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

[Aldarc]

It's not how I think the game should be played. It's the rules.

No, it is how you think the rules should be played. If the rules were as clear cut as you think, we would not be having such discussions. These obligations are not absolute. They are things that the DM can opt to insert into the game, but that does not make it a rule to insert them into the game.

The player has no ability to alter classes. By RAW, the DM is the one with that power.

You may want to withdraw your strawman; nowhere are we discussing altering mechanics. The class itself is not being altered. Merely the prominence of class flavor.

So yes, by RAW, if the player chooses a class and nothing is agreed upon by both the player and the DM prior to game play, the player has agreed to what that class entails. It's simple, and it's a fact of the game. It's easy to change, though. It just requires the DM changing it after being approached by the player. If the DM won't change it, the player should pick a different class.

Not really. IME, it just sidebars the discussion until it does come up into play. There may be multiple reasons for that, most notably both the player and DM leaving their relative expectations unstated. The player is not somehow contractually obligated to be the DM's whipping post because these things were not discussed prior. Hence, this thread about what reasons a player may leave a DM's table.

 

[5ekyu]

No, it is how you think the rules should be played. If the rules were as clear cut as you think, we would not be having such discussions. These obligations are not absolute. They are things that the DM can opt to insert into the game, but that does not make it a rule to insert them into the game.

You may want to withdraw your strawman; nowhere are we discussing altering mechanics. The class itself is not being altered. Merely the prominence of class flavor.

Not really. IME, it just sidebars the discussion until it does come up into play. There may be multiple reasons for that, most notably both the player and DM leaving their relative expectations unstated. The player is not somehow contractually obligated to be the DM's whipping post because these things were not discussed prior. Hence, this thread about what reasons a player may leave a DM's table.

I wonder if you read what you quoted. The part about accepting what the class entails you bolded was followed immediately by statements about then working with the gm if a problem arises, yet you then explicitly disagree and go back to the whipping boy straw man in spite of that being not at all what was being put forth, and the final bit about the thread being cases you leave is especially obtuse when the final bit in that quoted graph was about the player not playing that vlass.

Nobody here in this thread has once put forth that a player should be forced to play a character they do not want to or be a GMs whipping boy with no opportunity to say no or leave... the closet being a few, maybe one, who seems to think a gm who says no may not or must not be a decent human.

 

[5ekyu]

I suspect the difficulties around my own son's birth and his mother's emergency Caesarean may have contributed to my using this as a theme a couple times.

Absolutely. In ye olde days, frankly, no topics appropriate to the setting were off limits, and usually if it's our gang of old farts, thsts still the case.

But in today's age I have seen a need to be more expansive in some policies and references just because my old fart gaming is no longer even close to the average gamer demographics.

Course there was that time we had a player go practically catatonic on us because she did not tell us the "severe phobia about snakes" she put in as a character disadvantage (and got points for) was actually hers, so that when "snakes on a scout ship" scenario kicked it up a notch, things went south irl.

Later on we did change the character and explain again that the things there that she chooses are things the players **wants ** in the story but the character likely hates or loves to hate etc.

 

[Maxperson]

No, it is how you think the rules should be played. If the rules were as clear cut as you think, we would not be having such discussions. These obligations are not absolute. They are things that the DM can opt to insert into the game, but that does not make it a rule to insert them into the game.

Have you read the classes?

Warlock:Sworn and Beholden. What do you think that means? It doesn't sound like Maybe Sword and Maybe Beholden to me. Also, "The warlock learns and grows in power, at the cost of occasional services performed on the patron’s behalf." At the cost of services. Not maybe at the cost of services, or sometimes at the cost of services. It's an absolute statement. There are costs of occasional services.

Cleric: "When a cleric takes up an adventuring life, it is usually because his or her god demands it." The very fact that you are adventuring is probably because your god demanded it. Further, "A temple
might ask for a cleric’s aid, or a high priest might be in a position to demand it." That's absolute. A high priest can demand your clerics aid.

Paladin: doesn't involve absolute language like the cleric, but presumably they would have the same obligations if a high priest demanded aid.

You may want to withdraw your strawman; nowhere are we discussing altering mechanics. The class itself is not being altered. Merely the prominence of class flavor.

I can't withdraw what does not exist. I didn't say mechanics. I said the class, and the class includes the fluff that controls it. You may want to withdraw your strawman, though. Twisting my statement to only include mechanics is pretty strawlike.

Not really. IME, it just sidebars the discussion until it does come up into play. There may be multiple reasons for that, most notably both the player and DM leaving their relative expectations unstated. The player is not somehow contractually obligated to be the DM's whipping post because these things were not discussed prior. Hence, this thread about what reasons a player may leave a DM's table.

It comes into play the instant play begins. The fluff of the class rules the class unless new fluff is created/allowed by the DM.

 

[Aldarc]

Have you read the classes?

Yes. The language is far more open and subject to interpretation than your intentionally restricted reading. It does not mean that the DM is mandated to include these elements. It does not mean that the player is mandated to play them. It does not mean that the player has to agree to the DM's use of these elements.

I can't withdraw what does not exist. I didn't say mechanics. I said the class, and the class includes the fluff that controls it.

The fluff informs the design of the archetype, but it does not control it. It is a descriptive springboard for play, but it is not prescriptive. You are making the descriptive fluff into prescriptive play.

The fluff of the class rules the class unless new fluff is created/allowed by the DM.

See above. Your approach is fundamentally backward.

It comes into play the instant play begins.

How? Sorry, but I don't believe that is the case.

 

[5ekyu]

Yes. The language is far more open and subject to interpretation than your intentionally restricted reading. It does not mean that the DM is mandated to include these elements. It does not mean that the player is mandated to play them. It does not mean that the player has to agree to the DM's use of these elements.

The fluff informs the design of the archetype, but it does not control it. It is a descriptive springboard for play, but it is not prescriptive. You are making the descriptive fluff into prescriptive play.

See above. Your approach is fundamentally backward.

How? Sorry, but I don't believe that is the case.

At its core, nothing is mandated because the gm can agree to house rule anything, the players can agree to play with them and all sides have the ability to say no and leave if mutual agreements are not reached.

So, words like "mandated" are relatively meaningless unless given a context such as "by RAW" or "by AL" etc.

But if I read correctly the position was framed as in **unless the GM decides otherwise** the class elements are in play to be used and a player is not given authority by the RAW to just take the class and ignore the stuff they dont want unilaterally.

The player can always choose a different class without those bits they dont like or choose not to play, if they and the gm cannot come to agreeable terms on the specific bits.

In games I gm, we will have a warlock discussion and get on the same pages or there wont ne a warlock PC. Same for cleric. Same for Pally. But this is primarily to make sure the player is not blindsided and we are both on the same page.

 

[Yunru]

Have you read the classes?

Warlock:Sworn and Beholden. What do you think that means? It doesn't sound like Maybe Sword and Maybe Beholden to me. Also, "The warlock learns and grows in power, at the cost of occasional services performed on the patron’s behalf." At the cost of services. Not maybe at the cost of services, or sometimes at the cost of services.

Actually, that's exactly what it says. Occasional = sometimes.

And let's pick apart more of these absolutes you talk about.

Cleric: "When a cleric takes up an adventuring life, it is usually because his or her god demands it." The very fact that you are adventuring is probably because your god demanded it.

Oh look, "might be," meaning "is not necessarily."

Further, "A temple might ask for a cleric’s aid, or a high priest might be in a position to demand it." That's absolute. A high priest can demand your clerics aid.

Excuse me, what? Did you not even read what you quoted? "A high priest might be in a position to demand it." Which says nothing of the fact you're not locked into accepting said demand.

Paladin: doesn't involve absolute language like the cleric, but presumably they would have the same obligations if a high priest demanded aid.

Oh so now we have a case where you have literally nothing backing you up, but somehow it still counts?

 

[Captain Panda]

It comes into play the instant play begins. The fluff of the class rules the class unless new fluff is created/allowed by the DM.

But that's just false, and clearly against the spirit of the game. The fluff of the class has no mechanical impact except in very rare instances. In Pathfinder 2nd edition if you do certain things that are offensive to the Gods (for a cleric) or nature (for a druid) then you lose your powers, that's mechanically enforced fluff. In Fifth Edition D&D the fluff is just to give you an idea of the default assumptions, you can still change them so long as you don't change any of the nuts and bolts mechanics and still be fully within the rules. You're reading descriptions of what the default assumptions are as rules about what must be true in every case.

That's clearly not what the designers intended, it's also not very fun.

 

[pemerton]

But if a VtM game did have.a scene story or plot where gas in the tank was crotical to,the resolution, i sure wouldnt call that lame without knowing whether the players enjoyed it.

But we know the answer to this - [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] described a game in which the player did not want the bike to be at stake in the game. And various posters - including you, I think - said that that was a bad player trying to avoid "consequences".

 

[pemerton]

infinity -1 is still not infinity

Yes it is. That's one of the properties that defines infinity!