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

[pemerton]

Yet in the Duchess example the fictional content you're trying to influence is the roleplaying of an NPC - which in theory is supposed to be GM territory.

Whose theory?

That's the whole point of my post, which is an elaboration of one aspect of what (I take it to be that) [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] is saying. Some people like to play a RPG in which the GM decides everything that happens except (perhaps, if there is no fudging of the combat rules) who gets beaten in fights. Others don't. And it's hardly a new idea. I already cited Classic Traveller which has rules which allow the players to declare actions which result in NPCs acting one way or another. Moldvay Basic also includes reaction rules, and examples of the players declaring actions which are intended - as mediated by those reaction rules - to determine the behaviour of NPCs (some hobgoblins).

Both Classic Traveller and Moldvay Basic also have morale rules, which are another set of mechanics for determining NPC behaviour.

do you agree or disagree that the roleplaying of NPCs is the purview of the GM?

As a general rule it is the purview of the GM in the same way that it is the purview of the GM to decide what a NPC does in combat.

But if a NPC is dead, the GM is bound by that. If a NPC is subject to a Suggestion spell, the GM is bound by that. If a NPC is persuaded by a PC, the GM is bound by that.

The whole function of mechanics is to constrain, and establish, the content of the shared fiction.

If the PCs want any hope of success beyond simple random chance they need to do both: get what info they can and then roleplay their interaction with the NPC(s) using that info where and how it best fits in order to sway the odds in their favour.

What do you mean by "the odds" here?

 

[pemerton]

I view the content generated by the PC (castles, guilds, divine warhorses) as powers and abilities only acquired at a certain level not the type of freedom your players enjoy at your table.

I'm not sure what you mean by "freeform". In this thread I can't tell whether you (and other posters) regard a player deciding the names, occupations, etc of his/her PC's parents as "freeform" or not.

I would have regarded my RPGing as pretty conventional, mostly playing pretty traditional systems, if it wasn't for threads like this. The idea that generating a particular response in a NPC, or sealing the Abyss, or helping to contribute to the campaign backstory by introducing stories about one's PC's past, is some sort of radical "freeform" is something I find odd. I mean, the Classic Traveller rules from 1977 talk about reaction rolls providing a guide to the players as well as the referee. There is no assumption in those rules that only the GM can establish shared fiction.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, other than the power to eject them at any point in time.

This is the power over the game, not the players.

Plus the power to dictate what classes/races/details of their characters they may take.

I am completely unable to do that. What I CAN do is dictate what classes and races are available in the game. The players decide whether or not to play in that game, so no, I cannot dictate that they must play X or Y.

Plus the power to dictate the entire world around their characters.

Again, this is power over the world, not the players. They have the power to voluntarily play in that sort of game or not.

But, other than that...

Erm is right. There is no power over the players at all.

 

[Maxperson]

This goes to the heart of your argument with @Aldarc. Where is this rule stated - that a player can't change the fiction?

No clue, because I never said that. The rules on how play are on Page 6 of the PHB. The specific rule I'm talking about is bolded below.

1. The DM describes the environment.

2. The players describe what they want to do.

3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions.

The DM, not the player is the one who can narrate of the results of actions. Unless of course you enact a house rule to share that ability.

 

[Maxperson]

I disagree, but this merely brings us around full circle, with you repeating the same false talking point as before.

Where's the problem if you are the DM?

Where's the problem as a player, since you as a player don't have to play in a game with a DM like that?

 

[Maxperson]

Yet that is exactly how the 5e Shield spell works:

Shield
1st-level abjuration
Casting Time: 1 reaction, which you take when you are hit by an attack or targeted by the magic missile spell

. . .

An invisible barrier of magical force appears and protects you. Until the start of your next turn, you have a +5 bonus to AC, including against the triggering attack, and you take no damage from magic missile.​

I'm talking about the play of this spell, not the possible workings of a hypothetical game that lacks interrupts.

Right. Targeted by magic missile, not damaged by magic missile. Once damage is narrated like you did in your example up thread, it's too late to use shield.

 

[Sadras]

I'm not sure what you mean by "freeform".

The freedom your players have to create/narrate content during play.

In this thread I can't tell whether you (and other posters) regard a player deciding the names, occupations, etc of his/her PC's parents as "freeform" or not.

Speaking for myself, the PCs create their own backstory content - names, occupations, parents, nemesis, organisations...etc
They might seek advice if they want to integrate their characters more into the setting but other than that its pretty much free reign. I encourage that. I might only step in if their idea conflicts with big picture.
What I do though is weave their backstory into the foreground - perhaps making it part of the main arc or a possible complication.

So one player wrote about 6+ pages about his parents, the enchanted shard they had hidden away, his relationship with his siblings and his early experiences with the shard's powers. Now I'm bringing his story to the fore, which is something the player desires and wants to be surprised - the truth about his parents and the secrets of the shard (rod of 7 parts).

Another player wrote how he was kidnapped, brainwashed and trained in the arts by a shadowy organisation until he managed to escape them. Once he returned to his family he was unrecognisable by them - essentially they mourned him twice (1st time when he was kidnapped and the second time when he returned and couldn't fit in).
I've just recently revealed that his best mate who was left behind in the organisation is actually now the leader of the Cult of the Dragon, Severin, who is seeking to bring Tiamat into the FR. Severin has found out that the PC has been a major thorn in the Cult's plans and has sought him out to offer him partnership within the organisation. Surprisingly the PC actually accepted.

A third is playing Priest of Kelemvor (Deity of the Dead) who is actually the soul of a deceased PC who has returned to hunt down an ex-character of the same player whose character went rogue and is attempting to resurrect a dead god, which is against the wishes of Kelemvor. The rest of the players (and characters) are unaware of this. So the player is looking at me to bring that story to the fore.

All they while the main story arc are two meshed 5e AP's with the characters' backgrounds weaving through them causing complications and forcing interesting decisions.

Just to add, two of my players have created off-screen moments, between adventures and the like by writing up character prose. I have never changed anything on those. Maybe my style is closer to yours than you or me might know since we don't get to experience each others' games properly.
But at the end of the day, my authority to say no to anything, is given to me by the players as they trust I would act in their best interests and the campaign.

 

[Hriston]

Doesn't change the fact that it's a house(table) rule to run it that way.

I think there's a difference between house rules and table rules. In fact, the DMG makes that distinction right at the beginning of the chapter in question. It defines table rules as "rules for how the game is played", and gives examples like what happens when a player misses a session or how to treat a cocked die. Another example of a table rule is what if "any special rules you've decided to use". Those "special rules" are what I would call house rules, i.e. actual changes to the rules of the game.

A table rule to make attack and damage rolls at the same time to speed up game-play isn't a change to the rules of the game because there's no rule that says you have to make those rolls at different times. There's a rule that you roll damage on a hit, which is satisfied by following the table rule, and if the attack is a miss, you can disregard the rolled damage. Since this is a DMG recommended table rule, presumably common elements of the game such as the shield spell are not meant to work any differently than they do without this table rule.

Table rules that say you cannot roll damage until you have rolled a hit, or that damage is applied and established in the fiction as a character damaging event as soon as it is rolled are also table rules.

 

[Maxperson]

I think there's a difference between house rules and table rules. In fact, the DMG makes that distinction right at the beginning of the chapter in question. It defines table rules as "rules for how the game is played", and gives examples like what happens when a player misses a session or how to treat a cocked die. Another example of a table rule is what if "any special rules you've decided to use". Those "special rules" are what I would call house rules, i.e. actual changes to the rules of the game.

It's just like saying Table Tennis instead of Ping Pong. It's a rule that is only for your game.

It does mention a rule about a cocked die as an example, but it also lists in that section "special rules the DM has decided to use." as an example. A special rule would be that humans have darkvision of 10 feet. Another example of a special rule would be if armor had durability and protected less and less as it degraded, eventually breaking.

A table rule to make attack and damage rolls at the same time to speed up game-play isn't a change to the rules of the game because there's no rule that says you have to make those rolls at different times.

It's a rule that doesn't exist in the game, though. That makes it a rule for your house/table and nobody else's.

 

[Hriston]

It's just like saying Table Tennis instead of Ping Pong. It's a rule that is only for your game.

I disagree. I think the distinction is more nuanced than that, as per my post.

It does mention a rule about a cocked die as an example, but it also lists in that section "special rules the DM has decided to use." as an example. A special rule would be that humans have darkvision of 10 feet. Another example of a special rule would be if armor had durability and protected less and less as it degraded, eventually breaking.

Right, I mentioned that in my post. Maybe I didn't express myself clearly, so I'll try again. The "special rules" mentioned are what's commonly called house rules, so a rule about which house rules we're using would be a table rule according to the DMG.

It's a rule that doesn't exist in the game, though. That makes it a rule for your house/table and nobody else's.

Yes, it's a table rule that's recommended by the DMG. The table rule that the rolls must be made sequentially to keep damage events from entering the fiction before reactions are used, however, is not recommended.