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

[TwoSix]

I'm speaking of fluff for the class... though in choosing that class it in turn becomes fluff for the character... even if it is just to subvert it.

Hmm. I think I would point out here that subverting the fluff of the class is something I do at the metagame level, not the narrative level. If I decide to use a divine soul sorcerer to represent my Mark of Healing using halfling, there's no "divine" cruft attached to my character in the story. The joy of the subversion is purely for me as a player.

 

[TwoSix]

I don't know. Being in Jersey, you might side with either the Giants or Eagles. Which puts you totally on the wrong side.

You'd think that, but I'm originally from Wisconsin and am a lifelong Packers fan.

I agree with you that the Giants and Eagles are the two wrong sides of a particularly ugly coin.

 

[Aldarc]

I dont think Ebberon dies clerics wrong. I think it's a setting where the class has been altered and where anyone agreeing to play Eberron RAW has agreed to this change.

Nobody is saying that I recall that a GM and group cannot agree to background cleric or warlock but rather that it's ok for the gm to say no without being at fault or bad DM if one players wants to do that for his cleric or warlock.

Except the class has not been altered, and you would be hard-pressed to demonstrate by any reasonable standards that it has.

On a very fundamental level, let me ask this...

It is generally considered bad juju for the GM to rule an outcome, a final state that will be locked in and fixed other than certain things that are utterly impossible. It's generally considered good juju for the gm to allow players to go try things and try to fo thrm std if its plausible then let it play out and resolve by rules and actions, not shut it down by unilateral refusal yo let it happen.

A GM adding "Pleasantville - a village the PCs are not allowed to mess up by fiat" would be generally not well lauded, most circles.

So, why is it good for players to be able to do that? Unstealable bikes, uncorruptable relatives, etc?

At first glance, on a very fundamental level, one offers a narrative check against a much greater power, while the other expands that greater power while weakening the weaker power.

 

[Lanefan]

This seems unreasonably hyperbolic; you are creating an artificial crisis. This is hardly the problem you are fabricating here.

Let's consider another case that does not involve deities. I create a character with a backstory pertaining to my family clan that I have also invented. A new player joins the game or a PC dies and a player re-rolls a new character. Having heard about my character's clan or watching me play, the player thinks it would be cool if their new character also came from this same clan that I created, possibly as a sibling or cousin. It makes for a great plot hook and easy way to seed the new character into the group. I am inventor of this clan and its history, status, etc. "(and thus, one assumes, the best authority) of the [clan they are trying to roleplay]."

IMHO, this common scenario is of a similar level as the deity above. I created the groundwork of what this deity represents. I established with the DM both its cultic orthodoxy and my idiomatic heterodoxy. If a new player joins, they are not somehow beholden to two GMs, as per your hyperbolic claim, but just one. I can inform the new player of my own understanding of the deity and its cult, but this is not dissimilar to having access to a GM and other sources. The player may consult both the DM and the setting materials. Or the new player may consult the DM and other players who are well-informed about religion or setting. Are other non-cleric players not as capable of telling a St. Cuthbert cleric player, "Hey, what you're doing does not represent the tenets of St. Cuthbert accurately"?

Or let's imagine another scenario. What happens when a setting-creator plays a game as a player in their own setting in but run by GM who is not them? E.g., Keith Baker in Eberron, Ed Greenwood in Forgotten Realms, or Gary Gygax in Greyhawk, Monte Cook in Numenera? Your imagined problem scenario basically precludes them from being players because now players are faced with "two GMs" or an inequality of the players: the GM and the author.

AFAIC it pretty much would preclude them from playing in their own settings (assuming a typical campaign game rather than a one-off or exhibition), not only due to the player inequality but due to the DM having to look to the setting's creator for info, and-or for permission to change things. Add to that the enormous gulf between player knowledge and character knowledge for that one player as regards the setting and background info, and yeah - not something I'd want to DM and even less something I'd want to play in.

Same if someone else wanted to run a game using my homebrew setting - I'd be more than cool with that, and willing to offer advice, help, info, etc.; but I'd disqualify myself from playing in that game simply because I-as-player know too much.

And yet this happens all the time without much of a hitch. But in contrast, the setting authorization that I made as a player was far more limited in scope: a single deity (and arguably the dwarf clan that also forms part of the backstory for another PC and me).

I would personally be flattered if another player wanted to run a cleric to the deity I created. It seems like that would be a great indication that I sold the deity well in play. Indirect proselytizing. And I would be curious about how they play it differently than me, and how our interactions would bounce off each other's.

Were I that player, who do I turn to for information on that deity or clan and what makes it tick: the DM whose world we're in or the player whose creation it is?

 

[Lanefan]

Well, I do think a lot of the players in the loyal opposition do expect the DM to create everything, and that the sphere of influence for a player within the setting is exactly one PC wide.

Granted, I don't really understand the desire to sit down and consume someone else's world, but I've played enough MMOs that it seems pretty video-gamey to me. Maybe that's just what the younger generation likes.

Not just the younger generation. I've been in this camp since long before MMOs were a thing: I love exploring and learning about someone else's world from the ground up - which is why I prefer homebrew settings to canned settings as with any canned setting there'll be some unavoidably familiar aspects and I prefer it to be all new - with the unexplored bits remaining a mystery until we get to them.

I don't see it as video-gamey at all. Old-school, maybe, in that I prefer the mystery and the not-knowing to begin with; so that I-as-player can experience and enjoy the exploration piece in character.

Lan-"so, what's over that next hill?"-efan

 

[5ekyu]

Not just the younger generation. I've been in this camp since long before MMOs were a thing: I love exploring and learning about someone else's world from the ground up - which is why I prefer homebrew settings to canned settings as with any canned setting there'll be some unavoidably familiar aspects and I prefer it to be all new - with the unexplored bits remaining a mystery until we get to them.

I don't see it as video-gamey at all. Old-school, maybe, in that I prefer the mystery and the not-knowing to begin with; so that I-as-player can experience and enjoy the exploration piece in character.

Lan-"so, what's over that next hill?"-efan

Yeah I gotta say - I tend to see the divide between consume content and more interaction content as pairing interactive with younger generations - when I see a generational component at all.

 

[Hussar]

It shouldn't be allowed for major class elements, either.

And, really, I think this is where most of the disagreement lies. To me, the patron is a minor class element. It doesn't really impact play and, IMO, leaving it out doesn't really change the class at all. Then again, I approach Warlocks from more a Binder perspective (never saw warlocks in 3e, although I played one in 4e where the binder DNA was more prevalent). So, to me, this is a minor class element.

 

[Hussar]

Uhm... there are certainly a few posters in this thread who wouldn't agree with this statement and would say the setting is actually the groups as opposed to the DM's...

Dunno who you are implying. Certainly not me. Got any specifics you'd like to put on the table?

Does this work both ways?

No. Why would it? The basic premise is that the DM has 100% of the power. Using backgrounding means that the DM now has 99.99% of the power at the table. That tiny sliver that the DM is prevented from bringing into the forefront of play is also off the table for the player as well. But, when the DM brings something up in game, it's not background is it? It's foreground. And, even by this mechanic, would now be fair game.

Exactly the same way as if a player did the same thing.

And, as far as not understanding what's going on - well, maybe I didn't explain clearly enough, but, I think I have now. And the fact that a large number of people got it right off the bat means that perhaps the misunderstanding is not entirely my fault.

 

[Imaro]

Dunno who you are implying. Certainly not me. Got any specifics you'd like to put on the table?

I believe pemerton's general approach to gaming is characterized by the setting not being the DM's but instead the groups... I believe Manbearcat is similar in his tastes and well [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] pretty much said it was his preference when he responded... but I wasn't sure since I haven't interacted directly with him as much as the other two posters I listed. I honestly don't know what your general approach is though I will admit you seem very pro-player entitlement and much less enthusiastic about anything that maintains or establishes DM empowerment.

No. Why would it? The basic premise is that the DM has 100% of the power. Using backgrounding means that the DM now has 99.99% of the power at the table. That tiny sliver that the DM is prevented from bringing into the forefront of play is also off the table for the player as well. But, when the DM brings something up in game, it's not background is it? It's foreground. And, even by this mechanic, would now be fair game.

Exactly the same way as if a player did the same thing.

Well first let me reply in the same way you did... when you say DM control is 100% whose game are you speaking about here, certainly not mine? Got any specifics you'd like to put on the table?

To address the rest speaking hypothetically if I as DM don't want something brought to the forefront of a camapign... why wouldn't I also background it. If I want an African-esque camapign set in an ancient kingdom based on Ghana but I have, because I am a nice DM allowed one of my players who really has a jones for old kung fu movies to play a monk from across the seas... why can't I background the kung-fu stuff to guarantee that player through his actions doesn't force me to run a game I didn't want to in the first place? Mainly one across the sea about wire-fu, monks in temples and martial-arts competitions?

And, as far as not understanding what's going on - well, maybe I didn't explain clearly enough, but, I think I have now. And the fact that a large number of people got it right off the bat means that perhaps the misunderstanding is not entirely my fault.

Or maybe some people have read and/or used the technique before... or maybe some were lucky enough in their assumptions to have hit what you actually meant on the head (or close enough to it). Maybe some didn't understand it but felt like it wasn't important enough to delvse into and thus dropped out the conversation. What's the point of this speculation again?

I think the fact that more than one poster in this thread didn't is enough to assume it wasn't as clear as say the rules you posted...but hey if blame needs to be placed sure throw it on those who didn't understand the entire concept (along with limitations) from your original mention of backgrounding... at this point does it even matter?

 

[Hussar]

I believe pemerton's general approach to gaming is characterized by the setting not being the DM's but instead the groups... I believe Manbearcat is similar in his tastes and well [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] pretty much said it was his preference when he responded... but I wasn't sure since I haven't interacted directly with him as much as the other two posters I listed. I honestly don't know what your general approach is though I will admit you seem very pro-player entitlement and much less enthusiastic about anything that maintains or establishes DM empowerment.

Not speaking for anyone else, but, I'd say that's fair.

Well first let me reply in the same way you did... when you say DM control is 100% whose game are you speaking about here, certainly not mine? Got any specifics you'd like to put on the table?

Well, all games really. After all, the DM determines the adventures, NPC's, and pretty much anything that isn't specifically player stuff - classes and whatnot and even then the DM has a large degree of control over that as well. In what D&D game doesn't the DM have virtually 100% control over the game? Even in a sandbox game, the DM determines the sandbox.

What D&D game allows me, as a player, to state that there is a beholder in that next room?

To address the rest speaking hypothetically if I as DM don't want something brought to the forefront of a camapign... why wouldn't I also background it. If I want an African-esque camapign set in an ancient kingdom based on Ghana but I have, because I am a nice DM allowed one of my players who really has a jones for old kung fu movies to play a monk from across the seas... why can't I background the kung-fu stuff to guarantee that player through his actions doesn't force me to run a game I didn't want to in the first place? Mainly one across the sea about wire-fu, monks in temples and martial-arts competitions?

Heh. I'm grinning because I need a bit of clarification here. What do you mean "kung fu stuff"? In order to use backgrounding, you'd need to be a lot more specific than that. Since the character is from "beyond the sea", haven't you already backgrounded monks in temples and martial arts competitions? Who would be in these temples? Who would be competing?

Now, I'm not going to touch the wire-fu thing, because, well, that's too broad. I'm not really sure what you mean. But, as for the other stuff, isn't this precisely what backgrounding is? It's not like the player can bring this stuff into the game - it's "from across the sea". I'd say you hit on exactly a very good example of backgrounding in play.

Or maybe some people have read and/or used the technique before... or maybe some were lucky enough in their assumptions to have hit what you actually meant on the head (or close enough to it). Maybe some didn't understand it but felt like it wasn't important enough to delvse into and thus dropped out the conversation. What's the point of this speculation again?

I think the fact that more than one poster in this thread didn't is enough to assume it wasn't as clear as say the rules you posted...but hey if blame needs to be placed sure throw it on those who didn't understand the entire concept (along with limitations) from your original mention of backgrounding... at this point does it even matter?

I dunno. You brought it up. I just pointed out that despite numerous examples to the contrary, several posters insisted on ballooning examples far beyond the scope of what was being said, in order to prove that this is a bad idea. But, as you say, at this point it really doesn't matter.