There's one thing that really annoys me about DMs

[Douche]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

1. Players: Attempt Action
2. GM: Permits players to get well into action.
3. GM: Gives a description of negative consequences, with reasoning and blaming the players.
4. Players: Object that was not the original premise
5. 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:

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

[Geddy2112]

This is a perfect example of 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]

"There's one thing that really annoys me about DMs asshats" fixed that for you

[DigoDragon]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 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]

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

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.