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

[Maxperson]

No, it's not. Obviously the DM at a table can rule that it is, and he can DM for an empty table, but that is not an argument that would find much traction in the overall popular culture of D&D. Fluff text is just that, fluff. It provides an example of what a typical example of someone who is part of the class would be like. The idea that a high priest can demand your cleric to obey... I'm honestly not even sure if you're serious. If you are, two responses:

So you're fine with the fluff of a medusa's gaze being, "The gaze of the medusa causes tickles and laughter"? You're okay with the fluff of a castle wall being, "this tall oak tree stands 150 feet high and is full of squirrels"? Fluff dictates many of the mechanics and is ironclad if it isn't changed. Fluff more often dictates other fluff and how different pieces of fluff interact with each other. This latter type is what I'm talking about with warlocks. With the warlock class, you are sworn and beholden to your patron, because that's what the fluff says you are. There is only one way to alter that, and that's for the player and DM to agree to different fluff.

1. Sure. The high priest can demand service from your cleric because the fluff says so. It doesn't say the cleric has to obey or that ignoring this fluff will have any mechanical impact. Hell, anyone can demand service from the cleric, and he can subsequently ignore them.

The high priest is called out specifically, because to a cleric, he has the authority and position of the president of the company and you are just a junior executive. Sure, you can refuse him, and there will be good roleplaying and consequences to such a decision. Or you can obey, and there will be good roleplaying and consequences to obeying. Unlike if the cleric ignores the demands of farmer Joe.

2. You suggesting that the outline of what would typically be true of an archetype, such as warlocks having to provide periodic services to their patron, is as ironclad a rule is just silly. It's also immediately contradicted by the fact that it also states, as flavor, that if your patron is a Great Old One they might not even know you're there.

It's ironclad that you are obligated to perform tasks if requested. And you're right, should the patron be a Great Old One, I would probably never make a demand. Or if I did, it might be something that seems really irrational like moving the horse trough in front of the inn across the street. That doesn't change the fact that the fluff is ironclad unless changed by the DM.

 

[Maxperson]

That doesn't say that the GM has sole authorship rights in respect of the setting. In fact, by describing the GM as the "ultimate authority" it implies the opposite! (ie that there are lesser, non-ultimate authorities - who presumably must be the players).

First, the ultimate authority gets to do as he pleases. Lesser authorities have no choice in the matter. Judges are authorities, but they have to do as the Appeals Court(greater authority) says, and they in turn have to do what the Supreme Court(ultimate authority says). Second, you are ignoring all of the other, "The game world is yours", "you are the master of the multiverse" comments in the book.

The players can only author what the DM allows them to.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Did you not say that you had a player walk because you ran a game that he would not like?

 

[Hussar]

It isn't if you know all of the other players want to play it. Kind of dickish to stand in the way of all of your fellow players fun, isn't it?

FUnnily enough, this actually happened recently in our group. The group wanted to play Planescape. I've made no secret that I'm not a Planescape fan. I offered, quite sincerely, to back out and play on the alternating weeks (we alternate campaigns weekly) and let them have their fun.

The group, as one, voted me down and decided to play another campaign.

I have to admit, it meant a lot to me that they did that. That was very, very cool.

So, yeah, I'm a big believer in consensus when dealing with RPG's. As a DM, I would never, ever insist that we played a campaign when I knew that one of my players would bow out.

Guess I'm a lot more willing to put what other people want ahead of what I would like to do.

 

[Hussar]

Color me confused but a core concept should be something fairly prominent for the character - not really something to be backgrounded. And that means it should be available for complications. If being the motorcyle guy is your core concept, then it should account for something more than just getting from point A to point B. Captain America is a shield guy, but he doesn't use it just for looking good in publicity photos. Mal Reynolds is the starship guy, so the starship isn't just for getting around from point A to point B. If it's a core concept, it's something you should be challenged on from time to time, sometimes at at your initiation as a player, sometimes on mine as a GM (though, of course, if this were Mutants and Masterminds, there'd be a hero point in it for you because that's how complications work in that game).

If you want to be the dinosaur riding ranger as a core concept, fine. Just recognize that it's not going to give everyone a good impression and it can't go everywhere you might want to go. And it's going to come up in the games I run if you do choose that concept and don't take any effort to reduce those complications. Pick a deity with a particular portfolio and ethos, part of a cleric's core concept, and directly work against that and it'll be an issue. Pick a warlock patron, which determines your core magical powers, and directly work against its interests and, again, complications will ensue.

Where is Captain America's shield when he's not using it?

 

[Hussar]

Yes but you're glossing over the fact that the player turned it down which I would assume means they want to play out the challenges associated with not having reliable "backgrounded" transportation. Which is fine and will give that player totally different challenges, adventures and perspectives from the one who did take it... Now if that's not the case why would they turn it down?

I would just like to quote this because it is so rare that [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] and I agree on anything RPG related.

It's nice when people just understand the point that's being made. Makes me wonder if I'm explaining things clearly enough otherwise.

 

[Maxperson]

Did you not say that you had a player walk because you ran a game that he would not like?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I once went to a game where the players and DM were very silly throughout the entire game. I politely said thank you and informed them at the end of the night that I would not be returning. It wasn't the game for me. What I didn't do, was expect them to stop playing so silly because I was a player and I didn't like it.

 

[Maxperson]

Where is Captain America's shield when he's not using it?

Before or after the many times it has been broken, confiscated or stolen?

 

[pemerton]

Really, we are not evil folks in favor of bad gming.

Honest.

Trust me.

I don't see what evil or personal morality has to do with it.

Whether you're advocating bad GMing is a different matter. I can go into posts in the 5e forum and learn that it is "bad GMing" to find a fight with 3 ogres boring (only a "bad GM" can't make a "sack of hit points" interesting), or learn that it is "bad GMing" to have trouble managing the adventuring day (only a "bad GM" would frame the ingame situation so that nova-ing and then resting is treated by the players as a feasible strategy).

Other posters have their views on what counts as bad GMing. So do I. And this seems the thread to share them in.

 

[pemerton]

Earlier in the thread my example of having the warlock make a side trip to the Old Man of the Woods as the party goes through the forest.

What's the point of that, from a gameplay perspective, in circumstances where the player has already flagged that s/he is not interested in this sort of stuff?

And how could it be that a GM can't enjoy the game unless it includes this - does that mean s/he always insists that at least one player play a feypact warlock?

I get what your saying. I was in a game once where we were playing pirates. The problem? The DM started us without a boat and not even near the water. Several sessions later and we never did mange to get a boat for the pirates campaign. However, there's a world of difference between having your bike stolen, and running out of gas and being inconvenienced. Jumping to the horrible DM example that almost never actually happens, doesn't give you a win in the discussion.

Well, the threat of the bike being stolen was the actual example given from [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s actual play. But let's take running out of petrol. What does that add to the game? Do you keep track of how much leather is left on the soles of PCs' shoes? You might think that that is a snide question, but it's intended literally. In real life, shoes wear out - I know this from the experience of wearing them out by running in them. But I've never played in a RPG where this "consequence" is kept track of, and where the players therefore risk having their PC suddenly inconvenienced by a hole in his/her shoe.

The bigger point is that, in RPGing, we "background" stuff - as in, disregard it and/or take it for granted - all the time. If a player has said that s/he wants to treat his/her PC's motorcycle in this way, what reason does a GM have for doing otherwise?