is no different.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Sep 21, 2018)

pemerton said:


> There is another reason being suggested for GM-called for/deterined Perception-type checks, by @_*Jay Verkuilen*_, which is that they serve a metagame purpose of mixing things up and putting the players on edge. <snip> Unlike @_*Lanefan*_ and others, Jay Verkuilen seems to _want_ the metagame effect of the players knowing that something is afoot. But that said, I tend to sympathise more with @_*iserith*_ in respect of this particular GMing technique: if I want to put the players on edge I'd normally try and do this via narration than by calling for checks (or rolling dice secretly "behind the screen", which was a popular technique at least back in the late 70s and early 80s).




I don't use this kind of thing all the time. Like any tool it can be overused but a little bit here and there does put the players on edge or push them in a direction that I'm fairly certain they wouldn't go. The vast majority of the time I'm pretty sure I just run things more or less from the "what do you do?" frame. I am, however, willing to depart from it. 




> But on the main issue, about the GM choosing the narration vs "letting the dice decide" so as to simulate the vagaries of "real life": the "let the dice decide" approach makes some sense, <snip> And in a system that measures PCs' perceptive skills, connecting that random chance to those perceptive skills also makes sense.
> 
> But as soon as we move even a little bit in the direction of "story driven" play, where the GM has some sort of affirmative responsibility to present the players with situations that are engaging in ways that go beyond simply "there's the dungeon, have at it!", then @_*iserith*_'s approach seems more rational to me. And Gygax noticed this back in 1979




I feel I'm pretty intermediate, actually. There's a slippery slope, sure, but appeals to slippery slopes are generally fallacious for reasons that go beyond the thread, but of course one can read about it here. 

What I'm doing is letting the dice help fill in intermediate details and suggest directions. The dice help keep me on my toes and also help me break loops of indecision or patterns. As I said elsewhere in this massive thread, I see them as being ways to encourage lateral thinking, both in myself and in my players, as well as putting more tension on in some circumstances. 

Calling for the occasional roll that's not quite what the player expected is one tool, but like anything else it can be overused. A red herring is a good example. A few here and there might be OK. If you have many of them, though, it gets really old. 

Someone who wanted it totally straight "what do you do?" with no deviations would, I fear, not like my game much. 




> Me starting my last Prince Valiant session by establishing a scene that was salient for both knight PCs, the squire PC and the travelling entertainer PC wasn't railroading anyone into anything.




Man, I hope you make your players get a bowl haircut or at least a wig....


----------



## pemerton (Sep 21, 2018)

Benji said:


> b) We do things the way I undrrstand iserith's stance - the players use their passive perception when the attack happens. The are keeping watch and being alert but the dm isn't going to ask for a perception check
> c) We do it the way I'd do it - The  skill example for perception on PG178 of the players handbooks suggests that you can make a perception roll to detect hidden creatures - we allow a roll
> 
> <snip>
> ...



As best I can tell, the difference between (b) and (c) is who rolls the dice. So you could easily enough preserve the probabilities while letting the players roll the dice ("Roll to see if my assassin's stealth sucks - on a 15+ it does!").

And of course when the GM told the players "You come to a room with columns" the player of the perceptive PC could have said "I look around because I'm a bit worried about lurkers behind those columns" - which would then allow an active check.

Stepping back a bit from 5e rules minutiae, the bigger issue for me in this scenario is the larger context of framing. Thinking of the situation you describe from my perspective as a GM, I can't tell what's "fair" or not until I know how it comes to be that the PCs find themselves in a columned room threatened by a sneaky drow assassin.


----------



## Benji (Sep 21, 2018)

pemerton said:


> As best I can tell, the difference between (b) and (c) is who rolls the dice.




I guess so, but I'm trying to think about how 'who gets to roll dice' translates to a feeling of agency. Also, the probability of the group spotting in the second example is not only reliant on the GM rolling well, but the players in opposition to that roll. So if the  GM rolls badl but the highest player also rolls bdly, maybe it's the poor guy with the low perception that flukely saves the group - that's a cool story dictated by the dice. 

QUOTE=pemerton;7497675] - which would then allow an active check.[/QUOTE]

You see, I'm still not sure that in Iserith's example that this would grant an active check. Or weather this counts as 'Keeping Watch' and therefore, in Iserith's mind, is still passive.

As for the example 'with context', take the example in isolation for a moment. There's a few contextual factors that might change the needle here but I they also change the purity of the example, I guess. Whatframing do you think underides the mechanics as set out?


----------



## iserith (Sep 21, 2018)

pemerton said:


> This is like saying that once you start doing pastel sketches in your spare time, it's not a big leap for you to start painting all over your living room walls and curtains - so beware the slippery slope!
> 
> As far as I'm concerned _concerning myself with what is "good for the story_ (ie what might be engaging, or exciting, or create thematic or narrative pressure given what's come before) is part and parcel of "running the game". This is spelled out as part of the GM's job in every system I'm GMing at the moment (4e, Burning Wheel, Classic Traveller, Prince Valiant, Marvel Heroic RP/Cortex+ Heroic).
> 
> For as long as the game has been played GMs have placed creatures in dungeon based on aesthetic judgement as well as random rolls. The basic principle is no different.




Yes, very true. Even if you call yourself a "neutral DM" you're obviously making choices in terms of content that other people will find fun and that will generally lend itself to creating emergent stories that people will like. If you don't, people will tend not to play in your games.

I will add that D&D 5e spells this out specifically in its "win" conditions: Everyone wins if everyone had a good time and created a memorable story.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 21, 2018)

pemerton said:


> This is like saying that once you start doing pastel sketches in your spare time, it's not a big leap for you to start painting all over your living room walls and curtains - so beware the slippery slope!
> 
> As far as I'm concerned _concerning myself with what is "good for the story_ (ie what might be engaging, or exciting, or create thematic or narrative pressure given what's come before) is part and parcel of "running the game". This is spelled out as part of the GM's job in every system I'm GMing at the moment (4e, Burning Wheel, Classic Traveller, Prince Valiant, Marvel Heroic RP/Cortex+ Heroic).
> 
> For as long as the game has been played GMs have placed creatures in dungeon based on aesthetic judgement as well as random rolls. The basic principle is no different.




I don't recall much GM advice wrt classic Traveller let alone advice to maintain narrative pressure.  Where did you find it?

The problems I have with concerning myself with the "good of the story" is twofold.  

First, it's not my story; I have input, each player has input, and we allow random input.  Ultimately, though, it is the players' story; they pick the challenges, they devise the stratagems, and act on them for good or ill.

Second, what I think makes a good engaging story is almost certainly at odds with the story each player wants and in all likelihood, they will have a hard time agreeing between themselves.  I was originally drawn to RPGs because of the "But I would've done it differently!" cry I made when the protagonists did something I thought obviously foolish or did not do something I thought obviously sensible.  It's sort of like pizza toppings.  Everyone has their own favourites.  D&D doesn't offer a lot of signs for players to signal what they want included in their story unlike so many other systems. -- including most of the ones you reference.  The best signal a player can make as to what story they'd like to see is their action declarations.  My best option is to react to those signals as plausibly as I can.


----------



## iserith (Sep 21, 2018)

Benji said:


> Right, I have an example. It has numbers and it's quite long but it serves to demonstrate my concerns with this. I'd like to say I think you're right some of this is just taste and framing but here's where I think it can become problematic. SO hang on with me and I think you'll see where I am coming from:
> 
> A group of five 5th level heroes are sneaking through a dungeon. They have a party member who is maxed out: has a wisdom of 20 and is proficent in perception. They have announced the are keeping watch. They enter a room with several column in it and behind one is an drow assassin - using the assassin statblock, which xanathar's says is 'balanced'. The group announce they are still keeping watch and moving through the room. there are a few ways to handle this -
> 
> ...




I would indeed run it as (b). It's no concern of mine per se that the drow assassin has a pretty good chance of surprising the PCs; however, I will have telegraphed this possibility at some point prior to this scene. (I'm pretty diligent about this.) The choice the players made to Keep Watch instead of, say, Draw a Map (which is worth gold in my games) or Track (which allows them to increase or decrease their chances of a wandering monster encounter), may be indicative of why the PCs are all Keeping Watch in this example. So, they made their informed choice and now we get to see the consequences of that choice play out. Their agency was in making the choice to Keep Watch based on the information they had when they made the decision. In my games, you'll quite frequently see the PCs change up their general tasks while exploring and traveling based on what information they've picked up. In some cases, you'll see some players are willing to Work Together with another PC to increase that PC's passive Perception (+5 due to advantage) rather than have a chance at avoiding surprise himself or herself. This is especially true if the PC who is Working Together has a poor passive Perception to begin with. He or she would rather someone in the party, typically a heavy hitter, not be surprised.

Here, the rules for Combat Step by Step apply to resolve this situation. The DM describes the environment, determines surprise, calls for initiative, and so on. I see no meaningful impact to agency here.


----------



## iserith (Sep 21, 2018)

pemerton said:


> As best I can tell, the difference between (b) and (c) is who rolls the dice. So you could easily enough preserve the probabilities while letting the players roll the dice ("Roll to see if my assassin's stealth sucks - on a 15+ it does!").
> 
> And of course when the GM told the players "You come to a room with columns" the player of the perceptive PC could have said "I look around because I'm a bit worried about lurkers behind those columns" - which would then allow an active check.
> 
> Stepping back a bit from 5e rules minutiae, the bigger issue for me in this scenario is the larger context of framing. Thinking of the situation you describe from my perspective as a GM, I can't tell what's "fair" or not until I know how it comes to be that the PCs find themselves in a columned room threatened by a sneaky drow assassin.




Right, which is why I engage in liberal amounts of telegraphing so the players can make informed decisions that have some impact on their fate.



Benji said:


> I guess so, but I'm trying to think about how 'who gets to roll dice' translates to a feeling of agency. Also, the probability of the group spotting in the second example is not only reliant on the GM rolling well, but the players in opposition to that roll. So if the  GM rolls badl but the highest player also rolls bdly, maybe it's the poor guy with the low perception that flukely saves the group - that's a cool story dictated by the dice.




I'm not sure dice actually grant agency at least in this context. I would say reasonably informed choices that are fairly and consistently adjudicated and have an actual impact do. If a player has been told, in so many words, that monsters lurking in the shadows are known to kill adventurers in this part of the dungeon, they can make an informed choice to mitigate or eliminate their risk. Keep Watch, for example, or Don't Go There. Or perhaps send in the familiar with darkvision or tremorsense first or lob fireballs in all dark places before entering. Or whatever.



Benji said:


> You see, I'm still not sure that in Iserith's example that this would grant an active check. Or weather this counts as 'Keeping Watch' and therefore, in Iserith's mind, is still passive.




Yes, it's a passive check which is used to determine surprise per the rules. I'll add as a point on terminology that there are no "active checks" in D&D 5e. I get what you mean by that but I think that muddles what these mechanics are meant to resolve. The characters in this example who are Keeping Watch are not being passive in the sense they aren't actively doing something - they are. Specifically, they are staying alert for hidden dangers instead of doing anything else of note. A passive check is just a special kind of ability check that resolves uncertainty as to the outcome of activities being repeated over time when those activities have a meaningful consequence of failure. When traveling the dungeon as in this example, it resolves whether they can spot traps (given the appropriate rank in the marching order) or avoid surprise. 

Now, after combat breaks out, let's say the drow has some kind of ability to hide as a bonus action. He or she attacks the surprised PCs, then darts behind another pillar and hides. The DM rolls quite well on the Dexterity (Stealth) check. The initiative order indicates at least one PC goes in the second round before the drow does. The player may now decide to have the character perform the Search action to pinpoint the drow if he or she wants to. In this case, it would call for a Wisdom (Perception) check as an action with the DC being the drow's Dexterity (Stealth) check +1. Or, of course, the player may opt instead to just move to where he or she last saw the drow and, if that position allows for the PC to clearly see the drow, the drow is no longer hidden. This could be risky though because who knows if there are traps in between the drow and the PC? The good news is that, in combat, creatures are assumed to be alert to danger, and so the character at least has a chance to notice them (the trap's detection DC versus the PC's passive Perception score) as he or she moves toward the drow. And, if the DM is anything like me, the traps will have been telegraphed in some way when describing the environment.

To be clear, I'm sure you know all this. I'm just putting it out there to clarify my position and to offer up what the rules say to those who aren't familiar with this game.


----------



## Butch R (Sep 21, 2018)

All good points.  I've had to deal with "special players" who got magic weapons at first level or over powered animal companions.  I would add my person "least favorite".  Vengeful God Syndrome.  DMs who let real world dislikes or hurt feelings decide how things go in their world.  You said something the DM didn't like?  Oh look, three crits in a row against you.  You point out , after the game, that the DM was wrong?  Guess who will be rolling up a new character next session?  I get that sometimes it's hard to just let some things go but that's always just seemed petty and childish to me.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 21, 2018)

Worse is a useless categorization.  For any given n, I can always give you a hypothetical n+1 that is worse.

Nor is there I think a single answer.  The GM wears many hats, none of which are less important than his other hats.  How he can violate the trust and responsibility of a given hat differs from hat to hat.  The worst thing you can do as a judge is different than the worst thing you can do as an arbiter which is different than the worst thing you can do as a secret keeper which is different than the worst thing you can do as antagonist which is different than the worst thing you can do as setting designer, rulesmith, storyteller, friend or person.

We could probably imagine a hypothetical worst GM ever that was a terrible person, friend, storyteller, rulesmith, designer, judge, arbiter, secret keeper, and on and on, but I don't know that this exercise in hyperbole would tell us much of anything.

It's the common and not extraordinary faults we have as GMs that are more useful to talk about.


----------



## MNblockhead (Sep 21, 2018)

Rya.Reisender said:


> You think he'd go against what he posted on Sage Advice?




Yes, we know they do. They are designers. They fiddle. They demo. Look at some of the alternative initiative rules that have been proposed. They have YouTube videos of them creating custom sub-classes. 

Maybe at a public game they would still to the RAW, but we know they use homebrew rules in their home games. 

I think a game designer is the last person you want to game with. Just like an engineer can annoy their loved ones because they keep tinkering with things that were working just fine.  I like testing new software and customizing my computers. I'm always breaking things and people have trouble even using any of my computers with their remapped keys, text-macro, funky Kinesis keyboards, uncommon operating systems, etc.

This said, there is nothing wrong with your preference. Actually, I think you would like my DM style as I strive to keep to RAW, at least when I'm running APs.


----------



## Mechani-Kong (Sep 21, 2018)

Running a game that ignores a character's strengths and goals. 

I played once in a game where the PCs spent a large amount of time crafting unique characters with interesting backgrounds, motivations and specialties, only to be placed into a campaign where no one was given the opportunity to use any of it. If that's the plan, just give us pre-gens and save us the time and effort.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 21, 2018)

Mechani-Kong said:


> Running a game that ignores a character's strengths and goals.
> 
> I played once in a game where the PCs spent a large amount of time crafting unique characters with interesting backgrounds, motivations and specialties, only to be placed into a campaign where no one was given the opportunity to use any of it. If that's the plan, just give us pre-gens and save us the time and effort.




I admit to the flaw with respect to backgrounds.  When I think about D&D, I think the character background is what's happened since play began (assuming a level 1 start).  As a player I will provide a minimal background if I'm prodded, but I don't really want to see it in play (typically a black sheep only child of impoverished farmers killed by ankhegs s or some such).  Other games, are far more character-focused and backgrounds mean much more.

Motivations and specialties though, those are gold in a PC are should be exploited and encouraged.


----------



## Benji (Sep 21, 2018)

iserith said:


> I would indeed run it as (b). It's no concern of mine per se that the drow assassin has a pretty good chance of surprising the PCs; however, I will have telegraphed this possibility at some point prior to this scene. (I'm pretty diligent about this.) The choice the players made to Keep Watch instead of, say, Draw a Map (which is worth gold in my games) or Track (which allows them to increase or decrease their chances of a wandering monster encounter), may be indicative of why the PCs are all Keeping Watch in this example.




In this, you've cleared up the last bit of my understanding on your viewpoint. I can now see not only see how you run a game but also why you do it that way. It's been a really interesting discussion and while it might not change the way I choose to DM, it has totally justified your standpoint and meant my opinion of your opinions will be regarded more highly in the future so thank you for taking the time to clarify. 



iserith said:


> Yes, it's a passive check which is used to determine surprise per the rules. I'll add as a point on terminology that there are no "active checks" in D&D 5e. I get what you mean by that but I think that muddles what these mechanics are meant to resolve.




By active check I just meant really 'actually rolling a dice and therefore yielding one of twenty results that lead to a rules as written success/fail binary' rather than passives  'cosulting a static unchanging number that provides one result that leads to a rules as written success/fail binary' but yes, I agree,there is no such term. 

What I was really sticking to is that PG179 discussion of the skill check and wondering how you'd resolve that 'hearing creatures sneaking through a wood' because before the last few points you never gave an example of actually making a perception roll in an ambush situation but now I've seen in example how you draw those differentials with a little more supposed context, I can get behind your way of playing it. 



iserith said:


> To be clear, I'm sure you know all this. I'm just putting it out there to clarify my position and to offer up what the rules say to those who aren't familiar with this game.




Absolutely it was taken as such, I don't feel patronised. It's often important to over-explain to avoid misinterpretation, so I hold no malice. I took this whole thing as nothing more than an exchange of ideas among equals, thank you for your postive candor.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 22, 2018)

Nagol said:


> Fundamentally, because unlike chess, the rules for D&D are incomplete.  Every legal move in chess is described.  Anything that is not a described move is illegal.  This is obviously untrue in D&D.
> /snip




Heh. I tried to say this in another thread and got dogpiled for it.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 22, 2018)

But rolling this back around to the original question of the thread, IMO, ((barring the more extreme/illegal actions a person might do)) the worst thing a DM can do as a DM (and not just as a human being), is allow his or her ego to dominate.  Pretty much every DM/Player issue that's the DM's fault can be traced back to the DM not checking his or her ego at the door.

People who forget that the DM is just another player at the table and is no more or less important than anyone else at the table make very, very poor DM's.


----------



## iserith (Sep 22, 2018)

Hussar said:


> But rolling this back around to the original question of the thread, IMO, ((barring the more extreme/illegal actions a person might do)) the worst thing a DM can do as a DM (and not just as a human being), is allow his or her ego to dominate.  Pretty much every DM/Player issue that's the DM's fault can be traced back to the DM not checking his or her ego at the door.
> 
> People who forget that the DM is just another player at the table and is no more or less important than anyone else at the table make very, very poor DM's.




I agree. The DM has no more power socially than anyone else. It gets weird otherwise, like that Jack Chick tract.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 22, 2018)

Nagol said:


> I don't recall much GM advice wrt classic Traveller let alone advice to maintain narrative pressure.  Where did you find it?



Book 3 (Worlds and Adventures), p 19 of the 1977 edition (in what I think is a 1978 printing):

Non-player characters are frequently encountered by travellers in the course of their adventures. Such persons are manipulated or controlled by the referee; their actions and deeds influence and direct the activities of the actual player characters in the game. . . .

Adventurers, as they travel about on planets, have random encounters . . .

Some random encounters are mandated by the referee. For example, a band may encounter a guard patrol at a building whil in the course of visiting (or burglarizing) it. The referee is always free to impose encounters to further the cause of the adventure being played; in many cases, he actually has a responsibility to do so.​
There's a bit of contradiction there (_mandated_ and _imposed_ "random" encounters), but I think that can be forgiven. And obviously the advice is not as rich as found eg in Luke Crane's Adventure Burner for Burning Wheel. But the "responsibilities" of the referee in running the game include framing encounters that will "further the cause of" the adventure - that's clearly something about being engaging, or exciting, or creating some sort of pressure with an eye to where it will drive the play of the game.



Nagol said:


> The problems I have with concerning myself with the "good of the story" is twofold.
> 
> First, it's not my story; I have input, each player has input, and we allow random input.  Ultimately, though, it is the players' story; they pick the challenges, they devise the stratagems, and act on them for good or ill.
> 
> ...





Nagol said:


> I admit to the flaw with respect to backgrounds.  When I think about D&D, I think the character background is what's happened since play began (assuming a level 1 start).  As a player I will provide a minimal background if I'm prodded, but I don't really want to see it in play (typically a black sheep only child of impoverished farmers killed by ankhegs s or some such).  Other games, are far more character-focused and backgrounds mean much more.
> 
> Motivations and specialties though, those are gold in a PC are should be exploited and encouraged.



To me, these seem to go together.

If one player's PC's motivation is (say) _defeat Lolth and redeem the Drow_, then action declarations on their own aren't enough. If all the action is framed as piratical derring-do on the high seas, the "story" of how this PC set out to defeat Lolth and redeem the Drow is unlikely to be told. (_Picking challenges_ itself depends upon the GM providing the framing - unless you're using some sort of "kicker" technique.)

Which also feeds into the issue of what is the "best signal" - I don't look just for action declarations, but for backgrounds, Beliefs and the like in systems that have them, informal signals of thematic/narrative concern, etc. (Think even of Classic Travell Book 1, and the example merchant Jamieson's resentment at being let go by the service at the height of his career.)

Part of the challenge of being a GM is then weaving these things together across multiple players, multiple PCs, multiple sessions, the details of the system, etc. I rely on a mixture of advice (eg about pacing), system and techniques (eg does the system require party play, like D&D; or allow actions of one PC to affect the situation for a geographically and even temporally separated PC; etc), and the social dynamics at the table.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 22, 2018)

iserith said:


> Yes, it's a passive check which is used to determine surprise per the rules.



For clarity's sake - if the GM describes the columned room, and a player says "I hope there's nothing lurking behind the columns - I'm looking closely!", would you call for a WIS/Perception check at that point, or still rely on the passive check?


----------



## pemerton (Sep 22, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Heh. I tried to say this in another thread and got dogpiled for it.



To be fair, you got dogpiled for saying that it's a game creation engine in which the adventure/scenario is the game that is created.

That's not what [MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION] said - he pointed to a feature of adjudication of player-declared moves in RPGs.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 22, 2018)

Benji said:


> I guess so, but I'm trying to think about how 'who gets to roll dice' translates to a feeling of agency.



I think it often does, but I also think this is something of an illusion - unless the dice-rolling player has deft wrists and quick fingers!



Benji said:


> Also, the probability of the group spotting in the second example is not only reliant on the GM rolling well, but the players in opposition to that roll. So if the  GM rolls badl but the highest player also rolls bdly, maybe it's the poor guy with the low perception that flukely saves the group - that's a cool story dictated by the dice.



Maybe, though is perhaps a bit sucky for the person who invested PC build resources in WIS and Perception! In AD&D there is only 1 surprise die rolled for the party, using the best die (eg one ranger means the whole party is surprised only on a 1 in 6) - so 5e in this respect seems consistent with that strand of D&D tradition.



Benji said:


> You see, I'm still not sure that in Iserith's example that this would grant an active check. Or weather this counts as 'Keeping Watch' and therefore, in Iserith's mind, is still passive.



I've asked him about this and so hopefully will soon learn!



Benji said:


> As for the example 'with context', take the example in isolation for a moment. There's a few contextual factors that might change the needle here but I they also change the purity of the example, I guess. Whatframing do you think underides the mechanics as set out?



What I'm getting at here is my version of [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]'s "telegraphing". When I GM, I don't do telegraphing in that way - rather, the telegraphing comes from what the PCs put at stake via the build and play of their PCs from the "story"/narrative point of view (see also my reply to [MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION] not far upthread).


----------



## iserith (Sep 22, 2018)

pemerton said:


> For clarity's sake - if the GM describes the columned room, and a player says "I hope there's nothing lurking behind the columns - I'm looking closely!", would you call for a WIS/Perception check at that point, or still rely on the passive check?




I would say this depends on how the scene was framed and when the drow tries to ambush the PCs. If the drow is, say, within short range with a hand crossbow when the PCs enter the area, the DM might describe the attack from the lurking drow and ask "What do you do?" Then we're probably determining surprise using the passive Perception scores of the PCs who opted to remain alert for danger and then rolling initiative. If instead the drow is outside of hand crossbow range when the PCs enter the area, then the DM might have the drow wait in the darkness as they draw near. A player who at some point in the ensuing exploration challenge describes the character as looking closely at the columns for lurking threats might make a Wisdom (Perception) check to spot the hiding drow if there's an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence of failure. In this specific context, I think this would not be unlike a Search action in combat. The characters that are engaging in other tasks while the other PC is searching may not be alert to danger and, of course, the drow may do his or her thing while the PCs do theirs which might complicate matters.


----------



## eayres33 (Sep 22, 2018)

Rya.Reisender said:


> Of course they are comparable. Why would it be okay to change the rules in one game and not in another game?
> 
> The only reason D&D 5e isn't for me as a player is that there aren't any other DMs that want to play by the rules.





Because one game tells you to change the rules to make it fun, and the other, like chess only works if everyone follows the rules to the letter. 

To me at least D&D is more about the experience and everyone having fun than winning and following the rules, (since you can't win at D&D) where Chess is focused on playing and winning and thus the rules must be consistent and absolute.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 22, 2018)

iserith said:


> I would say this depends on how the scene was framed and when the drow tries to ambush the PCs. If the drow is, say, within short range with a hand crossbow when the PCs enter the area, the DM might describe the attack from the lurking drow and ask "What do you do?" Then we're probably determining surprise using the passive Perception scores of the PCs who opted to remain alert for danger and then rolling initiative. If instead the drow is outside of hand crossbow range when the PCs enter the area, then the DM might have the drow wait in the darkness as they draw near. A player who at some point in the ensuing exploration challenge describes the character as looking closely at the columns for lurking threats might make a Wisdom (Perception) check to spot the hiding drow if there's an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence of failure. In this specific context, I think this would not be unlike a Search action in combat. The characters that are engaging in other tasks while the other PC is searching may not be alert to danger and, of course, the drow may do his or her thing while the PCs do theirs which might complicate matters.



To me, this drives home the bigger issue of the context of framing in the example. What I mean is that the drow isn't _really_ anywhere, so that (except in the tightest version of classic dungeoncrawling, in which the precise location of everything on all the dungeon squares is known at all time) the issue of where the PCs are, in relation to what they can see in the room, in relation to where the drow is and what s/he can see of them, is all up to the GM's narration.

So when is it fair for a GM to say (DW "hard move" style) "Suckers, what's your AC?" and when is it fair for a GM to say (DW "soft move" style) "You see a many-columned room with pooling shadows" and follow up with "What do you do?"

For clarity's sake, I don't think there's any single answer to that question probably even for a single table, given how varied the context, momentum, mood, etc of play can get; let alone a single answer that would work for all DW GMs or all 5e GMs.

At the risk of being controversial, I feel that some approaches to using a WIS/Perception check as a type of "save vs ambush" and some approaches to using a WIS/Perception check as a type of "Am I going to tell you about the missing gauntlets or not?" can seem like the GM not wanting to take responsibility for framing and its consequences. I say "some cases" because I think that a pretty classic dungeoncrawl might be a different case, with it's highly procedural play in a maze that gets re-run many times (a bit video-gamey, that!) and with players having player-side options to try and manage those throws (recruit a ranger or an elf; listen at doors; etc) while GMs are governed by conventions about not having all the "placed" monsters just gang up on and slaughter the PCs.

But in games that depart even a modest amount from that paradigm, I'm less sure about what this random determination of content (I mean, sure, in the GM's imagination the gauntlets are missing even if s/he never tells the players, but that's unilateral content that's not part of actual play) and random determination of stakes (who gets the drop - us or the drow?) is for.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 22, 2018)

Hussar said:


> But rolling this back around to the original question of the thread, IMO, ((barring the more extreme/illegal actions a person might do)) the worst thing a DM can do as a DM (and not just as a human being), is allow his or her ego to dominate.  Pretty much every DM/Player issue that's the DM's fault can be traced back to the DM not checking his or her ego at the door.
> 
> People who forget that the DM is just another player at the table and is no more or less important than anyone else at the table make very, very poor DM's.



Not 100% convinced on this one, based on my own experience...and I guess that'd make me a very very poor DM in that from either side of the screen I do see the DM as the most important person at the table.  Never mind that no DM = no game.

Having a reasonably strong ego often implies also having a reasonable degree of self-confidence, without which a DM is more or less doomed.  Yeah there's examples of overkill out there, but I can think of one DM from way back who was quite good at it mainly (or only?) because of his ego - he was insufferable as a player (I both played with him and DMed him) but very entertaining as a DM.

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 22, 2018)

pemerton said:


> To me, these seem to go together.
> 
> If one player's PC's motivation is (say) _defeat Lolth and redeem the Drow_, then action declarations on their own aren't enough. If all the action is framed as piratical derring-do on the high seas, the "story" of how this PC set out to defeat Lolth and redeem the Drow is unlikely to be told. (_Picking challenges_ itself depends upon the GM providing the framing - unless you're using some sort of "kicker" technique.)



Or unless the players have by their own choice(s) put themselves out on the high seas and the GM is simply running with what she's been given.  In a case like this Llolth will simply have to wait.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 22, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Book 3 (Worlds and Adventures), p 19 of the 1977 edition (in what I think is a 1978 printing):
> 
> Non-player characters are frequently encountered by travellers in the course of their adventures. Such persons are manipulated or controlled by the referee; their actions and deeds influence and direct the activities of the actual player characters in the game. . . .
> 
> ...




Right!  I read that more weakly than you do, but I can see what you see.



> To me, these seem to go together.
> 
> If one player's PC's motivation is (say) _defeat Lolth and redeem the Drow_, then action declarations on their own aren't enough. If all the action is framed as piratical derring-do on the high seas, the "story" of how this PC set out to defeat Lolth and redeem the Drow is unlikely to be told. (_Picking challenges_ itself depends upon the GM providing the framing - unless you're using some sort of "kicker" technique.)
> 
> ...




And when I run a system with stronger expectation/mechanical representation of backgrounds and motivations (CHAMPIONS, FATE, Pendragon) I happily pursue a game with strongly interwoven opportunities to engage with motivations and other expressed interests.  D&D, even 5e with its backgrounds, is quite weak in this regard. I don't consider that weakness a flaw; it's more a design choice to downplay that aspect of communication and character development in favour of working with the shared history developed by the party.


----------



## iserith (Sep 22, 2018)

pemerton said:


> To me, this drives home the bigger issue of the context of framing in the example. What I mean is that the drow isn't _really_ anywhere, so that (except in the tightest version of classic dungeoncrawling, in which the precise location of everything on all the dungeon squares is known at all time) the issue of where the PCs are, in relation to what they can see in the room, in relation to where the drow is and what s/he can see of them, is all up to the GM's narration.
> 
> So when is it fair for a GM to say (DW "hard move" style) "Suckers, what's your AC?" and when is it fair for a GM to say (DW "soft move" style) "You see a many-columned room with pooling shadows" and follow up with "What do you do?"
> 
> ...




Because I think D&D 5e runs best in the context of a dungeon (or, more generally, a set location to be explored) where the DM does have some idea of the location of its contents, I generally prepare and run these sorts of adventures. Sometimes there's even a dragon in there.

I would say either situation I described is fair provided the DM has adequately described the environment including any relevant telegraphing of threats such that the players have a chance to make reasonably informed decisions to mitigate or eliminate risk or gain an advantage. To do otherwise is to fill one's game with gotchas and _that's_ not fair in my view.


----------



## Numidius (Sep 23, 2018)

In my experience, a major sin of GMs I played with, has been to negate the players having a proper background, or goal, to start with, going also against the rules, for the purpose of railroad: in plain sight, or carefully hidden in a sandbox style game, negating players' agency all the way along.

We played an early version of Godbound, the gm forbid the use of background for the PCs (bg gives a straight +4 to rolls, when appropriate) and the campaign went really bad. 
Not only the railroad was evident, it became embarassing by the end of the first (and only) narrative arc. 
I've been told: "No, you can't do that in my game" (trying to influence Nobles NPCs considered 'evil', but actually just no more useful to the DM's plans) 

In a recent Symbaroum game, another gm forbid goals for the PCs and the party as a whole, in the very char-gen, against RAW as well. 
When I diverged from the main storyline, btw following his own clues on a major event going to happen, NPCs simply started to become generally unfriendly or uninterested in anything I had to say or do. The answer to that behaviour involved some kind of "realism" in the game, on his behalf, like some sort of distorted philosophy in making a proper sandbox. 

Moreover, those games were really boring, after all.

As a corollary sin of the original one, I'd say the incapacity of considering advice, suggestion or critique from the people around the table


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 23, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Or unless the players have by their own choice(s) put themselves out on the high seas and the GM is simply running with what she's been given.  In a case like this Llolth will simply have to wait.




Or she could be out for a fun day in the sun, sailing on her yacht.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Sep 23, 2018)

Benji said:


> I guess so, but I'm trying to think about how 'who gets to roll dice' translates to a feeling of agency.




I don't know but it really tends to. For instance, players seem to prefer making attacks to forcing enemies to make saves. The only real difference in a lot of cases is that the player rolls the dice on the attack versus the enemy making the save. There's something about the physical action of who rolls the dice (or types in the command to run the macro, I guess) that seems to matter. A lot of things we do in life involve illusions of control.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Sep 23, 2018)

eayres33 said:


> Because one game tells you to change the rules to make it fun, and the other, like chess only works if everyone follows the rules to the letter.
> 
> To me at least D&D is more about the experience and everyone having fun than winning and following the rules, (since you can't win at D&D) where Chess is focused on playing and winning and thus the rules must be consistent and absolute.




Of course, there are tons of variants of chess, including allowing for handicapping and other similar things. The main thing is that in chess the rules are agreed upon by the players in advance and, presumably, not changed in chess. In addition, chess has a much more clear termination and is a "versus" game where the motivation of players is clearly in a zero-sum game. In D&D, consistency is not a bad thing and so we have things like "session zero" or other kinds of ways to get all the players on the same page. However, D&D or any other RPG is a vastly more open-ended game (in the broad sense of the term, not the narrow one that requires it to be versus) than chess is, so there are bound to be markedly more complicated situations that are unanticipated.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Sep 23, 2018)

iserith said:


> Because I think D&D 5e runs best in the context of a dungeon (or, more generally, a set location to be explored) where the DM does have some idea of the location of its contents, I generally prepare and run these sorts of adventures. Sometimes there's even a dragon in there.




D&D certainly runs best combat-wise in that kind of setting. It's not really heavy in the rules department for social type games or things that are pursuits or journeys, though one can certainly create that kind of adventure and many of us have. It could be hex crawling or more of a sequence of potential set pieces, which is more or less what hex crawling is when you get down to it. A lot depends on the players but I don't think I agree it needs to be a classic dungeon with a bunch of doors behind which critters lurk. However, all that said, given what I understand of your preferred style of GMing, it makes sense you prefer to set up a location and let the PCs wander around.


----------



## iserith (Sep 23, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> D&D certainly runs best combat-wise in that kind of setting. It's not really heavy in the rules department for social type games or things that are pursuits or journeys, though one can certainly create that kind of adventure and many of us have. It could be hex crawling or more of a sequence of potential set pieces, which is more or less what hex crawling is when you get down to it. A lot depends on the players but I don't think I agree it needs to be a classic dungeon with a bunch of doors behind which critters lurk. However, all that said, given what I understand of your preferred style of GMing, it makes sense you prefer to set up a location and let the PCs wander around.




I think the social interaction and exploration rules in D&D 5e are adequate and my games feature those types of challenges in addition to combat challenges as recommended by the Basic Rules (pages 4-5). To be clear, I am also not stating that D&D "needs to be a classic dungeon with a bunch of doors behind which critters lurk." But a location-based adventure, whatever form that location takes, does seem to work better in my experience than event-based adventures in D&D 5e. Though the DMG does suggest the latter are "more work" than a location-based adventure, I don't find that to be the case. I surmise that location-based adventures have somewhat fallen out of favor because the prep time for a dynamic location that offers a lot of meaningful choice tends to be greater than just stringing together enough scenes and set pieces to get through a play session.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Sep 23, 2018)

iserith said:


> I think the social interaction and exploration rules in D&D 5e are adequate and my games feature those types of challenges in addition to combat challenges as recommended by the Basic Rules (pages 4-5).




I don't think I've even looked at the Basic Rules, but given my proclivities I don't really care what they say anyhow. 

I do think the social interaction rules are a bit weak. 4E was actually better in a lot of ways---they had some nifty powers that gave you a boost for a time and weren't "when this power runs out the target _automatically_ knows something was used" which nearly all charm spells in 5E do. 




> To be clear, I am also not stating that D&D "needs to be a classic dungeon with a bunch of doors behind which critters lurk." But a location-based adventure, whatever form that location takes, does seem to work better in my experience than event-based adventures in D&D 5e. Though the DMG does suggest the latter are "more work" than a location-based adventure, I don't find that to be the case. I surmise that location-based adventures have somewhat fallen out of favor because the prep time for a dynamic location that offers a lot of meaningful choice tends to be greater than just stringing together enough scenes and set pieces to get through a play session.




Like a lot of things, I think an intermediate position works between a fully filled in dungeon with all the moving parts worked out and just several scenes and set pieces. For example, set out an area the PCs can explore that has a number of different potential events or encounters depending on what they do with maybe a few different set pieces or encounters that will show up. I find that seems to work in that it gives the players enough choices but not so many they either have too many or being on rails between preplanned set pieces and, of course, keep the DM's life sane. 

I ran something in the spring where the PCs ended up in a town that had serious problems due to the town wizard having been messing around with planar portals he shouldn't have been (not that the PCs knew exactly what was up). Another wizard had been hired to take care of it by a merchants' guild the PCs have tangled with in the past, but he decided to take over the keep outside of town and set up shop as a necromancer (again, not something the PCs knew). When they got to town they were faced with a few different directions they could go. They chose to confront the gates first, figuring that that problem was more immediate and that the wizard could hang loose for a bit. So this led to a relatively small location, essentially a mini-dungeon they explored and finally confronted the problem in the laboratory. Having closed the gate and freed a potential ally (a storm sorceress who lives outside of town trapped in the gate), they rested and then went to deal with the wizard, which ended up involving them storming the keep, again a mini-dungeon, although due to the way things went down they had to take it in one go. I knew they'd do both of these areas, but let the players decide on their strategy.


----------



## iserith (Sep 23, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> I don't think I've even looked at the Basic Rules, but given my proclivities I don't really care what they say anyhow.




If you've read the PHB, then you've read the Basic Rules. I only reference Basic Rules rather than the PHB in case anyone reading is away from his or her books and wants to look up whatever craziness I'm spouting from the freely available PDF.

I do care what they have to say. It's the instruction manual for the game. Being familiar with them helps prevent me from running this game like it's some other game.



Jay Verkuilen said:


> I do think the social interaction rules are a bit weak. 4E was actually better in a lot of ways---they had some nifty powers that gave you a boost for a time and weren't "when this power runs out the target _automatically_ knows something was used" which nearly all charm spells in 5E do.




I recommend checking out the social interaction rules in the DMG. They can be used to structure challenges quite well. 



Jay Verkuilen said:


> Like a lot of things, I think an intermediate position works between a fully filled in dungeon with all the moving parts worked out and just several scenes and set pieces. For example, set out an area the PCs can explore that has a number of different potential events or encounters depending on what they do with maybe a few different set pieces or encounters that will show up. I find that seems to work in that it gives the players enough choices but not so many they either have too many or being on rails between preplanned set pieces and, of course, keep the DM's life sane.
> 
> I ran something in the spring where the PCs ended up in a town that had serious problems due to the town wizard having been messing around with planar portals he shouldn't have been (not that the PCs knew exactly what was up). Another wizard had been hired to take care of it by a merchants' guild the PCs have tangled with in the past, but he decided to take over the keep outside of town and set up shop as a necromancer (again, not something the PCs knew). When they got to town they were faced with a few different directions they could go. They chose to confront the gates first, figuring that that problem was more immediate and that the wizard could hang loose for a bit. So this led to a relatively small location, essentially a mini-dungeon they explored and finally confronted the problem in the laboratory. Having closed the gate and freed a potential ally (a storm sorceress who lives outside of town trapped in the gate), they rested and then went to deal with the wizard, which ended up involving them storming the keep, again a mini-dungeon, although due to the way things went down they had to take it in one go. I knew they'd do both of these areas, but let the players decide on their strategy.




Yes, that is the general format I see most people running for D&D 5e (and indeed other games) and is referred to as "event-based adventures" in the DMG. It's a lot less prep. Kind of like five-room dungeons strung together by a plot the PCs are expected to follow.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Sep 23, 2018)

iserith said:


> If you've read the PHB, then you've read the Basic Rules. I only reference Basic Rules rather than the PHB in case anyone reading is away from his or her books and wants to look up whatever craziness I'm spouting from the freely available PDF.




Ah. 



> I do care what they have to say. It's the instruction manual for the game. Being familiar with them helps prevent me from running this game like it's some other game.




Right, I think that's the part I don't care about. I run things the way I run them and wouldn't substantially change my style depending on the game, though obviously themes will shift. I'll certainly look at the rules but if the designers assume something I don't care for, I will usually change it or ignore, assuming it's possible. Sometimes things are just too embedded in the system to do that. 




> I recommend checking out the social interaction rules in the DMG. They can be used to structure challenges quite well.




They're fine as far as they go but there are very few meaningful powers (broadly speaking) that help social interaction and they are often highly costly to choose, especially for characters that would logically have them. 




> Yes, that is the general format I see most people running for D&D 5e (and indeed other games) and is referred to as "event-based adventures" in the DMG. It's a lot less prep. Kind of like five-room dungeons strung together by a plot the PCs are expected to follow.




Hmmm, the big difference between what I tend to do, assuming I have time to lay things out, is create an area with a basic set of conflicts and locations in which to explore them and then turn the PCs loose, filling in details as attention gets focused. It's very much like _The Secret of Bone Hill_, which is more of a small sandbox campaign setting, though that one didn't have any kind of larger story goal. "Mapping" a city by listing out the power groups and indicating pictorially what their relationships were was something that the original _Vampire the Masquerade_ pioneered, and it works quite well. This just generalized the idea of a dungeon. 

One thing that I've found as I've gotten older and the folks I play with have similarly is that pure sandbox gaming is too hard for us. We need to get pulled into the conflict more quickly. Still, I like to set up an area with possible directions and choices and do let the players guide things quite a bit, though I will throw them events and such to keep them going. This has become more relevant with the game being mostly online, too, because online systems are clunky for a lot of really large maps.  

What I tend not to do, at least when I can, is give just one path. I try to give a few. So, yeah, once you've chosen to go on a particular path then it's going to be more linear or a sequence of events or a small dungeon or what have you, but which path you're choosing can vary quite a bit. I also have events happen to the PCs, for instance once setting up an adventure by having one of the PCs getting summoned and then presenting the rest of the group with the choice of what to do. They followed him via magic and then, having spent a good bit of time solving the problem posed by the summoners, got involved in conflicts there, which lead to various dungeons, social interaction, and so on. I didn't have that all designed and waiting for them, but had the rough overall outline of what was in that location. Had they not been further interested, I would have dropped it.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 23, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> I do think the social interaction rules are a bit weak. 4E was actually better in a lot of ways---they had some nifty powers that gave you a boost for a time and weren't *"when this power runs out the target automatically knows something was used" *which nearly all charm spells in 5E do.




That's they way they have worked in pretty much every edition.  In 1e when you walked in and charmed a stingy merchant into giving you a great deal, do you really think he's not going to be aware of how "off" his actions were when these particular strangers walked in this shop?  He may or may not know it was a charm spell, but he is going to know that they messed with his mind somehow.  

In my experience, most DMs don't think about the logical consequences of things like charm person and simply allowed a level 1 spell to be much more powerful than it should have been.  Most charm/dominate spells are going to leave the target aware that their minds were messed with.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Sep 23, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> That's they way they have worked in pretty much every edition.  In 1e when you walked in and charmed a stingy merchant into giving you a great deal, do you really think he's not going to be aware of how "off" his actions were when these particular strangers walked in this shop?  He may or may not know it was a charm spell, but he is going to know that they messed with his mind somehow.




Maybe, maybe not. I'd like an Insight check to help determine that as opposed to an automatic "hey I got messed with!".  



> In my experience, most DMs don't think about the logical consequences of things like charm person and simply allowed a level 1 spell to be much more powerful than it should have been.  Most charm/dominate spells are going to leave the target aware that their minds were messed with.




Using magic to give you a boost to a roll is pretty far from dominating someone and turning them into your puppet. The real problem is that WotC, by deciding that cantrips like _Friends_ pretty much automatically turned someone who might have been neutral into a "hey, that jerk just used MAGIC on me!" made something like that not worth using. 

A vastly better way to make spells like this worthwhile would be to have them work kind of like the Bard's Inspiration. Note that the Bard CAN'T use inspiration on self in general so it's of no help to the usual face of the group. Maybe something like this:

_



			Socialize (Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard)
		
Click to expand...


_


> Enchantment/Charm
> Components: VS
> Level 1
> Area of Effect Self
> ...





This is totally off the cuff and thus likely has some bugs but it would work nicely to have something that's not totally "he's my puppet and does what I tell him to do" which I do agree should be fairly obvious.


----------



## iserith (Sep 23, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> Right, I think that's the part I don't care about. I run things the way I run them and wouldn't substantially change my style depending on the game, though obviously themes will shift. I'll certainly look at the rules but if the designers assume something I don't care for, I will usually change it or ignore, assuming it's possible. Sometimes things are just too embedded in the system to do that.




I used to think this way until I realized that, coming off D&D 3.5e, my D&D 4e games were just not as good as they could be. At that point, somewhere around 2008 to 2009, I decided to do what I continue to do until this day: Change my approach depending on the game. When learning a new game, I set about examining every approach I'm using and questioning whether it is appropriate in the context of the game I'm now playing. Different games have different assumptions and rules that demand different approaches. If I'm running all games the same way, then it's very likely that I'm not running the game in the way it's intended to be experienced. So my D&D 4e games are not like my D&D 5e games. My Dungeon World games aren't like my D&D 4e or 5e games. And so on. I change my approach to fit the game, not the other way around.



Jay Verkuilen said:


> They're fine as far as they go but there are very few meaningful powers (broadly speaking) that help social interaction and they are often highly costly to choose, especially for characters that would logically have them.




That looks to me more like D&D 4e thinking though. (Which is a game I love, mind you.) The D&D 5e approach, based on the rules, would see the players trying to suss out the NPC's agenda and personal characteristics (personality trait, ideal, bond, and flaw) in an effort to adjust the NPC's attitude temporarily to something better than it currently is, for example, hostile to indifferent or indifferent to friendly. At that point, they can make an ask which is resolved, if necessary, with a Charisma check at DCs determined by the nature of the ask compared to the temporary attitude of the NPC. Charming the NPC skips the bit where the PCs need to suss out personal characteristics and agenda for advantage, but at a cost - you get what you want and you burn a bridge at the same time.



Jay Verkuilen said:


> Hmmm, the big difference between what I tend to do, assuming I have time to lay things out, is create an area with a basic set of conflicts and locations in which to explore them and then turn the PCs loose, filling in details as attention gets focused. It's very much like _The Secret of Bone Hill_, which is more of a small sandbox campaign setting, though that one didn't have any kind of larger story goal. "Mapping" a city by listing out the power groups and indicating pictorially what their relationships were was something that the original _Vampire the Masquerade_ pioneered, and it works quite well. This just generalized the idea of a dungeon.
> 
> One thing that I've found as I've gotten older and the folks I play with have similarly is that pure sandbox gaming is too hard for us. We need to get pulled into the conflict more quickly. Still, I like to set up an area with possible directions and choices and do let the players guide things quite a bit, though I will throw them events and such to keep them going. This has become more relevant with the game being mostly online, too, because online systems are clunky for a lot of really large maps.
> 
> What I tend not to do, at least when I can, is give just one path. I try to give a few. So, yeah, once you've chosen to go on a particular path then it's going to be more linear or a sequence of events or a small dungeon or what have you, but which path you're choosing can vary quite a bit. I also have events happen to the PCs, for instance once setting up an adventure by having one of the PCs getting summoned and then presenting the rest of the group with the choice of what to do. They followed him via magic and then, having spent a good bit of time solving the problem posed by the summoners, got involved in conflicts there, which lead to various dungeons, social interaction, and so on. I didn't have that all designed and waiting for them, but had the rough overall outline of what was in that location. Had they not been further interested, I would have dropped it.




I'd probably use D&D 4e for such games because in my view the tactical choices in combats and skill challenges will offset the comparative lack of choices in this approach. This isn't a criticism of event-based adventures, of course. It's just about what I see as using the best tool for the job.


----------



## iserith (Sep 23, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> Using magic to give you a boost to a roll is pretty far from dominating someone and turning them into your puppet. The real problem is that WotC, by deciding that cantrips like _Friends_ pretty much automatically turned someone who might have been neutral into a "hey, that jerk just used MAGIC on me!" made something like that not worth using.




If you're playing the game with the social interaction rules, then _Friends_ starts to look good if time is of the essence and the cost of making the NPC hostile is less than the cost of whatever consequences may follow "wasting" time sussing out agenda or personal characteristics. Whereas normally you have to take time to figure those things out and then apply them for advantage on any Charisma ability checks that may ensue, with_ Friends_ you're just making any Charisma checks the DM may call for at advantage from go. It's a real time saver.

I'll add that subsequent interactions with the NPC are handled with the same social interaction rules. If you need to go back to him or her for help and he or she is miffed about the use of magic in a previous scene, that just means the social interaction challenge is more difficult and/or takes longer. The odds of success are reduced, but it's not impossible (unless the DM rules that it is).


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 23, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> Maybe, maybe not. I'd like an Insight check to help determine that as opposed to an automatic "hey I got messed with!".




I look at who is being affected.  A farmer in the back country probably would just end up confused.  A merchant in a city?  Not so much unless wizards and magic are rare.  I'll only roll if I'm uncertain about whether or not the person would realize they are being messed with.  My point, though, was that charm/mind control spells are likely to clue the victim in that something happened.



> Using magic to give you a boost to a roll is pretty far from dominating someone and turning them into your puppet. The real problem is that WotC, by deciding that cantrips like _Friends_ pretty much automatically turned someone who might have been neutral into a "hey, that jerk just used MAGIC on me!" made something like that not worth using.




Usually, it's more than a boost, though.  The fluff matters.  For instance, charm person says, "The charmed creature regards you as a friendly acquaintance."  A victim that is not a friendly acquaintance already is going to be aware that their feelings were very oddly off.  

Socialize as you describe it below, is much more subtle and would likely not be detectable in a stranger.  People are often charismatic and that spell just makes someone a bit more charismatic.  Most mind influencing spells aren't that subtle, though.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Sep 23, 2018)

iserith said:


> I used to think this way until I realized that, coming off D&D 3.5e, my D&D 4e games were just not as good as they could be. At that point, somewhere around 2008 to 2009, I decided to do what I continue to do until this day: Change my approach depending on the game. <snip>




Interesting... I really disliked running 4E. It didn't do what I wanted and forced me to think like the designers. I don't copy other people well. I can't do it in really any area of my life. As I say to every student I teach at the start of the class "I basically always hate every textbook I use." So I'm pretty much never going to do it the way you suggest. I want what I want. I recognize that nearly any game will be a bit off from that and will deal with "good enough" 

That said, 4E did have some useful and interesting ideas. 




> That looks to me more like D&D 4e thinking though. (Which is a game I love, mind you.) The D&D 5e approach, based on the rules, would see the players trying to suss out the NPC's agenda and personal characteristics (personality trait, ideal, bond, and flaw) in an effort to adjust the NPC's attitude temporarily to something better than it currently is, for example, hostile to indifferent or indifferent to friendly. At that point, they can make an ask which is resolved, if necessary, with a Charisma check at DCs determined by the nature of the ask compared to the temporary attitude of the NPC. Charming the NPC skips the bit where the PCs need to suss out personal characteristics and agenda for advantage, but at a cost - you get what you want and you burn a bridge at the same time.




Right what I'm suggesting is an intermediate point where there are some spells (or powers more broadly) that can help boost a social character but I would totally agree that what you should do is exactly what you describe most of the time. 4E had some powers like that, such as _Arcane Mutterings_. These were cool because they let a non-face sub in as a face for a limited time. These kinds of abilities are also helpful because they mean that a face can sometimes do much better than just their baseline fundamentals as determined by their skills, but only at some cost. Remember that the natural face character, the bard, _cannot_ self-help. 

But as I said... I don't actually care what the designers wrote in terms of limitations or the game they imagined I want to play. Part of why I do wish they'd make some things more official is because many of the online tools, such as D&D Beyond, are utterly painful to deal with for anything not in the rulebooks. There are torturous hacks to work around issues, but still, it's nasty.  




> I'd probably use D&D 4e for such games because in my view the tactical choices in combats and skill challenges will offset the comparative lack of choices in this approach. This isn't a criticism of event-based adventures, of course. It's just about what I see as using the best tool for the job.




I was initially skeptical of 5E, having been burned by 4E, but as soon as I played it I was 100% fine seeing 4E go off to the dustbin of my personal history, although as I said previously, it had some decent ideas. My big issue with it was how slow play speed often was and how much it just focused on the equivalent of mini combats. But that's a different set of posts.

(Aside: I do have a fairly complete collection of 4E books in quite good shape if anyone in the USA is interested.) 

I don't think I'm expressing what I run well enough though. I always felt 4E was much more events and set pieces with sandbox not really being on their minds. My game's not something I felt aligned with 4E. There are events that happen or not, depending a lot on what the players do. What I don't run is some super complicated dungeon where the PCs are room-crawling, but I long ago stopped running that kind of game.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Sep 23, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> I look at who is being affected.  A farmer in the back country probably would just end up confused.  A merchant in a city?  Not so much unless wizards and magic are rare.  I'll only roll if I'm uncertain about whether or not the person would realize they are being messed with.  My point, though, was that charm/mind control spells are likely to clue the victim in that something happened.




I don't mind that there's some residue of some sort. My issue is that it's _utterly automatic and that essentially every charm spell works that way. _ 

You're right that a DM could interpret it a variety of ways, but, again, no guidance or even suggestions (pun intended). 



> Usually, it's more than a boost, though.  The fluff matters.  For instance, charm person says, "The charmed creature regards you as a friendly acquaintance."  A victim that is not a friendly acquaintance already is going to be aware that their feelings were very oddly off.




I'm not disputing that. My issue is that essentially _every_ charm works that way.  




> Socialize as you describe it below, is much more subtle and would likely not be detectable in a stranger.  People are often charismatic and that spell just makes someone a bit more charismatic.  Most mind influencing spells aren't that subtle, though.




Right, which is IMO a substantial design flaw on the part of WotC. And yes... I can put something like that in my game but this demonstrates a serious lack of imagination on the part of the designers. When one has to deal with tools like D&D Beyond which enforce official rules, it's painful to have to deal with variances and house rules for something that should be in the game already. Of course, they more or less just blew the skill system off regardless.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 23, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> I don't mind that there's some residue of some sort. My issue is that it's _utterly automatic and that essentially every charm spell works that way. _
> 
> You're right that a DM could interpret it a variety of ways, but, again, no guidance or even suggestions (pun intended).




Heh.  That's in keeping with the design intent of the game, though.  They want DMs to create their own rulings and ways of doing things, like D&D saw in 1e and 2e.  



> I'm not disputing that. My issue is that essentially _every_ charm works that way.




Are there any subtle charm type spells like you suggested?  I've just started playing 5e and wont be running it for a few more months, so I'm not terribly familiar with the spells yet.  In any case, that would be the general rule for charm spells, but an individual spell like you suggest(pun plagiarized) would be the specific that beats the general.  Create that spell for your game and hand it out to the players.  Perhaps introduce it via a villain.  



> Right, which is IMO a substantial design flaw on the part of WotC. And yes... I can put something like that in my game but this demonstrates a serious lack of imagination on the part of the designers. When one has to deal with tools like D&D Beyond which enforce official rules, it's painful to have to deal with variances and house rules for something that should be in the game already. Of course, they more or less just blew the skill system off regardless.




I don't think it's a lack of imagination, so much as design intent.  They've said repeatedly that they don't want a rules heavy game like 3e and 4e where the rules tried to cover as many conceivable possibilities as they could think of.  They want the play of the game to vary from table to table as DMs and groups decide how best to play given situations.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Sep 23, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Heh.  That's in keeping with the design intent of the game, though.  They want DMs to create their own rulings and ways of doing things, like D&D saw in 1e and 2e.




As I said elsewhere, I find it... strategic in terms of the areas they decided to blow off. Lack of much of a skill system was a real weakness in 2E. The 5E designers didn't blow off the combat system.  




> Are there any subtle charm type spells like you suggested?  I've just started playing 5e and wont be running it for a few more months, so I'm not terribly familiar with the spells yet.  In any case, that would be the general rule for charm spells, but an individual spell like you suggest(pun plagiarized) would be the specific that beats the general.  Create that spell for your game and hand it out to the players.  Perhaps introduce it via a villain.




Not really. 




> I don't think it's a lack of imagination, so much as design intent.  They've said repeatedly that they don't want a rules heavy game like 3e and 4e where the rules tried to cover as many conceivable possibilities as they could think of.  They want the play of the game to vary from table to table as DMs and groups decide how best to play given situations.




Yeah but this is something that seems pretty darn basic. They have some real gaps and have been exceptionally slow in filling them. There's no shortage of evocations but some schools of magic don't have spells for multiple levels. _XGtE_ helped fill some of this out but still, it was an issue from day 1. Yes, I can fill those gaps but (a) IMO I really shouldn't have to fill all of them and (b) gaps are problematic in the increasingly online world when systems like D&D Beyond make home content exceptionally clunky and awful to implement.


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 23, 2018)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> As I said elsewhere, I find it... strategic in terms of the areas they decided to blow off. Lack of much of a skill system was a real weakness in 2E. The 5E designers didn't blow off the combat system.




The 5e skill system is much more robust than 2e's was, and 5e's combat system is much less refined and rules heavy than 3e's.  



> Yeah but this is something that seems pretty darn basic. They have some real gaps and have been exceptionally slow in filling them. There's no shortage of evocations but some schools of magic don't have spells for multiple levels. _XGtE_ helped fill some of this out but still, it was an issue from day 1. Yes, I can fill those gaps but (a) IMO I really shouldn't have to fill all of them and (b) gaps are problematic in the increasingly online world when systems like D&D Beyond make home content exceptionally clunky and awful to implement.




If there are spell levels without a spell for a given school, I will agree with you that there is a lack there.  Every school should have at least 1 spell for every spell level.  I don't mind coming up with magic items prices and creation requirements, but I don't want to have to design spells.  There's a lot more in the way of balance issues that I'm not going to be able to test effectively with spell design. Plus I want my players to be able to just look the spells up.  Is that lack still there once you include Xanthar's?  I know they introduced more spells in that book.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 23, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Not 100% convinced on this one, based on my own experience...and I guess that'd make me a very very poor DM in that from either side of the screen I do see the DM as the most important person at the table.  Never mind that no DM = no game.
> 
> Having a reasonably strong ego often implies also having a reasonable degree of self-confidence, without which a DM is more or less doomed.  Yeah there's examples of overkill out there, but I can think of one DM from way back who was quite good at it mainly (or only?) because of his ego - he was insufferable as a player (I both played with him and DMed him) but very entertaining as a DM.
> 
> Lanefan




Heh.  I haven't played in a group with only a single DM in forever.  My current group of six has four of us that DM regularly.  The notion that no DM=no game hasn't occurred to me in a very long time.  I sometimes forget that for some groups that DM isn't easily replaceable.

But, yeah, I'll stand by what I said - every really bad DM decision boils down to ego issues.


----------



## David Corgan (Sep 24, 2018)

1. Railroad
(a campaign on rails I understand, but invisible walls, dismissal of alternate solutions, and simply ignoring player requests I do not abide)
2. Not know the setting, or simply fail to bring it to life
(if the DM asks the players what they know of the area, or "wings it" simply because they haven't prepared, when tons of source material was available beforehand. When we go to Anauroch, you better know it's a desert, and Vecna better not be a housewife from the Flaeness. Don't get me wrong, I love homebrew, but if the sign says "published campaign", I'm gonna want at least the broad strokes to be as advertised.) 
3. Not challenge the PCs
(My basic beef with all League or, even worse, Society play. I get that it is for newcomers and vets alike, but there is no consequence for failure, cause you can't ever fail at anything. That sucks all the joy out of success for me...)
4. Ignore basic realism
(This might mean "house ruling" or tossing aside normally used rules, but I don't care what the encumbrance rules are, you aren't carrying multiple 10' poles)
5. Favor certain players
(My plan is simpler, has numerical advantage, and is in character - but your wife is a fellow PC, so I might as well shut up)


----------



## Hussar (Sep 24, 2018)

My problem with "basic realism" is that one person's "basic realism" is very, very different from another's.  To use the above example - no carrying multiple 10' poles, umm, why not?  Bundle them together and you can carry a bunch of them.  Not really a problem.  I remember one DM I had that just hated the idea that my character was carrying a pole arm.  Not even a really big one, something like 10 feet long or something like that.  

He kept arguing that there would be no way to get it around corners.  In a 10 foot wide corridor.  When I pointed out that there is actually more space at the corners (Pythagoras and all that), he just refused to budge.  Nope, you cannot turn the corner of a 10 foot wide corridor with a 10 foot pole.



Yeah, one person's "realism" can be pretty darn far from what is actually realistic.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 24, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Heh.  I haven't played in a group with only a single DM in forever.  My current group of six has four of us that DM regularly.  The notion that no DM=no game hasn't occurred to me in a very long time.  I sometimes forget that for some groups that DM isn't easily replaceable.



In our crew there's three of us (with any luck, soon to be four) that DM; but we each DM our own game, each have a different group of players with varying amounts of overlap with the other games, and each have at least one player unique to that game who is in no other game.  What this means is that if any one of us can't run his-her game on its scheduled night then no matter what happens there's going to be at least one player without a game that night; though the much more usual outcome is no game that night at all because a game can't really sail without its DM.



> But, yeah, I'll stand by what I said - every really bad DM decision boils down to ego issues.



Still can't agree.

Some really bad DM decisions boil down to stupid; as in the DM simply wasn't thinking, or read one thing where the words clearly said another.
Some really bad DM decisions boil down to personalities; e.g. the DM is in love (or hate) with one or more of the players out-of-game and lets this infuence the run of play.
Some really bad DM decisions boil down to lack of foresight; as in what could possibly go wrong?  _<three weeks later>_ Oh, that?  And that?  That, too?  Oops....

What happens after these bad decisions are realized or exposed or challenged, however - now that's where ego can come into it.


----------



## David Corgan (Sep 24, 2018)

Deleted Post Because I Posted In the Wrong Place


----------



## David Corgan (Sep 24, 2018)

I don't think so. You are stating that it is possible to carry multiples, even in a 10' corridor...not in dispute. But of course the PC was in the tavern, walked through a shop, and likely traversed the woods on the way. Plus they may have to fight or make tactical movements in said corridor. Again, all this is possible, but would require effort on the part of the PC to achieve (they would have to keep one hand free to guide the poles at all times).

Anyone that puts multiple 10' poles in their inventory, without so much as a mention to the DM or in play, is ignoring basic realism.

But more unforgivable than that, you straight up admit that you argued with your DM's ruling. Every other rule is a far distant second to that which you have broken with nary a thought:* The DM's ruling is always right in the moment.* If you must challenge a ruling for your own enjoyment to continue, and I stress must, because it should never be done lightly, make a note and challenge it later, away from other players.

When you attempt to argue with the DM, usually they will dig in their heels and all you will accomplish is ill will. At best you have disrupted the game, shattered suspension of disbelief, screwed up pacing, and brought doubt to the efficacy of your DM. In my game the handful of times this has happened, in the 30+ years I've been behind the screen, it was always because of unseen or unknown forces changing circumstances in a way the characters couldn't perceive (why wasn't the spell turned? It was an epic level version. Why didn't my ghost touch weapon kill it? It was a sophisticated illusion. etc.).

So in summary, no, I don't think anyone has a drastically different view of what is realistic, and what is a Peasant Railgun.


----------



## 5ekyu (Sep 24, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> See ya.
> 
> Though it's in the 5e forum I'd say this discussion applies equally to all editions, and maybe most if not all RPGs in general.
> 
> ...



FWIW, i would view the "make a perception check" a part of whatever action the player described that gave him access to the description of the room. 

Am i mistaken? 

Are you saying that your "make a perception check" is some new task? Or is it just a roll to determine what they see at first blush - allowing for different outcomes of "how much do we notice?" 

I use(d) perception checks for "what you see" as well as knowledge checks for "what you recognize )if needed.)" as part of the describe room process with more serious investigation being possible rhru more specofic action later on. 

For instance, looking in a room might show an altar etc etc etc, a crearure and holy symbols... And unless its a very common one the results on a  religion check might tell you if your character recognized it on the spot or not. So only some characters would start the event with that knowledge, others might not.

But it wasnt a separate action - just a recognize or no.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 24, 2018)

David Corgan said:


> 4. Ignore basic realism



This one also belongs on the list of **BEST THINGS** a DM can do.

I'll keep it short...

1. Fail to read the room. Failing that, fail to err on the side of caution over what's socially acceptable and/or funny in the all-over-the-map-when-it-comes-to-politeness society gamers tend to inhabit. Note: I'm guilty of this one, at least once, prolly quite a bit more. 

2. Negate player actions. Which is not the same as railroading. Railroads can be fun, desirable even, for some folks. Negative consequences can be a blast. But straight-up negation, not being able to affect the immediate action - rarely fun.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 24, 2018)

David Corgan said:


> I don't think so. You are stating that it is possible to carry multiples, even in a 10' corridor...not in dispute. But of course the PC was in the tavern, walked through a shop, and likely traversed the woods on the way. Plus they may have to fight or make tactical movements in said corridor. Again, all this is possible, but would require effort on the part of the PC to achieve (they would have to keep one hand free to guide the poles at all times).
> 
> Anyone that puts multiple 10' poles in their inventory, without so much as a mention to the DM or in play, is ignoring basic realism.
> 
> ...



Hmm. Let's see, some of the more egregious common sense errors I've seen:

Radio communication is slower than light (since nothing is faster than light QED), the ship obviously cannot call for help to arrive in time to fight the raider seen through the telescope. (GM call in a Traveller campaign).
Obviously, shooting at a lock on a door will have ricochets bouncing around and hitting people.  What a stupid way to open a lock (GM call in a game based on TV detective shows like Magnum PI and Simon and Simon).
Fire is obviously very deadly.  We should add it to the game such that a normal human is left dying in under 4 seconds of exposure to a camp fire and kill in another 4 seconds. Most deaths occur from smoke inhalation so smoke should knock out a human in about 2 seconds and kill about 5 seconds later. (Hero games designers).

There are so many it's hard to separate out the really good ones.


----------



## MNblockhead (Sep 24, 2018)

Nagol said:


> Obviously, shooting at a lock on a door will have ricochets bouncing around and hitting people. What a stupid way to open a lock (GM call in a game based on TV detective shows like Magnum PI and Simon and Simon).




Well, if it was a handgun, that is probably true, but Shot Guns can be used to breach doors. There are special breaching shotguns and ammo specifically for this purpose, but you can use your basic hunting shotgun with buckshot or birdshot without too high a risk of ricochet. 

But I suspect I would be annoyed playing any old west or modern RPG setting. Most people will want to play a cinematic style of game--including the ridiculous use of guns that would strain my eyes from over-rolling. 

But I've learned that unless I'm playing with some old friend I know very well, to just roll with it. But my good friends and I in our home games will have no problems ridiculing each other over things like this. Hell, I'll allow certain things just to trigger my engineer friends.  I give myself free inspiration any time a friend yells "THAT'S NOT HOW _______ WORKS!!!!"


----------



## Nagol (Sep 24, 2018)

MNblockhead said:


> Well, if it was a handgun, that is probably true, but Shot Guns can be used to breach doors. There are special breaching shotguns and ammo specifically for this purpose, but you can use your basic hunting shotgun with buckshot or birdshot without too high a risk of ricochet.
> 
> But I suspect I would be annoyed playing any old west or modern RPG setting. Most people will want to play a cinematic style of game--including the ridiculous use of guns that would strain my eyes from over-rolling.
> 
> But I've learned that unless I'm playing with some old friend I know very well, to just roll with it. But my good friends and I in our home games will have no problems ridiculing each other over things like this. Hell, I'll allow certain things just to trigger my engineer friends.  I give myself free inspiration any time a friend yells "THAT'S NOT HOW _______ WORKS!!!!"




Mythbusters did a segment on shooting locks with handguns.  The bullet punches right through.  Much more importantly, it was a genre-appropriate tactic that backfired spectacularly, because "common sense".


----------



## Hussar (Sep 24, 2018)

David Corgan said:


> /snip
> 
> But more unforgivable than that, you straight up admit that you argued with your DM's ruling. Every other rule is a far distant second to that which you have broken with nary a thought:* The DM's ruling is always right in the moment.* /snip




And, to me, this is about as toxic an approach to DMing as you could possibly have.  Far, far too much poor gaming has been had because the "DM is always right" even in the moment.  Heck, it rolls right back to the whole "ego" thing I've been arguing.  I do agree that stupidity is a close second [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION], but, to me, it always comes down to ego.  Like you said, [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION], what the DM does after the mistake is often down to ego.

Making mistakes is perfectly fine.  Hell, we all make mistakes.  What is required for a good DM though is to put aside his or her ego, admit the mistake and move on.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 25, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> FWIW, i would view the "make a perception check" a part of whatever action the player described that gave him access to the description of the room.
> 
> Am i mistaken?
> 
> Are you saying that your "make a perception check" is some new task? Or is it just a roll to determine what they see at first blush - allowing for different outcomes of "how much do we notice?"



Exactly - how much do they notice at first blush, and-or do they notice one or more less-obvious things at first glance.

It's not always necessary, of course: an empty 20x20' room doesn't usually have many subtleties going on.  But sometimes it can be useful.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> And, to me, this is about as toxic an approach to DMing as you could possibly have. Far, far too much poor gaming has been had because the "DM is always right" even in the moment.



If the choice is between a) an argument that wipes out half the session and b) the DM's word is law so shuddup and siddown then about 98% of the time I'll take b) just to keep the game going.  The argument can happen during the week.  That's what pubs were invented for, right?



> Heck, it rolls right back to the whole "ego" thing I've been arguing. I do agree that stupidity is a close second @Lanefan, but, to me, it always comes down to ego.



Differences in our experiences, perhaps.



> Like you said, @Lanefan, what the DM does after the mistake is often down to ego.
> 
> Making mistakes is perfectly fine. Hell, we all make mistakes. What is required for a good DM though is to put aside his or her ego, admit the mistake and move on.



Provided, of course, it really was a DM mistake in the first place.  If yes, then you're right.  If no, then maybe it's the player's ego getting in the way?

Lanefan


----------



## Maxperson (Sep 25, 2018)

Hussar said:


> Heh.  I haven't played in a group with only a single DM in forever.  My current group of six has four of us that DM regularly.  The notion that no DM=no game hasn't occurred to me in a very long time.  I sometimes forget that for some groups that DM isn't easily replaceable.
> 
> But, yeah, I'll stand by what I said - every really bad DM decision boils down to ego issues.




Yeah.  My group of 5 has 3 DMs.  I'm the primary DM, but I get relief from the other two now and then so I don't burn out.  I'm always so amazed at how easy the game gets when I sit back down as a player after a long stint DMing.  Having to only worry about ONE character and no adventure building/planning is nice to experience now and then.


----------



## Sadras (Sep 25, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Yeah.  My group of 5 has 3 DMs.  I'm the primary DM, but I get relief from the other two now and then so I don't burn out.  I'm always so amazed at how easy the game gets when I sit back down as a player after a long stint DMing.  Having to only worry about ONE character and no adventure building/planning is nice to experience now and then.




I have multiple campaigns in criss-crossing storylines amongst 8 players (the multiple campaigns became necessary due to player fall-out amongst the group, as well as a player that has health issues which crop up now and then).

I only really experience relief from one of the those players when they decided to DM. 
And when they do I absolutely bathe in the ease and fun of the moment because yes, I don't have to worry about adjudication, pacing, numerous characters, ensuring an equal spotlight for all at the table and any other detail that I need to worry about.


----------



## Sadras (Sep 25, 2018)

At our table, final adjudication will fall on the DM, but player input is expected. When I, as DM, make an error, it is absolutely ok for a player to point it out, we are all friends, so no one takes offense. If it is something that neither party can agree on, then a quick session rule is made for pacing purposes and I and/or players decide on a permanent ruling on the issue later.

A few things to keep in mind:
1. We are older and wiser.
2. We don't have as much free time anymore, and cannot afford to waste it on pointless arguments.
3. System plays a major role on how many complex issues arise, 5e is a dream to run, compared to some older editions, IMO.


----------



## MNblockhead (Sep 25, 2018)

Sadras said:


> At our table, final adjudication will fall on the DM, but player input is expected. When I, as DM, make an error, it is absolutely ok for a player to point it out, we are all friends, so no one takes offense. If it is something that neither party can agree on, then a quick session rule is made for pacing purposes and I and/or players decide on a permanent ruling on the issue later.
> 
> A few things to keep in mind:
> 1. We are older and wiser.
> ...




Wait until you are even older and wiser, but retired. You'll find pointless arguments one of life's greatest joys!  I'm not there yet by a long shot but I'm working up towards it!


----------



## Hussar (Sep 26, 2018)

MNblockhead said:


> Wait until you are even older and wiser, but retired. You'll find pointless arguments one of life's greatest joys!  I'm not there yet by a long shot but I'm working up towards it!




Wait, I thought that this is what these forums were for.


----------

