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

Hussar said:

You're seriously going to take Maxperson's interpretations of anything at face value? After THIS thread? Really?

I mean, right off the bat, he he put's Encounter at Farpoint as an example of the Enterprise being threatened. It's not. It wouldn't matter if the crew were on the Enterprise or on Earth when Q shows up. The Enterprise is just background stuff there. It's totally not important. But, it's being threatened? Yeah, because everything is being threatened. Good grief.

Maxperson would insist that the sky is not actually blue if he thought it would win him an Internet discussion. I wouldn't trust him to tell me that rain was wet.

Click to expand...

Withering personal attacks aside, they separated the saucer section because they believed the ship was under threat of destruction. That’s not “background”.

Hussar said:

Now, let's roll this around to what's actually being discussed. The DM comes to you and tells you, you have to do X because the dragons are telling you to do X. If you don't do X, you will no longer be a sorcerer.

After all, you "chose" to have this patron relationship. It's perfectly acceptable, according to you, for the DM to use that relationship. So, the DM exercises his or her power and tells you that you must do X or lose your class.

How are you feeling? No problems? Not a qualm? Perfectly acceptable DM practice?

Click to expand...

i find it amazing how much you keep showng and even spotlighting this lack of comprehension about what was actually said.

Asi i said there and in other posts, at the point there was a warlock-patron offer on the table, myself and the Gm would have discussed it and came to an agreement or not came to an agreement.

Just to make sure this is clear - we both have to agree on the details or no class/multi-class warlock for **either** of us to enjoy (use) in game.

Now, of course since i am more sentient than an unawakened shrubbery, things like "can i lose the class, can i lose certain abilities, how much warning advance punishment staging, etc and in essence how this will play out etc will be part of that discussion.

Obviously, the Gm can put as part of his proposal "if abc then ytou can "lose class" (whatever that means in practice - we would be clear) etc. if i find it unacceptable, then i counter, or refuse - you know - n-e-g-o-t-i-a-t-e - some might see that as the player having input etc.

Repeating again for those just catching up - if we do not reach an agreement there is not multiclass no patron for either of us to enjoy (use).

BTW that also means the GM doesn't tell me what to do, the patron might threaten and have the leverage we agreed on etc. but within the player-gm bounds we set.

After that, assuming we reached an agreement, we go forward and both i and the Gm play the game and have fun...

Now obviously at some later time a Gm can break that agreement - step outside the player-GM deal - and that brings us not to warlock-patron but table-gm-players discussions.

it seems at times you may have a difficulty differentiating between THE GM and his NPCS and the PLAYER and his PC.

But regardless, the simplest answer to your overly simplistic query is **IF I HAD AGREED THAT WAS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE GM TO DO WITH THE PATRON** then "yes" i would go along with it. After all, i agreed to it and i keep my word to my fellow players about how i will play the game.

After all, its not like i would want to choose and agree to something with drawbacks and then be a wuss or something when those drawbacks show up. Or come to the table to negotiate with the belief that what i say goes and its a one way street cuz somehow i get to define how NPCs act to my character.

Hussar said:

Argh, sorry about the multiple posts. It is a rather busy thread.

But, stepping back a second here because people, including myself, seem to be getting lost in the weeds a bit.

What are we actually talking about here? I mean, how much of an impact would Backgrounding actually have on a campaign? Sure, if your campaign focuses on warlock/patron relationships and the entire party has warlock levels, then ok, fair enough. That's obviously going to be a problem if one player Backgrounds the relationship.

But, let's look at a more common example. Say you're playing Storm King's Thunder (or any WotC AP). In what way would that game come out any differently if the DM let the warlock's patron fade to the background? Would any of the encounters be different? Would the basic plot or story be any different? Would this somehow change the NPC's?

No, it wouldn't. It would have absolutely zero impact on the game to let the warlock/patron relationship fade to the Background. Is it something of a missed opportunity? Maybe. The DM might add in some goodies for the warlock to play with during the AP that center around his or her patron. Sure, could happen. But, since the player has said, and I can't stress this enough, very clearly, that the player is not interested in those goodies, what's being lost here?

Like I've said all the way along here, people are treating this as a much bigger issue than it needs to be. Sure, hiding your pet is interesting the first time. Maybe the second time. But, it's going to take a pretty bloody minded DM to enforce hiding that funky pet every single time. Backgrounding is by and large just a formalized approach to what typically happens in most campaigns anyway.

Click to expand...

So, now we are shifting to backgrounding certain specific things but only when playing modules where they wont matter?

If you are discussion a specific module (presumably with some sort of by the module as written caveat) and using that module to say *in this content the warlock patrton aspect is not important* then why do we need to background it?

modules or Aps as they are called now do not normally assume specific classes and specific sub-classes and so do not often make ties to key features which require them - so by definition that means they do not have any real built in impact on the module basic plot.

Its like saying we can ban grapefruits because they are not on the menu at pizza places.

A campaign is a wholly different thing - even one that ran APs/modules.

personally, i would hope a GM in a campaign tried to personalize it for the PCs brought to the table - making it a bit personal to them. in fact, many modules have "seeds" listed in the early going to give you potential hooks for how to bring in the PCs on a direct personal level. i would think it obvious that either at the beginning or at many places throughout the adventure path a patron could be involved in "requesting" or "suggesting" courses of action (or even demanding them if that was the agreement reached between player and GM.) In that way the adventure could take a more personal meaning for that character, especially if say the request was not trivial - like maybe it involved helping an NPC get away that might otherwise be caught and killed (by the party or others.)

Frankly, a fun little bit might be for the patron to ask the PC to get several different folks out safely - some in the more direct line of fire - some not - without telling them why other than that they are important to the patron. So, while all this is going on, he might be looking to make sure a barmaid gets out, a certain member of the milita gets out and one of the bad guys lesser minions gets out - with appropriate "recompense" per the agreement reached at pact signing.

What horror?

So much abuse!

How will our warlock player survive?

go figure.

billd91 said:

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.

Click to expand...

And that's fine if you want to restrict the list based on campaign suitability. But fundamentally, the choices available at a certain level are (supposed to be, in 3.5) equally mechanically balanced. An outlandish animal companion available at level 7 isn't more powerful than a mundane one. You don't need to add in narrative complications to create that balance. Adding in the complications is a means to enhance versimilitude, not balance.

Contrast this with the 1e/2e paladin, which is strictly a fighter+, but balanced by a combination of mechanical and narrative restrictions.

Lanefan said:

This assumes the player can be counted on to do this in good faith, and produce requirements that might actually constrain the character now and then and-or force difficult choices upon it...in other words, requirements that represent a drawback suitable to counterbalance the powers given, which is what the RAW intends I think.

Click to expand...

Bolded for emphasis. Fundamental disagreement there, I don't think it intends it at all.

Simple question. What's more powerful, a 5e warlock with no constraints on his action because of his patron, or a 5e wizard? Unless your answer is "5e warlock by a mile", using the patron as a balance tool is a moot point. Enforcing the patron restrictions than becomes purely a tool of building setting verisimilitude.

Hussar said:

I wouldn't trust him to tell me that rain was wet.

Click to expand...

Rain isn't wet. Rain is water. Water is wet.

TwoSix said:

And that's fine if you want to restrict the list based on campaign suitability. But fundamentally, the choices available at a certain level are (supposed to be, in 3.5) equally mechanically balanced. An outlandish animal companion available at level 7 isn't more powerful than a mundane one. You don't need to add in narrative complications to create that balance. Adding in the complications is a means to enhance versimilitude, not balance.

Click to expand...

I'm going to assume you don't have much experience with them because you're not correct. Early animal companions fall behind some of the higher level choices. As a 10th level druid, advancing the wolf through the animal companion upgrades is already falling behind the megaraptor option. Horses fall even farther behind. And at 16th level when the TRex becomes available, well, let's just say the wolf and horse have a significantly better AC because they only have half the hit points and are pretty far behind the offense curve.

So why do they still have some benefit? There are situational balancing points. A wolf can go pretty much any where their druid can go. Horses, maybe not quite so much but have considerable non-combat utility. Not so the TRex or even megaraptor, both of which are huge. The situations in which the druid can bring them to bear is significantly diminished by comparison... and not because of any number-crunchable mechanic. The TRex's increased offensive capability and Hit Dice/hit points are balanced by the fact that though he's a considerably stronger companion in some situations, he's considerably weaker (meaning absent) in others.

billd91 said:

Withering personal attacks aside, they separated the saucer section because they believed the ship was under threat of destruction. That’s not “background”.

Click to expand...

They separated the saucer section because the writers wanted to show off this cool new thing the Enterprise could do.

But, in any case, even had they not separated, how would the story actually change? AFAIK, nothing. It simply wouldn't change the outcome or even the progression at all.

5ekyu said:

So, now we are shifting to backgrounding certain specific things but only when playing modules where they wont matter?

If you are discussion a specific module (presumably with some sort of by the module as written caveat) and using that module to say *in this content the warlock patrton aspect is not important* then why do we need to background it?

modules or Aps as they are called now do not normally assume specific classes and specific sub-classes and so do not often make ties to key features which require them - so by definition that means they do not have any real built in impact on the module basic plot.

Its like saying we can ban grapefruits because they are not on the menu at pizza places.

A campaign is a wholly different thing - even one that ran APs/modules.

personally, i would hope a GM in a campaign tried to personalize it for the PCs brought to the table - making it a bit personal to them. in fact, many modules have "seeds" listed in the early going to give you potential hooks for how to bring in the PCs on a direct personal level. i would think it obvious that either at the beginning or at many places throughout the adventure path a patron could be involved in "requesting" or "suggesting" courses of action (or even demanding them if that was the agreement reached between player and GM.) In that way the adventure could take a more personal meaning for that character, especially if say the request was not trivial - like maybe it involved helping an NPC get away that might otherwise be caught and killed (by the party or others.)

Frankly, a fun little bit might be for the patron to ask the PC to get several different folks out safely - some in the more direct line of fire - some not - without telling them why other than that they are important to the patron. So, while all this is going on, he might be looking to make sure a barmaid gets out, a certain member of the milita gets out and one of the bad guys lesser minions gets out - with appropriate "recompense" per the agreement reached at pact signing.

What horror?

So much abuse!

How will our warlock player survive?

go figure.

Click to expand...

Sure, and by and large I agree a fun little bit might be for the Patron to ask the Warlock to do something. Heck, if I was playing the warlock, I would welcome these things.

But, your player has specifically told you that NO, he does not enjoy these things. He does not want this. He absolutely hates this. And your answer, apparently is, "Well, don't play that". Me, I tend to be a little more flexible and simply realize that not adding that fun little bit, which isn't actually fun for that player, does cost me anything. I just... don't do it.

That's, honestly, what I find so baffling here. The player has told you very clearly what he or she doesn't like and the response, not just yours [MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION] but others, is, basically to tell the player to either suck it up or play something else. Personally, I don't find that level of inflexibility conducive to good gaming. IME, it inevitably winds up with frustrated players and DM's.

BTW, I'm really not trying to shift goalposts here. I'm just trying to find a way out of the weeds because, frankly, as I say, most of this stuff already happens at the table. Stuff gets Backgrounded all the time. Do you actually track spell components? Do you insist on tracking food and water outside of very specific circumstances? Do you really futz about with all the little stuff? Me, I generally just take that sort of stuff as written and move on because it's not fun for my table to be OCD about it. I was using the AP's as an example because it's something that many of us either play or have played. It's a shared experience. My point being that in fairly bog standard campaigns, this sort of stuff gets shelved anyway and this reaction to the player simply asking for what's likely going to happen anyway is far too strong.

I mean if it's perfectly okay for the paladin to Background his mount and it doesn't hurt the game, why is doing the same thing for the Druid or Ranger suddenly causing massive problems to the point where you would forbid someone from taking the class?

I see this as some serious tempest in a teacup action.

Hussar said:

They separated the saucer section because the writers wanted to show off this cool new thing the Enterprise could do.

But, in any case, even had they not separated, how would the story actually change? AFAIK, nothing. It simply wouldn't change the outcome or even the progression at all.

Click to expand...

The broader story of that double-length horror show of an episode doesn't need to change. But the fact remains, they dealt with a situation in which there was a perceived direct threat to the Enterprise. The fact that it was a single encounter rather than the whole plot line and was resolved with the situation remaining status quo doesn't mean it was effectively "backgrounded". Rather, it was very much foregrounded so they could show off something they thought was cool.

Hussar said:

I mean if it's perfectly okay for the paladin to Background his mount and it doesn't hurt the game, why is doing the same thing for the Druid or Ranger suddenly causing massive problems to the point where you would forbid someone from taking the class?

I see this as some serious tempest in a teacup action.

Click to expand...

Is someone actually saying they're going to forbid someone from taking the class or just saying they aren't signing on to a player wanting to hand-wave the complications inherent in the class?