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

Sadras said:

If you belong to an order/organisation you tend to have obligations which may result in conflict if one party disagrees with another. And we see this all the time in movies and series and this proves to be a major source of entertainment. How many cop/detective shows have we seen where they take issue with the decisions/requests of their senior officers/captains?
Tyrion had a wonderful role in balancing his duties as hand of the king to his ruthless nephew king while attempting to steer the city in a positive direction.

Click to expand...

This illustrates the problem of media. These examples are not from cooperative tabletop games; these are stories driven by authors or writing teams. Tyrion is not a player character, as he does not have a player. George R. R. Martin authors the voice and agency of the character, and other characters that he chooses to include, while also facilitating the surrounding drama of the narrative.

The DM's job is in a sense to provide the entertainment and one way of doing this is raising areas of possible conflict. Can it be done badly? Sure. No doubt there are very forceful DM's out there that do more harm than good, and they probably do so in many other aspects of the game not just this. But just because there are bad DM's does not necessarily make that style-of-play bad. Finally a DM needs to know their table/players.

The above ignores story now styled tables because that predominantly demands the players be the story-drivers which by default relieves much of the work taken on by story-driving DMs.

Click to expand...

This is all well and good, but part of the debate has centered around players openly indicating that they do not want certain areas of their character to serve as sources of conflict for the DM. Dungeon Masters disrespecting that would likely qualify under failing their duties to "provide the entertainment" for the table.

Maxperson said:

The fluff is semi-prescriptive.

Click to expand...

I disagree with this assumption. And I do believe that it is fundamentally backwards. It reminds me of debates in my early days of fantasy roleplaying when DMs would impose things on characters along the lines of "You're a dwarf, so you must hate elves," and they would justify it via some gorgon-excrement flavor text. Or as a barbarian, "you must hate civilization," should we follow the 5e class flavor text. Flavor text is meant to serve as a springboard for character ideas and hooks for players, but not prescribe them. Choosing not to latch onto the flavor text, or portions thereof, does not necessarily mean that the DM or player are actually altering anything about the class.

Saying that "hey, a high priest can demand this from you" is just a truism of play on the level of saying, "hey, the king can demand this from you." As others have pointed out, this is not somehow exclusive to the cleric or their class. A high priest can make demands of most people in-game, and deities likely even more so. The flavor text is not a "how to play a cleric" manual. The larger point of the flavor text, IMO, is for the player to consider how their player character engages the world they inhabit when creating their character.

5ekyu said:

At my tables, if you don't want NPCs with ties to your character, there will be a discussion. If you choose clerics, warlocks, guild members etc... it's an almost certain no.

But there are other tables.

Click to expand...

It hardly seems like this discussion would be performed in good faith if you already established your terms of discussion as "my way or GTFO."

Yunru said:

DnD is a shared story, thus a condition for something being done is "will the players enjoy this/enjoy overcoming this?"
If the answer is no, don't include it.

Click to expand...

Yes, but that is players plural not just player me solo ne individual ne now me now me player.

As I have stated more times than I remember, my group enjoys more gameplay style in which the consequences of choices such as dino or large dog, walk or take horses, patrons who ask favors, temples we need to keep on our good sides, etc etc etc etc are dealt with in-gsme and not meta-game.

So, introducing mechanics or general fiats on demand to just let that style change is not something that we enjoy. It diminishes the feel and flavor of the game.

Just last week as they plan an assault rescue their ability yo fabricate and sustain vehicles and how many they can sustain while combat goes on was a significant part of their Rat Patrol planning session.

If one player next week starts the meta-hand -wave vehicles thing, it would not make the game more fun but less.

Some may think that makes us lame or ducks but to is it's just playing the game the way we like.

Hussar said:

Oh, I totally agree. Personally, I wouldn't background these relationships. I think they're great. And, I have no real problems with a DM who uses them. That's fine.

But, again, we're talking about a player who has specifically said they don't want this. They've made it very clear that this is not fun for them. To me, a good DM takes the preferences of his or players into account when designing and running adventures.

Click to expand...

To me a good player realizes such a request may get told no without that meaning he should no think others ducks or question their decrncy.

Aldarc said:

This illustrates the problem of media. These examples are not from cooperative tabletop games; these are stories driven by authors or writing teams. Tyrion is not a player character, as he does not have a player. George R. R. Martin authors the voice and agency of the character, and other characters that he chooses to include, while also facilitating the surrounding drama of the narrative.

Click to expand...

I'm not buying this. An entertaining storyline is very much desired within our watching of media such as tv as also in our roleplaying games. Conflict with senior ranking personnel is a common and entertaining trope. Things do not have to be EXACT to be compared. I feel your argument against the comparison is made just for the sake of argument.

This is all well and good, but part of the debate has centered around players openly indicating that they do not want certain areas of their character to serve as sources of conflict for the DM. Dungeon Masters disrespecting that would likely qualify under failing their duties to "provide the entertainment" for the table.

Click to expand...

Answered this a little earlier, we probably cross-posted.

Sadras said:

If both DM and player agreed to it I'm in 100% agreement, otherwise what you have is a clash of playstyles. Where we might differ in opinion Hussar is that I very much believe the DM has more of a say-so at what is allowed at the table given that much of the workload falls on their shoulders (again not for story-now games).

In this white room discussion it sounds rather polarized, but in RL, discussions and compromises occur frequently between DMs and their tables, whether it be on character creation, off-topic backgrounds, house rules, settings, systems...etc

Click to expand...

Catch is, in spite of the constant references to listening to player preferences, nobody is saying they shouldn't be listened to, just that the answer may be no.

Once you get yo that step where even its dickish even offering to run a game if you know one player ewont like it and may not play (but the other are interested) the facade of this being negotiation is gone.

5ekyu said:

Catch is, in spite of the constant references to listening to player preferences, nobody is saying they shouldn't be listened to, just that the answer may be no.

Once you get yo that step where even its dickish even offering to run a game if you know one player ewont like it and may not play (but the other are interested) the facade of this being negotiation is gone.

Click to expand...

Yes, I'm not discounting that may be a possibility.
Differing playstyles, DM ego, player entitlement, emotional baggage, dislike for one another...you name it might all play a factor in why it doesn't work.

Aldarc said:

This illustrates the problem of media. These examples are not from cooperative tabletop games; these are stories driven by authors or writing teams. Tyrion is not a player character, as he does not have a player. George R. R. Martin authors the voice and agency of the character, and other characters that he chooses to include, while also facilitating the surrounding drama of the narrative.

This is all well and good, but part of the debate has centered around players openly indicating that they do not want certain areas of their character to serve as sources of conflict for the DM. Dungeon Masters disrespecting that would likely qualify under failing their duties to "provide the entertainment" for the table.

I disagree with this assumption. And I do believe that it is fundamentally backwards. It reminds me of debates in my early days of fantasy roleplaying when DMs would impose things on characters along the lines of "You're a dwarf, so you must hate elves," and they would justify it via some gorgon-excrement flavor text. Or as a barbarian, "you must hate civilization," should we follow the 5e class flavor text. Flavor text is meant to serve as a springboard for character ideas and hooks for players, but not prescribe them. Choosing not to latch onto the flavor text, or portions thereof, does not necessarily mean that the DM or player are actually altering anything about the class.

Saying that "hey, a high priest can demand this from you" is just a truism of play on the level of saying, "hey, the king can demand this from you." As others have pointed out, this is not somehow exclusive to the cleric or their class. A high priest can make demands of most people in-game, and deities likely even more so. The flavor text is not a "how to play a cleric" manual. The larger point of the flavor text, IMO, is for the player to consider how their player character engages the world they inhabit when creating their character.

It hardly seems like this discussion would be performed in good faith if you already established your terms of discussion as "my way or GTFO."

Click to expand...

"It hardly seems like this discussion would be performed in good faith if you already established your terms of discussion as "my way or GTFO."

You left out "play non-clerics, non-warlocks etc"

If you want to decide that me saying straight out no to *bringing a cleric (say) with the whole church and God thing put off-the table for you* means there is no point in discussionwhere its offered, then it looks like you have a rather narrow range of acceptable play styles at tables.


All told, as I said early on, if you choose to go rather than work together I myself consider that a win-win cuz we dont get a player who has a style and preference set that clashes with ours that strongly and you go find a table more to your liking.

No real downside.

Hussar said:

ROTFLMAO. Dude, it's very, very likely that I'm older than you.

Click to expand...

Okay. I wasn't talking about you, since you aren't capable of keeping WotC afloat. You asked why they made that change. It wasn't for you buddy. It was for the new generation of players. That you would take my talking about an entire generation as talking about you says a ton about you, though. No wonder you expect the game to revolve around you as a player.

Sadras said:

If you belong to an order/organisation you tend to have obligations which may result in conflict if one party disagrees with another.

<snip>

The above ignores story now styled tables because that predominantly demands the players be the story-drivers which by default relieves much of the work taken on by story-driving DMs.

Click to expand...

As you describe it, this is about social challenges/encounters. This can happen to a fighter as easily as a barbarian as easily as a wizard as easily as a cleric.

But the proposition upthread was that a player of a cleric, warlock or paladin has - in virtue of choosing that class - authorised the GM to make decisions about what the players has to have his/her PC do to maintain the relationship with the provide of magical power. That is a quite different thing from what you are describing here.

There's a further question of how a "story now" game handles organisational issues. The basics are fairly simple: if the player succeeds on an action declaration, things go the PC's way; if not, things go against him/her. There's no reason at all why 5e couldn't be adjudicated in a similar fashion.

Yunru said:

DnD is a shared story, thus a condition for something being done is "will the players enjoy this/enjoy overcoming this?"
If the answer is no, don't include it.

Click to expand...

The reverse is also true. If the DM won't enjoy something, the players shouldn't try to force it into the game.