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

[Maxperson]

It's funny. You keep insinuating that I'm somehow a special snowflake or entitled, or triggered, or whatever the heck.

Hrm, let's do a side by side comparison shall we?

You: Design a campaign you know a player will hate. Specifically uninvite said player so that you can run the game you want to run.

Me: Goes the extra mile to take player preferences into consideration and has no real problem putting player preferences ahead of my own.

Yeah, I'm not really sure you want to play this game. I can't help but feel that you're going to come off looking a lot worse in the comparison.

But, sure, I'll keep helping you. I'm not really sure what you think I'm helping you to do, but, whatever it is, I'm thinking that it's not what you think it is.

There's multiple things going on. First is this kicking someone out to run a type of game. That's not something I would ever do. In my game, before every campaign, there's a session -1(session 0 is for creating characters and house rules). Session -1 involves every player putting out some campaign ideas, which then get voted on, whittled down, voted on again, etc. until a campaign is chosen that everyone likes to play. I'm not going to run a game that someone isn't happy about.

I do have veto power, but in practice I've only used it twice in the last 10 years. Once when the campaign was something I didn't want to run, since as I said, I won't run a game where someone isn't happy about it. And a second time where the idea was complex and I had no ability to do it justice. To learn to do it justice would have taken more time than I had available given my work and family time constraints. They understood and went with their second choice which everyone was also happy with.

The second thing that is going on, is the idea that players can stick major parts of a character class in the background to keep the DM from every using it for anything. That's acting entitled. If you don't want the DM to bring in an obligation that is built into a class, play a class without such an obligation built in.

 

[Maxperson]

Boots are different from horses are different from motorcycles are different from handkerchiefs.

You're the one who asserted that motorcycles are relevant but boots not. Why?

You're the one who said that in some games nothing is backgrounded? Sneezes, urination, etc are all things that - in such a game - I would assume not to be backgrounded. If in fact they are backgrounded, then it's not true that nothing is backgrounded.

When you make these various claims about what's relevant and what's not, I'm not able to work out what you have in mind or what your rationale is. Are you saying you'd be OK with a player who wanted to background boots?

And [MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION], what system do you use for working out when clothes get worn out? (I gave an example of this from one of my own campaigns.)

Just because something is ignored, like sneezed, urination, etc., doesn't mean that they are backgrounded(off limits to the DM). I am fully capable of having those things happen, but I choose not to for obvious reasons. And no, I'm not going to state those obvious reasons when you ask in your response. They're OBVIOUS.

 

[Umbran]

There's multiple things going on. First is this kicking someone out to run a type of game. That's not something I would ever do. In my game, before every campaign, there's a session -1(session 0 is for creating characters and house rules). Session -1 involves every player putting out some campaign ideas, which then get voted on, whittled down, voted on again, etc. until a campaign is chosen that everyone likes to play. I'm not going to run a game that someone isn't happy about.

You are doing character generation *before* campaign selection? Making folks create characters before they know what the campaign is about seems less efficient than doing that the other way around.

 

[Umbran]

Folks,

Some pages back, the rhetoric here took a turn for the worse. Keep it elevated. Don't make it personal, and don't get insulting.

Nothing in this thread is going to break the real world, so please keep things in perspective. If you get you enough under the collar that you get mean, it is time to take a breather. If you can't recognize that point in yourself, you're apt to be unhappy when someone recognizes it happening, and makes you take a breather whether you like it or not.

 

[Maxperson]

You are doing character generation *before* campaign selection? Making folks create characters before they know what the campaign is about seems less efficient than doing that the other way around.

No. You read that backwards. Campaign is -1 and character creation is 0. It's two different sessions and the campaign is selected first.

 

[TwoSix]

The second thing that is going on, is the idea that players can stick major parts of a character class in the background to keep the DM from every using it for anything. That's acting entitled. If you don't want the DM to bring in an obligation that is built into a class, play a class without such an obligation built in.

This is where I disagree.

In my opinion, it is a DM flaw to view D&D, specifically, as anything but a fantasy toolbox, and where the PHB fluff is anything but a starting point to spur player creativity. Nothing in the game is fixed until we encounter it and it becomes an element in play. (With the exception that "broadly medieval fantasy" is an agreed upon genre when we're playing D&D.)

If we agree at the outset to play in a more fixed world (say, a published setting), or play in a game system where the setting information is more fundamental to the play experience (like Star Wars, or a White Wolf game), then the scale of allowable player customization will be diminished, because the setting is an agreed upon constraint. I still view the idea of something like "class" having actual narrative weight within the setting to be rather silly, though, and won't use it unless a player concept hinges upon it. (Like if a player concept is "Belongs to an order of paladins dedicated to the Goddess of Mercy".)

 

[Maxperson]

This is where I disagree.

In my opinion, it is a DM flaw to view D&D, specifically, as anything but a fantasy toolbox, and where the PHB fluff is anything but a starting point to spur player creativity. Nothing in the game is fixed until we encounter it and it becomes an element in play. (With the exception that "broadly medieval fantasy" is an agreed upon genre when we're playing D&D.)

It's a different style of play. With my style, fluff is fixed unless it is actively changed. If the player approaches me for a change in fluff, we can work on it. Often I will just accept it as my players are long term and we have similar views on things, but sometimes there's a bit of back and forth as a compromise is reached. If the player doesn't come to me to alter the class fluff, it's in play as is.

If we agree at the outset to play in a more fixed world (say, a published setting), or play in a game system where the setting information is more fundamental to the play experience (like Star Wars, or a White Wolf game), then the scale of allowable player customization will be diminished, because the setting is an agreed upon constraint. I still view the idea of something like "class" having actual narrative weight within the setting to be rather silly, though, and won't use it unless a player concept hinges upon it. (Like if a player concept is "Belongs to an order of paladins dedicated to the Goddess of Mercy".)

It depends on the class for me. Fighter never made sense to me, as there are many kinds of fighters/warriors/swashbucklers, etc. Wizard and cleric, though, those make sense as what you are called in the game world. Even then, most of the people in the game world won't know the difference between a wizard, warlock or sorcerer.

 

[TwoSix]

It's a different style of play. With my style, fluff is fixed unless it is actively changed. If the player approaches me for a change in fluff, we can work on it. Often I will just accept it as my players are long term and we have similar views on things, but sometimes there's a bit of back and forth as a compromise is reached. If the player doesn't come to me to alter the class fluff, it's in play as is.

It is a different style of play, true. But, in the context of this thread, it's something that I view as a flaw that detracts from the game. I might not leave a game over it, but it's something I view as a fairly large negative and would be a factor as to whether or not I found the game worth continuing.

 

[Yunru]

Listening to "Sage" Advice

 

[Imaro]

To answer your begged question, I would say "yes" in the sense that it's obviously both. And here we may also point out the obvious that the PC by virtue of participating in play is also an aspect of the DM's world. Nevertheless, players often tacitly mold the DM's world. When the player establishes as part of their backstory "my character was raised by his blacksmith mother in the town of Heretown," the player has now dictated something about the DM's world. Heretown may or may not have existed before the player created their backstory, so this too may have been created for play.

So if I am reading this correctly... it's either a playstyle choice or dependent upon the system. Either way there is nothing inherent in D&D specifically that gives the PC ownership and control of NPC's simply because they are part of a character's backstory. In fact earlier in the thread passages from D&D were quoted that make it obvious that all NPC's and setting elements are ultimately under the control of the DM.

Now I get in your particular playstyle, irregardless of system assumptions, you may allow players to dictate end-states for NPC's or declare NPC's and setting elements off limits from DM's but that's not the default stance for D&D. In D&D even if the PC does create these things... My PC's mother is a blacksmith in the town of Heretown... there is still nothing inherent in that creation that makes that NPC's actions, state at the end of the campaign or anything else under the explicit control of the player whose character is related to them as opposed to the DM. So since we are speaking to D&D I'll stick with my original assertion that the patron is a part of the DM's world... and thus if the DM wants he can determine the patron's actions himself, work with the player in determining the patron's actions, or even allow the player to determine the actions of the patron... more importantly the point is none of these answers is wrong or makes the DM a "bad" or poor DM regardless of which you personally prefer.

I hope you don't mind me cutting the rest, but given how the rest of your paragraph follows from this gross misreading or mischaracterization, then it may be best to nip this at the bud. So let us first go back to what I said, and I will do my best to clarify my position better for you. And hopefully then you can respond in a manner that better respects what was actually communicated.
I am not suggesting here that the hypothetical player here wants to engage in one-man theater. I am arguing here that the hypothetical cleric or warlock are people who want to explore engaging the world and their themes through a particular lens.

Maybe there's just an overall breakdown in what you are communicating to me because (emphasis mine above) What this seems to imply to me is that in a cooperative game where we should all be contributing and building the fiction the player wants a specific story that they have already decided upon... thus my impression that it is engaging in one man theater where I as DM am here to provide scenery & background but am not allowed to explore what I would like too with the characters in the game.

If your DM, or you as the DM of your game, is/are cool with playing that role...that's great but for me I'm not there to run you through your particular story... I'm here to collaborate which means I may have my own questions, and various lenses I want to explore around the themes of your character as well. If I don't have the freedom to do that why don't you just write down the encounters, choices, issues, etc. you want to deal with, and I'll regurgitate them at the player appointed times. IMO this is just as bad as the DM who has already decided where the game is going to go and the players aren't given the opportunity to explore themes, and tropes through the lenses they want to. IMO neither should be in total control of this aspect of the game.

Let us take, for example, a cleric. The cleric has faith, tenents, and likely a code. The cleric can explore their faith without the deity ever once showing up into play or the DM even dangling that possibility. The idea that a deity must or should show up in order for an adherent or priest to explore their faith strikes me as offensive and non-sensical from any real life sensibilities. In many respects it is the default position of the human perspective. Gods in D&D can be real and embodied (e.g., Forgotten Realms), but this is not always the case (e.g., the Sovereign Host in Eberron). And likewise from within the worldview of many religious adherents, the supernatural elements that constitute their faith (e.g., God, gods, spirits, etc.) likewise are regarded as real. And I believe that players, in my case at least, often do prefer playing from this human perspective over against one in which the deity exists as an NPC who exists as the DM's sockpuppet and for the sake of the DM's desire to "control all the things." As a frequent cleric player, I am often completely uninterested, if not turned-off, by the DM using my character's deity as an NPC for micromanaging my character.

Emphasis mine... These are jerk DM issues and have nothing to do with the DM having authority or control over the deity of your cleric. He could do these same things just as easily with a powerful enough NPC or by DM fiat. But this, at least as far as I can tell, has been the default assumption of the side against DM's having control over certain aspects of the setting and world that are tied to PC's. I also suspect the assumption of a jerk DM (or jerk player) from both sides at times is also what is causing many to talk past each other in the thread.

Recently I had been playing a dwarf cleric of the forge in a campaign coming to a close. The DM has been entirely hands off with my deity. I established the fiction of the deity from scratch. I created a dwarf creator deity, loosely based on Moradin, who had male and female aspects: a male aspect of labor, crafting, and commerce (weapon: hammer) and a female aspect of agriculture, family, and brewing (weapon: sickle). I established my character concept as essentially a revolutionary pro-labor, socialist, Communist dwarven priest. Exploring my character's faith is built into the themes of the campaign and how my character with their particular religious ethos engages the adventure setting. My character and his barbarian sister (another PC) immigrated to a frontier "new world" colony across the ocean that also serves as a penal colony. My character has been engaging this setting from the perspective of their faith. How should a pro-labor and anti-slavery priest feel or respond to issues surrounding the penal colony? How might a revolutionary, heretic priest make a fresh start for his cult in this New World? What are objectives that a pro-labor priest might want to achieve to improve the conditions for working class laborers in this colony?

The idea that I am therefore somehow playing "lone theater" or that I am incapable of having other players/the DM see my decision-making process or the influence of my faith is not only downright insulting but also contradicted by actual play experiences. Just because my deity is "absent" or removed-from-play as the DM's plaything does not mean that my character and their faith exists in some sort of vacuum. It engages the world. My character's ethos and faith has been the most well-defined, grounded, and consensually understood among the group. It has made my character a moral beacon and pillar for the group. My faith has vocally informed many important decisions that my character has made. If the DM wants to explore my faith, they do not reach their hand up the deity as a sockpuppet; they establish human situations and scenarios for my character to engage. I am not running amok and abusing power without any responsibilites; those responsibilities are accumulating. And I wanted to engage those responsibilities as part of how I envision the character. I have established contacts, begun reforming prisoners, laid the groundwork for coordinating the guilds, and laying the foundations for a chapel and future temple.

I have no choice but to take you at your word (though admittedly we all have perception biases when it comes to the relating of past events), though honestly I'd love to get the unbiased perspective of the DM and other players in said game and whether they even understood or took notice that said decisions were stemming from your faith.

For me as a DM I don't want to be a spectator, which essentially is what the DM seems to be ok with in your above example. The player should explore the themes and tropes through the lens they want to but, as the DM I too want to engage my own independently formed questions and concerns around the themes my players have brought to the game along with those we may have come up with together. Assuming I'm not a jerk DM what exactly is your objection to that? Because all of your objections seem to be predicated on I as a DM looking to screw you over... which again is a totally different issue. You want to communicate better let's speak to what the concerns are around a DM who actually plays in good faith...

This is similarly what I have in mind in my above paragraph. A player character is more than capable of exploring their religious devotion or arcane patronage without requiring the in-game intercession of the NPC or the DM's control thereof.

Yes and there are solo ttrpg's where the player can do just that and I would say if a player wants to explore their religious devotion/arcane patronage without the in-game intercession of DM controlled NPC's or deity's they are probably a better fit... at least when it comes to my table and what we are looking for in play as a group.

This is an incredibly broad question, and one that has been discussed before numerous times already. Given the broadness of your question, it may be more conducive for discussion for you to consider and answer why you might believe that would be the case. I am asking you to extend yourself out of your own comfort zone and preferences for a second. Scary, I know. Why might others who are not you or your group feel, think, or believe that based upon their own experiences in play? Are there circumstances that you can consider where the DM's play of a backstory-related NPC could encroach, tread, or impair a player's PC concept?

No it was a pretty specific question... you go off adventuring and while you're gone your granddad has becomes a serial killer... how does that affect how you are playing your character in the actual game? How has the concept, actions, thoughts, etc. for your character (not the npc's outside of it) changed because offf in some distant village you grnadfather has killed some people? And since you won't see him until the end of the campaign... what does it even matter at that point?

Now let me address the second part of your post because I believe you have a habit when engaging with me of getting snarky and snide and I can already see it so I'm asking that if you really want to engage with me you dial it back some (if not, just don't reply)... you don't know what's "Scary" for me. I've not once said backgrounding was bad wrong fun or even that allowing the player to control his or her patron/deity made one a bad DM both of which have been leveled against those who think differently... So how about you apply your own advice around accepting and understanding a different viewpoint...

As to the question you asked at the end, yes...yes I can when there are bigger issues than the DM playing a deity or NPC, mainly when he or she is being a jerk which isn't something that is suddenly brought under control because the jerk DM can't play your deity or patron. Of course I stated this twice before when I asked the question and then addressed it later in the thread.

I believe that it can, and often does, apply to other NPCs the PCs have established backstory connections. We have been discussing the issue primarily in terms of the warlock and their patron (and the similar cleric/deity relation), but the issue has also been raised in terms of other backstory-pertinent NPCs that a player may want "backgrounded" for their character (e.g., family, animal companions, etc.) to varying degrees.

Exactly so I guess the DM just shouldn't play an NPC with any type of connection to the PC's kor who happens to gain one through play of the game either because the same thing could happen... see how absurd this line of thinking can get at a certain point? In other words, as I've said before, this is a jerk DM problem and not a problem around DM's controlling deities and patrons.