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

[Hussar]

I have no idea how many times or ways one can say that two people must discuss and reach agreement and things like if that's the agreement they reached it is fine to get across that there are options or things to discuss.

At the end of the discussion tho, of any attempt to reach an agreement, both sides have to be able to say no.

Let's put it another way, for anyone reading with a partially open mind...

If a gm offers up "hey I plan to run a scifi game based in stargate, who is in?" Is that forcing his preferences on people who prefer to play horror RPGs or fantasy swords and sorcery or simply giving them an option to play in a game? Is this a sign of indecency or dickishness?

If a gm creates a setting and offers to run a game and part of the pitch is "in this game there are no cleric, warlock or paladin class pcs. Who is in?" Is that forcing his preferences on people or giving them the option to join a game? Is this a sign of indecency or dickishness?

If the answer to either of those is "that's ok, not forcing, not indecent, not dickishness" then why or how is it forcing, indecent or dickish to say "hey, I plan to run a game where the clerics, warlock and paladin classes require agreement between gm and player over the specific god-temple-patron-oath before game but you can choose to play the other classes if you dont wsnt such ties."

It is a sign of dickishness, (not sure where indecency comes in) when you pitch that game 100% knowing that at least one of your players absolutely hates the idea that you are pitching. That's the very important detail you are leaving out here. When knowing that that pitch will cause one player to leave the game is a pretty strong sign of dickishness.

 

[pemerton]

It's not a price, though. It's simply a function of the class. If you play a cleric, paladin, or warlock, you are choosing to have a being who you have obligations to. When those obligations come calling, it's something you already agreed to by choosing the class and it's bad faith for you to get upset about. Unless you and the DM make an agreement before the game begins for it to be otherwise.

(1) [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] is describing a system for establishing such agreements and is being told that players who would do such a thing are bad players seeking to avoid "consequences".

(2) As I have repeatedly posted, there is no logical connection between PC cleric has obligations to a god and GM is entitled to impose demands/directions on player's play of his her PC. This is because the player is perfectly capable of establishing his/her PC's obligations.

I read the cleric class description in the 5e Basic PDF (pp 20-21):

Clerics are intermediaries between the mortal world and the distant planes of the gods. As varied as the gods they serve, clerics strive to embody the handiwork of their deities. No ordinary priest, a cleric is imbued with divine magic. . . .

The gods don’t grant this power to everyone who seeks it, but only to those chosen to fulfill a high calling.

Harnessing divine magic doesn’t rely on study or training. A cleric might learn formulaic prayers and ancient rites, but the ability to cast cleric spells relies on devotion and an intuitive sense of a deity’s wishes. . . .

When a cleric takes up an adventuring life, it is usually because his or her god demands it. . . .

A temple might ask for a cleric’s aid, or a high priest might be in a position to demand it. . . .

[T]he most important question to consider is which deity to serve and what principles you want your character to embody. The Player’s Handbook includes lists of many of the gods of the multiverse. Check with your DM to learn which deities are in your campaign.

Once you’ve chosen a deity, consider your cleric’s relationship to that god. Did you enter this service willingly? Or did the god choose you, impelling you into service with no regard for your wishes? How do the temple priests of your faith regard you: as a champion or a troublemaker? What are your ultimate goals? Does your deity have a special task in mind for you? Or are you striving to prove yourself worthy of a great quest?​

Nothing there states, suggests or implies that playing a cleric makes me especially hostage to the GM. In fact, thje final paragraph implies that I, the player decide how I relate to my god and what it is that s/he demands of me! Which is what I have been advocating in this thread.

It's not how I think the game should be played. It's the rules. The player has no ability to alter classes. By RAW, the DM is the one with that power. 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.

I've just posted the relevant rules from the Basic PDF. They don't say that the GM has this power you are saying s/he has.

 

[5ekyu]

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".

Well, first, gas in the tank and the bike bring st risk in the game are not the same thing, so, one goes not answer the other.

Second, if I recall the description claimed a game where the player character had spent in character time or resources to protect the bike and set it up against s theory of backgrounding the risk out **but** not the bike.

To me that is a sign of using what started off as an agreement to sideline parents and backstory elements and turning it into a way to skirt consequences of choices that provide benefits.

That's not a gaming style I allow or encourage at my table.

If you choose to not see a difference in a player insisting his charscter's parents being a non-issue in the game (both ways) and a player insisting his character's gear complications being a non-issue in the game (but not the gear benefits) and this for free - then not much I can say will matter.

 

[5ekyu]

It is a sign of dickishness, (not sure where indecency comes in) when you pitch that game 100% knowing that at least one of your players absolutely hates the idea that you are pitching. That's the very important detail you are leaving out here. When knowing that that pitch will cause one player to leave the game is a pretty strong sign of dickishness.

No. It's not. It's just not.

Edit to add in case the incredulous case that this needs to be explained to an adult...

People and friends may share a lot of interests and also have interests they dont share. This can even cut within categories- all like movies but not all like horror movies.

These can also change as circumstances change - girlfriends, marriage, new game systems, babies, new Harry Potter movies, reboots of 21 Jump Street and Baywatch.

So it is actually quite common for friends, playmates etc fo find their participation together change and shift yet they still remain friends or buddies (sometimes.)

So, just like when a game closed down and I said "I plan to run a VtM campaign next, who is in?" some said yep some said no yet we still remained friends and the move even brought in new players who became friends and playmate.

So, hey, you know, it's obvious there are some who may feel that kind of thing is some sort of betrayal and that is an issue I certainly am not qualified to help with.

But, for adults, trying new things you know some of your friends wont choose to participate in is not generally reacted to as intensely as you seem to feel it must be.

But, that is not an issue I am definitely qualified to help you understand. I hope you can find others who csn.

 

[Hussar]

No. It's not. It's just not.

Put it in other contexts.

"Hey, we're going to go out for dinner every week for the next six months to a year but we are only going to go to restaurants you hate."

"Hey, we're going to have movie night every week for the next six months to a year but we're only going to watch movies you hate."

Yeah, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that this isn't exactly the most friendly thing you could do.

And, as far as the Enterprise things goes, I'd point out that IIRC, this was YOUR example. I just kinda ran with it because I thought it was interesting. But, really, to be honest, I largely do agree here. Backgrounding the Enterprise would be a bit on the extreme side. Just a tad. Heck, if a player did want to background the Enterprise, I'd probably be more worried that the player just really doesn't want to play this campaign.

The examples that I brought up were nowhere near as broad in scope. They were elements which only impacted a single player at the table, instead of the entire campaign. Whether it's a warlock's patron or a vampire's motorcycle, it's not really something that affects the whole table. Which is, frankly, what Backgrounding is for.

And, just to clarify about the motorcycle, yeah, I do think that's precisely what Backgrounding is for. Instead of wasting table time on stuff that really only directly impacts one player who has clearly stated that they aren't interested in those complications, what's the problem here? Yeah, the player put all sorts of anti-theft bits on the bike. Mostly because at that time, I'd never heard of the concept of backgrounding. But, essentially, that's what he was doing - when the bike wasn't on screen, we, the group, don't worry about it.

Seems an awfully simple fix rather than expecting the player to jump through enough hoops to make the DM happy.

 

[Lanefan]

As I said, this is terrible roleplaying. The penalty for playing a cleric or warlock or whatever is what - I don't get to fully play the game because sometime the GM tells me how I should play my PC?

Not quite.

You keep substituting "the GM" for what should instead say "my own character choice(s)", because your first thought - based on what you've posted here and elsewhere - is always to blame the GM when things aren't to your preference.

You-as-player get to fully play the game within the limits you've put on yourself.

Why can't the player handle this decision-making?

The player already did handle the decision-making, way back at char-gen when that particular charcter and deity was chosen. What's happening now is that the game is saying "here's where the decision you made then has ramifications now".

And furthremore, what is going on that the GM has made the fight with the orcs more boring than something else when s/he knows there's this orc-fighting PC in the game? That's what I call lame GMing.

Could be something as simple as the party is of a level where Orcs aren't much of a challenge any more. Or that for whatever reason the players - even Joe who plays the Orc-basher - have found something else to be of more interest...which might even be something just as relevant to another PC, for all that.

But the character has a duty. Now maybe Joe could have his Cleric pray to its deity to be temporarily released from this duty in order to pursue this other thing, at which point it's up to the DM (or the DM's dice, whichever) to either a) grant the release, b) grant the release with conditions e.g. some sort of penance or quest or other extra duty to be done later, or c) say no.

Were I the DM here I'd tend to lean toward b) above, all other things being equal, for a couple of reasons:
- it allows the more interesting adventure to proceed now
- the extra quest option potentially gives me another adventure to run later, thus extending the life of the campaign a bit.

Lan-"never mind that there's nothing at all wrong with Joe's PC leaving the party; Joe brings in another one to run with the group now, and sometimes later Joe and I work out how things went with the Orcs"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

You'd think that he'd have gone to an alchemist for some fireproofing after the first time it happened, or a metalsmith to have a steel box made to keep the book in, or... There are ways to mitigate the chances of book destruction if you just think about it.

Except the previous meltdown was caused by lightning...

 

[pemerton]

If you choose to not see a difference in a player insisting his charscter's parents being a non-issue in the game (both ways) and a player insisting his character's gear complications being a non-issue in the game (but not the gear benefits) and this for free - then not much I can say will matter.

I don't see any difference that is relevant to gameplay. In any modern-era game that I can imagine, a motorcycle is just colour - a way of filling out the narration "I get from A to B" and of justifying my PC's fondness for leathers - until the player chooses to stake it.

I'm riding my bike across the Arizona desert to try and warn my coven before the evil ghouls find them and eat them! That's putting the bike at stake - make a riding check, on a fail maybe the bike breaks down, or as you're leaving a petrol station you find yourself surrounded by rivals from the Gypsy Jokers or whatever (as seems appropriate in the GM's judgement).

I park my bike outside the pub where I'm meeting my friends for a drink. That's not staking the bike on anything - and I stand by my opinion that a GM who can't think of anything better to do at that point then have the bike be stolen is a lame GM. The idea that we'd actually spend time at the table discussing how the PC is protecting the bike from theft - which is what happened in [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s game - just adds to the lameness.

 

[5ekyu]

Put it in other contexts.

"Hey, we're going to go out for dinner every week for the next six months to a year but we are only going to go to restaurants you hate."

"Hey, we're going to have movie night every week for the next six months to a year but we're only going to watch movies you hate."

Yeah, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that this isn't exactly the most friendly thing you could do.

And, as far as the Enterprise things goes, I'd point out that IIRC, this was YOUR example. I just kinda ran with it because I thought it was interesting. But, really, to be honest, I largely do agree here. Backgrounding the Enterprise would be a bit on the extreme side. Just a tad. Heck, if a player did want to background the Enterprise, I'd probably be more worried that the player just really doesn't want to play this campaign.

The examples that I brought up were nowhere near as broad in scope. They were elements which only impacted a single player at the table, instead of the entire campaign. Whether it's a warlock's patron or a vampire's motorcycle, it's not really something that affects the whole table. Which is, frankly, what Backgrounding is for.

And, just to clarify about the motorcycle, yeah, I do think that's precisely what Backgrounding is for. Instead of wasting table time on stuff that really only directly impacts one player who has clearly stated that they aren't interested in those complications, what's the problem here? Yeah, the player put all sorts of anti-theft bits on the bike. Mostly because at that time, I'd never heard of the concept of backgrounding. But, essentially, that's what he was doing - when the bike wasn't on screen, we, the group, don't worry about it.

Seems an awfully simple fix rather than expecting the player to jump through enough hoops to make the DM happy.

Again, i am not qualified to offer any helpful feedback on your rejection/relationship triggers.

As for the motorcycle vs parents backgrounds two-step thing - if to you and your Gm the partial drawback-only vanishing of the cycle is good to go, thats great. no problems. happy for you both. But, thats not a style of meta-gamey problem dissolving i and my players are into. We prefer to deal with issues that matter in game in game, not thru the outside approaches. This is especially true when they impact what would seem to be choices that *should* in the game reality come with consequences - like say choosing an elephant over a large dog companion.

But one difference is - i do not see a player who tells me "well, thats ok, i wont choose the elephant then" or "i wont choose the warlock, how about a wizard" as a dick or someone who i question the decency of - or even if they say "sorry - not the table for me then."

I just see them as someone with different preferences who i hope enjoys the other options available to them.

But then, i do not have whatever background you do that leads you to the other take. So what i can say is i hope you find folks who can help you be happy at your gaming and in all things.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

The fluff is semi-prescriptive. Some of the fluff leaves things open, like the cleric fluff saying that temples MIGHT ask for something. Others are prescriptive like high priests being able to make demands upon the PC.

It's true that the fluff is not mandated, though. Just as combat is not mandated, having the cleric class exist at all is not mandated, and so on. Nothing is actually mandated. It does take the DM to change things, though.

It's also true that the player doesn't have to agree to the DM's use of those elements. Other games are available for the player to go join. If the player wishes to continue to play in that game, though, the player either come back in line with the fluff, or persuades the DM to change it. The player has no ability to unilaterally change the fluff of the class.

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

Because as soon as play begins, the warlocks patron is capable of giving the PC tasks, whether or not the task is actually given right then. All the potential involved with the fluff is active the instant the game begins.