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

[Aldarc]

ROTFLMAO. Dude, it's very, very likely that I'm older than you.

This has nothing to do with age or entitlement. Note, even in the Leomund's Chest example, in the 5e example, there is no chance of the chest being found. Now, you do have to renew it every 60 days, but, that's hardly a big deal is it?

"The Age of Entitlement," when people dare to challenge the DM's own entitlement issues.

 

[Sadras]

If you belong to an order/organisation you tend to have obligations which may result in conflict if one party disagrees with another. And we see this all the time in movies and series and this proves to be a major source of entertainment. How many cop/detective shows have we seen where they take issue with the decisions/requests of their senior officers/captains?
Tyrion had a wonderful role in balancing his duties as hand of the king to his ruthless nephew king while attempting to steer the city in a positive direction.

The DM's job is in a sense to provide the entertainment and one way of doing this is raising areas of possible conflict. Can it be done badly? Sure. No doubt there are very forceful DM's out there that do more harm than good, and they probably do so in many other aspects of the game not just this. But just because there are bad DM's does not necessarily make that style-of-play bad. Finally a DM needs to know their table/players.

The above ignores story now styled tables because that predominantly demands the players be the story-drivers which by default relieves much of the work taken on by story-driving DMs.

 

[Yunru]

DnD is a shared story, thus a condition for something being done is "will the players enjoy this/enjoy overcoming this?"
If the answer is no, don't include it.

 

[Sadras]

DnD is a shared story, thus a condition for something being done is "will the players enjoy this/enjoy overcoming this?"
If the answer is no, don't include it.

Pretty much, yes.
Presumably the players at Lanefan's table enjoy the hardship, like having to rebuild a spellbook that was destroyed due to an opponent's fireball.

 

[Hussar]

If you belong to an order/organisation you tend to have obligations which may result in conflict if one party disagrees with another. And we see this all the time in movies and series and this proves to be a major source of entertainment. How many cop/detective shows have we seen where they take issue with the decisions/requests of their senior officers/captains?
Tyrion had a wonderful role in balancing his duties as hand of the king to his ruthless nephew king while attempting to steer the city in a positive direction.

The DM's job is in a sense to provide the entertainment and one way of doing this is raising areas of possible conflict. Can it be done badly? Sure. No doubt there are very forceful DM's out there that do more harm than good, and they probably do so in many other aspects of the game not just this. But just because there are bad DM's does not necessarily make that style-of-play bad. Finally a DM needs to know their table/players.

The above ignores story now styled tables because that predominantly demands the players be the story-drivers which by default relieves much of the work taken on by story-driving DMs.

Oh, I totally agree. Personally, I wouldn't background these relationships. I think they're great. And, I have no real problems with a DM who uses them. That's fine.

But, again, we're talking about a player who has specifically said they don't want this. They've made it very clear that this is not fun for them. To me, a good DM takes the preferences of his or players into account when designing and running adventures.

 

[5ekyu]

How can it be a "core thematic element" if the player whose motorcycle or whatever it is has said that s/he doesn't want it to be? Where did the GM get the power to unilaterally decide that something introduced into the game by a player is a core thematic element even though that player has said that it isn't?

If you have been paying attention, the sample case there would be a group playing a star trek game.

 

[Sadras]

But, again, we're talking about a player who has specifically said they don't want this. They've made it very clear that this is not fun for them. To me, a good DM takes the preferences of his or players into account when designing and running adventures.

If both DM and player agreed to it I'm in 100% agreement, otherwise what you have is a clash of playstyles. Where we might differ in opinion Hussar is that I very much believe the DM has more of a say-so at what is allowed at the table given that much of the workload falls on their shoulders (again not for story-now games).

In this white room discussion it sounds rather polarized, but in RL, discussions and compromises occur frequently between DMs and their tables, whether it be on character creation, off-topic backgrounds, house rules, settings, systems...etc

 

[5ekyu]

This is all just begging the question. I could equally say (and do say) that in thinking about my character's relationship to his/her deity, and whether s/he has a special task in mind for my cleric, I the player am the one who has to make all that stuff up. You are just assuming that because it invovles a deity it must involve the GM. The rules don't say that, and they don't even imply it.

And you skipped the bit that says that the cleric might have connections to a temple whose high priest might be in a position to demand the cleric's aid.

Here's the text again:

Most adventuring clerics maintain some connection to established temples and orders of their faiths. A temple
might ask for a cleric’s aid, or a high priest might be in a position to demand it.​

Who do you think decides whether or not the cleric maintains a connection to a temple? I assume it's the player - this is all about player-established backstory. If the PC has no connection to a temple, then there is no high priest in a position to demand aid.

And even if the high priest does demand something from the cleric, that's just a social encounter. The high priest might demand it from a fighter PC just as easily!

I thought you guys were talking about some stuff that was meant to be unique to the cleric, warlock and paladin - that stuff about the high priest is no different from what might happen with a fighter (captain of the guard), thief or wizard (guildmaster), barbarian (chieftain), etc.

Also, I found some interesting stuff about fighters on p 24 of the Basic PDF:

As you build your fighter, think about two related elements of your character’s background: Where did you get your combat training, and what set you apart from the mundane warriors around you? Were you particularly ruthless? Did you get extra help from a mentor, perhaps because of your exceptional dedication? What drove you to this training in the first place? A threat to your homeland, a thirst for revenge, or a need to prove yourself might all have been factors.​

So presumably it's a rule that a fighter must have been trained. It would be a houserule in 5e to allow a self-taught fighter along the line of Percival in the film Excalibur.

You might have enjoyed formal training in a noble’s army or in a local militia. Perhaps you trained in a war academy, learning strategy, tactics, and military history. Or you might be self-taught - unpolished but well tested. Did you take up the sword as a way to escape the limits of life on a farm, or are you following a proud family tradition? Where did you acquire your weapons and armor? They might have been military issue or family heirlooms, or perhaps you scrimped and saved for years to buy them.​

I'll leave it for others to resolve the "contradiction" between the paragraph that presupposes that a fighter received combat training and the one that allows for a fighter to be self-taught. But presumably this second paragraph makes it a rule that a fighter can't have forged his/her own arms and armour - because it says they must have been acquired! (Arguably it is also a rule that they were either military issue, family heirlooms or bought following years of scrimping and saving - so a fighter from a wealthy family who bought his/her gear with family money would be another "house rule" - but I'll let those who know better than me how to interpret these rules sort that one out.)

And here's the final interesting bit I noticed:

[A]s fighters, they all share an unparalleled mastery with weapons and armor, and a thorough knowledge of the skills of combat. And they are well acquainted with death, both meting it out and staring it defiantly in the face.​

So it seems to be against the rules for a fighter to never mete out death! This must be a "specific trumps general" exception to the rule on p 76 about "Knocking a Creature Out". (Again, how often a fighter must mete out death I'll leave for other interpreters to resolve.)

"Who do you think decides whether or not the cleric maintains a connection to a temple? "

Obviously, the character decides whether or not they maintain connection with the temple. Just like the NPCs at the temple and the divine can decide what they do if the cleric cuts ties.

"I thought you guys were talking about some stuff that was meant to be unique to the cleric, warlock and paladin - that stuff about the high priest is no different from what might happen with a fighter (captain of the guard), thief or wizard (guildmaster), barbarian (chieftain), etc."

You were mistaken. I mentioned the merchant guild or artisan guild example a ways back. This dialog on NPCs that come out of player choices for their pcs started with literally backstory parents iirc. The basic idea is if you do not want NPCs with ties to your character that the gm runs, dont make choices that introduce them. It got a little expanded with the broader obligations when pally got introduced. But the player might just choose to introduce those from many sources within the game, many do.

 

[5ekyu]

This is imposing a uniformity of vision and purpose which the game has never in fact exhibited.

At some tables Leomund's Secret Chest is a game device that a player uses in a back-and-forth with the GM about protecting stuff.

At some other tables Leomund's Secret Chest is a plot device used to create a veneer of ingame rationale for why stuff doesn't get stolen.

At yet some other tables it's taken for granted that stuff never gets stolen if it's been delivered safely to home base, and Leomund's Secret Chest doesn't come into play.

And that's before we consider what sort of stuff is even fair game to be stolen - eg in some games all that is at stake, as far as theft is concerned, is certain special items whose owners might be trying to recover them; while in others, apparently I have to park my motorcycle inside a Secret Chest or else the GM regards it as fair game for theft.

In my 4e game, as soon as my group found a Basket of Everlasting Provisions we gave up worrying about tracking food and water. It's provides a veneer of infiction explanation. There are other tables who didn't bother with the veneer, and so never looked at that item. And there are yet other tables which take tracking food and drink incrediby seriously, and treat the Basket as a signficant element in that part of their game. None of those tables is "breaking the rules" - part of the point of a game which is as widely played as D&D is to provide support for a range of approaches.

But the above is all orthogonal as to whether or not it is good GMing to treat as fair game some pedestrian, non-game-breaking thing which a player has expressly flagged s/he wishes not to be.

The fact that some tables dont use Leo chest to protect stuff doesn't mean that's not what it's for, what it does.

As for whether one player has the right to insist a change is made to the style of play the others have agreed to and if it's not allowed that should be considered dickish etc - that also will vary by table.

A player saying "I dont want this" or "i want this" may at a table be told ok or no or lots of other possibilities. It's not by any means guaranteed any request will be granted even if it's not "game breaking" as "game breaking" is but one metric.

At my tables, if you don't want NPCs with ties to your character, there will be a discussion. If you choose clerics, warlocks, guild members etc... it's an almost certain no.

But there are other tables.

 

[5ekyu]

Or d) as a player say "sod that" and do the other thing. Their character then refuses the Duty, using the 0th rule if necessary.

Yes the charscter CAN refuse. Then the npcs react to that as fits the situation. I am certainly as GM not going to compel the charscter out of the bounds of the game rules or the agreements with plsyers.

Heck, my general rule of thumb is to show at least one, two if possible, cases of positive to the character interactions before any negative ones are requested. Mostly I shoot for non-negative ones for almost all of them but ones which add a bit more to the scene.