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

[5ekyu]

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.

as stated, if the Gm and player reach agreement on the bike's benefit and determents etc - thats great.

In 5e, the closest to the motorcycle is a horse and in 5e horses are fair game - both benefits and detriments. They carry stuff but they dont survive easily. etc. thats by the basic nature of the rules and obviously a gm and player (how many times does it have to be said) can agree to go another way with it.

But at the point the player sits down to a 5e game and insists his horse or his elephant gets to have its in game benefits - travel and carry stuff, but doesn't want to have to worry about protecting it or having to replace it or buy feed for it etc... to the point of calling it dickish or questioning decency if the Gm says "no thats not how this campaign treats it" that becomes a different matter altogether.

My group does not enjoy as much the meta-game resolutions of what would be in-game issues so, we do not go that route with any sort of regularity. just not oru flavor of ice cream. But i am sure some enjoy it - just like some enjoy friend-proof fireballs in MMOs and bears and demon buddies no NPC seems to notice without any explanation given.

 

[pemerton]

We prefer to deal with issues that matter in game in game, not thru the outside approaches.

And I think a game in which it matters what security devices I have on my motorbike is a lame one. Just as I would think a game that keeps track of how often my PC urinates is lame.

In 5e, the closest to the motorcycle is a horse and in 5e horses are fair game - both benefits and detriments. They carry stuff but they dont survive easily. etc. thats by the basic nature of the rules and obviously a gm and player (how many times does it have to be said) can agree to go another way with it.

But at the point the player sits down to a 5e game and insists his horse or his elephant gets to have its in game benefits - travel and carry stuff, but doesn't want to have to worry about protecting it or having to replace it or buy feed for it etc... to the point of calling it dickish or questioning decency if the Gm says "no thats not how this campaign treats it" that becomes a different matter altogether.

My group does not enjoy as much the meta-game resolutions of what would be in-game issues

As it happens I both play in and run games with horses. In my Prince Valiant game yesterday horses came up a few times: the PCs won combats that allowed them to take their defeated foes' horses as prizes, and thus got to upgrade from riding horses to warhorses (+1 die in combat). And at one point, when they were helping some ladies in distress, one of the PCs examined their horses to see if there were any injuries that might need treating etc.

But I didn't make a check for random horse-thieves.

In Burning Wheel I play a knight who has a horse. In the first session of the campaign I had tethered my horse to a railing while inspecting an abandoned farmhouse. When orcs attacked, I had to run back to my horse before they cut me off from it. That's completely fair game - the horse has been put at stake in the situation.

But the idea that the horse might just be stolen while I look around the house, independent of any framing by the GM and failed check on my part, is for me the mark of terrible GMing.

And this has nothing to do with "meta-game resolutions". Every RPG invovles choosing what bits of the fiction to pay attention to, and what bits to disregard. My goto example in this therad has been PC urination. I am saying that a GM who can't think of anything more interesting than to have a PC's horse or motorcycle when it had not been put at stake in the situation is a poor GM. If I was writing a book of GM advice, avoiding that sort of thing would be on page 1 or 2. It's uninteresting fiction, it creates absolutely needless friction at the table (I've paid PC build points for this thing and now the GM has arbitrarily taken it away!) and it smacks of a desire for GM control over all facets of the fiction, which is a huge flag for other issues down the line.

 

[Lanefan]

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

...

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.

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.

I think they precisely say the GM has that power, should she choose to use it.

Let's unpack the bit of the Basic PDF I left in the above quote, that you claim allows the player to determine the relationship.

Did you enter this service willingly? If yes, your PC has cast its fate to the whims and desires of its deity, a.k.a. the DM. If no, then you're saying the character is already acting under external duress, which could be anything; and if the player doesn't provide something then the DM will have to.

Did the god choose you, impelling you into service with no regard for your wishes?" This one's a sub-set question of a 'no' answer* to the previous question. If yes, then you're on a divine railroad of your own choice (remember, it's the player who is choosing the answer(s) to this(these) question(s)). If no, this question is kinda meaningless.

* - unwilling service can come from a bunch of reasons, usually involving fleeing or avoiding a worse situation elsewhere. The deity itself hauling you in is just one possibility of many.

How do the temple priests of your faith regard you: as a champion or a troublemaker? This one's excellent, and the answer will help shape the character's alignment/ethos/whatever. There needs to be a corollary question, however: Do you believe your deity regards you the same way?. In any case, this question has little to no bearing on whether obligations wil arise or not.

What are your ultimate goals? Every character probably needs to answer this one at some point, Clerics are no different, though I suspect if one of the answers comes back as "To never do anything my deity tells me to" might not work out very well.

Does your deity have a special task in mind for you? Or are you striving to prove yourself worthy of a great quest? These two go together. Yes to either gives the DM free rein to at some point have such special task or great quest arise in the game, the only difference being timing: in the first 'yes' the player's saying the task is already in place (and thus can come up soon if desired) while in the second 'yes' the player's saying she wants a lead-up story first - the striving bit - and then the quest later. In either case the ball's in the DM's court; as while a player can answer 'yes' to either of these questions she cannot then go on to specify what said task or quest might be. (if she could the question What would it be? would immediately follow; but it's not there, and its absence is telling)

'No' to both doesn't tell anyone very much.

 

[Maxperson]

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

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

Sometimes still = sometimes. It does not = never. So occasional/sometimes means that during the course of the game, the player can expect at least one such task to happen.

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

Oh, look, a demand is absolute. See, when I said "A high priest can demand your clerics aid.", it was clear to any reasonable person that I was talking about the demand being the absolute.

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.

I looked at it. Apparently you didn't, though. "A high priest can demand your clerics aid."

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

I acknowledged that it wasn't written and that I was presuming. Did you have anything meaningful to add, or is this a drive by trolling?

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Once again, because apparently you don't get it either. I'm not talking about mechanics. I'm talking about fluff. Fluff is as ironclad as mechanics in many ways. If the fluff says, "Your god will change the color of your hair and eyes on a daily basis.", that is what will happen and you are stuck with it, even though it has no mechanic involved.

I also said several time in this conversation that yes, it can all be changed. It just can't be changed by the player. Only the DM has the authority to change fluff, so the player needs to talk to the DM about any fluff changes that the player wishes to happen.

 

[Maxperson]

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

Yeah. I was just going quickly by what the other guy said, as I was going out the door.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

And you skipped the part where the DM can have the high priest make demands upon the PC whenever he wants. There are built in obligations to the cleric class.

 

[Lanefan]

Sometimes still = sometimes. It does not = never. So occasional/sometimes means that during the course of the game, the player can expect at least one such task to happen.

Maybe 'expect' isn't the right word here, as that implies just a bit too much certainty. Perhaps try 'anticipate'?

 

[5ekyu]

And I think a game in which it matters what security devices I have on my motorbike is a lame one. Just as I would think a game that keeps track of how often my PC urinates is lame.

you do perhaps realize that every pc urinates (ok does vary with setting but) but not every pc has a motorcycle, right?

maybe that difference does not matter to you, but, lets me just say that in my experience with more than a passing few games over the years, it has seemed to me that more often than not things like motorcycles/horses/elephants etc having a possibility of being stolen etc is part of the basic game as opposed to them being by default handwaved.

But again, different strokes for different groups and all that.

one man's lame "starship at risk" is another man's "core thematic element of the setting we are playing in" and you know sometimes that happens even when it is not "put at risk" in those settings and genres. Sometimes they are just in dry dock or just sailing around and the ship decides its time to have a baby.

 

[Maxperson]

Except the previous meltdown was caused by lightning...

The next box should be rubber lined, then!! Or some other non-conductive method. The point is that the smart player/PC learns from mistakes and works to mitigate them.