PDA

View Full Version : There's one thing that really annoys me about DMs



Douche
2016-03-29, 03:12 PM
It's when they present you with a situation, and then you say you do something, and then they pull the rug out from under you smugly when they say something to make you look like an idiot for suggesting it - when there is no way you could have seen that based on the information they gave you.

Like in this greentext (http://i.imgur.com/2eH5AL6.png)

The part in the first post where the DM says the Bard looks like an idiot trying to row a boat across stone. They were obviously in water at some point, and the DM didn't tell him that there was any stone. He probably pompously stroked his three-chinned neckbeard after he said that, then tipped his fedora as he displayed his master stroke of genius in adding in idiotic details he didn't originally present, just so he could feel good about himself.

I don't get why people do that. Are you so powerless in your own life that you need to screw over players who are trying to achieve the goals you've presented to them? I would understand if the player was being a douche, but unprovoked like that is just sad. What path has your life taken that you need to do that?

Perhaps a better example - you arrive at a cliff. The DM describes the cliff face, and the vista you are looking upon. Your objective requires you to go down into that valley. You say "ok, time to pull out the rope. Let's start climbing down!" then the DM has the party NPC say "Or we could just walk down this conveniently placed cliffside staircase!" which he didn't mention at all when giving a 2 paragraph description of your surroundings. You could say he's just making things more convenient, but he also just made you/your character look like an idiot. Why?

Lvl 2 Expert
2016-03-29, 03:20 PM
In the case of that bard: it's comedy. He could have said "wait, I didn't think you'd use it like that, the temple floor is all stones. You could still pose with it..." but this was funnier, especially since the bard didn't go "yeah, I'll just pose with it then, maybe show off my knotting" or "of course that's how I try to use it, it's a boat!" but played along.

In that better example: sounds like the DM forgot to say it...

ComaVision
2016-03-29, 03:26 PM
If I have failed to communicate something, I'm willing to retcon a decision.

Most of the time though, I just have a group trying to break down an unlocked door because nobody tried opening it.

mujadaddy
2016-03-29, 03:30 PM
For the cliff stairs, the DM's supposed to go, "As you attempt to gauge the best way to rappel down, walking back and forth along the edge, you eventually notice a carved staircase which descends into the valley below."

That way, the DM isn't at fault for not mentioning it the first time, and the players aren't at fault for not asking questions before coming up with a plan.

(I have this problem at my table: if the players asked more questions, I would answer them to the best of their knowledge. Nothing as obvious as a stairway, though...)

Mr.Moron
2016-03-29, 03:52 PM
Perhaps a better example - you arrive at a cliff. The DM describes the cliff face, and the vista you are looking upon. Your objective requires you to go down into that valley. You say "ok, time to pull out the rope. Let's start climbing down!" then the DM has the party NPC say "Or we could just walk down this conveniently placed cliffside staircase!" which he didn't mention at all when giving a 2 paragraph description of your surroundings. You could say he's just making things more convenient, but he also just made you/your character look like an idiot. Why?

Because you’re a fallible human juggling lots of details, trying to think ahead 3 steps, fielding roll requests from players in the middle of things, and double-checking your encounter information shed of time. Failing to mention an obvious set of stairs usually falls somewhere in between "I just plain forgot that detail for a moment" to "Are you sure I didn't that say that? I could have sworn I did" to "Oh crap! I gave them no way to get down better fix it! This would be a sad place for someone to go splat"

It's not some crazy conspiracy to ruin your character's image. I mean jeez cut folks a break. It's a non-competitive game where he omitted a detail with a net result of exactly no negative consequences. To complain about that fact that if you take all the narration as a super-literal reading of everything that happens your character may seem marginally unobservant, is the definition of nitpicking over trivialities.

Airk
2016-03-29, 04:04 PM
Because you’re a fallible human juggling lots of details, trying to think ahead 3 steps, fielding roll requests from players in the middle of things, and double-checking your encounter information shed of time. Failing to mention an obvious set of stairs usually falls somewhere in between "I just plain forgot that detail for a moment" to "Are you sure I didn't that say that? I could have sworn I did" to "Oh crap! I gave them no way to get down better fix it! This would be a sad place for someone to go splat"

It's not some crazy conspiracy to ruin your character's image. I mean jeez cut folks a break. It's a non-competitive game where he omitted a detail with a net result of exactly no negative consequences. To complain about that fact that if you take all the narration as a super-literal reading of everything that happens your character may seem marginally unobservant, is the definition of nitpicking over trivialities.

I feel like you've missed the point. There are plenty of people who will do things like:

Players: "Okay, we've got a plan. We're going to row across to the galley, making as little noise as possible, and sneak aboard in the dark."
GM: "You get about halfway out to the ship when they sound the alarm and start shooting arrows at you. What were you thinking trying that in broad daylight?"
Players: "We all thought it was nighttime, since that was the last time you mentioned."
GM: "Tough, roll initiative."

There are lots of good ways to handle disconnects, and it's important to remember that they WILL OCCUR, but intentionally not revealing details to the players, or punishing them for doing something when their characters would obviously have the information is just being a jerk. Basically, anytime your players are doing something where you would think "Y'know, that sounds like a dumb idea." it's worth asking, "Hey, are you sure that's a good idea? Because <reason it would be a dumb idea>"; If they say "Yeah, totally" then great, that's on them, you know they are making an informed decision. If they say "Wait, what, there's lava at the bottom of the pit? Of course I'm not jumping down." then you know there was a communication issue.

Mr.Moron
2016-03-29, 04:14 PM
I feel like you've missed the point. There are plenty of people who will do things like:

Players: "Okay, we've got a plan. We're going to row across to the galley, making as little noise as possible, and sneak aboard in the dark."
GM: "You get about halfway out to the ship when they sound the alarm and start shooting arrows at you. What were you thinking trying that in broad daylight?"
Players: "We all thought it was nighttime, since that was the last time you mentioned."
GM: "Tough, roll initiative."

This is not at all what the OP described. You are describing


Players: Attempt Action
GM: Permits players to get well into action.
GM: Gives a description of negative consequences, with reasoning and blaming the players.
Players: Object that was not the original premise
GM: Flippantly dismisses their objections with a hostile tone.



What I was responding to was this:


Perhaps a better example - you arrive at a cliff. The DM describes the cliff face, and the vista you are looking upon. Your objective requires you to go down into that valley. You say "ok, time to pull out the rope. Let's start climbing down!" then the DM has the party NPC say "Or we could just walk down this conveniently placed cliffside staircase!" which he didn't mention at all when giving a 2 paragraph description of your surroundings. You could say he's just making things more convenient, but he also just made you/your character look like an idiot. Why?

Where the flow of events is more:

GM: Describes a scenario.
Players: Attempt an action
GM: Immediately clarifies an easier and less risky path that was not mentioned before
Player: I wouldn't miss that! I look the fool!

Geddy2112
2016-03-29, 04:30 PM
This is a perfect example of Hanlon's razor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor) most of the time. DM's are mortal, they are prone to error. Sometimes they forget a detail, and when they do, sometimes a PC takes a course of action where that detail matters greatly.

All DM's do this, however:

Good DM's will remember the detail as the player's course of action brought it up. They will then retcon or adjust accordingly, and usually say "my bad, forgot to mention the floor was covered in water" or whatever.

Bad DM's will intentionally do this, for "gotcha" moments, or use a legitimate accident to cause a PC to lose face. Don't play with these DM's.

SethoMarkus
2016-03-29, 05:12 PM
"There's one thing that really annoys me about DMs asshats" fixed that for you

DigoDragon
2016-03-29, 05:18 PM
As a DM I occasionally forget a detail. In the case of the cliff face climb, I might simply ignore the stairs and let the PCs climb down easily. That way the story moves along and no one has to feel silly.

Amphetryon
2016-03-29, 05:22 PM
I, too, get incredibly annoyed when a DM does not perfectly anticipate my response to a scenario by providing all details I might deem relevant and none that I would not.

awa
2016-03-29, 05:42 PM
you seem to have missed the point the problem is not that the dm failed to describe every thing its that he introduced the additional information in a way that made the player look stupid, when the player had no way to get around it.

If i understand correctly if the DM said "actually their is a stair way" there would be no problem but becuase an NPC said it and in a sarcastic manner that was the problem.

I also would second the idea its not a dm problem its a jerk problem

Slipperychicken
2016-03-29, 07:19 PM
If i understand correctly if the DM said "actually their is a stair way" there would be no problem but becuase an NPC said it and in a sarcastic manner that was the problem.

I also would second the idea its not a dm problem its a jerk problem

That's the impression I'm getting too. Instead of giving a helpful reminder, he's using an NPC and/or his DM powers to berate and punish the players for not reading his mind.

Amphetryon
2016-03-29, 07:25 PM
That's the impression I'm getting too. Instead of giving a helpful reminder, he's using an NPC and/or his DM powers to berate and punish the players for not reading his mind.

Or he has an NPC that happens to be sarcastic.

If there's a method a DM can use to convey information that will not be complained about as A) too much information expository monologuing, B)insufficient data to proceed, or C) 'gotcha' after-the-fact reveals, I'd love to hear it.

Darth Ultron
2016-03-29, 07:54 PM
This is a common ''problem''. Most often the problem is simply not taking enough time. The DM describes something, and the players jump to ''we do X''. And the whole thing can be avoided with a simple question or two.

Though there is always a disconnect between the DM and the players. It's just a human thing. What one person describes as ''tall'' or ''pretty'' or ''hot'' or ''interesting'' is not what everyone else sees.

awa
2016-03-29, 08:22 PM
the problem isn't the information delivered or not delivered its the dms smugness as if he has got one over on a pc. Since the thread poster is just giving examples not referring to a specific event (i think could be wrong) we don't need to give a hypothetical dm the benefit of the doubt. As some one who has played with dms like that it can get pretty annoying particularly when they do it on purpose specifically being vague about stuff becuase they enjoy making a player look dumb or worse describe things badly then let your character get killed becuase they wont let you take things back.

Slipperychicken
2016-03-29, 08:27 PM
If there's a method a DM can use to convey information that will not be complained about as A) too much information expository monologuing, B)insufficient data to proceed, or C) 'gotcha' after-the-fact reveals, I'd love to hear it.

I just told you. Before resolving the player's action (when it seems nonsensical in context), he can provide the relevant information and politely ask if they'd like to proceed anyway. My DM does it all the time, and the exchange goes a bit like this:

[DM description of cliff and valley]
Player: "I take out my rope and grappling hook to begin climbing down the cliff!"
DM: "There's a stairway you can take. I'm not sure if I mentioned that or not, my bad. Are you sure you want to climb down?"
Player: "Really? I don't *think* you mentioned any stairway. But yeah, I wouldn't climb down when I can just take the stairs"
DM: "So you're taking the stairs?"
Player: "Sure, why not? Let's take the stairs"

I can't speak for your group, but I know mine doesn't complain about it. As a player, it's the best way I've seen to resolve this kind of issue.

Amphetryon
2016-03-29, 08:35 PM
I just told you. Before resolving the player's action (when it seems nonsensical in context), he can provide the relevant information and politely ask if they'd like to proceed anyway. My DM does it all the time, and the exchange goes a bit like this:

[DM description of cliff and valley]
Player: "I take out my rope and grappling hook to begin climbing down the cliff!"
DM: "There's a stairway you can take. I'm not sure if I mentioned that or not, my bad. Are you sure you want to climb down?"
Player: "Really? I don't *think* you mentioned any stairway. But yeah, I wouldn't climb down when I can just take the stairs"
DM: "So you're taking the stairs?"
Player: "Sure, why not? Let's take the stairs"

I can't speak for your group, but I know mine doesn't complain about it. As a player, it's the best way I've seen to resolve this kind of issue.
And I just implied to you - you even quoted it - that this response is in no way assured to prevent Players complaining about the DM's choice of information delivery method. As soon as the Player says "Really, I don't *think* you mentioned any stairway," that's a complaint that the DM either withheld relevant information, or engaged in a 'gotcha' reveal method.

awa
2016-03-29, 08:53 PM
lets just say being smug and condescending to a player is more likely to get complaints then oh there actually stairs their.

Of course no matter what you do someone might complain but some things are more likely to be a problem then others and more importantly some of those complaints are more justified.

goto124
2016-03-29, 09:20 PM
Let the DM off this time, details do slip people's minds. See the thread about remembering what's on your person? Players and DMs alike are flawed and can forget things.

If the DM is a jerk withholding details purely to feel smarter, it'll reveal itself over time. Such as when it happens 5 times per session, and when it's about (say) giant monsters in the middle of otherwise empty rooms.

The description the OP gave already jumps to the conclusion of the DM being a jerk. While such DMs do exist, immediately assuming all DMs who withhold details are this kind is... an invalid assumption.

Heck, withholding details because the DM doesn't want to bore the players with unnecessary prose (which can hide the actually important details!) can be good practice.

Slipperychicken
2016-03-29, 09:31 PM
And I just implied to you - you even quoted it - that this response is in no way assured to prevent Players complaining about the DM's choice of information delivery method. As soon as the Player says "Really, I don't *think* you mentioned any stairway," that's a complaint that the DM either withheld relevant information, or engaged in a 'gotcha' reveal method.

In my group, it's not really a complaint. It's just way to clarify whether someone actually said something, because we understand that the DM is a fallible human who doesn't always say things perfectly the first time. My DM will sometimes say things like that in regard to player actions too (i.e. "I don't remember if you said you donned your armor first or not.. either way it seems like what your character would have done, so I'll let it slide for now. You're in your armor"). It's not mean-spirited or a way to denigrate each other, either.

On either side of the screen, OOC reminders are not a 'gotcha', because the DM isn't trying to insult or penalize us over a simple communication error. And it's not intentional withholding of relevant information, because the DM is going out of his way to provide that information to let the players make better decisions.

If your players are going to seriously whine about being reminded of relevant facts their characters would know, but that the players themselves don't, then that's a problem with your players, not the reminder.

goto124
2016-03-29, 09:39 PM
Seems that for the boat in a temple bit, the DM missed a detail (the temple isn't actually flooded, even though it's to a water god) that the players reasonably assumed. The boat probably didn't even exist until the player asked for it, since the DM had no idea what the player wanted to do with the boat (prior to the player announcing "I'm gonna row it"). This points to a permissive DM who lets players have their agency to do what they want. Notice that no harm was done - perhaps the DM wouldn't have allowed the players to do something far more detrimental to the group due to a miscommunciation?

Also, the DM and players seem to trust one another well enough, considering they burst into laughter. It's a game, guys, have fun!

Amphetryon
2016-03-29, 09:45 PM
In my group, it's not really a complaint. It's just way to clarify whether someone actually said something, because we understand that the DM is a fallible human who doesn't always say things perfectly the first time. My DM will sometimes say things like that in regard to player actions too (i.e. "I don't remember if you said you donned your armor first or not.. either way it seems like what your character would have done, so I'll let it slide for now. You're in your armor"). It's not mean-spirited or a way to denigrate each other, either.

On either side of the screen, OOC reminders are not a 'gotcha', because the DM isn't trying to insult or penalize us over a simple communication error. And it's not intentional withholding of relevant information, because the DM is going out of his way to provide that information to let the players make better decisions.

If your players are going to seriously whine about being reminded of relevant facts their characters would know, but that the players themselves don't, then that's a problem with your players, not the reminder.

They are complaints, and they are 'gotcha' moments, if the Players perceive them to be. A DM who does not agree with this notion winds up with either unhappy Players, or fewer Players. Telling them their complaints are unfounded is not a method of successfully solving this problem, in my experience.

Slipperychicken
2016-03-29, 10:27 PM
They are complaints, and they are 'gotcha' moments, if the Players perceive them to be. A DM who does not agree with this notion winds up with either unhappy Players, or fewer Players. Telling them their complaints are unfounded is not a method of successfully solving this problem, in my experience.

I have never seen or heard of players reacting so poorly to a clarification like I've described. Worst I've seen is some players being stubborn and ignoring it, but even they're quick to understand that the DM is working with them. It's a basic fact of communication that friends help each other get the facts straight before making decisions.

If you find players who can't even listen to a simple clarification without whining, then I can find you players who you're better off not gaming with.

Deophaun
2016-03-29, 10:53 PM
DM: "So you're taking the stairs?"
Player: "Sure, why not?"
Because the stairs were trapped.

I've had cases as a player where the DM stated a crucial detail three times and another player didn't get it until the ridiculousness of what he was trying to do in the face of that detail was described in excruciating detail. At which point the player finally responds "Oh, then I don't do that." Sometimes, a narrative crowbar to the head is what it takes.

CrispyCriminal
2016-03-29, 11:28 PM
I agree it's jerk-ish move to make, though I can see it being applied properly if used under the right conditions. For example, a player using a very low intelligence character could have such information omitted purely to help simulate their flaw though that's probably something to determine with the player(s) before-hand.

Slipperychicken
2016-03-30, 12:04 AM
Because the stairs were trapped.

I've had cases as a player where the DM stated a crucial detail three times and another player didn't get it until the ridiculousness of what he was trying to do in the face of that detail was described in excruciating detail. At which point the player finally responds "Oh, then I don't do that." Sometimes, a narrative crowbar to the head is what it takes.

My group does that too sometimes. It's just a matter of making sure players know what they're doing, rather than springing a gotcha on them. It makes the game feel a lot more fair that way.

Amphetryon
2016-03-30, 06:30 AM
I have never seen or heard of players reacting so poorly to a clarification like I've described. Worst I've seen is some players being stubborn and ignoring it, but even they're quick to understand that the DM is working with them. It's a basic fact of communication that friends help each other get the facts straight before making decisions.

If you find players who can't even listen to a simple clarification without whining, then I can find you players who you're better off not gaming with.

Ah, the 'kick the Players out of your game' approach, either directly or passive-aggressively, applied due to the DM's communication style. Sounds like a healthy way to approach a game with friends.

Douche
2016-03-30, 07:31 AM
You guys are all assuming the best when you weren't even there.

In the greentext I posted, the DM obviously let him do it and look like a fool for it, for his own pleasure.

In my example, the DM said it in a very snarky manner. It's also not the only time he did that.


In a more broad sense, I've been reading a bunch of DnD stories on reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/DnDGreentext/top/?sort=top&t=all) and there seems to be a lot of DMs who go on this power trip where they give a player a problem and then throw in something really stupid and unforeseeable to make the player look like an idiot for suggesting a perfectly reasonable solution that looks silly when you change one detail... Like going in a rowboat to approach some mermaids when you're on a stone floor.

I'm hurt that so many of you would choose to take the DMs side instead of mine in this situation. I thought we were supposed to be bros here.

Gravitron5000
2016-03-30, 08:14 AM
I'm hurt that so many of you would choose to take the DMs side instead of mine in this situation. I thought we were supposed to be bros here.

Well, you are kind of a douche :smallwink:

I think that there are definitely times to cut the DM some slack, and if you know your players, and the game is lighthearted, making a PC look like a fool for some cheap laughs can add to the fun.

That said, some DMs are on power trips and like pulling these gotchas on players as if you missing a detail that was not stated is some sort of fundamental failing, and you should be ridiculed for it. These DMs exist. In general, you probably shouldn't play with them.

SethoMarkus
2016-03-30, 10:57 AM
This is not a DM problem. This is a problem from playing with jerks. Whether that jerk is the DM or another player is largely irrelevant, something will come up. I also think this come from a player vs DM mentality. For every example in the imgur post the atmosphere changes drastically depending on if you default to player vs DM or player with DM.

To me, each of those stories seemed lighthearted and silly. I didn't read the DMs as being condescending or smug, I read them as being playful or silly. I absolutely can see them being sarcastic or mean spirited, but I'm not cynical enough to default to that world view. And even then, the issue is not the DMs position of authority that caused the situation, it's that the DM is a jerk. If he were a player, he'd be disruptive some other way.

Slipperychicken
2016-03-30, 11:07 AM
Ah, the 'kick the Players out of your game' approach, either directly or passive-aggressively, applied due to the DM's communication style. Sounds like a healthy way to approach a game with friends.

The same is true of freaking out whenever someone tries to help you get the facts straight.


But as far as I can tell, your objection is purely theoretical. I'll start considering it more seriously if people actually find the practice disagreeable in a real game.

PoeticDwarf
2016-03-30, 12:07 PM
It's when they present you with a situation, and then you say you do something, and then they pull the rug out from under you smugly when they say something to make you look like an idiot for suggesting it - when there is no way you could have seen that based on the information they gave you.

Like in this greentext (http://i.imgur.com/2eH5AL6.png)

The part in the first post where the DM says the Bard looks like an idiot trying to row a boat across stone. They were obviously in water at some point, and the DM didn't tell him that there was any stone. He probably pompously stroked his three-chinned neckbeard after he said that, then tipped his fedora as he displayed his master stroke of genius in adding in idiotic details he didn't originally present, just so he could feel good about himself.

I don't get why people do that. Are you so powerless in your own life that you need to screw over players who are trying to achieve the goals you've presented to them? I would understand if the player was being a douche, but unprovoked like that is just sad. What path has your life taken that you need to do that?

Perhaps a better example - you arrive at a cliff. The DM describes the cliff face, and the vista you are looking upon. Your objective requires you to go down into that valley. You say "ok, time to pull out the rope. Let's start climbing down!" then the DM has the party NPC say "Or we could just walk down this conveniently placed cliffside staircase!" which he didn't mention at all when giving a 2 paragraph description of your surroundings. You could say he's just making things more convenient, but he also just made you/your character look like an idiot. Why?
It's a bit annoying but you overreact . Your last question. Why? Either the DM forgot OR he wanted to make you loom dumb. In the second case, everyone knows you aren't anyway

Malimar
2016-03-30, 12:49 PM
If the DM is a jerk withholding details purely to feel smarter, it'll reveal itself over time. Such as when it happens 5 times per session, and when it's about (say) giant monsters in the middle of otherwise empty rooms.

Oh man, I've been so bad about this.

Used to be I'd describe the room and save the giant monster for last, which doesn't work because the players like to interrupt as soon as they hear a detail about the room they want to interact with and I have to say "hold on, you didn't let me get to the giant monster in the middle of the room".

Lately I've switched to mentioning the giant monster first, on the logic that the first thing your character notices should be the first thing I describe, but then the players get immediately into monster-killing mode and they never even give me a chance to describe the room, even if the room might contain details that would make it easier to defeat the monster.

...In short, my players are impatient and like to jump the gun and interrupt my descriptions either way, sometimes to their own detriment. I don't think I'm all that long-winded, but maybe I am. But I have literally been interrupted in the middle of delivering a one-sentence description.

To use the cliff example from upthread: I would describe the cliff, the valley, and so on, and then my players would interrupt me to announce their intention to rappel down before I even have a chance to mention the stairs.

Amphetryon
2016-03-30, 01:00 PM
The same is true of freaking out whenever someone tries to help you get the facts straight.


But as far as I can tell, your objection is purely theoretical. I'll start considering it more seriously if people actually find the practice disagreeable in a real game.

I've actually had Players - plural, in gaming groups that did not know each other at all - like this in multiple games, on both sides of the DM screen.

Jay R
2016-03-30, 03:22 PM
Queen Elizabeth once said, "I would not open windows into men's souls."

I don't know, and won't guess, why the DM acted like I knew something I didn't know.

I don't know, and won't guess, why the players did something that looked stupid to me.

To continue playing D&D, get (or give) the information and move on. Guessing about motives stops the D&D game and starts the recriminations game. I prefer D&D.

We're human. It happens. Move on. Nobody, not even you, will care how stupid your character looked in a boat when the orcs attack.

On a side issue, let me congratulate you on your rare good fortune at finding DMs with only one weakness. "There's one thing that really annoys me about DMs"? Most of us have several such annoyances.

icefractal
2016-03-30, 03:26 PM
I think sometimes DMs forget, or don't know in the first place, when it is and isn't appropriate to try to 'win'. People want to pull a Tucker's Kobolds and outsmart their players, defeat them with superior strategy instead of raw power.

But - you can't do that when you have unlimited resources at your disposal. "Beating" the players with the full power of world-creation and adjudication is about as praise-worthy as defeating a toddler in basketball. If you want to be tricky, you have to constrain yourself to limited resources. And those resources definitely don't include screwing with the player/game interface (ie. your descriptions of things and how you interpret PC actions).

A rule of thumb might be "create benevolently, plan competitively, adjudicate neutrally". Like for example, I'm making an gang of undead that threatens a nearby town:
* When creating them, I do include a zombie-katamari monster, because that sounds fun to fight, and I don't include a couple dozen Shadows all bunched up under the floor for a no-save TPK, because that won't be fun.
* When deciding their plan, I try to think how they'd best accomplish their goals, and that includes underhanded tactics and trying to win by any means. But I'm restrained to what I already decided they have, I can't just say they do have the Shadow TPK-squad now, even though IC they would obviously prefer to have one.

That's just one way to do it; you can "plan neutrally", where you limit the tactics to what you think the creatures in question would naturally think of. And you can "adjudicate benevolently", where you fudge things slightly in favor of the PCs. You can - to an extent - "create neutrally", as in, having a sandbox campaign and deciding what events happen by IC logic. 'To an extent', because nobody is a perfectly bias-free world simulator in practice.

But as far as acting competitively? You do have to constrain that to the IC planning phase only. If you try to 'beat' the players in world creation or in adjudication, then you'll 'succeed' ... at running a ****ty game.

goto124
2016-03-31, 12:31 AM
Lately I've switched to mentioning the giant monster first, on the logic that the first thing your character notices should be the first thing I describe, but then the players get immediately into monster-killing mode and they never even give me a chance to describe the room, even if the room might contain details that would make it easier to defeat the monster. [Realistically I wouldn't notice such details when there's a giant monster to take care of :smalltongue:, but I digress.]

But I have literally been interrupted in the middle of delivering a one-sentence description.

Ow.

Do you use grids? Add minis and figurines to show the important parts of the room. The players can see them right away.

Describe the important details to them after they've started combat. "As you run around the giant monster, you notice a lever at this side of the room".

Terracotta
2016-03-31, 02:22 AM
When it comes to greentexts and reddit threads you're going to find more stories about entertainingly bad or rage-inducing GMs than good ones. We've all had crappy experiences with GMs or with players, but you'll end up thinking a problem is WAY more widespread than it its if you're actively seeking out the worst of the worst.

Lorsa
2016-03-31, 03:29 AM
I'm hurt that so many of you would choose to take the DMs side instead of mine in this situation. I thought we were supposed to be bros here.

I'm on your side Douche, and then I spend 95% of my roleplaying time being the DM.

I have experienced similar jerk moves myself though during my short times as player. It's always annoying, and I always take steps to solve obvious miscommunication in a respectful manner with my players.



Lately I've switched to mentioning the giant monster first, on the logic that the first thing your character notices should be the first thing I describe, but then the players get immediately into monster-killing mode and they never even give me a chance to describe the room, even if the room might contain details that would make it easier to defeat the monster.

...In short, my players are impatient and like to jump the gun and interrupt my descriptions either way, sometimes to their own detriment. I don't think I'm all that long-winded, but maybe I am. But I have literally been interrupted in the middle of delivering a one-sentence description.

To use the cliff example from upthread: I would describe the cliff, the valley, and so on, and then my players would interrupt me to announce their intention to rappel down before I even have a chance to mention the stairs.

It's always good to describe the monster first. Also, when you go into a room and see a giant monster, chances are you won't really notice what other details might be there except for "well, it's a room". So don't be annoyed with your players jumping the gun, that just makes it follow normal human perception. If they later on ask to get more details, it means their character has become level-headed enough to look around, so you can provide it then.

Hierarchy of attention is a good starting point for all description.

In the second case of rappelling down, it is a simple thing to interrupt them and say "there's also stairs".

OldTrees1
2016-03-31, 08:47 AM
Communication is a 2 person task and is prone to occasional miscommunication.

DMs should not intend miscommunication in order to make fools out of their players. That is destructive behavior and players will, rightly, treat it as such.

DMs will occasionally have to deal with miscommunication between DM and the other players. Sometimes they meant to mention a detail earlier. Sometimes the players interpreted the details differently. Sometimes a player merely missed something the DM said. Under all these situations the DM and the Player were temporarily playing separate games. As a DM, my recommendation for the DM is to retcon in what the player would have done if possible.

As a Player, my recommendations to Players that encounter miscommunications is to presume it was this second kind until proven otherwise. The rule of thumb "Never attribute to malice what can equally be explained by ignorance" is a marvelous tool for working with others.

mujadaddy
2016-03-31, 09:48 AM
Communication is a 2 person task

or as I've put it in the past, "It takes two not to communicate."

goto124
2016-03-31, 09:49 AM
Some variation of "It takes two to clap".

Darth Tom
2016-03-31, 10:01 AM
My DM style is a bit different; maybe I've been doing it all wrong. Unless it's a really serious detail that I've forgotten, I would go with the players' suggestion. Rappelling down a cliff can be a bit of an adventure in itself, you never know what you might find and who cares that you might have been able to take the stairs instead?

If it was an important detail, I would back up and assume I'd messed up. My players tend to be smart, engaged people and if they have a dumb idea, it's probably my fault.

I also like to get the players to sketch a rough map of rooms and settings as I describe them. My first DM did this and I copied it. It's a good way to tell if something kind of important is missing, as well as checking we're all on the same page.

Segev
2016-03-31, 10:03 AM
Oh man, I've been so bad about this.

Used to be I'd describe the room and save the giant monster for last, which doesn't work because the players like to interrupt as soon as they hear a detail about the room they want to interact with and I have to say "hold on, you didn't let me get to the giant monster in the middle of the room".

Lately I've switched to mentioning the giant monster first, on the logic that the first thing your character notices should be the first thing I describe, but then the players get immediately into monster-killing mode and they never even give me a chance to describe the room, even if the room might contain details that would make it easier to defeat the monster.

...In short, my players are impatient and like to jump the gun and interrupt my descriptions either way, sometimes to their own detriment. I don't think I'm all that long-winded, but maybe I am. But I have literally been interrupted in the middle of delivering a one-sentence description.

To use the cliff example from upthread: I would describe the cliff, the valley, and so on, and then my players would interrupt me to announce their intention to rappel down before I even have a chance to mention the stairs.

If you've artistic talent, maybe drawing such rooms would help? Just a "glimpse from the entrance" type thing, perhaps.

I know I can't draw, and that most artists I know take a long time on anything they draw, though, so that might be entirely unfeasible.

OldTrees1
2016-03-31, 10:23 AM
or as I've put it in the past, "It takes two not to communicate."

Hmm. Your rewording changes the meaning.
Is communication "It takes 2 Nays to fail" or is it "It takes 2 Ayes to succeed"?

SirBellias
2016-03-31, 11:22 AM
As a DM, I tend to make up far too much stuff on the fly, and my players know this. Usually if they want to try something, they ask if there's anything special about the walls/floors/jars/tables, and I think about it and tell them whatever I can come up with that might be interesting, or ask what their intention is. Most of the time it's logical and doable, so I give some sort of aesthetic fact (pictographs, carvings, what have you) which they ignore.
Large things I typically think of before combat starts, if it will, which they try to use to their advantage, and smaller less pertinent details I make up if they ask. So I don't know if I'm guilty of this, and if I am, my players don't seem to get upset about it.

Airk
2016-03-31, 12:05 PM
Or he has an NPC that happens to be sarcastic.

If there's a method a DM can use to convey information that will not be complained about as A) too much information expository monologuing, B)insufficient data to proceed, or C) 'gotcha' after-the-fact reveals, I'd love to hear it.

Maybe if there were any mention of any NPCs present, this would be a good explanation, but it really feels like you are desperately trying to blame the GM here.

The GM has infinite ability to screw over the players for his own satisfaction. He should not be using it. End of argument from my perspective.

Amphetryon
2016-03-31, 12:07 PM
Maybe if there were any mention of any NPCs present, this would be a good explanation, but it really feels like you are desperately trying to blame the GM here.

The GM has infinite ability to screw over the players for his own satisfaction. He should not be using it. End of argument from my perspective.

I'm trying to blame the GM? Perhaps my posts bear rereading.

Malimar
2016-03-31, 01:07 PM
If you've artistic talent, maybe drawing such rooms would help? Just a "glimpse from the entrance" type thing, perhaps.

I know I can't draw, and that most artists I know take a long time on anything they draw, though, so that might be entirely unfeasible.

My artistic talent is pretty much limited to maps and diagrams. Still, it's an excellent idea for anybody who does have artistic talent, especially if prepared in advance.

mujadaddy
2016-03-31, 02:29 PM
Hmm. Your rewording changes the meaning.
Is communication "It takes 2 Nays to fail" or is it "It takes 2 Ayes to succeed"?
Well, specifically, the saying arose in relation to a friend and me who would go months without talking to each other by any means (phone, email, etc.). Whichever of us complained about the lack of contact first, got the "It takes 2" to the face.

To answer your question, "2 Ayes": speaking is not communicating. Communication only happens when both parties are making an effort.

Themrys
2016-03-31, 03:14 PM
This is not a DM problem. This is a problem from playing with jerks. Whether that jerk is the DM or another player is largely irrelevant, something will come up. I also think this come from a player vs DM mentality. For every example in the imgur post the atmosphere changes drastically depending on if you default to player vs DM or player with DM.

To me, each of those stories seemed lighthearted and silly. I didn't read the DMs as being condescending or smug, I read them as being playful or silly. I absolutely can see them being sarcastic or mean spirited, but I'm not cynical enough to default to that world view. And even then, the issue is not the DMs position of authority that caused the situation, it's that the DM is a jerk. If he were a player, he'd be disruptive some other way.

Not so sure about such a person being disruptive in a different way as player. I mean, he probably will be annoying, but someone who is not in a position of power cannot do so much damage.

I remember one DM who was a subtle kind of annoying as DM (he made a fantasy world especially designed to be fun for all player very misogynist and then denied it, for example), and it took me a long time to notice the intentional nature of this **** - I think as a player he would have been waaay less annoying, and I would have needed another two years before I lost patience with him, if at all.

On the topic of how to solve the problem of not having mentioned some details: Usually, just saying that you forgot to mention something is totally okay. Lighthearted and silly works with people who can laugh about themselves, but it's not a safe default.