The point I've been making all the way along is that so much of the game already does not handwave details and reasonable consequences that matter when you have a variety of options to choose from so a GM saying "no" to getting rid of one of those isn't going to hurt anything.
D&D 5E What DM flaw has caused you to actually leave a game?
The point I've been making all the way along is that so much of the game already does not handwave details and reasonable consequences that matter when you have a variety of options to choose from so a GM saying "no" to getting rid of one of those isn't going to hurt anything.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
Sure. Completely avoid the important part of that, which is how you completely misstated what is being done.
However, since you asked, I will answer you, but will go no further due to forum rules. I think it's because of a certain generation and the entitlement issues that go along with it.
How can it be a "core thematic element" if the player whose motorcycle or whatever it is has said that s/he doesn't want it to be? Where did the GM get the power to unilaterally decide that something introduced into the game by a player is a core thematic element even though that player has said that it isn't?
This is all just begging the question. I could equally say (and do say) that in thinking about my character's relationship to his/her deity, and whether s/he has a special task in mind for my cleric, I the player am the one who has to make all that stuff up. You are just assuming that because it invovles a deity it must involve the GM. The rules don't say that, and they don't even imply it.
And you skipped the bit that says that the cleric might have connections to a temple whose high priest might be in a position to demand the cleric's aid.
Here's the text again:
Most adventuring clerics maintain some connection to established temples and orders of their faiths. A temple
might ask for a cleric’s aid, or a high priest might be in a position to demand it.
might ask for a cleric’s aid, or a high priest might be in a position to demand it.
Who do you think decides whether or not the cleric maintains a connection to a temple? I assume it's the player - this is all about player-established backstory. If the PC has no connection to a temple, then there is no high priest in a position to demand aid.
And even if the high priest does demand something from the cleric, that's just a social encounter. The high priest might demand it from a fighter PC just as easily!
I thought you guys were talking about some stuff that was meant to be unique to the cleric, warlock and paladin - that stuff about the high priest is no different from what might happen with a fighter (captain of the guard), thief or wizard (guildmaster), barbarian (chieftain), etc.
Also, I found some interesting stuff about fighters on p 24 of the Basic PDF:
As you build your fighter, think about two related elements of your character’s background: Where did you get your combat training, and what set you apart from the mundane warriors around you? Were you particularly ruthless? Did you get extra help from a mentor, perhaps because of your exceptional dedication? What drove you to this training in the first place? A threat to your homeland, a thirst for revenge, or a need to prove yourself might all have been factors.
So presumably it's a rule that a fighter must have been trained. It would be a houserule in 5e to allow a self-taught fighter along the line of Percival in the film Excalibur.
You might have enjoyed formal training in a noble’s army or in a local militia. Perhaps you trained in a war academy, learning strategy, tactics, and military history. Or you might be self-taught - unpolished but well tested. Did you take up the sword as a way to escape the limits of life on a farm, or are you following a proud family tradition? Where did you acquire your weapons and armor? They might have been military issue or family heirlooms, or perhaps you scrimped and saved for years to buy them.
I'll leave it for others to resolve the "contradiction" between the paragraph that presupposes that a fighter received combat training and the one that allows for a fighter to be self-taught. But presumably this second paragraph makes it a rule that a fighter can't have forged his/her own arms and armour - because it says they must have been acquired! (Arguably it is also a rule that they were either military issue, family heirlooms or bought following years of scrimping and saving - so a fighter from a wealthy family who bought his/her gear with family money would be another "house rule" - but I'll let those who know better than me how to interpret these rules sort that one out.)
And here's the final interesting bit I noticed:
[A]s fighters, they all share an unparalleled mastery with weapons and armor, and a thorough knowledge of the skills of combat. And they are well acquainted with death, both meting it out and staring it defiantly in the face.
So it seems to be against the rules for a fighter to never mete out death! This must be a "specific trumps general" exception to the rule on p 76 about "Knocking a Creature Out". (Again, how often a fighter must mete out death I'll leave for other interpreters to resolve.)
No. Sometimes means that over the course of every single Warlock some of them occasionally have such a task occur.
Yeah sure, looks a lot more fitting for your argument when you drop all the conditionals, right?
That's exactly what I was trying to insinuate you were doing.
Aldarc
Legend
I see the point you are trying to make here, but I don't agree with it. The decision-making is still present for the player even post-character creation. The social contract is still in-effect. And both the player and DM can renegotiate that through and outside play.
The player may have chosen a deity at character creation. But they may have done so under the impression (whether through their reading of the setting materials or what the DM told them) that their choice would engender one style of play experience for their character. The player could then be understandably upset when the DM seems to have conned those expectations. Or the player may have designed their cleric PC with their reading of the deity only to be caught off-guard by the DM's radically different reading of the deity or their arrangement. But in the imbalance of power, the DM's position becomes "the right one" for many, though the player was the agent who initially determined their PC'S relationship and agency with their deity. As far as the player is concerned, this is not what they signed up for. This is especially jarring because from an in-character perspective, this is something that they should know about: their cleric-deity relationship. It is a breach of contract at play. Or "that's a dick move, Eric."
This is imposing a uniformity of vision and purpose which the game has never in fact exhibited.
At some tables Leomund's Secret Chest is a game device that a player uses in a back-and-forth with the GM about protecting stuff.
At some other tables Leomund's Secret Chest is a plot device used to create a veneer of ingame rationale for why stuff doesn't get stolen.
At yet some other tables it's taken for granted that stuff never gets stolen if it's been delivered safely to home base, and Leomund's Secret Chest doesn't come into play.
And that's before we consider what sort of stuff is even fair game to be stolen - eg in some games all that is at stake, as far as theft is concerned, is certain special items whose owners might be trying to recover them; while in others, apparently I have to park my motorcycle inside a Secret Chest or else the GM regards it as fair game for theft.
In my 4e game, as soon as my group found a Basket of Everlasting Provisions we gave up worrying about tracking food and water. It's provides a veneer of infiction explanation. There are other tables who didn't bother with the veneer, and so never looked at that item. And there are yet other tables which take tracking food and drink incrediby seriously, and treat the Basket as a signficant element in that part of their game. None of those tables is "breaking the rules" - part of the point of a game which is as widely played as D&D is to provide support for a range of approaches.
But the above is all orthogonal as to whether or not it is good GMing to treat as fair game some pedestrian, non-game-breaking thing which a player has expressly flagged s/he wishes not to be.
Last edited:
Or d) as a player say "sod that" and do the other thing. Their character then refuses the Duty, using the 0th rule if necessary.
Here is a bull, there is it's excrement.
"Might be in a position to make a demand" is neither "will make a demand" nor "at any time they want".
Hussar
Legend
ROTFLMAO. Dude, it's very, very likely that I'm older than you.
This has nothing to do with age or entitlement. Note, even in the Leomund's Chest example, in the 5e example, there is no chance of the chest being found. Now, you do have to renew it every 60 days, but, that's hardly a big deal is it?
Similar Threads
D&D General
What is player agency to you?
