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

[5ekyu]

Why doesn't it sound like a terrible player? Both players and DMs have things that they enjoy and that they don't like about playing. If those things come in conflict, the player needs to find a new game. The player finding a new game is the only way that both can be happy. If they player stays, but doesn't get his way, he will be unhappy. If the player stays and the DM capitulates, he won't be happy.

And I reject the way that you are framing the problem. You are deliberately choosing poor examples. Nobody here that I have seen(and I've missed posts) has said that they want the patron to turn on the warlock.

To be fair, one of the early portions of the debate was about a gradual build up of a patron to make it the master villain... now whether that was a warlock patron idk.

I have put forth examples where a patron used a warlock wanting revenge to eliminate its rivals - creating power vacuums its other minions would fill.

In other threads I offered up other examples of options that might fit and appeal to different types

some were like-minded celestial who get along but want the patron to not stop.

One was an "it doesn't know you exist" option where the "obligation and favors are basically thing you have to do now and again to keep your patron from noticing you, keeping it asleep or distracted - possibly as part of a "cult of fleas".

Another "it doesn't know you" were cases where again you are tapping something big but its "urges"and "needs" carry over and so if it gets hungry, you get really hungry and if you eat a lot its hunger subsides and it doesn't rouse and notice your "tap" or "scratch its fleabite". Of course it has urges and needs other than food...

These were some of the more oddball options offered up if they seemed to be appropriate and none of them would force character action or be forced on a player, tho some chose to take them as if mind control.

None of which happens if the player just yells "background my patron" and if you say no you are some sick with no decency...

 

[Maxperson]

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?

There's a veritable straw army there. Never said most of that, so I'm going to ignore your straw and just respond to what I have really been saying. 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 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. That's just the paranoia of certain posters with regard to the DM having control of the patron.

 

[Maxperson]

To be fair, one of the early portions of the debate was about a gradual build up of a patron to make it the master villain... now whether that was a warlock patron idk.

Sometimes I miss portions of threads. More than sometimes, really, so I didn't see that. I wouldn't do that to a patron, though, at least not unless the player wanted that to happen as part of a story involving going from one patron to another.

 

[pemerton]

Why doesn't it sound like a terrible player?

For obvious reasons - if I want to play a motorcycle guy, then I want to play a motorcycle guy! Not a guy whose bike got stolen.

Ditto if I want to play a warlock - I want to play my PC the warlock, not the GM's conception of what some Great Old One or whomever it is would want my PC to do.

Wanting to play your character is the core mission of a player. So hardly the sign of a terrible one. Not enjoying the game unless s/he can muck around with the player's core concept, on the other hand, is a typical sign of a terrible GM.

 

[pemerton]

To be fair, one of the early portions of the debate was about a gradual build up of a patron to make it the master villain... now whether that was a warlock patron idk.

I've already addressed this in a very recent post.

As per the thread title, I gave three examples of when I had ditched a game because of poor GMing. One was of a game in which the culmination of three (or so?) sessions of play, which had as its sole narrative motivation collecting some MacGuffin for the PCs' patron, the patron betrayed the PCs.
[MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] suggested (or asserted? I haven't gone back upthread to check) that I was wrong to say that this game sucked, and that I should have hung around for 10 or so sessions of nothing happening except the GM playing out his own story about a treacherous patronj as part of setting up a long-term villain.

I expressed the view that that would have been a total waste of my time, which was I didn't do it.

The idea that players would sit through 10 sessions of play watching the GM - in effect - play with him-/herself is absolutely ludicrous to me. But anyway, for some reason some poster or other decided that all patrons are warlock's supernatural patron's and decided to assert that, when it comes to a player playing a warlock, then the GM is absolutely entitled to play the game with him-/herself and the player just has to suck it up.

I disagreed, along with soe others - the last many pages of this thread record the upshot of that.

 

[5ekyu]

Let's start with this little piece of rudeness. Regardless of what you may feel, my argument against your comparison is not being made on my part for the sake of argument. I am approaching this topic in good faith. This does, however, reveal about your lack of good faith when approaching mine. I genuinely have issues of disagreement with what you wrote, namely in recognizing differences in how storytelling processes transpire across media. For example, one of the big steps of film criticism was in delineating how its storytelling processes were distinct from novels and literary criticism. It's likewise now something that we are increasingly recognizing and identifying in video games as a form of interactive storytelling media, and there are many indie games, in particular, that are exploring this phenomenon. And it is something that will likely become reexamined in the case of tabletop roleplaying games, especially with the rise of tabletop streaming.

The issue I raise is not about what makes for an entertaining story or whether it is desired. I am aware that the trope regarding hierarchical conflict you mention is prevalent. And we are all hopefully aware that drama and conflict drive stories. Nor have I somehow claimed as per your assertion here that things "have to EXACT to be compared."

Instead, it's about recognizing the critical differences between media entertainment in how that drama and character conflict are generated for those stories. Novels are authored by creative authors who have unrestricted control over all characters, the dramatic voice, and the narrative. There is no player agency. Players do not create characters in these stories. Players do not determine the backstory for these characters. Character choices are all dictated by the whims of the author (and possibly editor suggestions/demands). The author drives the drama and conflict of the narrative through their creative choices. The author determines what conflicts they want their characters to face and how those conflicts will resolve. So the character choices and conflicts about the social obligations the character faces stem entirely from an author who wants to create that story. Prevalence does not somehow inherently make the story trope good. It only makes it a choice selected by the author for their story. And people who engage that story element as readers may even find that character conflict unnessary, superfluous, cliché, or boring. But as readers, they do not get a collaborative say in the choices of that character or the conflict imposed by the social agency (e.g., family, organization, government, etc.).

In the case of tabletop roleplaying games, these things are emergent collaborative processes driven by multiple agents: i.e., the DM and the players. IME, players often provide input into what story conflicts they want their characters to face and possibly also the ones they don't, as per this discussion. E.g., "I don't want the DM to engage my character's gender/race/sexuality as a forefront issue"; "No rape/slavery/baby murder"; "I don't want my character's family killed (i.e., fridged) just for the sake of creating sensationalized drama"; "I want to deal with being regarded as a heretic by the church but I also want my deity as a non-intervening background element whose agency does not factor into this conflict." I don't think that players hoping to "Background" certain elements are looking to avoid story obligations or having any conflicts surrounding their character choices. They are indicating what sort of choices that they are hoping to make and what sort of obligations they prefer engaging in the story for their characters. "Look, I'm not interested in a [corrupted church hierarchy]/[my deity/temple sends me on a mission]/etc. story for my paladin/cleric. I would prefer just focusing on how my PC's piety (and skillset) engages this other aspect of the campaign you pitched."

This difference in collaborative agency provides a significant point of distinction between the other media you alluded to and roleplaying games. This significantly impacts the nature of how conflict and drama are produced/resolved. I fail to see how recognizing this somehow makes me argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. Developing this awareness of media for me is fundamentally crucial for becoming a better tabletop storymaker as both a DM and player.

I'm not sure how this makes your position more favorable. It makes it even less of a negotiation performed in good faith.

Except you have repeatedly asserted for your own case a scenario in which there is no genuine desire to "work together," because you have in no uncertain terms proclaimed that any player of a cleric or warlock will play your prescribed way or not at all.

"Will no one think about the well-being the poor, powerless DM?!"

"Except you have repeatedly asserted for your own case a scenario in which there is no genuine desire to "work together," because you have in no uncertain terms proclaimed that any player of a cleric or warlock will play your prescribed way or not at all."

First, there is no "player of a cleric or a warlock" in my game without an agreement between me and the player on the key npc related aspects of the character. This is really not different from any other character - all characters that come into a game I run require my approval.

If you and I cannot agree on your character to an acceptable state for my game, you cannot play in my game.

Second, I have stated over and over that I want to discuss and try to reach agreement on these points. I have identified **some cases** that would get no, so if those are the only cases acceptable to the player - we have irreconcilable differences, thanks, hope you find a table. Glad we caught this now, not in play.

Third, The case(s) I singled out were basically backgrounding the patron, church or god... so that it's not an NPC of any real GM control, just cosmetic dressing or a pet possibly fully controlled by the player. If that's the only patron or divine you are not willing to accept and you will only accept running clerics and warlocks, that's gonna get a no and a hope we can come to a different agreement but if that's your line in the sand, no deal.

Finally, non patron but pet side, if you have a choice of animal companions of different abilities and traits (say size, normalcy and combat power) and you want to choose the one with more combat power but problematic size and normalcy issues (instead of ones with less combat power but more normalcy and manageable dize) but then you want to handwave background out the size and normalcy, thsts likely almost certain a no because you had choices that did not have the problems you want handwaved and chose to pass them by.

If all that to youbtrsnslates as unreasonable or no desire to "work together" or dickish or lacking decency, then at my table its win-win that we discover these irreconcilable difference before play. Best of luck. See ya.

 

[pemerton]

In some tables, deities take a direct interest in their faithful, in others they are distant to not there, same with Patrons. Sometimes it depends on the deity or patron. This is usually discussed early on between player and DM, DM and table.

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.

The suggestion that such a GM can't enjoy a game without mucking about with the patron of the warlock player who has indicated s/he doesn't want such mucking about - when presumably that GM would have cheerfully run a game with no warlock and hence no patron in it at all - is just a further sign that this person is a bad GM.

The idea that the game will break in some fashion unless the GM mucks about in this way, because it's part of the balance of a warlock PC that the GM will introduce patron drama - is also ridiculous, and a GM who thought otherwise would be a bad GM for a different reason (to do with a poor understanding of how 5e is balanced).

If a character were stripped of magical powers in a game, I would have to adjudicate it on a case by case basis. It has never come up in my games, but I definitely agree it is in the within the realm of the DM.

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. Nothing in the Basic PDF rules even remotely hints at this in respect of clerics (who have been said by various posters in this thread to be equivalent in this respect).

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

Per RAW, the DM need only call for the die when uncertainty exists on an action declaration. So for instance, the Archbishop might just be an unreasonable man, with no chance to change his mind. I would not call for a persuade check then. That is not to say other avenues might not exist, but if none do - then that would also be acceptable.

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

I imagine, in my games, that if such a hard force was applied, then it would be integral to developing the storyline. i.e. the Archbishop was secretly the main BBEG or he was being possessed and it was still to be revealed to the PCs.
But when it is finally revealed, it all makes cohesive sense within the story and it wasn't just because the DM was being dickish. The applied force also can act as a clue towards the investigation.

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"!

 

[Sadras]

Let's start with this little piece of rudeness. Regardless of what you may feel, my argument against your comparison is not being made on my part for the sake of argument. I am approaching this topic in good faith.

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

I'm aware of the differences between media, novels and rpgs, but what does this have to to with hierarchical conflict as you eloquently put it, because that was the crux of my post?

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.

Great! But I was discussing hierarchical content in general.

E.g., "I don't want the DM to engage my character's gender/race/sexuality as a forefront issue"; "No rape/slavery/baby murder"; "I don't want my character's family killed (i.e., fridged) just for the sake of creating sensationalized drama"; "I want to deal with being regarded as a heretic by the church but I also want my deity as a non-intervening background element whose agency does not factor into this conflict."

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

I don't think that players hoping to "Background" certain elements are looking to avoid story obligations or having any conflicts surrounding their character choices. They are indicating what sort of choices that they are hoping to make and what sort of obligations they prefer engaging in the story for their characters.

I cannot speak to the motives of such players. I have only encountered such thinking on Enworld.

This difference in collaborative agency provides a significant point of distinction between the other media you alluded to and roleplaying games. This significantly impacts the nature of how conflict and drama are produced/resolved.

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.

 

[5ekyu]

Agree.



In some tables, deities take a direct interest in their faithful, in others they are distant to not there, same with Patrons. Sometimes it depends on the deity or patron. This is usually discussed early on between player and DM, DM and table.

If a character were stripped of magical powers in a game, I would have to adjudicate it on a case by case basis. It has never come up in my games, but I definitely agree it is in the within the realm of the DM.
Can a DM be a doosh about it? Absolutely yes. Hence you have rpgs that limit that sort of scope by the DM. And that is fine too.



It can, it however doesn't have to be. In all likelihood that is how I would deal with most issues such as this - a complex story challenge. Per RAW, the DM need only call for the die when uncertainty exists on an action declaration. So for instance, the Archbishop might just be an unreasonable man, with no chance to change his mind. I would not call for a persuade check then. That is not to say other avenues might not exist, but if none do - then that would also be acceptable.
I imagine, in my games, that if such a hard force was applied, then it would be integral to developing the storyline. i.e. the Archbishop was secretly the main BBEG or he was being possessed and it was still to be revealed to the PCs.
But when it is finally revealed, it all makes cohesive sense within the story and it wasn't just because the DM was being dickish. The applied force also can act as a clue towards the investigation.

"Can a DM be a doosh about it? Absolutely yes. Hence you have rpgs that limit that sort of scope by the DM. And that is fine too."

Really if a gm wants to screw players over, to make them not have fun, go on to power trip, etc this patron phobia is way down on the list of the gazillion ways to screw players. If you get to background this ot that said hm will just find other ways.

Similarly, if it's a gm just screwing up, again, lots more ways to screw up all over the players.

 

[pemerton]

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 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.

What demands are you envisaging? What are they adding to the game? How would the game be worse off if the GM adhered to the player's request that there be no patron drama in the game?