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

[5ekyu]

Again, I agree with you, but there's a history of bad DMs taking this too far. There was one small sidebar in Second Edition that talked about a god denying spells to a priest who wasn't acting in good faith, with a suggestion that you might pray for spells and wind up with only Cure spells in every slot, and some DMs took that as a suggestion to second-guess everything the character did.

When you actually are trying to play your character in good faith, and the DM takes away your powers because you make one decision that they disagree with, then the natural player response is to never play a divine spellcaster again. You never have to worry about that sort of thing when you're a wizard, after all. Or maybe you'll just quit playing entirely, if nothing you do matters and the DM is going to fiat take away your powers for no reason.

Edit: And if there was a rule that a god could never take powers away from their clerics, then even though that would place an unnecessary restriction on good DMs who weren't going to abuse that ability anyway, at least the rule would serve the purpose of preventing bad DMs from ruining the game for well-intentioned players. The only thing you need to worry about, then, is players who play in bad faith, and exploit the inability of the DM to directly punish the character for their transgressions.

i have commented in the past that IMO the keys to any relationship, especially ones as important as gods and patrons, is **no surprises** about what is expected. it seems obvious that the god, church and /or patron would have made clear to its chosen what is expected and what is forbidden and what is in between. The moral quandry tests should not be a blind choice where the player and character do not know the repercussions but instead be quandries of "if i do this, i know this will..."

Similarly, as one starts moving apart from one's obligations, there should (barring a very unusual relationship) be clues and nudges and omens or whatever provided that signal "you are going the wrong way" well before the hammer of god slams down.

IMO its a failing effort to try and handle by RULES bad gm abuses and bad player abuses because those are most often than not either inexperience issues or person-issues - neither of which can be helped by rules in any meaningful manner.

 

[Satyrn]

Just out of curiosity, I blocked 5ekyu to see how much shorter this thread would be without his contributions. I mean, it looks like half the posts are his.

Turns out it's just a tenth of them. Which means . . . I decimated this thread

 

[5ekyu]

I'm with you on this because I've run a "campaign" that lasted a long time using the HERO system.

Here's the rub there because it's the granddaddy of all point buy systems.

1. You buy something that is supposed to benefit you.
2. You might get points back for something that's a detriment.
3. As you get more points through experience you can buy off detriments or add new things.
4. If the GM decides to plot device something that's a benefit into a detriment - maybe your patron becomes an enemy - you get the points back and the patron becomes an enemy. Likewise if the reverse happens. you'll be assessed a points tax until its paid off.

I may be misunderstanding you, but I don't see point buy as a guarantee or direct implication that everything you do must stay the way you intend as a player. That point 4 is actually written into the HERO rules, though it may not be in all others.

Thanks,
KB

while i did not keep tabs on specifics... my bet is more hours of gaming have been spent by me in HERO systems than in any other - but the top contenders that are all very close are HERO (3-6), DnD (1-3. 5), Traveller (too many flavors to list) and VtM.

The reason i see the point buy approaches as more limiting than the non-buy options is that very accounting aspect you cite. If an enemy is convinced to turn friend or just that conflict ended the PLAYER then needs to rebalance his sheet and provide Xp (now or over time) to redress that deficit. By linking those developments into the accounting system, it hangs another hurdle on those occurring in play that can be problematic to some.

On the other hand, a non-point systems where friends, enemies etc are more a matter of story (or even the "pay-as-you-play - see below) let those things occur and evolve and grow naturally without any audit involved.

Some systems tried to address this by swapping out the "up front points" with "pay-for-play" where for instance when your enemy showed up and created an extra problem for you (beyond your normal day to day issues and crisis) you then were awarded points. this meant you as a player were encouraged to choose these "flaws" that you wanted to show up - the more they do, the more you get. Contrast to the point-up-front where the player is paid off at the beginning and then can do whatever they want to avoid that problem - they are actually best served by finding flaws that pay more but occur in a manner they can avoid.

Other systems for instance have taken this further, encouraging traits which go both ways. A trait which allows you to spend some resource to "engage it" for positive benefit but also allows the GM to trigger that trait "for problems" and that is how one reloads that resource.

an example of that would be "alliance with the mystic arcaneum" where one could spend a gimmick point for info or assistance with research or crafting but where they would call on you for help and if you did so its going to earn you more gimmick points. (there are of courses many more obscure types of these - devotions and causes and so on)

i found those approaches to be more versatile and rewarding to both player and GM and the game as a whole.

Even in HERo, your "positive paid for" contact was fine to occasionally be a "negative" - you paid for the overall result, not locking out anything specific.

Truthfully, that experience in the various point-buy and pay-for-play shape how i tend to view patrons and gods and other relationships even in the "no points" systems. Your relationship with your patron should be a back and forth sometimes boons sometimes banes with a net of either zero-sum or a nominal gain with overall the main thing being interesting and engaging.

 

[Manbearcat]

I'm actually running a 1e AD&D Forgotten Realms Play-By-Post (bulletin board) currently, and running the 2 NPC henchmen in the party, along with basically a GMPC (my PC ,who became an NPC when the first GM quit) and the two PCs. This is working really really well IMO, but the PBP format facilitates it - I can resolve NPC-NPC attack rolls, and post NPC-NPC conversation, much more viably in this asynchronous format than in a live game.

I would say that the NPC-NPC relationships become part of the challenge to the PCs, as well as resources to call on. Eg the henchmen (Shukura the serious-minded Cleric of Nephtyls, & Fulnok of Ferd, a rather egregious Thief) don't get along, which is a lot of fun to play out in this format.

That would drive me bonkers whether as player or GM!

In the AD&D game I referenced, I think I may have made the odd loyalty check, but I think loyalty was nearly always at or above 100% and so it didn't really matter.

Presumably if the GM is playing the henchmen then the loyalty system becomes less important?

Dungeon World handles this in two discrete ways:

1 - Companions (eg Ranger's Animal Companion) act as you (the player) wish them to, though their Instincts (weaknesses like Frightening, Savage, Stubborn) are fair game to be deployed as a complication on a move that 7-9 or 6-.

2 - Hirelings are GM characters. HOWEVER...they are (a) governed by clear resolution machinery (Cost, Loyalty, Skill) and (b) the resolution machinery interfaces with "say yes or roll the dice" (they're going to do what you ask unless you put them in a bad spot/ask them to do something well outside of their nature/specialty...then you make the Order Hireling - roll Loyalty - move to find out what happens).

For everyone else in the "GMs must have full fiat power over the gamestate as it relates to NPCs":

Forget 5e's defaults. What cost, on actual play and play aesthetic, would porting something like DW's system above (for NPCs that have particularly relevant relationships with PCs; companions, hirelings, perhaps even extraplanar sponsors) have on your 5e play?

 

[pemerton]

Buying a background does not mean that the patron is a player character. The obvious outcome being that the patron is a NPC, and NPCs are controlled by the DM.

<snip>

If you want a patron, but you don't want the patron to have its own agenda, then you want to play a mage.

I think this is very presecriptive. It may be the way you prefer to approch the game - which is fine - but you seem to be suggesting it's a norm that the typical 5e group should be adhering to. I don't see why. How is the game going to break, or the play experience going to suffer, at a table in which the player of the warlock is the one who decides what is required to maintain the relationship with the patron?

(I've just read [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s post upthread of this one. I think I'm asking a similar question.)

 

[Kobold Boots]

I think this is very presecriptive. It may be the way you prefer to approch the game - which is fine - but you seem to be suggesting it's a norm that the typical 5e group should be adhering to. I don't see why. How is the game going to break, or the play experience going to suffer, at a table in which the player of the warlock is the one who decides what is required to maintain the relationship with the patron?

(I've just read [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s post upthread of this one. I think I'm asking a similar question.)

Hi Pem -

Well you're right that it's prescriptive but it's also based on the concept of what a patron is when you take it away from the game and just use the term in real life. - A patron is someone that pays you, takes care of you, in exchange for your providing a service that you have the ability to provide. Examples of the Renaissance may be sculpture, art or smithing.

So when someone says to me, hey you've got a patron that gives you magical abilities.. then I'm well within my right to assume with a great deal of logic supporting me, that it's not a one-way relationship that only benefits that character, and by extension the player. To get what you're getting -- you're expected to pay the price -- hence warlock.

Do I think the average D&D group should be approaching it this way? Yes. Because the book actually uses terms like "master and apprentice" and "sworn and beholden" in the text describing the class.

Anyway, I think my position is well-supported, but as always if you're doing it the way that works for you, you're doing it right.

KB

 

[pemerton]

it's also based on the concept of what a patron is when you take it away from the game and just use the term in real life. - A patron is someone that pays you, takes care of you, in exchange for your providing a service that you have the ability to provide. Examples of the Renaissance may be sculpture, art or smithing.

So when someone says to me, hey you've got a patron that gives you magical abilities.. then I'm well within my right to assume with a great deal of logic supporting me, that it's not a one-way relationship that only benefits that character, and by extension the player. To get what you're getting -- you're expected to pay the price -- hence warlock.

But that doesn't quite respond to what I asked. I understand what a patron is. I asked how is the game going to break, or the play experience going to suffer, at a table in which the player of the warlock is the one who decides what is required to maintain the relationship with the patron?

 

[Lanefan]

Again, I agree with you, but there's a history of bad DMs taking this too far. There was one small sidebar in Second Edition that talked about a god denying spells to a priest who wasn't acting in good faith, with a suggestion that you might pray for spells and wind up with only Cure spells in every slot, and some DMs took that as a suggestion to second-guess everything the character did.

Don't forget that in 1e any character whose alignment drifted would get absolutely hammered if the DM was playing by the book; and so yes, the DM had to carefully track what the character did.

At least with Clerics there an in-the-fiction rationale for it.

Edit: And if there was a rule that a god could never take powers away from their clerics, then even though that would place an unnecessary restriction on good DMs who weren't going to abuse that ability anyway, at least the rule would serve the purpose of preventing bad DMs from ruining the game for well-intentioned players. The only thing you need to worry about, then, is players who play in bad faith, and exploit the inability of the DM to directly punish the character for their transgressions.

Depends.

If the gods are also occasionally going to provide divine intervention to bail out the Clerics (and their parties) from bad situations I see no problem with the gods - particularly the lawful and-or evil ones - occasionally using some force to keep their Clerics in line.

As for the whole backstory business: as DM I try not to drag PC backstories into the run of play too much, but if the player pulls it in I'll run with it. As a player I also prefer it this way - leave my backstory as simple fluff unless I pull it into play.

Example: I play a character who in her past did some time in the Hestian (Roman) legions, earning a decent record until some incidents led to a dishonourable discharge (lo-ong story). Most of the time that's all just fluff, but on the odd occasion when we actually deal with the Hestians I'll bring it into play, thus opening it up for the DM to do what he likes with it.

Also, while I don't mind players coming up with their own backstories for their PCs I draw the line at anything that would give the PC a material or mechanical advantage in play that it otherwise wouldn't have. Thus the example of the long player-written story leading to the PC being a duchess would be right out, as nobility carries significant material advantages (influence, recognition, potential wealth, etc.) that a typical low-level character wouldn't have.

That said, you can always random-roll your past profession/secondary skill on a table if you want: nobility is in there along with loads of other quite interesting options but the odds are long of hitting any given one, and you're stuck with what you get. Or you can choose from a list of a few dozen relatively mundane professions. This is all done during char-gen, and if you've writeen out your character background before even rolling it up you've wasted your time AFAIC.

 

[Kobold Boots]

But that doesn't quite respond to what I asked. I understand what a patron is. I asked how is the game going to break, or the play experience going to suffer, at a table in which the player of the warlock is the one who decides what is required to maintain the relationship with the patron?

Break and Suffer are qualitative. Neither are likely but both are possible regardless of who controls the patron.

If you have a player that controls the patron and doesn't build in suitable restrictions or consequences - then you're playing a mage with a supernatural friend that can be expected to have resources that the player will try to take advantage of - because they already did not build in suitable restrictions or consequences.

If you have a DM that controls the patron and doesn't give the player a clear set of rules to avoid consequences - then you've got a DM who is setting the player up to fail - because he or she has already shown that they're not going to do the work to ensure the character is viable.

Most relationships will end up in between these two extremes but it's always a good idea to separate the duties of player and DM along the expected lines and find the comfortable spot that works for both the DM and the player and not start with player enablement until the two of them feel each other out.

 

[Ristamar]

Break and Suffer are qualitative. Neither are likely but both are possible regardless of who controls the patron.

If you have a player that controls the patron and doesn't build in suitable restrictions or consequences - then you're playing a mage with a supernatural friend that can be expected to have resources that the player will try to take advantage of - because they already did not build in suitable restrictions or consequences.

If you have a DM that controls the patron and doesn't give the player a clear set of rules to avoid consequences - then you've got a DM who is setting the player up to fail - because he or she has already shown that they're not going to do the work to ensure the character is viable.

Most relationships will end up in between these two extremes but it's always a good idea to separate the duties of player and DM along the expected lines and find the comfortable spot that works for both the DM and the player and not start with player enablement until the two of them feel each other out.

Patron boons and burdens aside (as I think they're great for the fiction but irrelevant for D&D mechanics and balance), a big problem is the knowledge gap. A DM should have a clear understanding of the macro level methods and goals of the patron and how they apply to the world around the PC, both seen and unseen. It's very unlikely a player, even one that's highly invested in the fiction, will (or should) have access to those secrets, let alone be determining them, until such time the patron believes any revelations to be in its best interest.