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

[Campbell]

Here's the thing: In any social situation we are always constrained by the expectations and customs of the social group, even if we do not give voice to them. When I am playing a role playing game, despite the insistence of total theoretical freedom of action, I am constrained by what is socially acceptable to do at the table. When I run the game the same is true. This is the natural state of things.

I might be wrong here, but it feels like the ask here is for players to have no meaningful expectations for play and to not give voice to their desires and expectations. Yes, the GM plays the NPCs. That does not mean that players have no interest in how they are played. Yes, the individual players play their PCs. That does not mean the GM and other players have no interest in how they are played. One would hope that everyone takes an active interest in each other's stuff and we get to actually play together. This is the foundation to the way I play the game.

Note: This may apply to backstory concerns, but it does not necessarily need to. For instance if I were to play in a game of B/X D&D it would be my expectation that the GM would follow the procedures for dungeon design, not shift around the contents of the dungeon after its creation, would not design in double binds and would honor fictional positioning, and would approach running the game as a referee rather than a storyteller.

 

[pemerton]

But the GM wasn't hands off regarding the deity... he created history, setting, icons, etc. about the deity. that's not hands off that's very much hands on. You were hands off about a very specific aspect of the deity but this is more akin to collaboration (which many posters including myself are ok with to an extent) as opposed to the deity being backgrounded by the player so that the DM must be hands off. You can't argue these things are part of a players concept and not be touched when it comes to the father example but then claim they are irrelevant in this one.

If you can't see the difference between elaborating on iconography consistent with the description of a deity in a shared background resource (the PHB) and changing the fundamental nature of a character's relationships - especially following multiple posts of mine, to which you've replied, empahsising the meaning of a character's action - then I'm not sure what to say.

Or to put it another way: whether the Raven Queen has long or shoulder-length or shorter hair has never come up in my game. I can imagine games where that matters, but I hazard that they're few and far between. Whereas this whole discussion about patrons, gods, "backgrounding" etc was in the context of who gets to decide on the demands of allegiance. Which is exactly what my post is concerned with.

 

[Aldarc]

You seem to be talking about the discussion... I am speaking to how backgrounding itself was presented... as something the DM is hands off about and is not a focus of play.

I'm inclined to think that it's both, or certaintly not an either/or scenario. Discussion has been largely focused on exploring the boundaries, implications, and preferences around how Backgrounding was presented and GM/player issues related to that mechanic.

But the GM wasn't hands off regarding the deity... he created history, setting, icons, etc. about the deity. that's not hands off that's very much hands on. You were hands off about a very specific aspect of the deity but this is more akin to collaboration (which many posters including myself are ok with to an extent) as opposed to the deity being backgrounded by the player so that the DM must be hands off. You can't argue these things are part of a players concept and not be touched when it comes to the father example but then claim they are irrelevant in this one.

Reading this, I wonder if you may be talking from different senses or understandings about "hands off" or "hands on" regarding Backgrounded elements, and this may be leading to some of the all-around confusion or disagreement. But based upon most discussion from the various positions, it would seem that most agree that player/DM cooperation for establishing characters and their anchor into the world is good and healthy.
[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], to save a bit of time with hunting for a needle in a haystack, what was the name again of the RPG you mentioned that had this Background mechanic? It may be helpful to examine how the mechanic or rule is worded. It could help us all re-focus our efforts in this thread.

 

[pemerton]

Well again... the example given was that it was revealed at the end of the campaign. though I'd be open to discussing a different example if you want.

Is the end of the campaign part of the campaign or not?

If it is - if the GM delcares "And while you were out making the world safe for your family, your dear old dad racked up about one senseless murder a week" - then that is wrecking the game, and one vector of that wrecking is by trampling all over the player's play of the character (by completely and unilaterally changing its meaning).

If the end of the campaign is not part of the campaign then, as I said upthread, we just have a GM speculating about what might have been.

I don't know how you're envisaging it, but to me it seems I've covered the spectrum of possibilities.

 

[pemerton]

I once allowed a player to play a PC monk (I compromised against by better judgement). The PC's concept was SO bad the table groaned after a few sessions in as his concept was also breaking everyone's immersive experience during combat. That campaign ended. No more monks in my games. EVER

I did my game and table a disservice by not overriding that player's concept.

But what does this show, other than that some players have bad taste? So do some GMs - there's no reason that I know of to think that GMing selects for better taste than playing.

How does this show that Gm authority is a better principle?

 

[Imaro]

Reading this, I wonder if you may be talking from different senses or understandings about "hands off" or "hands on" regarding Backgrounded elements, and this may be leading to some of the all-around confusion or disagreement. But based upon most discussion from the various positions, it would seem that most agree that player/DM cooperation for establishing characters and their anchor into the world is good and healthy..

It might be but I don't think I'm the only one who is viewing it in this absolute type of "hands off" way. I have no problem with the player/DM cooperation route and in my first post in the thread said that I found myself somewhere between the two extremes that seemed to be the most prominent views of the thread at the time. But with that said I feel determining how much authority should go to the players vs. the DM is a very individual table type of thing. Especially since different players are going to use that authority differently (more/less responsibly).

 

[5ekyu]

But what does this show, other than that some players have bad taste? So do some GMs - there's no reason that I know of to think that GMing selects for better taste than playing.

How does this show that Gm authority is a better principle?

Arguably it's more a case of gm as external filter vs player as internal filter - is it the submitter who determines acceptable or not vs is it someone other than them they have to pass?

Whether a gm has bad taste or good taste, if they set the filters for the campaign up front, the players can choose to play or not based on those filters. That allows the gm to in essence choose the flavor or type of food (if you will) and draw to it folks who want that food.

My next game will be like a mexican restaurant. If you like mexican come on and play but if you dont like mexican that game over there is italian.

If the GM does not filter it, if each individual player does their own filter, you lose that and you have folks joining with much the possibility of conflicting goals and preferences.

Unfortunately, since actual play in an rpg is a shared experience, you have to deal with what the other guy does and he has to deal with what you do, it's really not even a case of "I order the hamburger at a sushi place" bad but it's more "hey, I bought sushi and each of you is required to take a bite."

The GM authority sets the type of restaurant and cuisine ahead of time so that everybody can come there if they want to eat that kind of stuff or go elsewhere if not. Individualized player authority is not just four guys bringing their own lunches but also insisting the others eat what he brought.

Obviously, the pure GM authority could be replaced with group authority (majority or unanimous approval required for PC to be added) but that is just changing the identity of the external filter

 

[5ekyu]

It might be but I don't think I'm the only one who is viewing it in this absolute type of "hands off" way. I have no problem with the player/DM cooperation route and in my first post in the thread said that I found myself somewhere between the two extremes that seemed to be the most prominent views of the thread at the time. But with that said I feel determining how much authority should go to the players vs. the DM is a very individual table type of thing. Especially since different players are going to use that authority differently (more/less responsibly).

Agree, nothing wrong with player(s) and gm working together to establish concepts and features and expectations around the PC.

As long as either can say "no" without that being seen as a violation of acceptable behavior - a dick move.

It's the point at which one side saying "no" gets them "that's a dick move", "your game is so fragile and weak" etc that we have left the boundaries of working together.

 

[Lanefan]

Well, I'm only going on the fact that [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] told [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] that doing something-or-other about dwarf gods and religion would require the permission of two GMs.

I guess I'd better expand on what I meant by that: one DM would be the actual DM of the game, while the other would be [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] as the inventor (and thus, one assumes, the best authority) of the deity I'm trying to worship. (side effect here is that it creates an obvious inequality among players at the table, but in my case being "less equal" is voluntary as it's what I've signed up for when choosing this class and deity)

 

[pemerton]

Arguably it's more a case of gm as external filter vs player as internal filter - is it the submitter who determines acceptable or not vs is it someone other than them they have to pass?

Whether a gm has bad taste or good taste, if they set the filters for the campaign up front, the players can choose to play or not based on those filters. That allows the gm to in essence choose the flavor or type of food (if you will) and draw to it folks who want that food.

<snip>

If the GM does not filter it, if each individual player does their own filter, you lose that and you have folks joining with much the possibility of conflicting goals and preferences.

That seems very similar to the orientation that [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] descripbed not far upthread.