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

[pemerton]

This dialog on NPCs that come out of player choices for their pcs started with literally backstory parents iirc.

No. It came out of me saying that I ended a game which involved the GM having the PCs' patron betray them upon completing their mission. [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] and one or two other posters - I thought you were one of them - said that I was wrong to criticise the GM on this basis. And then someone seemed to assume that reference to a "patron" meant reference to a warlock's supernatural patron.

EDIT because I saw this:

You left out "play non-clerics, non-warlocks etc"

What's in the scope of the "etc"? [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] has mentioned paladins. You've mentioned guildmembers. What about family members?

Are you saying that the player either play "The Man with No Name" or else - in virtue of playing a PC who actually has some sort of social grounding in the setting, is giving the GM unrestrained licence to do as s/he wishes with that backstory?

How far does it go? Is the GM at liberty to decide that the PC's beloved brother is really a serial killer? That the PC's spouse is having an affair? That the PC's child has been possessed by a demon? All unilaterally, without reference to player preference for the game or the outcomes of action resolution in which the player actually stakes these sorts of things?

If that's the dichotomy you're offering, I think I've made it pretty clear what I think of it - as a player I would walk.

 

[Hussar]

To me a good player realizes such a request may get told no without that meaning he should no think others ducks or question their decrncy.

"may get told no" is perfectly fine.

Will always get told no is where I think the problem lies.

 

[pemerton]

The reverse is also true. If the DM won't enjoy something, the players shouldn't try to force it into the game.

Let's cash this out in terms of an actual example - the player wants to have a PC with a motorcycle without having to worry about it being stolen; or wants to play a warlock with a patron without worrying about the patron turning on him/her.

And so you're positing a GM who won't enjoy a game in which s/he can't declare the PC's bike stolen or won't enjoy a game in which s/he can't decide that the patron turns on the warlock. To me, that sounds like an absolutely terrible GM!

 

[Maxperson]

I disagree with this assumption. And I do believe that it is fundamentally backwards. It reminds me of debates in my early days of fantasy roleplaying when DMs would impose things on characters along the lines of "You're a dwarf, so you must hate elves," and they would justify it via some gorgon-excrement flavor text. Or as a barbarian, "you must hate civilization," should we follow the 5e class flavor text. Flavor text is meant to serve as a springboard for character ideas and hooks for players, but not prescribe them. Choosing not to latch onto the flavor text, or portions thereof, does not necessarily mean that the DM or player are actually altering anything about the class.

That was a fundamental misunderstanding on their part. The rules stated that there were members of the various monster types(and races were among the monsters) that were different from the standard.

 

[5ekyu]

No. It came out of me saying that I ended a game which involved the GM having the PCs' patron betray them upon completing their mission. [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] and one or two other posters - I thought you were one of them - said that I was wrong to criticise the GM on this basis. And then someone seemed to assume that reference to a "patron" meant reference to a warlock's supernatural patron.

EDIT because I saw this:

What's in the scope of the "etc"? [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] has mentioned paladins. You've mentioned guildmembers. What about family members?

Are you saying that the player either play "The Man with No Name" or else - in virtue of playing a PC who actually has some sort of social grounding in the setting, is giving the GM unrestrained licence to do as s/he wishes with that backstory?

How far does it go? Is the GM at liberty to decide that the PC's beloved brother is really a serial killer? That the PC's spouse is having an affair? That the PC's child has been possessed by a demon? All unilaterally, without reference to player preference for the game or the outcomes of action resolution in which the player actually stakes these sorts of things?

If that's the dichotomy you're offering, I think I've made it pretty clear what I think of it - as a player I would walk.

The point as I recall my getting into it was about backstorying family members and patrons clerics elephants riding motorcycles all that jazz that followed.

But yes at my table the GM runs the NPCs barring rules or agreements to the contrary.

If that means you walk, fantastic!!!! Like I said, win-win cuz we dont get skewed expectations going forward and you go find a table that's to your liking.

But, I have never once had a player walk over the way I have handled their tied-to-character nods. Not one. I have had multiple folks who came in gun shy of such nods from experience with other gms who turned that around in my games.

For you, I will hold the door so it doesn't hit you on the way out, if you prefer.

We both win.

 

[Maxperson]

Let's cash this out in terms of an actual example - the player wants to have a PC with a motorcycle without having to worry about it being stolen; or wants to play a warlock with a patron without worrying about the patron turning on him/her.

And so you're positing a GM who won't enjoy a game in which s/he can't declare the PC's bike stolen or won't enjoy a game in which s/he can't decide that the patron turns on the warlock. To me, that sounds like an absolutely terrible GM!

Why doesn't it sound like a terrible player? Both players and DMs have things that they enjoy and that they don't like about playing. If those things come in conflict, the player needs to find a new game. The player finding a new game is the only way that both can be happy. If they player stays, but doesn't get his way, he will be unhappy. If the player stays and the DM capitulates, he won't be happy.

And I reject the way that you are framing the problem. You are deliberately choosing poor examples. Nobody here that I have seen(and I've missed posts) has said that they want the patron to turn on the warlock.

 

[Aldarc]

I feel your argument against the comparison is made just for the sake of argument.

Let's start with this little piece of rudeness. Regardless of what you may feel, my argument against your comparison is not being made on my part for the sake of argument. I am approaching this topic in good faith. This does, however, reveal about your lack of good faith when approaching mine. I genuinely have issues of disagreement with what you wrote, namely in recognizing differences in how storytelling processes transpire across media. For example, one of the big steps of film criticism was in delineating how its storytelling processes were distinct from novels and literary criticism. It's likewise now something that we are increasingly recognizing and identifying in video games as a form of interactive storytelling media, and there are many indie games, in particular, that are exploring this phenomenon. And it is something that will likely become reexamined in the case of tabletop roleplaying games, especially with the rise of tabletop streaming.

I'm not buying this. An entertaining storyline is very much desired within our watching of media such as tv as also in our roleplaying games. Conflict with senior ranking personnel is a common and entertaining trope. Things do not have to EXACT to be compared.

The issue I raise is not about what makes for an entertaining story or whether it is desired. I am aware that the trope regarding hierarchical conflict you mention is prevalent. And we are all hopefully aware that drama and conflict drive stories. Nor have I somehow claimed as per your assertion here that things "have to EXACT to be compared."

Instead, it's about recognizing the critical differences between media entertainment in how that drama and character conflict are generated for those stories. Novels are authored by creative authors who have unrestricted control over all characters, the dramatic voice, and the narrative. There is no player agency. Players do not create characters in these stories. Players do not determine the backstory for these characters. Character choices are all dictated by the whims of the author (and possibly editor suggestions/demands). The author drives the drama and conflict of the narrative through their creative choices. The author determines what conflicts they want their characters to face and how those conflicts will resolve. So the character choices and conflicts about the social obligations the character faces stem entirely from an author who wants to create that story. Prevalence does not somehow inherently make the story trope good. It only makes it a choice selected by the author for their story. And people who engage that story element as readers may even find that character conflict unnessary, superfluous, cliché, or boring. But as readers, they do not get a collaborative say in the choices of that character or the conflict imposed by the social agency (e.g., family, organization, government, etc.).

In the case of tabletop roleplaying games, these things are emergent collaborative processes driven by multiple agents: i.e., the DM and the players. IME, players often provide input into what story conflicts they want their characters to face and possibly also the ones they don't, as per this discussion. E.g., "I don't want the DM to engage my character's gender/race/sexuality as a forefront issue"; "No rape/slavery/baby murder"; "I don't want my character's family killed (i.e., fridged) just for the sake of creating sensationalized drama"; "I want to deal with being regarded as a heretic by the church but I also want my deity as a non-intervening background element whose agency does not factor into this conflict." I don't think that players hoping to "Background" certain elements are looking to avoid story obligations or having any conflicts surrounding their character choices. They are indicating what sort of choices that they are hoping to make and what sort of obligations they prefer engaging in the story for their characters. "Look, I'm not interested in a [corrupted church hierarchy]/[my deity/temple sends me on a mission]/etc. story for my paladin/cleric. I would prefer just focusing on how my PC's piety (and skillset) engages this other aspect of the campaign you pitched."

This difference in collaborative agency provides a significant point of distinction between the other media you alluded to and roleplaying games. This significantly impacts the nature of how conflict and drama are produced/resolved. I fail to see how recognizing this somehow makes me argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. Developing this awareness of media for me is fundamentally crucial for becoming a better tabletop storymaker as both a DM and player.

"It hardly seems like this discussion would be performed in good faith if you already established your terms of discussion as "my way or GTFO."

You left out "play non-clerics, non-warlocks etc"

I'm not sure how this makes your position more favorable. It makes it even less of a negotiation performed in good faith.

All told, as I said early on, if you choose to go rather than work together I myself consider that a win-win cuz we dont get a player who has a style and preference set that clashes with ours that strongly and you go find a table more to your liking.

Except you have repeatedly asserted for your own case a scenario in which there is no genuine desire to "work together," because you have in no uncertain terms proclaimed that any player of a cleric or warlock will play your prescribed way or not at all.

The reverse is also true. If the DM won't enjoy something, the players shouldn't try to force it into the game.

"Will no one think about the well-being the poor, powerless DM?!"

 

[Maxperson]

"Will no one think about the well-being the poor, powerless DM?!"

This is not about power. It's about enjoyment of the game. The players are every bit as obligated to think of the DM's enjoyment as he is of theirs.

 

[Sadras]

As you describe it, this is about social challenges/encounters. This can happen to a fighter as easily as a barbarian as easily as a wizard as easily as a cleric.

Agree.

But the proposition upthread was that a player of a cleric, warlock or paladin has - in virtue of choosing that class - authorised the GM to make decisions about what the players has to have his/her PC do to maintain the relationship with the provide of magical power. That is a quite different thing from what you are describing here.

In some tables, deities take a direct interest in their faithful, in others they are distant to not there, same with Patrons. Sometimes it depends on the deity or patron. This is usually discussed early on between player and DM, DM and table.

If a character were stripped of magical powers in a game, I would have to adjudicate it on a case by case basis. It has never come up in my games, but I definitely agree it is in the within the realm of the DM.
Can a DM be a doosh about it? Absolutely yes. Hence you have rpgs that limit that sort of scope by the DM. And that is fine too.

There's a further question of how a "story now" game handles organisational issues. The basics are fairly simple: if the player succeeds on an action declaration, things go the PC's way; if not, things go against him/her. There's no reason at all why 5e couldn't be adjudicated in a similar fashion.

It can, it however doesn't have to be. In all likelihood that is how I would deal with most issues such as this - a complex story challenge. Per RAW, the DM need only call for the die when uncertainty exists on an action declaration. So for instance, the Archbishop might just be an unreasonable man, with no chance to change his mind. I would not call for a persuade check then. That is not to say other avenues might not exist, but if none do - then that would also be acceptable.
I imagine, in my games, that if such a hard force was applied, then it would be integral to developing the storyline. i.e. the Archbishop was secretly the main BBEG or he was being possessed and it was still to be revealed to the PCs.
But when it is finally revealed, it all makes cohesive sense within the story and it wasn't just because the DM was being dickish. The applied force also can act as a clue towards the investigation.

 

[Aldarc]

This is not about power. It's about enjoyment of the game. The players are every bit as obligated to think of the DM's enjoyment as he is of theirs.

That clarification does little to better your argument. So the DM would enjoy the game less if they did not have the power to murder the character's family? The DM would enjoy the game less if they could not steal/destroy/sabotage a character's motorcycle? The DM would enjoy the game less if they left a character's deity/patron/cultus untouched as a foreground story element? How does this DM sound even remotely like a reasonable person and not a massive Richard? Can you please elucidate how would these things could possibly impact the DM's enjoyment of the game in a manner greater than or equal to the player's impacted enjoyment?

If all the other players support the player in question wanting the warlock's patron background and find that reasonable, then who should get the new table? The player or the GM? Who is being the unreasonable one? The player or the GM?