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

Aldarc said:

It does not, and you have failed to demonstrate how it is. That just makes you both wrong and foolish.

Click to expand...

Can't disprove the facts so you resort to Ad Hominem attacks. Classy.

The facts are that in every edition but 4e, gods take a close hand with clerics and paladins. EXCEPT(there's the exception) for Eberron and Dark Sun. That I can remember anyway. There might be another setting that makes an exception.

I do not know much about Eberron, but if you're serious about backgrounding your deities, play a cleric in Krynn, a minute post-cataclysm.

Aldarc said:

It does not, and you have failed to demonstrate how it is. That just makes you both wrong and foolish.

Click to expand...

Well, in 1e at least the deities are close enough and tangible enough to a) deliver 6th and 7th level spells directly to their high-level clerics, and b) give halfway detailed answers when hit with a Commune. I think the same is supposed to be the case in 2e but I'm not sure.

And in at least one major setting (FR - in the 1e-2e-3e versions anyway; haven't got anything newer) the deities* are supposed to be close and tangible enough to manifest in the prime material now and then. I think, but am not sure, the same is in theory true in Greyhawk.

* - or their avatars, pretty much the same as the deity itself only in recognizable physical form

So saying Eberron, which came out in the 3.5 era, is an exception is true in one regard: it's an exception based on comparisons to what went before it and concurrently with it. 4e, and maybe 5e, have since made Eberron look like less of an exception than it was to begin with.

Sadras said:

I do not know much about Eberron, but if you're serious about backgrounding your deities, play a cleric in Krynn, a minute post-cataclysm.

Click to expand...

Would that even be possible? Didn't the deities drag all their clerics down with them?

Lanefan said:

Would that even be possible? Didn't the deities drag all their clerics down with them?

Click to expand...

You make a good point.
Good/true clerics were taken away from the world, there were very few neutral and evil clerics left at that point as the balance had shifted dramatically during those times with the overzealous King Priest. I've seen it theorised that the neutral clerics were taken away as were the evil clerics by their respective deities. But I do not know - I did not read the specific novels which focused on that period.

TwoSix said:

Sure.

I've said this in other threads, but games focused on player empowerment and collaboration don't work very well with a bunch of players who aren't worth empowering. The guy who plays a PC who refuses to integrate with the other PCs is definitely an example of that.

Click to expand...

I don't play chess with people who knock over the board when they're losing. But that's not a principle about how to play chess; it's a principle about how not to waste my time with anti-social people!

In the same way that no book on chess strategy suggests nailing the board to the table; so I'm not sure that discussions of RPGing approaches need to cover the equivalent terrain for this particular game-form.

Maxperson said:

Can't disprove the facts so you resort to Ad Hominem attacks. Classy.

The facts are that in every edition but 4e, gods take a close hand with clerics and paladins. EXCEPT(there's the exception) for Eberron and Dark Sun. That I can remember anyway. There might be another setting that makes an exception.

Click to expand...

Gorgon-excrement. The only fact is that you have failed in demonstrating that Eberron has changed the cleric class, leaving you only asserting that it did. You made the assertion that it changes the cleric class. It is not my place to disprove anything. Now prove your position that it does change the cleric class.

Lanefan said:

Well, in 1e at least the deities are close enough and tangible enough to a) deliver 6th and 7th level spells directly to their high-level clerics, and b) give halfway detailed answers when hit with a Commune. I think the same is supposed to be the case in 2e but I'm not sure.

And in at least one major setting (FR - in the 1e-2e-3e versions anyway; haven't got anything newer) the deities* are supposed to be close and tangible enough to manifest in the prime material now and then. I think, but am not sure, the same is in theory true in Greyhawk.

* - or their avatars, pretty much the same as the deity itself only in recognizable physical form

So saying Eberron, which came out in the 3.5 era, is an exception is true in one regard: it's an exception based on comparisons to what went before it and concurrently with it. 4e, and maybe 5e, have since made Eberron look like less of an exception than it was to begin with.

Click to expand...

What this says is that the cleric class changed between editions, which is hardly that meaningful or novel of an assertion. But that does not mean that Eberron changed the cleric class. But [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] is welcome to demonstrate where and how Eberron changes the rules of the cleric class.

Maxperson said:

It does. It creates a specific exception that the gods are distant, rather than close and tangible like is standard for every edition but 4th.

Click to expand...

Well, that's not exactly true. Basic/Expert, for example, doesn't even have gods. And clerics are certainly not beholden to anything. AD&D clerics were not really beholden to anything either. There were no mechanics for taking spells away from clerics who "misbehaved". And, a 1e cleric could serve multiple gods. There was certainly no indication that gods were close or distant. That was left entirely up to the DM. 2e goes even further. You don't even need a god to be a cleric in 2e, same as 3e. You could serve a concept and still get spells and whatnot.

Lanefan said:

Well, in 1e at least the deities are close enough and tangible enough to a) deliver 6th and 7th level spells directly to their high-level clerics, and b) give halfway detailed answers when hit with a Commune. I think the same is supposed to be the case in 2e but I'm not sure.

And in at least one major setting (FR - in the 1e-2e-3e versions anyway; haven't got anything newer) the deities* are supposed to be close and tangible enough to manifest in the prime material now and then. I think, but am not sure, the same is in theory true in Greyhawk.

* - or their avatars, pretty much the same as the deity itself only in recognizable physical form

So saying Eberron, which came out in the 3.5 era, is an exception is true in one regard: it's an exception based on comparisons to what went before it and concurrently with it. 4e, and maybe 5e, have since made Eberron look like less of an exception than it was to begin with.

Click to expand...

Kinda sorta. The whole 6th and 7th level thing was added some time later, with the Dieties and Demigods IIRC. It's certainly not in the player's handbook. Heck, clerics in 1e don't even have to be dedicated to a single deity. The description of clerics specifically mentions clerics being able to have deities.

And Greyhawk didn't exactly have close deities. There were a couple, but, by and large, the Greyhawk pantheon stayed pretty far out of reach. It's one of the distinguishing characteristics of Forgotten Realms that you have active deities. And it's not like clerics in 1e were given any sort of guidance as to what their deities might expect of them. It was pretty much left up in the air.

And, as far as commune goes, it says right in the description of the spell that you might contact the deity or you might contact "agents thereof". There's nothing really saying which one you will get. And, casting it multiple times is problematic as:

It is probable that the referee will limit the use of commune spells to one per adventure, one per week, or even one per month, for the "gods" dislike frequent interruptions

Click to expand...

Doesn't sound like the gods are too interested in taking an active role to me.

Sadras said:

You make a good point.
Good/true clerics were taken away from the world, there were very few neutral and evil clerics left at that point as the balance had shifted dramatically during those times with the overzealous King Priest. I've seen it theorised that the neutral clerics were taken away as were the evil clerics by their respective deities. But I do not know - I did not read the specific novels which focused on that period.

Click to expand...

Actually, the clerics were still there. They just didn't get any spells because the gods stopped granting spells. Now THERE'S an example of deities taking a very active role in the setting.

TwoSix said:

I have a problem with a capture scenario when it's written into the storyline as an auto-lose. I don't have a problem with capturing the PCs as a result of failing a combat, or failing some skill/exploration challenges. It's a fair consequence to frame, to my mind, when the PCs have really botched something up.

Click to expand...

For any non-railroad approach to RPGing, the gulf between unilateral GM stipulation and consequence resulting from failed action resolution in which the subject matter of the consequence was at stake is huge.

If I fail some check where my relationship with my patron has been put at stake, then maybe the failure is narrated as backlash from my patron. (That's one approach to failed Faith checks in Burning Wheel.)

If I fail some check where the moral character of my PC's dear dad is put at stake, then maybe the failure is narrated as him being revealed to be a serial killer.

Of course, if something has been "backgrounded" then it probably won't be being put at stake.

Whether capture is on the table or not therefore depends on what the table understands as being at stake in the situation. One reason we might want it not to be at stake is not because it's thematically inappropriate, nor because someone will get PTSD flashbacks from it, but simply because the system doesn't handle it well. I ran a capture scenario in 4e without any dramas at all; and I've recently done it in Traveller also. But I would shy away from it in classic D&D, because the system simply doesn't have the resources to adjudicate escape. (And it's telling that A4 is not an escape scenario; the PCs have already been freed. It's a survival scenario - the capture is just a bit of colour to justify stripping the PC's of their gear.)