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

Hussar · Oct 16, 2018

/edit - whoops, sorry, nothing to see here. This line of discussion will not produce anything productive.

Aldarc · Oct 16, 2018

Lanefan said:
If the game's being run using a canned setting e.g. Greyhawk or Eberron or whatever then the info's out there for all to find; the DM only has to inform as to any changes to the canon. If it's a homebrew setting then yes, the DM has to make sure there's enough clear info given to allow the players to see what's involved (or likely to be involved) in playing a cleric to any given deity. (and having done these deity write-ups for my own campaign I'll say this: it's a lot of work, but if you can then use the same pantheon from one campaign to the next it's work you really only have to do once)

I mostly agree with you here, but my point earlier was that a DM and player can have multiple readings or expectations for what clerical play will entail even if they work with a preexisting setting pantheon.

If you're running the game from a 1e perspective - and I'm not sure if this has changed much since - then a high-level cleric communicates with its deity every morning while praying for 6th and 7th level spells. (3rd-5th come from a minion, 1st-2nd come as a function of faith and belief). In this sense, the deity is certainly real to the praying cleric!

This is not being run from a 1e perspective. This is largely left open for the cleric in 5e. It only states that you pray or meditate when you desire to change your spells. It does not say that your deity communicates with you. The process is a mystery. The flavor text, should we feel inclined to enslave ourselves to it, says, "the ability to cast cleric spells relies on devotion and an intuitive sense of a deity’s wishes." "Intuitive sense" does not strike me GM fiat but rather player fiat. Great is the mystery of faith.

There's a leap of logic here that I'm not following.

First, what's this "human perspective" you're referring to?

Would you explain how this is a leap of logic? I'm kinda disappointed. I thought that I explained it well enough to get the gist.

I am referring to the religious perspective and framework through which humans have operated, in a broad manner of speaking, throughout history. We regard(ed) these deities as real. We believe(d) that we can see their works and influence in our world. We claim to receive visions, signs, and portents from them. But nevertheless, these deities are fundamentally elusive. We operate from faith. We engage rites and prayers. Some believe that their deity answers their prayers directly or indirectly, but this is largely a matter of faith and discernment.

Second, if a deity is 'real' in the game world/setting to the point of being able to have any sentient interaction with anyone then it's an NPC. If a deity isn't 'real' and is nothing more than an amorphous source of daily spells then it's not an NPC, but in this case you'd have to ban Commune as a spell as its very existence presumes sentience and knowledge at the deity end.

I don't see why that would be necessary. Given how the 5e cleric already operates off intuition (see above), then the "yes/no/non-answer" of Commune could operate along similar principles. And I kinda like that this uncertainty and operation from a place of intuition frame the cleric in a greater position of faith and trust that the answers they intuit are true.

Who gets to determine how this new deity interacts with the other Dwarven deities, or how Dwarves view its followers and clerics? Who plays the deity when it interacts with your PC e.g. when you cast Commune?

What other Dwarven deities? I worked in cooperation with the GM. I proposed and discussed with her how I envisioned this deity in the society of the dwarves of my character's context and how my character may have deviated from orthodoxy in their own religious understanding. She has never played my deity. No one has played my deity. I have not cast Commune nor have I felt it necessary to do so from an in-character perspective. I have only played my character as a faithful follower of the religious precepts of their deity, great is the mystery.

So what happens if someone else wants to play a cleric to this deity? Are they now bound to your vision of it; or in other words, is this deity in effect now just an extension of your specific PC?

It seems like this is something that could easily be discussed with the involved parties in a mature adult manner. As I stated before, my character has a sister who is also a PC. We discussed and collaborated on our backstory.

Lanefan said:
Controversial and contentious? Sounds like the storyteller is doing it right - far more so than with just another story that nobody talks about and everyone forgets a year hence.

I don't think this is the sort of memorable storytelling worth lauding. I have never encountered a Spider-Man fan who liked it. It was seen as a giant regression for the comic and poor storytelling. Even the writer hated it. It was a shark-jumping moment for the comic.

Hussar · Oct 16, 2018

Honestly I think the basic issue is a disagreement over scale. For some, any limitation on dm authority is unacceptable. For me and I think others, I just don’t see the big deal.

The dm is going to play dozens of not hundreds of npc’s. Taking one off the table just seems like such a minor thing to me. Same goes for scenario design. The dm is going to make and run dozens if not hundreds of scenarios. Telling the dm that one is off the table just seems like such a minor thing.

To be perfectly honest, it didn’t really occur to me that this would be contentious.

pemerton · Oct 16, 2018

Sadras said:
Simply put I view deities & patrons as NPCs. NPCs fall under the DM's purview.

Loss of powers/benefits is a common trope.
It may be effected poorly, it may also be done tastefully, just as in the comics.

I'm not going to get into the when/how/why or how long powers/benefits are stripped for, there are too many variables.

I will say the relationship between character and x was defined or decision points was indeed made by the player for his character when he/she went against the express wishes of his deity/patron. You seem discount that defining moment (which is not minor) and decision point, saying the DM just stripped away benefits/powers without any forewarning. I'd say the player would know full well what led his/her character to that point.

You focus on things that I haven't mentioned (but presumably are important to you).

I've not said anything about forewarning (or otherwise). I've said that I don't see what it adds to the game for the GM to try to direct the players play of his/her PC by dictating what the god/patron wants as something different from what the player would otherwise have that be.

This is independent of whether the god is a NPC. Suppose the god is a NPC - that doesn't tell us what the GM should have the god do vis-a-vis the player's PC.

Lanefan said:
Should a Cleric who tells his deity to sod off still receive spells?

I don't know, but what does that have to do with this thread? I'm not talking about a cleric who tells her deity to sod off. I'm talking about a player who has a view of what loyalty to his/her PC's god demands; and am asking what it adds to the game for the GM to contradict that view.

Sadras said:
Patrons may be demanding.
Enemies of your Patron might hunt you down.

Surely the difference between these two things is obvious.

The second is some character-relative flavouring of the challenges that it is the job of the GM to put before the PCs (and, thereby, their players),.

The first is the GM directing the player in the play of their PC.

And [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION]: if my conception of my player is as having a loving family waiting upon the PC's return from the quest, and you as GM decide unilaterally that in fact my father is a serial killer, you've brutally overridden my conception of my character. You, personally, may think that people are in no way defined by their relationships. I, with the vast weight of historical and sociological scholarship as well as common sense on my side, disagree.

And [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION]: you description of cleric play is quite consonant with my own experiences as player and GM. The idea that a PC's values, faith etc won't manifest in play unless the GM is there playing a god or patron as a "sockpuppet" is ludicrous. It's enough to point to the vast quantities of literature and film in which character's faith manifests itself although God never appears in the story. I find The End of the Affair a particularly striking example.

Lanefan · Oct 16, 2018

Aldarc said:
I mostly agree with you here, but my point earlier was that a DM and player can have multiple readings or expectations for what clerical play will entail even if they work with a preexisting setting pantheon.

Perhaps, but as long as both realize that two clerics to the same deity need only follow the same basic precepts and don't otherwise have to be clones of each other I think we're good.

This is not being run from a 1e perspective. This is largely left open for the cleric in 5e. It only states that you pray or meditate when you desire to change your spells. It does not say that your deity communicates with you. The process is a mystery. The flavor text, should we feel inclined to enslave ourselves to it, says, "the ability to cast cleric spells relies on devotion and an intuitive sense of a deity’s wishes." "Intuitive sense" does not strike me GM fiat but rather player fiat. Great is the mystery of faith.

Ah, so it's far more open-ended now. Got it.

Would you explain how this is a leap of logic? I'm kinda disappointed. I thought that I explained it well enough to get the gist.

I am referring to the religious perspective and framework through which humans have operated, in a broad manner of speaking, throughout history. We regard(ed) these deities as real. We believe(d) that we can see their works and influence in our world. We claim to receive visions, signs, and portents from them. But nevertheless, these deities are fundamentally elusive. We operate from faith. We engage rites and prayers. Some believe that their deity answers their prayers directly or indirectly, but this is largely a matter of faith and discernment.

Ah, OK.

Keep in mind, though, that the Norse and Greeks (and Romans? Not sure) believed their deities were real and occasionally walked among them, and weren't all that elusive - just ask all the ancient-Greek women who believed they'd had Zeus in their beds or Norsemen who believed they'd met Odin on a road. Various D&D settings follow this model for the game, as do I; and as a double-edged side effect it's nigh impossible to be a true athiest in such a setting.

I don't see why that would be necessary. Given how the 5e cleric already operates off intuition (see above), then the "yes/no/non-answer" of Commune could operate along similar principles. And I kinda like that this uncertainty and operation from a place of intuition frame the cleric in a greater position of faith and trust that the answers they intuit are true.

If all Commune can ever give you is yes-no-unknown for answers then one could frame it as intuition and-or wisdom. I'm used to a situation where Commune can give a few-word answer that can be quite a bit more informative* than a simple yes-no.

* - I split Commune into two spells for my game - Lesser (5th level, replacing the original) and Greater (7th level, new). Lesser's ony answer options are yes, no, maybe (or uncertain), unknown, or a single number. Greater works like the original, and gives intelligent answers of a few words each.

What other Dwarven deities?

The Dwarves have no other deities than the one you invented? No Moradin? No Clanggedin? No Berronar? No pantheon at all?

I worked in cooperation with the GM. I proposed and discussed with her how I envisioned this deity in the society of the dwarves of my character's context and how my character may have deviated from orthodoxy in their own religious understanding. She has never played my deity. No one has played my deity. I have not cast Commune nor have I felt it necessary to do so from an in-character perspective. I have only played my character as a faithful follower of the religious precepts of their deity, great is the mystery.

The bit I bolded is what I was after - you not only invented the deity (which is kinda cool) but also determined its place in Dwarven society, which by extension largely determines how other Dwarves are going to react to you and-or your deity (which is not cool, as that's taking NPC agency away form the DM).

Oddly enough, in a roundabout way I've gone through exactly the same process.

Many years ago I and some other players and my DM were sitting around joking over coffee, and over the course of the conversation invented a rather gonzo Dwarven god of beer and hockey. Within a week or two that god appeared in the Dwarven pantheon in his well-established game. Several months later when I needed a character I banged out this god's first played cleric**, who went on to a grand - if death-filled - career. This god is still part of our Dwarven pantheons today.

** I don't know how to embed links - his character page is here: http://www.friendsofgravity.com/games/commons_room/Hall_of_Heroes/HHGutezapre.html

It seems like this is something that could easily be discussed with the involved parties in a mature adult manner. As I stated before, my character has a sister who is also a PC. We discussed and collaborated on our backstory.

I guess what I'm getting at here is that were I to come into that game and want to play a cleric to that deity I'd in effect have to answer to two DMs instead of just one.

Lanefan

pemerton · Oct 16, 2018

Hussar said:
To be perfectly honest, it didn’t really occur to me that this would be contentious.

That surprises me!

Although there are a wide variety of approaches expressed on ENworld (I'll point to eg [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION], [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION], [MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION] in this thread), there is a default or dominant approach which is that RPGing = the GM establishes a fiction (which typically will take the form of some sort of "story") and the players' role is to work their way through that fiction. Hence any suggestion that players should exercise some control over establishing the fiction will be contentiouos.

pemerton · Oct 16, 2018

I'm going to post some extracts from an actual play report:

[sblock]

pemerton said:
In our last session, the PCs had escaped into the Mausoleum of the Raven Queen

<snip>

Their reason for being there was that the Mausoleum of the Raven Queen - like other lost things - had ended up on The Barrens in the Abyss. And Osterneth, as an agent of Vecna, had gone there to try and learn the Raven Queen's true name from her dead (mortal) body. The PCs were there to stop her - but with various degrees of enthusiasm, because they don't all exactly approve of her and her growing divine power. (Even though nearly everything they do seems to increase this!)

The Mausoleum had three areas: an entrance room, with a large statue and modest altar; a set of stairs with slightly elevated ramps on either side leading down to the principal room - very large (about 90' x 50') with a huge statue and two pools of water, corrupted by the Abyss; and then a smaller set of stairs leading down to the burial room, with a large altar and five statues and 4 side rooms (the sarcophagus room, the room with canopic jars, the grave goods room and the treasure room).

The PCs started in the entrance

<snip>

They studied the murals and reliefs in the entrance chamber, which showed the Raven Queen's victories during her life, becoming the most powerful ruler in the world (crushing her enemies, being adulated by her subjects, etc - I told the players to think of Egyptian tomb paintings, Mesopotamian reliefs, and similar).

The invoker/wizard and ranger-cleric (having the best Perception in the party) then heard a slithering sound on the ramp. With his ring that grants darkvision the invoker/wizard could see a guardian naga. And the sphinx then came out, and told them that they must answer a riddle before they could pass further into the Mausoleum. I had mixed together abilities from a MM and MM2 sphinx, so they could either choose between accepting the challenge but suffering a debuff until answering it; or rejecting the challenge but granting the sphinx a power up. They chose to accept.

I wrote the riddle a few weeks ago on the train:

In the green garden, a sapling grows,
In time the tree dies, a seed remains.
In the grim garden shall that seed be sown,
Among the black poplars a new tree, a new name:

Shade shall it cast,
Frost endure,
Dooms outlast,
Pride cure.

Appropriately enough, it was the player of the ridiculously zealous paladin of the Raven Queen who first conjectured that the subject of the riddle was the Raven Queen herself - first her mortal life, than her life after death in which she took on a new name ("the Raven Queen") and took control of the Shadowfell and death, of winter, and of fate.

When the players had reached agreement on this, they offered their answer. The sphinx accepted it, but insisted that they also tell him whose pride will be cured. After generic answers ("everyone dies"), which did not really satisfy the sphinx, the fighter/cleric answered "Us". The sphinx replied "Well, yes, you," and this was the clue for the player of the invoker/wizard, who answered "The gods" - because the fighter/cleric is now God of Jailing, Pain and Torture (having taken up Torog's portfolio). The sphinx then allowed them to pass down the stairs to the principal room, to venerate the dead queen.

In the principal room, they identified the Abyssal corruptions in the pools, and used a Tide of the First Storm (to summon cleansing water) enhanced by other water-quelling magic (sucked out of a Floating Shield) to purify one, so that they could safely pass it to get to the doorway to the burial room. The mural in the principal room - also a magical hazard if they got too close, which they made sure not to - depicted the mortal queen's magical achievements - including defeating a glabrezu on the Feywild, and travelling to the land of the dead (at that time, a land of black poplars ruled by Nerull).

The paladin looked in the cleansed pool to see what he could see, and saw episodes from the past depicting the Raven Queen's accretion of domains (fate from Lolth, in return for helping Corellon against her; winter from Khala, in return for sending her into death at the behest of the other gods); and then also the future, of a perfect world reborn following the destruction of the Dusk War, with her as ruler.

I also decided a further complication was needed: so I explained to the player of the fighter/cleric (who is now the god of imprisonment, and also has a theme that gives him a connection to primordial earth) that he could sense the Elemental Chaos surging up through the earth of the mortal world (because (i) Torog can no longer hold it back, and (ii) the Abyss, having been sealed, is no longer sucking it down the other way); and as a result, an ancient abomination sealed in the earth had been awakened from its slumber and would soon makes it way up to the surface of the world. I then filled them in on my version of the Tarrasque (the MM version with MM3 damage and a few tweaks to help it with action economy). This created suitable consternation, and was taken as another sign of the impending Dusk War.

At this point there was much debate: at least an hour at the table, I would say. They couldn't agree on what they wanted to do - destroy the body (mabye by bringing in the sphere of annihilation, which had been left outside when they fled into the Mausoleum); perhaps destroy the whole Mausoleum; or, as the fighter/cleric advocated, learn her name first so they could use that to bargain with her and compel cooperation without her getting to acquire new domains.

The guardians - who could understand all this, given their Supernal tongue, and could follow it, given their high INT and WIS and Arcana and Religion and Insight - insisted that no Sphere of Annihilation might be brought into the Mausoleum, and that the remains of the dead queen, and her burial goods, not be disturbed. The PCs weren't wanting to start any conflict at this point, and at least three of them (paladin, ranger-cleric and invoker/wizard) were happy with this in any event. So they with the guardian's permission they went down the last set of stairs to the burial room.

This room had a statue in each of four corners - the Raven Queen mortal, ruling death, ruling fate and ruling winter. The fifth statute faced a large altar, and showed her in her future state, as universal ruler. The murals and reliefs here showed the future (continuing the theme of the rooms: the entry room showed her mortal life; the principal room her magical life, including her passage into death; this room her future as a god). I made up some salient images, based on important events of the campaign: an image of the Wolf-Spider; an image of the a great staff or rod with six dividing lines on it (ie the completed Rod of 7 Parts, which is to be the trigger for the Dusk War); an image of an earthmote eclipsing the sun (the players don't know what this one is yet, though in principle they should, so I'll leave it unexplained for now); an image of a bridge with an armoured knight on it, or perhaps astride it - this was not clear given the "flat-ness" of the perspective, and the presence of horns on the knight was also hard to discern (the players immediately recognised this as the paladin taking charge of The Bridge That Can Be Traversed But Once); and an image of the tarrasque wreaking havoc.

More discussion and debate ensued. Closer inspection showed that where it was possible the queen's name had once been written on the walls, this had been erased. The invoker/wizard decided to test whether this could be undone, by using a Make Whole ritual: he made a DC 52 Arcana check, and was able to do so (though losing a third of his (less than max) hp in the process, from forcing through the wards of the Mausoleum). Which resulted in him learning the name of the Raven Queen. And becoming more concerned than ever that it is vulnerable to others learning it to.

Asking the guardians confirmed that they also know her name, though will not speak it, as that would be an insult to the dead.

The new plan arrived at - now that it seemed that sequestering or destroying the body wouldn't be enough, and would require fighting the guardians also - was to surround the whole thing in a Magic Circle vs "all" while the collapse of the Abyss takes the whole thing. They thought the Circle would have a good chance of keeping out level 40 or so beings (given the invoker/wizard's high Arcana bonus). But this takes 1 minute per square, and a quick calculation showed the circle would need to be about 30 squares radius, for around 3000 squares area, or 50 hours. (I think during the session someone might have mucked up by a factor of 10, because 20 days was bandied about as the time required - either way too long to do without first dealing with Osterneth.)

So the discussion then shifted to defeating Osterneth. The player of the sorcerer had been very keen on the possibility of a magical chariot among the grave goods, and so I decided that there was a gilt-and-bronze Chariot of Sustarre (fly speed 8, 1x/enc cl burst 3 fire attack). They persuaded the guardians to let them borrow it, as the necessary cost of preventing Osterneth coming in and defiling the body.

The sorcerer then powered up the Chariot with a quickened version of his Enhance Vessel ritual, making it speed 10 (he spent extra residuum after a successful DC 32 Arcana check). And they pushed open the doors and launched an assault on Osterneth, who was still waiting outside.

[/sblock]

If that's "one man theatre" or "no consequences" then guilty as charged.

Imaro · Oct 17, 2018

Hussar said:
Honestly I think the basic issue is a disagreement over scale. For some, any limitation on dm authority is unacceptable. For me and I think others, I just don’t see the big deal.

The dm is going to play dozens of not hundreds of npc’s. Taking one off the table just seems like such a minor thing to me. Same goes for scenario design. The dm is going to make and run dozens if not hundreds of scenarios. Telling the dm that one is off the table just seems like such a minor thing.

To be perfectly honest, it didn’t really occur to me that this would be contentious.

Let me pose a question to you Hussar... would you be ok with the DM deciding during the length of a campaign that you and your party lost a combat encounter and were captured no matter what you did in said combat? It's a single fight in a campaign and no one would die, you'd just loose no matter what your actions were and the entire party would be captured. I honestly think many players would see this as railroading and a jerk move by a DM, but it's only a single fight and there will be hundreds across the span of a camapign so why would it be a big deal to many players?

Imaro · Oct 17, 2018

pemerton said:
And @Imaro: if my conception of my player is as having a loving family waiting upon the PC's return from the quest, and you as GM decide unilaterally that in fact my father is a serial killer, you've brutally overridden my conception of my character. You, personally, may think that people are in no way defined by their relationships. I, with the vast weight of historical and sociological scholarship as well as common sense on my side, disagree.

I never said that people are in no way defined by their relationships but nice straw man set up there as well as that appeal to authority at the end...

Anyway you didn't actually answer the question I asked. If you have no idea what your character's father has been up to until you return to the village at the end of the campaign how does it affect how you've played that character during the actual campaign? Furthermore since these are not real people but fictional characters... the GM deciding that your father is a serial killer doesn't preclude you from having a loving family if he's taking say something in the vein of Dexter as inspiration.

Imaro · Oct 17, 2018

pemerton said:
I'm going to post some extracts from an actual play report:

If that's "one man theatre" or "no consequences" then guilty as charged.

Are you claiming the Raven Queen was backgrounded in this example... just trying to make sure I'm clear on what this is supposed to be proving or addressing...

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

Hussar

Legend

Aldarc

Legend

Hussar

Legend

pemerton

Legend

Lanefan

Victoria Rules

pemerton

Legend

pemerton

Legend

Imaro

Legend

Imaro

Legend

Imaro

Legend

Similar Threads