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

[S'mon]

And there is the irreconcilable rub of approaches between at least you and me.

Definitely. I want my GM "Master of the Game" like it says at the start of the 5e DMG. I like them pretty Gygaxian, old school. Though I do expect if running a balanced system like 5e that they either apply the PC-class rules, or make house rules clear, preferably ahead of time. It's no fun having your PC nerfed by some random GM brain-fart. I didn't like having to tell a player that his Gloom Ranger was not invisible to Darkvision because that would be completely unworkable IMC. Ideally I should have known about this Gloom Ranger issue in advance and addressed how darkvision IMC (Stonehell, an OSR megadungeon) is a bit different and more powerful than in default 5e - it functions basically like Infravision in pre-3e D&D, the whole party was using it and his PC would have been entirely invisible to the rest of the party.

 

[5ekyu]

And there is the irreconcilable rub of approaches between at least you and me.

i find it funny because in truth all power flows from the players - without them a Gm is alone but its also true in reverse.

Each gets given their power by the others consent and barring that consent there is no player agency and is no "Gm is god of the campaign extreme at all.

 

[Hussar]

For me, it seems a perfectly reasonable request for the player to make, as part of pre-game discussion. If the GM says no then the player can remove that background element. What I don't like is anything that gives players non-negotiated control over the game beyond their PC's own actions. I don't like the idea of shared power - I want all power to flow from the GM. I like my GM to be a benevolent tyrant, creating the world that I explore. I'm actually a very bad/demanding player, but not about this stuff - eg I expect my GM to either know the rules, look them up, or defer to trustworthy players; I also expect a very high degree of player & PC freedom to act in the world, a world that makes sense, and no fudging/illusionism. Ringfenced background elements hardcoded into the rules attacks the exploratory nature of the game that I enjoy.

It's hard to explain, but I think it's about power and trust. Within the scope of the world I want the GM all powerful, trusted and trustworthy. Negotiation & request to GM is fine; rules limiting the GM's control of the world are not fine.

If I play with a GM, and my PC has a fiancee, I want (a) the GM to have the power to do what he/she* wants with that relationship and (b) a GM I can trust not to abuse his or her power to do what he/she wants with that relationship.

*Currently all my GMs are female, but I hear some people play with male GMs.

Honestly, here, then, it seems we are mostly in agreement. Since the Backgrounds mechanic that I was talking about is done during character creation, it's pretty much the same thing, just more formalized. And it allows the player to add things to the campaign world, that are not going to become a focus of the campaign - remember, the player is agreeing to place this in a Background meaning the player can't use it either. It's largely just window dressing.

It's not like you could Background the Patron and then somehow argue that the Patron is going to save you or come when you call or anything like that. It does work both ways. If you Background something, you don't get to use it either.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

its when you submit for approval to the GM an NPC you want added to the game that you are making that an element of the game for the GM to use. Anything you do not want in the game to play a part in the game - thats between you and your own fan fiction pages.

Conversely, it's between you the GM and your own fan fiction pages. It should never be a problem for the player to tell the DM, "No, I don't want to deal with that, that's not what I had in mind when I made this character, please don't do that." If a DM can't keep his or her mitts off the player's characters, then I have zero interest in playing at that table.

To me this is not a solution - since there is not a problem - but it is also far from perfect *especially* when you choose to let it leave backstory and move into class elements.

Once the warlock player gets to demand his patron be "off limits" then why not the paladin deciding his oath thingy is too restrictive so he wants that off-limits, the cleric finds that whole religion things and god stuff to not be "a thing in the game" and hey maybe the whole "i am an elf" or "i am a half-orc" shouldn't be a thing either...

You want a mistress in every port but want them shielded from NPC and other player interactions? You want a lockbox around your character's laisons - do not bring them into the game and keep them as private internal knowledge.

you dont want to play the warlock class with the baggage it brings in terms of obligations and a relationship with an outside entity - there are other classes.

at my tables at least, other tables may be different.

Why not? Paladins are not alignment restricted any more. And the Oath's are so vague as to mean pretty much anything. Good grief, paladins are easy to play now. And are you saying that a cleric can't be of a god that doesn't really care what the cleric does? Or a cleric of a philosophy? I sometimes forget how liberating it is to play in Primeval Thule where clerics are essentially cultists and are in no way actually tied to their diety.

IOW, you're saying that if a player brings something to the table, and flat out tells you, "No, I don't want this" you're going to ignore him or her and do it anyway?

 

[S'mon]

Honestly, here, then, it seems we are mostly in agreement. Since the Backgrounds mechanic that I was talking about is done during character creation, it's pretty much the same thing, just more formalized. And it allows the player to add things to the campaign world, that are not going to become a focus of the campaign - remember, the player is agreeing to place this in a Background meaning the player can't use it either. It's largely just window dressing.

It's not like you could Background the Patron and then somehow argue that the Patron is going to save you or come when you call or anything like that. It does work both ways. If you Background something, you don't get to use it either.

Hmm. I think I'm ok with this if the GM still has the right to veto a Background element - to require that either it be useable in play, or that the player remove it as a Background. At that point the discussion falls within the sort of pre-game negotiation I think is entirely legitimate. And I do see how this sort of discussion can be helpful to ensure everyone is on the same page.

I do wonder though what is the point of having something in Background if neither GM nor player can actually use it? How is this different from player written fanfic about their character?

 

[S'mon]

BTW I don't think I have ever seen "hands off my X!" in actual play. I do see a lot of "When are you going to use my X?!" - player writes special-snowflake backstory and demands the GM incorporate it into the game, when the GM (me) wants to keep it as background-only. I still have nightmares over the 85 page 135-year* backstory I didn't read, that apparently entitled the PC to be Duchess of Kerandas. That experience made me rather over-hostile to backstory in general.

*I might be off a few years. I think it started in Mystara year 885 AC and the PC entered play in 1020 AC.

 

[pemerton]

i find it funny because in truth all power flows from the players - without them a Gm is alone but its also true in reverse.

But according to (at least some in) this thread, I'm a bad player for having abandoned some games/GMs!

If people are going to say that "all power flows from the players", yet also criticise those players who actually exercise such power . . . which bit do they really believe?

 

[S'mon]

I sometimes forget how liberating it is to play in Primeval Thule where clerics are essentially cultists and are in no way actually tied to their diety.

I like that too, and use it in my Wilderlands campaign, which has a lot of the same influences as PT; RE Howard notably.

 

[pemerton]

I do wonder though what is the point of having something in Background if neither GM nor player can actually use it? How is this different from player written fanfic about their character?

It seems like it would provide colour. I'm not sure how far the GM is allowed to push it in [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s example - eg if the protected background is "mistress in every port" the GM is precluded from having said mistresses turn up, be kidnapped etc. But is the GM precluded from having NPCs react to the PC as someone with a reputation for romancing and/or philandering? I'm not sure - [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] would have to say.

 

[Hussar]

Been a while since I read the books but I think that’s largely it. The player is basically just saying that X should never be the focus of play. Not that it can’t be there in the background.