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

[Hussar]

But the vast majority did, and those gods were close and personal. If Eberron doesn't match that, it doesn't match the 3e cleric class as written. That's fine. I already understand that Eberron changed the cleric class for that setting. A class is more than just the mechanics.

No, they really, really weren't. Heck the default pantheon was Greyhawk and Greyhawk dieties are not close and personal. Greyhawk never had a "Time of Troubles". The gods never walked the earth. (or Oerth as the case might be). Some mortals managed to get themselves promoted to the pantheon - Vecna for example - but, the gods in Greyhawk were almost never close and personal.

Could they be? Sure, they could. But, it wasn't necessary. Nor was it necessary for a cleric to follow a single god or a god at all, depending on edition. From 2e forward, clerics weren't required to follow a god. Here's what the 2e PHB says about clerics and their gods:

The most common type of priest is the cleric. The cleric may be an adherent of any religion (though if the DM designs a specific mythos, the cleric's abilities and spells may be changed--see following). Clerics are generally good, but are not restricted to good; they can have any alignment acceptable to their order.

...

In the simplest version of the AD&D game, clerics serve religions that can be generally described as "good" or "evil." Nothing more needs to be said about it; the game will play perfectly well at this level.

Note that. Any idea that a cleric MUST serve a god or anything like that ignores the basic flavor text in 2e. So, can we please, please drop this idea that clerics must serve a god?

 

[5ekyu]

If the GM decides that dear dad or whomever - the person or people the players' backstory framed as worthy folk - are in fact serial killers, than how was the character meant to carry it off? What did the player fail to do?

What action declaration or player-side resource is mean to prevent unilateral GM decisions about the backstory element?

See, there is the disconnect.

*IF* "keeping my family on the true and narrow way of good" is a vital part of the PC's concept and nature, then the PC should be actively engaged in doing that. So, at the very least, that means maintaining regular communication and visits back home, regular check-ins and insights into their daily life etc to make sure they are on the right and narrow path that will satisfy this PC that his life has meaning.

With those stated efforts (and more) the issue of "do i catch dad the serial killer and then do what my beliefs require" or "do i find out dad is having troubles and get a chance to intervene" and "do i see my sister starting to pursue dark arts and hanging with the wrong "furry" crowd" etc etc etc become no longer the mand of off-screen by both player and Gm fiat *but* become the results of challenge and success or fail - of action and results, of choices and consequences in-game.

That is why in my experience setting something like "what defines my character going forward" into some meta-only off-screen resolutions bad form. If that things is the most important thing to your character, if your character would feel such devasting loss if it turned out to not be that way at the end of some massive career as an adventurer - what in the heck were you doing off adventuring and not taking care of your biggest most foundational need?

In other words, if "what i am and who i am" is put off-screen and lockboxed - thats a poorly chosen character to be the starring role in an RPG devoted to adventuring or the like.

Again, tho, that is why we like to have the "things that matter to our characters" as well as "things that matter in the setting" be managed and handled on-screen, in-play, in-game, in-character (with a nod to occasional email exchanges and such when appropriate to resolve solo stuff that would take too long.)

At times the claims have been made that this lockboxing and backgrounding would be for stuff that doesn't matter - well - if it doesnt matter then if it is changed and not as you thought how is that a crisis?

As the examples have tended to show, when asked and queried - this practice seems not only edging into "not really off-stage and unimportant" but actually for on-screen or critical. From the *my bear does not get the wrong reactions in town* instead of chosing a large dog or other town-friendly companion (not as combat capable as a bear tho) or the motorcycle that you use to move around town being worry-proof to even the further examples of the race itself not being met with "the reactions i do not want" and now to "pleasantville family that i do not need to work to preserve or guarantee their good faith even though it is crucial to my character" it keeps coming back to can i get a meta-game eraser for these.

IMO, the first question i would have for a PC who told me "maintaining the righteousness of my other family members is the most important thing and if that fails its all been for nothing - crushed" would be "then why exactly is he going out here adventuring and not keeping closer tabs on them and their goings on? He does realize people get corrupted and suffer setbacks and fall short every day in this world, right? he does realize there are active evil forces working to corrupt people with treachery and magic, right? So, why is he an adventurer if that is actually what he cares about the most?"

In general, i find its good advice to keep the "who i am" major character GOALS tied into "on-screen" stuff, not off-screen stuff your character will not actually be interacting with.

"My character is an avid environmentalist devoted to preserving the climate especially the ice caps and glaciers."

Then why in the worlds are they signing on for a space trip to Mars and adventure?

 

[Aldarc]

But the vast majority did, and those gods were close and personal. If Eberron doesn't match that, it doesn't match the 3e cleric class as written. That's fine. I already understand that Eberron changed the cleric class for that setting. A class is more than just the mechanics.

Are you suffering from a case of the Mandela Effect? It does match the 3e cleric as written, both fluff and mechanics. I don't think you are accurately remembering the 3e cleric as it was written. It gave a wide berth to a variety of clerics, deities, and playstyles. And Eberron did certainly not change the cleric class.

Legends and Lore had avatar stats for all the common pantheons.

Wouldn't that still make them options and not default assumptions?

I have mostly played clerics and druids throughout my history of D&D with many DMs with various playstyles across 3rd, 4th, and 5th edition, and I have never encountered what Maxperson seems to regard as the norm for clerics with "close and personal" gods.

 

[Lanefan]

I agree with you. Especially about 1e. The first couple of spell levels don't require any form of agent. Only the last few levels come from the deity - so 6th and 7th level for a greater god.

Although Deities and Demigods provided stats for gods, there was never any expectation that the gods would generally be interacted with let alone a common campaign element. The only published case I can recall where there is strong possibility of meeting a god (Shrine of the Kuo-toa), it will unlikely to be friendly (or survivable).

You're forgetting WGA4 Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun, in which it's very possible to meet a deity - though if you do it's a sign that you've really messed up and should be thinking about your next character concept; for this one's run its course.

I'm not sure what part of "and avatars" you didn't understand. I can quote you 2e avatar stats for your players to meet if you like.

The avatar is just a physical manifestation of a deity in 2e-speak, and not the deity itself. You can kill avatars all day long if you like, but you won't kill any deities in the process.

 

[pemerton]

*IF* "keeping my family on the true and narrow way of good" is a vital part of the PC's concept and nature, then the PC should be actively engaged in doing that.

<snip>

the first question i would have for a PC who told me "maintaining the righteousness of my other family members is the most important thing and if that fails its all been for nothing - crushed" would be "then why exactly is he going out here adventuring and not keeping closer tabs on them and their goings on? He does realize people get corrupted and suffer setbacks and fall short every day in this world, right? he does realize there are active evil forces working to corrupt people with treachery and magic, right? So, why is he an adventurer if that is actually what he cares about the most?"

I did not talk about a PC whose goal is to keep his/her family on the straight and narrow.

I talked about a PC (like Samwise Gamgee) who is going out on a quest to make the world a safe place again, and when it is done planning to come back to dear old dad (a la Sam Gamgee's Gaffer). Having the GM unilaterally decide that the Gaffer is a serial killer is just a way to kill of that character concept.

The notion that my PC has to take active steps to stop dear old dad becoming a serial killer is odd to me. The vast majority of people in the world are not serial killers. I can't easily think of a game in which it would contradict genre or limit the GM's freedom in respect of scenario design to leave the PC's dad alone.

I'm surprised this is such a bone of contention with some posters.

 

[pemerton]

This last bit is exactly what I'm getting at - in both the examples above the character believes he/she is something (upright; stalwart) and then learns something new either about him/herself or about something that shaped him/her; and then has to deal with the feelings of shame or disappointment that follow.

How is this bad?

<snip>

there's likely* going to be some serious remorse, possibly even leading to a change of career (in-game, change of class or alignment). Tons of stuff there to mine for both role-playing the character and furthering the campaign!

If the GM is just going to stipulate all this stuff, what is the player there for? To provide some emotional language and the odd tear?

When I play a RPG I expect to be actually making decisions that matter. I'm not just there to emote my way though events the GM decides are taking place.

A sponsor's heel turn does not invalidate the players' contributions, though. How can it?[/qoute]Because it makes them pointless, or reveals them to have a completely different significance from what they appeared to - and in a context where the players had no control over that because the players had not choice but to take on the fetch quest (as that was the game the GM was offering).

The players/PCs found and returned the McGuffin, and developed their characters along the way and also wrote the story of that particular adventure

No. The GM wrote the story. It's a story about a group of patsies and suckers. Because the GM uniaterally decided it to be so.

This goes back to the contrast I have drawn upthread between a story (in the sense that films, novels etc have stories) and tactical or puzzle-solving choices.

 

[Maxperson]

It really seems like you're saying here that "the fluff" is actually a rule. If that's your belief, I'm confident you're in a pronounced minority in feeling that way, even among the group of players who like to hew closely to PHB defaults.

It is a rule, but it's easier and more often changed than other rules. Here's the fluff for a cleric, "Divine magic, as the name suggests, is the power of the gods, flowing from them into the world. Clerics
are conduits for that power, manifesting it as miraculous effects." Unless the DM changes it, that is what a cleric is. A divine caster who is a conduit for the power of his god. That's as strong as any rule in the book. Sometimes fluff is less restrictive and gives you options, like some rules are less restrictive than others and give you options.

Rules do not have to be mechanical in nature. Over the years it seems like a lot of people have forgotten that fact. They argue as if unless something is mechanical in nature, it can't be a rule.

 

[TwoSix]

Rules do not have to be mechanical in nature. Over the years it seems like a lot of people have forgotten that fact. They argue as if unless something is mechanical in nature, it can't be a rule.

Semantic arguments are pointless and dumb, so I won't continue on this point, but in the context of D&D, I don't agree with this.

 

[Maxperson]

How do you know - did you poll them?

3E allows clerics who don't serve gods. Eberron has clerics whose service to gods is much closer to the 3E PHB's adherence to a philosophy. That's not a change - it's a manner of implementation.

Why would I have to poll anyone? The rules say they do. It says that every reasonably well known god has clerics. It goes to say that some, not many, not most, not all, but only some, can be clerics of things like an ideal. That makes the vast majority of 3e clerics, clerics of a god per RAW. It's in the Religion section on page 30.

 

[Maxperson]

No, they really, really weren't. Heck the default pantheon was Greyhawk and Greyhawk dieties are not close and personal. Greyhawk never had a "Time of Troubles". The gods never walked the earth. (or Oerth as the case might be). Some mortals managed to get themselves promoted to the pantheon - Vecna for example - but, the gods in Greyhawk were almost never close and personal.

Other than up close and personally handing out spells to high level clerics you mean. They don't have to walk the planet to be up close and personal.

Could they be? Sure, they could. But, it wasn't necessary. Nor was it necessary for a cleric to follow a single god or a god at all, depending on edition. From 2e forward, clerics weren't required to follow a god. Here's what the 2e PHB says about clerics and their gods:

It doesn't matter if an individual PC/NPC could avoid having a god. I'm talking about how gods behaved in an edition GENERALLY.

Note that. Any idea that a cleric MUST serve a god or anything like that ignores the basic flavor text in 2e. So, can we please, please drop this idea that clerics must serve a god?

Sure! I can drop an idea that I never put forward. Though in 5e they have to serve a god unless the DM changes things. Pretty sure 1e was like that, too.