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

billd91 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Sigh.

Still missing the point.

Even if you add that one, ok, great. Now 20% of the episodes feature a threat to the Enterprise. Whoopee freaking do. The point I was making was that even if you DID background the Enterprise, 80% of the stories remain unchanged. Which was the point I was trying to make. That Backgrounding hardly changes games as much as people are making it out to. That backgrounding this or that element by and large won't impact the larger game.

Just like backgrounding the Patron won't actually change the campaign. All it does is take a tiny slice off the table. The DM still has most of that world to play with and the player doesn't have to worry about this bit that he or she doesn't like. It's win win for everyone.

But, hey, feel free to continue with overly pedantic nit picking. It's obviously a much more productive approach to conversation.

Sheesh.

billd91 said:

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?

Click to expand...

Yes. [MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION] has flat out said, and others have said too, that if you want to play a class, you MUST accept everything about that class or don't play that class. So, if you play a warlock, you MUST accept that the DM has control over your patron and can force your character to do things. If you play a paladin, you MUST accept that the DM can force you to take certain actions. If you play a class with a pet or a race the DM thinks is weird, you MUST accept that the DM can (and by implication will) force play onto you.

The only option the player has is to choose another class or not play in that game. That's been repeatedly stated.

Hussar said:

Sigh.

Still missing the point.

Even if you add that one, ok, great. Now 20% of the episodes feature a threat to the Enterprise. Whoopee freaking do. The point I was making was that even if you DID background the Enterprise, 80% of the stories remain unchanged. Which was the point I was trying to make. That Backgrounding hardly changes games as much as people are making it out to. That backgrounding this or that element by and large won't impact the larger game.

Just like backgrounding the Patron won't actually change the campaign. All it does is take a tiny slice off the table. The DM still has most of that world to play with and the player doesn't have to worry about this bit that he or she doesn't like. It's win win for everyone.

But, hey, feel free to continue with overly pedantic nit picking. It's obviously a much more productive approach to conversation.

Sheesh.

Click to expand...

Dude. 70% of the first 10 episodes involved the Enterprise in the foreground due to threats. I didn't go any further, because at that point it was clear that you were ignoring facts in order to force the show to fit your preconceived notions.

Hussar said:

Yes. [MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION] has flat out said, and others have said too, that if you want to play a class, you MUST accept everything about that class or don't play that class. So, if you play a warlock, you MUST accept that the DM has control over your patron and can force your character to do things. If you play a paladin, you MUST accept that the DM can force you to take certain actions. If you play a class with a pet or a race the DM thinks is weird, you MUST accept that the DM can (and by implication will) force play onto you.

The only option the player has is to choose another class or not play in that game. That's been repeatedly stated.

Click to expand...

I don't think that's really what people are saying - they're saying that you must accept the complication those classes require. They don't typically involve MUST take certain actions by DM force - rarely does a paladin even face that. Rather, that you MUST accept the consequences of the way you play your character, or of the choices you make, when they interact in certain ways with the classes you've chosen or the situation around you. I think your spin on it really is a mischaracterization - and an extremely uncharitable one at that.

billd91 said:

I don't think that's really what people are saying - they're saying that you must accept the complication those classes require. They don't typically involve MUST take certain actions by DM force - rarely does a paladin even face that. Rather, that you MUST accept the consequences of the way you play your character, or of the choices you make, when they interact in certain ways with the classes you've chosen or the situation around you. I think your spin on it really is a mischaracterization - and an extremely uncharitable one at that.

Click to expand...

I think that what I've learned over my last year back at this site is that there are some folks (and I'm not pointing at anyone in particular) that have the ability to tee off of one post, develop a very good response to the original, and then put blinders on for any response thereafter - at least in regards to tone.

You're spot on with consequences, not actions.

Be well
KB

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.



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.

Click to expand...

RE the first bold - about "don't play this" - again my goalposts stay right where they were - if the player and i cannot agree on what is required we agree on for ABC (in this case for them to play a warlock class character") then the answer is no. if i am not allowed to say "no" without ill-will and cries of inhuman decency or dick moves, then there really is no sense of collaboration or "group" at the table. Like i said, he is free to choose to play a class with different requirements where "the stuff that comes with the choice" is more to his liking. he is also free to say no to me and go find a table where the gameplay there is more to his liking - without any questions about human decency or his being a dick - since normal folks understand there are just some times where things do not work well together.

How components are handled (by the rules or homebrew), how inventory is handled etc etc are all parts of the game worked out before play begins. They certainly vary by table and so my expectation is players can find tables where those are handled to their satisfaction if *ours* is not one of them. But if we are playing RAW at this one and one table demands his inventory handled "backgrounded" or is more polite until he is said no to and then become insulting, he would be looking for another table.

As for the paladin vs druid/ranger - again we have established the rules (RAW or homebrew) and if the RAW is in use and the paladin mount was designed as having special features but the others do not, then its unlikely that we are going to give them those abilities for free. If you want to choose a full-sized elephant, fine if thats within the rules, but do not expect to get us to ignore that choice when you need to go somewhere its size will make difficult. Any more than we will ignore heavy armor's weight or stealth problems when you dont want that.

but you are always open to go find a table where elephants can go wherever they want - after all we can at least point them your way it seems. Then you both can sit around and conjure up stories about how indecent those who play differently than you are.

billd91 said:

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?

Click to expand...

I have been saying since the beginning, if the Gm and polayer cannot agree on the nature of the patron warlock arrangement and pact, they can play another class. Same thing goes for cleric and his god/temple and their standards. if you do not want the parts of the class that are really at its core, if you want to cut out all that stuff and the "baggage" that comes with it so much you cannot reach a compormise and agreement with the GM, yeah try another class.

Same would be if you would not agree that your choice of animals or race carried the obvious established issues as well.

Hussar said:

Yes. [MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION] has flat out said, and others have said too, that if you want to play a class, you MUST accept everything about that class or don't play that class. So, if you play a warlock, you MUST accept that the DM has control over your patron and can force your character to do things. If you play a paladin, you MUST accept that the DM can force you to take certain actions. If you play a class with a pet or a race the DM thinks is weird, you MUST accept that the DM can (and by implication will) force play onto you.

The only option the player has is to choose another class or not play in that game. That's been repeatedly stated.

Click to expand...

At this point its pretty obvious you just want to keep inventing things to claim others have said... as i have never said anything that the GM can "force" your character to take certain actions. this was explained in great detail one or more times since you keep mixing and mashing the Gm and the patron. Nor have i said anything about forcing the paladin to take certain actions.

That you choose to keep trying to portray it that way is very highly illustrative - so, thanks.

5ekyu said:

At this point its pretty obvious you just want to keep inventing things to claim others have said... as i have never said anything that the GM can "force" your character to take certain actions. this was explained in great detail one or more times since you keep mixing and mashing the Gm and the patron. Nor have i said anything about forcing the paladin to take certain actions.

That you choose to keep trying to portray it that way is very highly illustrative - so, thanks.

Click to expand...

Hussar's "force" means that the GM will force a player to do something to maintain his patron relationship and the powers that result from it. Our point of view is that a patron can not like something a character does and pull the power but the player still has free will to do what he or she wants when that situation comes up.

This is the sort of thing that comes up when people who don't do a lot of prep end up having conversations with folks that do a lot of prep. You and I would never end up in this situation without the player knowing what he was getting in to. Those who argue the way Hussar has above generally run into things on the fly and prefer to eliminate rough spots by being super flexible.

2c. No big deal.

Kobold Boots said:

Hussar's "force" means that the GM will force a player to do something to maintain his patron relationship and the powers that result from it. Our point of view is that a patron can not like something a character does and pull the power but the player still has free will to do what he or she wants when that situation comes up.

This is the sort of thing that comes up when people who don't do a lot of prep end up having conversations with folks that do a lot of prep. You and I would never end up in this situation without the player knowing what he was getting in to. Those who argue the way Hussar has above generally run into things on the fly and prefer to eliminate rough spots by being super flexible.

2c. No big deal.

Click to expand...

Folks may choose to use the word "force" however they want but your actions are not being forced by the Gm when they are the consequences of your choices.

I have been on the receiving end of the "kobolds" babies" situation more than a few times, but only ever once by any single GM. That is because when it was my "paladin" or "lawful good" he was bringing into question - i said in essence "as a devout follower of the teachings and faith my character should know what the most acceptable answer from those teaching to this quandry are - maybe even a few not the best but ten hail marys attonement options as well. So please tell me what my character has learned from the teachings that apply here." If it was a law question then it would be "well what is the common accepted legal solution? is it that we take them to a village and turn them over to someone? What is the lawful code saying about this case?"

That turns the situation back to the Gm to establish for his world and for his campaign what the viable answers are - not on me to guess. if his answer was "take the kobold babies back to town and abandon the quest for now" then my character would (usually - again there might be ten hail mary's options) follow that lead and the GM had to deal with those consequences.

This usually worked out to showing the Gm that those kinds of things and set pieces need to be woven in, a natural part of the story and not some surprise trap.

But as you reference, this is avoided fundamentally when the player and the GM at the outset discuss the specifics of those ties and obligations and relationships before taking the character into play.

Obviously, it would be not a good idea for say a pick-up random players FLGS meetup game to feature these kinds of challenges right off the bat - given the player and gm likely cannot have that discussion. if i were to run one of those, i would use pre-gens without the classes with baggage if for no other reason than to provide pre-gens that are most flexible to a random player's fun-flavors.

But for a campaign, no real reason these things should not be discussed and an agreement reached or a different road taken
before they get into play.

But then, some like their cake with eat-it-too icing over meaningful-choices-cream-pie and so they should each find the places that serve them.