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

[5ekyu]

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?

If everyone at the table wants a playstyle I find unappealing or unenjoyable , I wont be gming. If its split, then its likely we split.

Usually compromises can be reached when adults seeking similar things work together.

Like I have said many times, I know from long experience how my players feel about the drama-eraser meta-solutions for what seem to be in-game choices. But I also know that other tables prefer different things so a player that wanted those, insisted on having those - I would send off to find like minded tables.

 

[Keith Gleason]

DMs who arbitrarily kill the PCs. Played in a game once where we actually had to have mid-week strategy sessions just to survive, and we became the most paranoid group of adventurers in the Forgotten Realms. The complete opposite of that was a DM who refused to kill anyone, he would beat the crap out of you then ask how many HP you had, once you got down to 10 hp or so the monsters that had been hitting you 2-3 times a round suddenly started missing. Either of those two extremes is horrible. There needs to be the risk of death, but not so much that the players make their own betting pool on who's gonna be next.

 

[5ekyu]

DMs who arbitrarily kill the PCs. Played in a game once where we actually had to have mid-week strategy sessions just to survive, and we became the most paranoid group of adventurers in the Forgotten Realms. The complete opposite of that was a DM who refused to kill anyone, he would beat the crap out of you then ask how many HP you had, once you got down to 10 hp or so the monsters that had been hitting you 2-3 times a round suddenly started missing. Either of those two extremes is horrible. There needs to be the risk of death, but not so much that the players make their own betting pool on who's gonna be next.

Yup.

Never arbitrarily kill PC- good rule of thumb.

As is the font fudge that way - imo - tho that is controversial.

I have run "players always roll" where the gm never touches a die for decades. They know I cannot fudge the misses or damage or saves for them, so when someone gets in trouble on their side it's on them to do something about it.

But saw this fancy streamer just the other day extolling the virtue of fudging for this whole video even to planting fake dice to "show them" - before at the end saying he was not actually endorsing it, just giving you permission if you want to use it.

To gms who think their fudge dont stink up the joint ( by producing predictable, recognizable swings) I say "why not just use one of the many system or rules that enable PLAYERS to fudge those rolls and avoid crits when THEY want to instead of you fudging for them?"

 

[Imaro]

Hmmm... I guess I lie between the extremes I'm seeing here in this thread. I don't think I'd have much problem with backgrounding something like a motorcycle... though all bets are off if the player starts abusing that agreement... i.e. I drive my motorcycle through the villains headquarters door smashing it down to get through and then leaving it there and expecting it to be "backgrounded", At that point your motorcycle has become fair game because it is being used for more than transport from point A to point B.

However I don't think something like a warlock's patron or paladin's oath would be ok to background in my game (luckily I've never had a player who even suggested something like this). Ultimately I feel those are some of (if not the) major thematic elements of those classes you have chosen to play, so my first question would be why pick a warlock (as opposed to a sorcerer, wizard, etc) if you aren't interested in exploring those specific thematic elements... because as a GM I most certainly am (and yes it would affect my enjoyment in running the game as well as the enjoyment of the other players in my particular group who would be interested in the narrative around the dynamics of the relationship).

 

[Sadras]

The point I and others have made is fairly simple - a GM who (i) runs a game for a player who has clearly indicated that s/he doesn't want patron drama in the game, and (ii) insisted nevertheless on including such drama, is a bad GM.

You're missing a step, perhaps it is tacitly implied, but I'm including it here for clarification purposes.
(ii) the DM agreed to the terms of the player

The idea that it is in the realm of the GM to tell a player that s/he can't keep playing his/her PC because of the GM's views about warlock patrons is, in my view, another ridiculous thing.

See, I think this is narrow minded.
Perhaps the setting is during the time of the Godswar or Time of Troubles (Forgotten Realms) when all manner of faithful lost their access to the divine. As I said case by case basis.

Where does this idea come from, that it is a GM's job to tell players how to play their PCs?

And yet earlier (upthread) you mentioned that the DM talk to the player out of the game on the same basis.

The archbishop is not a real person with a real personality. S/he is a narrative device in a shared fiction.

You are right how dare I roleplay a NPC true to form.

Nothing in the Basic PDF rules even remotely hints at this in respect of clerics

I might have a setting with no metal that might seem unfair for fighters.
I might have a setting where arcane magic is seen as a capital crime, that might seem unfair for eldtritch knights, arcane tricksters, warlocks, wizards and sorcerers.

There are lots of things not said in the Basic PDF, thankfully we are able to do more than what is just listed within the Basic PDF.

If the GM chooses to hose a player's relationship with the temple simply because s/he has decided that the archbishop is unreasonable, then in my view that is yet another reason for me to avoid that GM!

And yet, in 5e if a DM does not believe there is any uncertainty he has no need to call for a roll.
I feel it is unfair to blame the DM when these are the rules as per 5e, if anyone is to blame its WotC, right?

A player says that s/he's not interested in a game involving temple (or patron, or whatever) dramas, and it turns out that the temple is the main villain? And you wonder why I pull out words like "railroading"!

Hey, as I have said, if the DM and player agreed, then it would be dickish by the DM to do that.

 

[5ekyu]

Hmmm... I guess I lie between the extremes I'm seeing here in this thread. I don't think I'd have much problem with backgrounding something like a motorcycle... though all bets are off if the player starts abusing that agreement... i.e. I drive my motorcycle through the villains headquarters door smashing it down to get through and then leaving it there and expecting it to be "backgrounded", At that point your motorcycle has become fair game because it is being used for more than transport from point A to point B.

However I don't think something like a warlock's patron or paladin's oath would be ok to background in my game (luckily I've never had a player who even suggested something like this). Ultimately I feel those are some of (if not the) major thematic elements of those classes you have chosen to play, so my first question would be why pick a warlock (as opposed to a sorcerer, wizard, etc) if you aren't interested in exploring those specific thematic elements... because as a GM I most certainly am (and yes it would affect my enjoyment in running the game as well as the enjoyment of the other players in my particular group who would be interested in the narrative around the dynamics of the relationship).

Question...

If another player did not want a free no complication motorcycle and so his character was limited by walking speed, paying for busses, taxis etc and as such even if nothing else they got to do less due to complication issues from not having a vehicle to zip around on does giving that other player the worry-free motorcycle he asked for still seem nothing to worry over?

If another player doesnt ask to background his personal truck with MAGA stickers and truck nuts, does it get at risk of being stolen if he doesnt ride it thru the villains lair?

 

[Aldarc]

For some DMs, though, allowing the players to control NPCs does lessen their enjoyment, yes. The warlock is sworn and beholden to his NPC patron. It's so important to the character class that an entire section was written about it. It's the DM's job to play that NPC, not the the player's job to dictate what the NPCs will do and how it will act, and yes, saying that the NPC cannot make any sort of demands on the warlock is dictating in part how it will act and what it will do. That crosses the line, and reasonably so, for some DMs.

I unsurprisingly disagree, and in no small part due to how you are just perpetuating your prescriptive flavor text fallacy here. You have not communicated well or demonstrated how the DM's enjoyment would be negatively impacted in a meaningful way. You have only stated the obvious: the DM would have less control over certain aspects of the player character and one less NPC. What has been lost seems comparatively marginal in comparison with what is gained. "I'm going to saw your hand off in a manner you would find painful, because the alternative is that I experience mild discomfort from being pricked by a needle."

The Sworn and Beholden section states that "A warlock is defined by a pact with an otherworldly being." A player backgrounding the prominence of their patron or its in-game control by the DM does not somehow erase that. The rest of the paragraph consists fundamentally flavor text suggestions meant for the player to consider the nature of the relationship. It does not even say in this section that the occasional services are determined by the DM. It's determined by their patron. "But the DM does serve as their patron!" Not necessarily. Working with the DM about the pact does not mean that the DM dictates the terms of that pact to the player. The player can easily determine the nature and frequency of those occasional services without requiring the DM to roleplay that patron as an in-game taskmaster.

"My archfey patron requires that I oppose both otherworldly abominations of nature and the opposing agendas of Queen Mab. As part of my pact, I can never wield cold iron nor can I knowingly speak falsehood. Everytime I increase in power [i.e., level up], I must prepare a new fey grove through which my patron can extend their influence in the world. And through this new arcane conduit, I shall gain my new power."

All of this could be established by the player (in cooperation with the DM) pre-play and without having the DM using the patron as an in-game sock-puppet.

I haven't seen anyone on my side arguing that the patron would just run around commanding the warlock to go on months long quests and drag everyone else along with him.

You are not representing the argument of the other side accurately or fairly, Max. So what chance does my straw army have against this straw deity you have constructed?

That's just the paranoia of certain posters with regard to the DM having control of the patron.

And yet we have seen a fair handful of people in this thread fearmongering about players running amok, abusing power and avoiding obligations, if they had even a modicum of control over their warlock/patron relationship? And yet you want to speak of misplaced paranoia?

 

[Imaro]

Question...

If another player did not want a free no complication motorcycle and so his character was limited by walking speed, paying for busses, taxis etc and as such even if nothing else they got to do less due to complication issues from not having a vehicle to zip around on does giving that other player the worry-free motorcycle he asked for still seem nothing to worry over?

If another player doesnt ask to background his personal truck with MAGA stickers and truck nuts, does it get at risk of being stolen if he doesnt ride it thru the villains lair?

Well the thing is I'm not going to offer that option to one player and not the other... that said if you choose not to have a backgrounded vehicle once it's been decided as a viable option, well that would be a choice you made. I'd definitely advise against it but ultimately as long as I am offering it to all players it's not something I would worry about once they made the choice to have one or not.

 

[5ekyu]

Well the thing is I'm not going to offer that option to one player and not the other... that said if you choose not to have a backgrounded vehicle once it's been decided as a viable option, well that would be a choice you made. I'd definitely advise against it but ultimately as long as I am offering it to all players it's not something I would worry about once they made the choice to have one or not.

So, just to be clear, the player who turns down the motorcycle has to deal with the consequence of not having a motorcycle, it the guy who asked for the worry-free motorcycle doesn't have to deal with the consequences of taking a motor cycle since its worry free?

That's what I expected, actually.

Thanks.

 

[Aldarc]

I apologise. All too often I see this quick dismissive approach to comparisons.

Okay, cool. I likewise promise that I will show a similar willingness to listen in good faith.

In essence, if I'm understanding correctly, you're saying given the collaborative nature between DM and player in rpgs as well as this backgrounded element, hierarchical conflict might be off the table as a trope to be explored.

More or less. It may not be a case of not exploring hierarchical conflict, but a matter of which ones. A warlock player, for example, may not necessarily want a foreground exploration of their pact. They may be more interested in exploring the hierarchical conflict between themselves and their family. The pact may play a role in this relationship or ethically inform how the player understands this relationship, but the patron-warlock relationship would not be the primary focus of conflict.

Great! But I was discussing hierarchical content in general.

Due to the nature of this forum, it can be a hurdle to backtrack the original context of discussion. So how would you paraphrase your own argumentative thrust about "hierarchical content in general"? That it can be and is often a source of narrative conflict?

I have no issue with this if DM and player agree as I've said in a prior post.

You must definitely have, and I think that many of us in thread on various sides of this matter do recognize that about your position and respect that.

Hmmm, to me it sounds more like what content is being permitted for drama purposes since the player is backgrounding certain elements - that's less nature and more what topics are off limits.

I would still say that these are issues that stem from the collaborative social contract nature of play that are essential parts of its nature.

And yet earlier (upthread) you mentioned that the DM talk to the player out of the game on the same basis.

That was me. But it was not, as you insist here, being done on the same basis. That's a false equivalence. Discussing these issues out-of-game is (1) how mature adults should handle most situations, and (2) it does not disrupt play (for the player and others!) by turning the game into a proxy battleground for an issue best settled between people.

However I don't think something like a warlock's patron or paladin's oath would be ok to background in my game (luckily I've never had a player who even suggested something like this). Ultimately I feel those are some of (if not the) major thematic elements of those classes you have chosen to play, so my first question would be why pick a warlock (as opposed to a sorcerer, wizard, etc) if you aren't interested in exploring those specific thematic elements... because as a GM I most certainly am (and yes it would affect my enjoyment in running the game as well as the enjoyment of the other players in my particular group who would be interested in the narrative around the dynamics of the relationship).

I don't think it is necessarily the player saying, "I don't want to explore those specific thematic elements." In the case of the patron/deity, it seems more like a matter of the player signalling to the DM about how much desired authority and narrative prominence the DM can and will exert over this aspect of their character. The warlock player may want to explore the pact relationship in a manner that honors and respects their own sense for how that relationship should play out from their character-side perspective. They may want the pact relationship as a warlock, but not want that as a prominent narrative element, but, rather, one that informs their decision-making for the actual primary issues of the campaign. They may not want, for example, their patron popping out of the narrative bushes and dictating new terms of agreement on them, betraying them, operating in ways that the player believes mischaracterizes the patron or their relationship, etc. I think that a big part of the contention is that the patron/warlock or deity/cleric relationship has a certain intimacy or not too insignificant overlap in regards to the player's sense of their character concept. And the player may not want the DM to tread on that character concept via their use of the patron/deity.