D&D 5E Bad Wrong Fun

[Helldritch]

I am on the opposite end with you dear @Oofta. I love warlocks exactly because of the pacts they make to get their powers. But, we roleplay the making of a pact and we apply the pact to the letter.

The more free willed the warlock is to do as he pleases, the shorter the duration of said pact will be. A pact can be ended and not renewed if the patron is not pleased. All the warlock is left with are his HP and his proficiency (and ASI or possible feats). Everything else is lost. The only way to get back this power, is to either renew the pact or to find an other patron willing to take you.

A good way to avoid to renegociate a pact, is to go for a permanent term. But it can be restrictive or work at a disadvantage for the player. I had a lawful good warlock with an i feral pact and patron. He could anything and a lot of what he was doing was against his patron. Around level 10, he died. His friends tried to raise him but to no avail. His soul was with Belial, his patron. Yet, another player had the Raven Queen as his patron. He had to do all kind of things for his Queen and he knew he would never be allowed to be resurrected. On the other hand, beside the missions that were also a benefit for the group, he was allowed to do a lot and with free reign. And there are in between pacts that need to be renegotiated every X period of time. A warlock is no priest and a patron needs something in return for the leeching that the warlock does on his power.

And sometimes a patron will help a warlock working for him with bits of hints and prescience. That is especially true if the warlock is doing a lot for the patron. In my previous example, the Raven Queen was so pleased with the warlock that she allowed him to be raised fro. The dead even if it was not something she would ever allow under normal circumstances. Showing your usefulness to your patron is really important.

Clerics are in the boat as the warlock on the fact that they too must please their "patron, here read deity). But gods need to follow a divine code of conduct. They can't be as fickled as Patrons.

This opens up a lot of RP opportunities but it is not for all players.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I am on the opposite end with you dear @Oofta. I love warlocks exactly because of the pacts they make to get their powers. But, we roleplay the making of a pact and we apply the pact to the letter.

The more free willed the warlock is to do as he pleases, the shorter the duration of said pact will be. A pact can be ended and not renewed if the patron is not pleased. All the warlock is left with are his HP and his proficiency (and ASI or possible feats). Everything else is lost. The only way to get back this power, is to either renew the pact or to find an other patron willing to take you.

A good way to avoid to renegociate a pact, is to go for a permanent term. But it can be restrictive or work at a disadvantage for the player. I had a lawful good warlock with an i feral pact and patron. He could anything and a lot of what he was doing was against his patron. Around level 10, he died. His friends tried to raise him but to no avail. His soul was with Belial, his patron. Yet, another player had the Raven Queen as his patron. He had to do all kind of things for his Queen and he knew he would never be allowed to be resurrected. On the other hand, beside the missions that were also a benefit for the group, he was allowed to do a lot and with free reign. And there are in between pacts that need to be renegotiated every X period of time. A warlock is no priest and a patron needs something in return for the leeching that the warlock does on his power.

And sometimes a patron will help a warlock working for him with bits of hints and prescience. That is especially true if the warlock is doing a lot for the patron. In my previous example, the Raven Queen was so pleased with the warlock that she allowed him to be raised fro. The dead even if it was not something she would ever allow under normal circumstances. Showing your usefulness to your patron is really important.

Clerics are in the boat as the warlock on the fact that they too must please their "patron, here read deity). But gods need to follow a divine code of conduct. They can't be as fickled as Patrons.

This opens up a lot of RP opportunities but it is not for all players.

I don't think Oofta was saying he doesn't like the pacts. In fact, the opposite: it's the players who want to get all the powers but not have a pact (as anything other than background fluff) that bothers him.

 

[Helldritch]

I don't think Oofta was saying he doesn't like the pacts. In fact, the opposite: it's the players who want to get all the powers but not have a pact (as anything other than background fluff) that bothers him.

Might have not read correctly. This is what you get when you read too fast at work... My apologies to Oofta.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Don't think you'd like me as a DM, then, as I wouldn't even consider running 5e without first house-ruling it into near-unrecognizability in order to make it full-on old school in feel and play; and yes that would include banning a bunch of races and classes that weren't around in the 1980s.

I think it would depend entirely on whether you were willing to explain the reasoning for the specific house rules, and whether they made sense to the objective. Lots of house rules is a red flag, but it's not a hard pass. What those house rules are and how they're implemented, and particularly whether the DM understands the consequences of them determines how I feel about them.

As for "no" being okay, I think it's circumstantial. If it's a quick-prep game with strangers than just having the limits is fine (though bizarre ones should be explained, like "no Clerics" or something). A longer-term game with people who are friends? I think a DM should be willing and able to explain their reasoning. Explaining something is not the same as saying it's up for debate, of course. That's another red flag - when a DM thinks explaining choices he makes is the same as basically opening them up for a vote or something.

 

[Helldritch]

Although I have a very democratic approach to gaming. I don't think that a DM has to explain everything in details as to why he bans such and such things in his games.

Whenever I modify something in my games, it is never in the middle of a campaign. It is at the start. If a modification apply to some rules, the players get to vote. Players can also propose modifications too. If the vote pass, then it is on the train for the campaign. If a new player appears to replace an older one. He is in the train as it is until the next campaign.

Things that are not negociables however...
Alignment: No evil, no chaotic neutral. (unless we play an all evil campaign, which does happen once in a while)
No PvP. Ever. (unless evil campaign).
No Throwing stuff at the DM because he rolled two or three 20s in a row. (That one is really important..)
No arguement when angry.
All the rest is open to debate if the players or the DM deem it necessary.

 

[billd91]

Although I have a very democratic approach to gaming. I don't think that a DM has to explain everything in details as to why he bans such and such things in his games.

I wouldn’t necessarily expect lots of details, but this isn’t my first rodeo, and a DM who won’t give me some form of cogent explanation is a red flag. It could be as simple as not wanting every town tavern to be the Mos Eisley cantina or feeling that gnomes don’t have enough of a distinct niche to bother including or even preferring to see how creative players are with a reduced palette of options. Even those reasons give me a little insight to the DM’s approach, thoughtfulness, and willingness to communicate. If I get nothing back but “DM’s prerogative“, that‘s not exactly a communication builder.

 

[Helldritch]

I wouldn’t necessarily expect lots of details, but this isn’t my first rodeo, and a DM who won’t give me some form of cogent explanation is a red flag. It could be as simple as not wanting every town tavern to be the Mos Eisley cantina or feeling that gnomes don’t have enough of a distinct niche to bother including or even preferring to see how creative players are with a reduced palette of options. Even those reasons give me a little insight to the DM’s approach, thoughtfulness, and willingness to communicate. If I get nothing back but “DM’s prerogative“, that‘s not exactly a communication builder.

Agreed. But at the same time, player's inventiveness should be within the parameter of what has been agreed upon by everyone at the table. A new player comming into an existing campaign must be aware that he enters an already established campaign that has been working for sometimes. If in said campaing, Tieflings do not exist, then they don't. It does not matter if the new player has a cool concept for his Tiefling. They don't exist. Period.

In a new campaign, it is an entirely new ball game. The DM explains his view, then if the players agree, characters will be made in agreement of what was agreed. Again, going against what was voted by everyone at the table means you either comply, or you leave.

 

[Nilbog]

I would add that a DM saying 'because I say so' might not always be as dismissive as you think

I was starting a campaign that was a riff on the Draconian creation story, however the idea was that at the climax of the campaign the players would hopefully arrive just to late to stop them being created but just in time to stop them being subsumed by evil, leading to the creation of the dragonborn race. So when one of my players wanted to be a dragonborn paladin, I was a bit stuffed what to say without giving away spoilers, admittedly I could have said it's for story reasons, but I wanted to try and not give away any premise of the story (I did disallow a couple of other races as well to help keep the plot secret, but luckily no one missed gnomes )

 

[Guest 6801328]

Things that are not negociables however...
Alignment: No evil, no chaotic neutral. (unless we play an all evil campaign, which does happen once in a while)
No PvP. Ever. (unless evil campaign).
...

To re-order those rules slightly...

1. No PVP unless unless everybody is playing an evil character.
2. Nobody may play an evil character
3. ...

 

[Maxperson]

A pet peeve of mine is a player who whines and complains just because a ruling doesn't go his way. If it doesn't kill your PC, go with it and discuss with the DM afterwards if you don't like the ruling.