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

5ekyu · Oct 12, 2018

Nagol said:
The PCs can declare they believe anything they want. That declaration does not necessitate the belief reflects reality. Whomsoever is in charge of adjudicating reality can decide to go along with it and make it true, decide that claim is incorrect and make it false, or decide that the claim does not warrant adjudication and leave it open.

If such a claim helps hook the PC into an adventure that they otherwise are indifferent about, it's probably a helpful thing.

In my last play as a 5e - my halfling sorcerer believed dragons sang to her in her dreams and told her "facts" and told her to do certain rituals and so on and so on and thats where her powers came from. She described her spells as "learning the dragon song. The "effects" for her spells included he verbal components gaining more and more voices as the spell levels increased (that with Gm permission as in the other sorcerer effects XGtE.) She also at one point told the others she wanted to do a ritual with them and it involved a partly eaten breakfast, a slight nip of blook from each, a bundle of chicken feathers and six coppers in a fire at dawn. Most agreed, others did not. most looked at her like she was nuts. Plan was when she got "Inspiring leader" aka "Dragon Song" the narrative element of the "inspiring speech" would be an arcane song and she would only use it on those who accepted that ritual several levels before.

All of that was just flavor and fun and except for the SFX of the verbals no Gm involvement at all though he loved it.

It also set the stage for a possible Warlock multi-class had i been so inclined - at which point the Gm and i would work out more the details of her patron-warlock bargains and obligations.

Kobold Boots · Oct 12, 2018

5ekyu said:
In my last play as a 5e - my halfling sorcerer believed dragons sang to her in her dreams and told her "facts" and told her to do certain rituals and so on and so on and thats where her powers came from. She described her spells as "learning the dragon song. The "effects" for her spells included he verbal components gaining more and more voices as the spell levels increased (that with Gm permission as in the other sorcerer effects XGtE.) She also at one point told the others she wanted to do a ritual with them and it involved a partly eaten breakfast, a slight nip of blook from each, a bundle of chicken feathers and six coppers in a fire at dawn. Most agreed, others did not. most looked at her like she was nuts. Plan was when she got "Inspiring leader" aka "Dragon Song" the narrative element of the "inspiring speech" would be an arcane song and she would only use it on those who accepted that ritual several levels before.

All of that was just flavor and fun and except for the SFX of the verbals no Gm involvement at all though he loved it.

It also set the stage for a possible Warlock multi-class had i been so inclined - at which point the Gm and i would work out more the details of her patron-warlock bargains and obligations.

and for the record, I'd have loved this too.

But on point to the discussion - if you had gone on to have a dragon patron - it would have been very powerful indeed and I'd be thinking long and hard about how the nature of what was done prior to the level dip would have caught the attention of such a being and what its motivations would be. Since the motive of the original ritual (as my only data point) was to inspire the group and give them a bunch of temp HP - my first thought would be, where does your patron get the ability to heal from if it's a dragon - and let the conversation tween you and I go from there.

billd91 · Oct 12, 2018

pemerton said:
There are two things here.

(1) Why shouldn't an animal companion be a good thing in every circumstance? When are a fighter's hp not a good thing? When is a MU's spell slot not a good thing?

The game makes it clear that some class features are liabilities - a magic-user's spellbook is the most notorious example; a classic paladin's limitation on magic items owned is another. But nothing has ever suggested that a ranger's animal companion fits that description. The ranger in the first AD&D campaign I ever ran acquired a bear companion when she reached 10th level. It never occurred to me that the bear was meant to be a problem for her.

I wouldn't describe it as a problem, rather, it was something that you couldn't necessarily take for granted. Followers at higher levels were a benefit, but could also be a liability because you needed to take care of them. If they died, they were gone forever and never replaced. While most were likely to be fairly normal, some could be pretty outlandish like a youngish copper dragon. Why would that not cause a stir if you traveled around with it?

With respect to editions like 3.5, you started with a pretty mundane companion that improved as you gained levels. You could opt for a more exotic one at a higher level. By choosing the nature of your companion, as a DM, I would treat that as choosing the attendant complications. Even if the companion is relatively mundane like an elephant, it's too big to go into most dungeons and can't really negotiate stairs. It's simply not suitable for all campaigns and needs to be accounted for appropriately. Fail to do so and it will be a trouble magnet.

5ekyu · Oct 12, 2018

Kobold Boots said:
and for the record, I'd have loved this too.

But on point to the discussion - if you had gone on to have a dragon patron - it would have been very powerful indeed and I'd be thinking long and hard about how the nature of what was done prior to the level dip would have caught the attention of such a being and what its motivations would be. Since the motive of the original ritual (as my only data point) was to inspire the group and give them a bunch of temp HP - my first thought would be, where does your patron get the ability to heal from if it's a dragon - and let the conversation tween you and I go from there.

Exactly, and since this was a divine soul sorcerer - yes intentional divergence between actual sorcerer nature and the "dream flavor" and character interests - we would have had ample ground for a great working together collaboration.

if we couldn't come to an agreement, i would have been disappointed but would not have questioned your decency as a human being. In character, it would have simply been not being able to get a bargain made with the entities i found... try again later maybe.

BTW, the multi-calls dip never happened even tho it was setup and one of several things i had laid foundation for (performer/entertainer background and rock-start seer schticks for possible bard play.) I kept changing up some of the "planned build" based on what the character was actually seeing and experiencing - even to taking the darkvision spell after a long patch of night-time ambushes and ,ocate object when she saw a need and a lot of odd ideas for it as a means of lojacking and so on - none of which were ever on my "initial build priorities." But thats what happens when plans meet games.

.

5ekyu · Oct 12, 2018

billd91 said:
I wouldn't describe it as a problem, rather, it was something that you couldn't necessarily take for granted. Followers at higher levels were a benefit, but could also be a liability because you needed to take care of them. If they died, they were gone forever and never replaced. While most were likely to be fairly normal, some could be pretty outlandish like a youngish copper dragon. Why would that not cause a stir if you traveled around with it?

With respect to editions like 3.5, you started with a pretty mundane companion that improved as you gained levels. You could opt for a more exotic one at a higher level. By choosing the nature of your companion, as a DM, I would treat that as choosing the attendant complications. Even if the companion is relatively mundane like an elephant, it's too big to go into most dungeons and can't really negotiate stairs. It's simply not suitable for all campaigns and needs to be accounted for appropriately. Fail to do so and it will be a trouble magnet.

" By choosing the nature of your companion, as a DM, I would treat that as choosing the attendant complications. "

yup.

Kobold Boots · Oct 12, 2018

5ekyu said:
Exactly, and since this was a divine soul sorcerer - yes intentional divergence between actual sorcerer nature and the "dream flavor" and character interests - we would have had ample ground for a great working together collaboration.

if we couldn't come to an agreement, i would have been disappointed but would not have questioned your decency as a human being. In character, it would have simply been not being able to get a bargain made with the entities i found... try again later maybe.

BTW, the multi-calls dip never happened even tho it was setup and one of several things i had laid foundation for (performer/entertainer background and rock-start seer schticks for possible bard play.) I kept changing up some of the "planned build" based on what the character was actually seeing and experiencing - even to taking the darkvision spell after a long patch of night-time ambushes and ,ocate object when she saw a need and a lot of odd ideas for it as a means of lojacking and so on - none of which were ever on my "initial build priorities." But thats what happens when plans meet games.

.

Love it.

On my end I had a half-orc bard at one point in time that used a variation on mirror image to do his best motown inspired five man vocal act.

There's a ton you can do with the game system if you've got good people working together to have fun. You just need to be careful that the most creative person doesn't run all over everyone else's experience. Being honest, that's why I ended up in the DM chair every time, because I had too much floon and it needed to be directed at the setting, not one particular character.

KB

5ekyu · Oct 12, 2018

Kobold Boots said:
Love it.

On my end I had a half-orc bard at one point in time that used a variation on mirror image to do his best motown inspired five man vocal act.

There's a ton you can do with the game system if you've got good people working together to have fun. You just need to be careful that the most creative person doesn't run all over everyone else's experience. Being honest, that's why I ended up in the DM chair every time, because I had too much floon and it needed to be directed at the setting, not one particular character.

KB

gotta tell you... My sorceress named Shayna has her mirror images called "The Shayna'nas" and she referred to them as her backup singers.

On my "prioritizing spells spread sheet" i had a column for several different "traits i value" like "twinnable" and "not one others can cast" and "component friendly" and "effectiveness" but also had one column for "on stage" which helped move spells that could be used in her stagecraft and performances up the priority list.

She was a hoot to play - eve when she left behind most of the party in the opening session. it all worked out tho.

Lanefan · Oct 12, 2018

Sadras said:
Perhaps, where the PCs are the story drivers, like at Pemerton's table, the players might be encouraged to push those drawbacks to the foreground as part of their drivers otherwise they might not have an interesting game or story to tell and it risks falling flat.

If the players are willing to push those drawbacks to the fore in pursuit of a better story, that's great!

At a different table for instance, where the DM is primarily the driver he/she is encouraged to bring those drawbacks to the fore to explore the characters' backgrounds, their allegiances/loyalties, their oaths, their alignment, their patrons...and thereby build the campaign story.

So when @Aldarc and @pemerton say that relationship x is off limits, it's because they expect the characters to bring that to the fore, it is not the DM's job to meddle with that, whereas for say for me (and presumably you) we bring it to the fore to create a tighter connection for the pc to the story and the setting.

My concern is the players - and there's lots of 'em out there (I think a few might be in this thread) - who would rather ignore or background the drawbacks entirely, and neither bring them forward themselves nor allow the DM to do so.

Now when you have a player like in [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION]'s instance who did not want background material brought to the fore, then it becomes a little messy. If the DM is doing it for every other PC except for one, then it feels like they're leaving him/her out.

This one depends on what the background material is, and how relevant it is to the game state.

A background element that's pure fluff, e.g. the PC's ordinary commoner family back on the farm, can easily be left aside if either the player or DM so desire*.

But a background element that isn't pure fluff, e.g. the patron of a warlock or the deity of a paladin, shouldn't be background at all but instead seen as a built-in part of the PC's class that both the player and the DM have to deal with. Don't want this as player? Don't play the class. Don't want this as DM? Ban the class.

* - ignored but still relevant here is the desire of other players, some of whom might not give a hoot about playing through or listening to stories about one PC's background elements and would rather just get on with the main game.

==============
Re: dislike of animal companions:

Curiously why?

For Druids: I've always thought they had more than enough going for them even without the companion; adding in a companion as well is a bit overpowered.

For Rangers: I've always seen Rangers as warriors first and foremost, i.e. the pre-Drizz't version, and because warriors tend to get in lots of fights having a pet is going to be a) an inconvenience much of the time and b) extremely dangerous for the animal. I don't see Aragorn wandering the wilderness with a bear in tow, even though he's very good with animals. I don't see Robin Hood or any of his merry men bringing foxes or badgers or wildcats when they raid King John's treasure wagons. It just doesn't fit.

Lanefan

Lanefan · Oct 12, 2018

pemerton said:
There's just a huge gulf here that my imagination can hardly bridge. Maybe more than one.

(1) Clerics and warlocks aren't balanced against the risk that the GM will tell the player what to do. How would that balancing even work?

(2) The rules of the game aren't a break on bad faith, in D&D or other RPGs any more than in chess or backgammon. The rules are a framework for mediating the creation, over time and in the course of play, of a shared fiction.

(3) As far as "good faith" players are concerned - who plays with non-good-faith players? Do the people you play with cheat at cards too? Steal candy from babies when they get the chance? I don't get it.

(4) If players can't be relied upon to play in good faith, why would GMs be any different?

The gulf you can't seem to bridge perhaps comes down to this: in almost any situation, RPGs included, if you give people the opportunity to gain an advantage without penalty they're almost always going to take it. It's simple human nature.

Cheating at cards (or at D&D, for that matter) carries a penalty or potential penalty, that being social rejection; and so most people don't do it. Contrast this with making a particularly bad move in chess that gives your opponent a big opening - of course she's going to take it if she sees it; you've handed her an advantage without penalty.

And here, if a player can - for example - simply ask for the drawbacks of a class be ignored or backgrounded and expect 'yes' as an answer then boom: advantage without penalty, similar to the chess move example (the 'yes' answer from the DM is analagous to the bad chess move).

The trend I see is that some people don't like railroading GMs and others don't mind it, or even advocate for it.

If a player says "I'm not interested in story XYZ involving patron/oath/whatever ABC" and the GM nevertheless tries to make the game about that, what is that other than a railroad?

It's a GM exercising her right to enforce the rules and spirit of the game, which in this case means that if you're going to play a class that comes with potential baggage then you'd better be ready to deal with that baggage now and then.

How is the game better if all the players who don't like railroading play wizards, fighters and thieves instead of clerics, paladins and warlocks? What is actually achieved by insisting that the GM is free to tell the latter set of players what they have to do with their PCs?

The players of clerics, paladins and warlocks (and cavaliers serving a liege, and some other examples) have intentionally chosen to play a character whose freedom may from time to time be restricted by orders from above and-or by their own internal morality or alignment. Having intentionally made that choice, they're in no real position to complain if and when orders from above arrive now and then or if their morality gets in the way while adventuring.

And always with the extreme examples, you are. Few if any GMs are going to make the whole game revolve around any of this; instead they're going to have it come up every once in a while as one of:
- a secondary plot hook
- a reminder of the character's obligations
- fluff and flavour

For example, if there's a cleric or paladin of Thor in the party then I-as-DM will likely be more conscientious about narrating Thor-related scene elements - e.g. whether he has a temple in this town - than if there was not. A hammer in a dungeon room might be just a hammer...or a clue. His fellow clerics might approach him in town and take him and his party for a beer or ten, meanwhile asking why he hasn't made his offerings this year. And so forth.

And yes, the rules of any game in part define what bad faith represents within that game. In many games it's obvious - you're either playing unfairly or you're not. But in RPGs it's not always so obvious; the rules are often a bit fuzzy, and not everyone defines 'co-operation' the same way or even plays the game as a co-operative venture at all.

Lan-"and I haven't even touched on the old sports maxim that goes if you ain't cheatin' you ain't tryin'"-efan

Lanefan · Oct 12, 2018

Maxperson said:
There are millions of them. The vast majority of characters that exist in the game world are never encountered, and therefore never played by either the player or the DM.

Even then, technically they are all under the DM's control by RAW in any edition.

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] suggested just that in the post I responded to. He said, "Why can't the player decide My patron has sent me a vision that I should pursue X? Now the PC is serving the patron's will, but the player is not being told by the GM what his/he PC has to do.". If the DM isn't controlling the patron and sending the vision, then the player is the one controlling the patron and having that vision sent. It doesn't happen on its own.

The vast majority of players IME wouldn't do this, as they'd recognize the patron as not being something under their control.

That said, a player can always unilaterally make such a declaration; and as the patron is a DM-controlled NPC it's then on the DM to decide whether the vision was really sent or whether the PC in the fiction is just talking through her hat...and there's situation-dependent cases to be made for both of these options.

It doesn't happen on its own. The question is whether it happens at all.