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

5ekyu · Oct 16, 2018

Hussar said:
Did you not say that you had a player walk because you ran a game that he would not like?

I had a player who after discussion and such we agreed he was not going to play in the Stargate game. It actually started with me telling him I would not be inviting him, why and after discussion we were both fine with it.

It had nothing at all to do with how I played the ties-to-npcs.

It had to do with his frequently displayed and oft-stated over years strong aversion and intense dislike for in-game scenes where pcs are captured. They were not fun for him and were cases where as a player he got unhappy when they occurred.

The new campaign my players and I wanted to do was Stargate and that setting features "capture and escape" as one of its major tropes. So much so its even at times "the key to the plan" of the lead characters.

But again, that had nothing to do with the PC ties to npcs and how its handled in my games.

Quite the contrary... that particular player tended to always build "gm proof" characters when he started gaming with us in 85ish. They were "build to survive" and "dont give gm opening to screw you" characters much like the orphan with no-names being held up like boogeymen here.

Over time, he saw in proven in play and how others who built more "vulnerable" or "at risk" characters were not screwed over and saw their "ties to npcs" play out as a lot of fun and with some reasonable difficulties but a lot of reasonable gains as well. Over time, he came to trust me as a GM and stretch his wings a bit more.

He was never a "start in the middle story" heavy background guy, but he did find himself enjoying a wider assortment of characters in play.

So, no.

As another aside, I have had two players walk out on a game after several months of play, and he was one tho he came back soon after.

It had six players and me in an xman style supers rpg. After several months, start of the session, one relatively new player with him in tow started a session with a monolog about how if the frequency of combat did not increase, they would walk.

Whrn they finished, I asked "how much vombst fo you feel is minimum a month - four sessions - for you to stay? I observed we usually had one major most of session and two lighter half session or less skirmishes in a four session month."

Their response more or less boiled down to three full combat sessions and one half combat session a month. (This was the style the new guy ran).

I turned to the other four and asked "do you want that? Would that be ok?" I got four rather incredulous but emphatic "no".

So, I turned back to the duo and said "if that is your minimum acceptable offer, I cannot agree to that. It's not a style I like running or one the others want to play and not how this game was pitched. So, ball is in your court."

They walked. The new guy started a game for a few others and our game continued with 4 pcs. About a month later "old guy" came back asking to rejoin and we said sure.

In the separation period, we still were socially active with him for dinners and board games and such. We just did not talk rpgs.

I have had to kick a few out over the decades, for other reasons. I have also had yo just talk to one and stop invitingnthrm due to incompatability but between games.

But to be very clear, that Stargate not invited player who also did the brief walk-away for more combat, was in my current 5e scifi campaign when he passed just before last Christmas. He was loved by all of us and we all had many wonderful memories of our games together.

So, when someone start barking at me on the internet about decency and dick moves over starting a game when I know it means a player will not join in - they lose all credibility from my perspective because I have seen how reasonable adults can deal with different objectives and changing circumstances without that level of churlishness.

Maxperson · Oct 16, 2018

pemerton said:
I don't see what evil or personal morality has to do with it.

Whether you're advocating bad GMing is a different matter. I can go into posts in the 5e forum and learn that it is "bad GMing" to find a fight with 3 ogres boring (only a "bad GM" can't make a "sack of hit points" interesting), or learn that it is "bad GMing" to have trouble managing the adventuring day (only a "bad GM" would frame the ingame situation so that nova-ing and then resting is treated by the players as a feasible strategy).

Other posters have their views on what counts as bad GMing. So do I. And this seems the thread to share them in.

Sure, but that makes the definition of a bad DM, "Does something that someone else won't like.", which leaves quite literally all DMs as bad DMs. Not a very useful definition of "bad DM".

Maxperson · Oct 16, 2018

pemerton said:
What's the point of that, from a gameplay perspective, in circumstances where the player has already flagged that s/he is not interested in this sort of stuff?

The player is only one of 5(including the DM) playing the game. Even if that player doesn't want the obligation that comes with the class he picked, the other players might appreciate it.

And how could it be that a GM can't enjoy the game unless it includes this - does that mean s/he always insists that at least one player play a feypact warlock?

I'll answer a question with a question. Does this mean that you will always insist on taking things out of context?

Well, the threat of the bike being stolen was the actual example given from [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s actual play. But let's take running out of petrol. What does that add to the game?

That would depend on the circumstances. Of hand I'd say that delays, having to walk, and other consequences running out of gas add quite a bit to the game. You won't see that, though, because you play your style up and look down on the others. It shows in all the inane questions that you ask that really don't have relevance to what you are responding to.

Do you keep track of how much leather is left on the soles of PCs' shoes? You might think that that is a snide question, but it's intended literally. In real life, shoes wear out - I know this from the experience of wearing them out by running in them. But I've never played in a RPG where this "consequence" is kept track of, and where the players therefore risk having their PC suddenly inconvenienced by a hole in his/her shoe.

Boots don't have the same relevance as a motorcycle.

The bigger point is that, in RPGing, we "background" stuff - as in, disregard it and/or take it for granted - all the time. If a player has said that s/he wants to treat his/her PC's motorcycle in this way, what reason does a GM have for doing otherwise?

In some styles of game play you do that. In others nothing gets "backgrounded". If the player isn't playing in a game like yours where it exists, then the DM has very good reason for doing otherwise. And if the player wants something to be treated differently, he has to work with the DM to see if it can reasonably be done.

pemerton · Oct 16, 2018

Maxperson said:
Boots don't have the same relevance as a motorcycle.

Because? Where do the game rules tell me this?

Upthread [MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION] described a horse as the FRPG equivalent of a motorcycle. Why are horses different from boots? They're both there on the equipment list with a price next to them! (Well, in 5e they're subsumed into clothes, but I've never heard of a RPG where any clothes wear out from being worn, except one time in my Burning Wheel game where the result of a failed Resources check for upkeep was a PC wearing holes in the soles of his boots.)

Maxperson said:
In some styles of game play you do that. In others nothing gets "backgrounded".

So in those games - I assume yours is an example - how do you work out when clothes wear out, when the PCs need to urinate and how long that takes, whether a PC sneezes while trying to cast a spell, etc, etc, etc?

Maxperson · Oct 16, 2018

pemerton said:
Because? Where do the game rules tell me this?

Why would the rules have to?

Upthread [MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION] described a horse as the FRPG equivalent of a motorcycle. Why are horses different from boots? They're both there on the equipment list with a price next to them! (Well, in 5e they're subsumed into clothes, but I've never heard of a RPG where any clothes wear out from being worn, except one time in my Burning Wheel game where the result of a failed Resources check for upkeep was a PC wearing holes in the soles of his boots.)

You really don't see how horses are different from boots? Really?

So in those games - I assume yours is an example - how do you work out when clothes wear out, when the PCs need to urinate and how long that takes, whether a PC sneezes while trying to cast a spell, etc, etc, etc?

Here we go with more of the inane questions again. What's the point in asking questions that serve no purpose? And by serve no purpose, I mean have nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

5ekyu · Oct 16, 2018

pemerton said:
Because? Where do the game rules tell me this?

Upthread [MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION] described a horse as the FRPG equivalent of a motorcycle. Why are horses different from boots? They're both there on the equipment list with a price next to them! (Well, in 5e they're subsumed into clothes, but I've never heard of a RPG where any clothes wear out from being worn, except one time in my Burning Wheel game where the result of a failed Resources check for upkeep was a PC wearing holes in the soles of his boots.)

So in those games - I assume yours is an example - how do you work out when clothes wear out, when the PCs need to urinate and how long that takes, whether a PC sneezes while trying to cast a spell, etc, etc, etc?

"Upthread [MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION] described a horse as the FRPG equivalent of a motorcycle. Why are horses different from boots? They're both there on the equipment list with a price next to them! (Well, in 5e they're subsumed into clothes, but I've never heard of a RPG where any clothes wear out from being worn, except one time in my Burning Wheel game where the result of a failed Resources check for upkeep was a PC wearing holes in the soles of his boots.)"

Since I was conjured I will reply.

In my game, horses and clothes are not treated differently.

For both, all players will have to deal in-game the same way with consequences related to them that are reasonable in the setting. no player will get to invoke some meta-game consequence eraser to avoid the consequences of their choices. Choose to wear common clothes to try to blend into a high brow aristocrat affair, consequences. Choose to wear fine clothes into the cutpurse district - consequences - even if you have some lofty idea that wearing fancy high dollar clothes is your "thing" - consequences.

Just like with the motorcycle "it's my thing" guy and the "no motorcycle - I am radical green no footprint guy" - in my game both would be subject to consequences for their choices - not just the one who did not take the worry free bike.

In the last game, my halfling had common/comfy clothes, a singer/dancer costume, a sheer fortune teller mystic costume, travelling outfit and was buying fine clothes. She had to replace a lot of them (time for tailoring gold etc) after we lost our wagons in an overland travel bit when we were smashed by four "gruesome" who started hitting the horses to make sure the wagons did not get away. We only barely escaped with the stuff on our backs and most of my character clothes were already divided into "storage" and so on the wagons.

Choices, consequences etc.

No complaints when it bites,

And, when we did make the keep and she bought even just the initial new clothes she threw out and burned the very trail worm travel set.

pemerton · Oct 16, 2018

Maxperson said:
Why would the rules have to?

You really don't see how horses are different from boots? Really?

Here we go with more of the inane questions again. What's the point in asking questions that serve no purpose? And by serve no purpose, I mean have nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

Boots are different from horses are different from motorcycles are different from handkerchiefs.

You're the one who asserted that motorcycles are relevant but boots not. Why?

You're the one who said that in some games nothing is backgrounded? Sneezes, urination, etc are all things that - in such a game - I would assume not to be backgrounded. If in fact they are backgrounded, then it's not true that nothing is backgrounded.

When you make these various claims about what's relevant and what's not, I'm not able to work out what you have in mind or what your rationale is. Are you saying you'd be OK with a player who wanted to background boots?

And [MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION], what system do you use for working out when clothes get worn out? (I gave an example of this from one of my own campaigns.)

Sadras · Oct 16, 2018

pemerton said:
The attitude of the archbishop has nothing to do with WotC. It's the GM in your example who has decided that the archbishop cannot be influenced.

This topic was discussed (in the context of Traveller, but the principle is the same) in this thread at the end of last year. My view is very similar to the one that @chaochou stated in that thread:

There's a recurring notion in this thread - whether pertaining to NPC attitudes, or players' desires for their PC flavour/backstory etc - that the GM can't enjoy the game unless s/he is deciding what the story is. That is exactly what caused me to leave/end three games as per my first post in this thread.

The issue I take with this is that you and chaochou are debating this from a story now perspective where the DM is not the primary story driver. I have tried to be explicit in my posts of how different the games run from your traditional D&D to a Story Now approach.
You will always get some DMs that are more forceful than others. There is a range.

In fact when the PC played a warlock in my game and chose a darker patron, I asked him what he wanted me to explore, how much had he developed the patron and how much input he wanted from me.

The current warlock pc chose Bahamut as a patron and I'm very much hands-off, the character is a good guy doing good work, I don't see myself being involved or forceful. I might introduce a vision or some insight but that is about it, for now.

Despite the way I DM (and not necessarily always like this), I still firmly believe the patron falls under the ambit of the DM at the end of the day. If both DM and player agreed to background that element of the game, well then that is their business.

Does the player of the cleric get told in advance that his/her PC is going to lose his/her class abilities during the course of the campaign?

Not necessarily. Losing one's powers/shtick is a common trope and it is usually not permanent.
Batman broke his back. Green Lantern lost his ring. Flash lost his speed. Peter Parker lost Mary Jane.

That was in the context of someone thinking a player is wrecking the game.

Wrecking the game can be very subjective.

But no one's offered a reason why a player playing a cleric or warlock whose god/patron is happy with what s/he does, or playing a motorcycle-riding vampire, would wreck the game.

I was under the impression the god/patron was not happy (being played by the DM).

5ekyu · Oct 16, 2018

pemerton said:
Boots are different from horses are different from motorcycles are different from handkerchiefs.

You're the one who asserted that motorcycles are relevant but boots not. Why?

You're the one who said that in some games nothing is backgrounded? Sneezes, urination, etc are all things that - in such a game - I would assume not to be backgrounded. If in fact they are backgrounded, then it's not true that nothing is backgrounded.

When you make these various claims about what's relevant and what's not, I'm not able to work out what you have in mind or what your rationale is. Are you saying you'd be OK with a player who wanted to background boots?

And [MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION], what system do you use for working out when clothes get worn out? (I gave an example of this from one of my own campaigns.)

Common sense within the setting and its practices. When it seems appropriate folks buy new clothes.

They key difference in this and backgrounding is, there are not some players who get to meta-game opt out of clothing getting worn, dirty, treated as out of place etc because the did some meta-game-erasure dance. What is tracked, what gets responded too, etc is the same for each character and based on the setting, not the different preferences ftom one player to the next.

Your drive to somehow tie not tracking urination for anyone to a player getting to choose for himself what is tracked in the game for his character only and what gets treated with consequence in the game for his character only is an amusing red herring but little more.

pemerton · Oct 16, 2018

Sadras said:
The issue I take with this is that you and chaochou are debating this from a story now perspective where the DM is not the primary story driver. I have tried to be explicit in my posts of how different the games run from your traditional D&D to a Story Now approach.

My issue is that my point applies even to a DL-type game.

It's one thing for the focus of the game to be on divining and playing through the GM's story. Not my thing, but I know a lot of people swear by it.;

It's another thing for the GM to insist - in respect of certain characters/archetypes - that s/he is entitled to establish the true nature of the PC's backstory, defining relationship, etc. In effect, to play a major role in establishing and playing the characger. (On pain of losing class abilities.) Even in a DL-type game I do not see what this adds. And reiterating that it's not the GM's fault that the archbishop, or patron, or whomever it is is insistent on the point doesn't answer the point. The idea of the DL-style game is that at least the players provide a bit of colour and a few minor decision points. But if the GM is also establishing the most important bits of PC colour, telling me what decisions are and are not appropriate for a worshipper of XYZ, etc - well, what's left for the player to do?

Sadras said:
pemerton said:

ut no one's offered a reason why a player playing a cleric or warlock whose god/patron is happy with what s/he does, or playing a motorcycle-riding vampire, would wreck the game.

Click to expand...

I was under the impression the god/patron was not happy (being played by the DM).

But that's exactly my point. If the player's preference that the whole god/patron thing be "backgrounded" was respected then the god/patron would be happy. But for whatever reason the GM is inserting his/her own preference to decide that the god/patron is not happy. For what reason?

If the GM thinks the player is just a wrecker - which eg was the implication of [MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION]'s reference upthread to "murder-hoboing" - then as [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] has said, that's a social problem that can be resolved by a sensible conversation among participants. It's not an aspect of game play at all.

But if the issue is not that the PC is wrecking things - eg if the PC was playing a wizard or a fighter or whatever no one would have any issues - then why is the GM needing to insert his/her conception of what the patron/god wants in favour of the player's conception of the same? How is that improving the experience? Telling me that we're not talking about story-now play doesn't help - even within the follow-the-GM's-trail paradigm, I dont understand what this is supposed to be adding to the play experience.

Sadras said:
In fact when the PC played a warlock in my game and chose a darker patron, I asked him what he wanted me to explore, how much had he developed the patron and how much input he wanted from me.

That seems to imply that you are interested in identifying and respecting the player's preferences about the backstory, colour etc of his PC. That seems different from what I am being critical of (unless I'm misunderstanding your account of your game).

Sadras said:
Despite the way I DM (and not necessarily always like this), I still firmly believe the patron falls under the ambit of the DM at the end of the day.

But this goes back to my earlier comments. What is this adding? If in fact the day never ends (as per your description of your actual practice, if I've properly understood it), then what is the point of this assertion of day's end authority?