Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What DM flaw has caused you to actually leave a game?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7508968" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>What does that have to do with any of the examples actually under discussion.</p><p></p><p>If I as a player say "I want to play a warlock" and the GM - like [MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION], according to many posts upthread - is perfectly happy for me to run a fighter instead, then <em>the GM doersn't want to run a game about patron's messing with their warlocks</em>. We're not discussing a game where the GM's pitch is "Let's play a game in which you're warlocks and I get to play your patrons who mess with you." The GM's desire to do that is entirely conditional on the player playing a warlock.</p><p></p><p>Mutatis mutandis for the motorcycle. </p><p></p><p>So I'm an asshat but you're just expressing reasonable preferences?</p><p></p><p>What is the "inconvenient consequences" of playing a warlock rather than a wizard? You're not getting a mechanical advantage. <em>I got my power from Cthulhu</em> is not inherently more powerful fiction than <em>I got my power from reading this ancient tome that I discovered</em>. Mutatis mutandis for clerics.</p><p></p><p>Why is the player of a warlock obliged to accept GM interference in PC backstory and the player of the character that the player of a fighter is not? How is that improving the RPG experience if the player doesn't want it? How is it hurting the experience of the GM not to do it?</p><p></p><p>I've never read any of your actual play posts - if you've got them I'm happy to follow some links - but I'm confident that the consequences in the games I run are as hard and engaging as any of those being posted about by you and others on this thread. The idea that a game can't have consequences unless the GM tells the player of the paladin "If you make the wrong choice about the orc babies, it's goodby powers" is silly. And if the idea is that the player <em>first asks the GM what the right answer to the orc babies is</em>, and <em>then</em> loses class powers if s/he does the opposite, combines lame consequences with railroading.</p><p></p><p>Roger E Moore wrote an article which displays some insight into this aspect of playing paladins way back in a Dragon article nearly 40 years ago (Dragon #51, July 1981):</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">Not all of the problems Paladin-players encounter in this area of whether killing is right or not are the player’s fault. Sometimes a DM will set up a situation in which, for example, the Lawful Goods have slain all the males of a tribe of Werewolves, and all that’s left are the females and young, who cower in the rocks and refuse to fight. Civilization is hundreds of miles away and no means exists at the moment to render the captives free of lycanthropy. If released, the young will grow up and terrorize the neighborhood again. If they are kept as captives, the party will be severely hampered</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">and may meet new monsters at any moment.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Killing the captives could well be the only alternative the Paladin is left with, yet if done the DM might say it was evil and remove the player’s alignment and status as a Paladin. A touchy situation, right? The DM should keep well in mind how he or she would react if placed in the same situation in the game, essentially trapped with no way out. It isn’t fair, and the players will know it and resent it. If captives must be slain, it should be done quickly, without torture, and with the assurance that there was no way to avoid it. . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">One Paladin in our group encountered a Dryad who tried to charm some of the players right after the group had rescued her from being ravished by a bunch of nasty, unwashed orcs. The Paladin punched the Dryad in the nose and she fled.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">While the group (and myself, who was the DM) was shocked by this, in retrospect it might have been a little strong but it was right. She had her life and a bloody nose to show for attempting to kidnap party members. By Lawful Good standards she could have done a lot worse. Though I had the Paladin chastised for this, I think now I shouldn’t have and should have let it stand (perhaps I should have congratulated him; he had a Vorpal Sword and might have used it, but that response would have been too strong and not good).</p><p></p><p>Consequences don't become less interesting or less significant because they are driven by a <em>player's</em> sincere conception of what his/her PC's oath, or allegiance, or pact, or whatever it is requires. In fact, in my experience they become more interesting and more significant, and the game changes from a puzzle-game to a genuine exercise in creating compelling fiction.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7508968, member: 42582"] What does that have to do with any of the examples actually under discussion. If I as a player say "I want to play a warlock" and the GM - like [MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION], according to many posts upthread - is perfectly happy for me to run a fighter instead, then [I]the GM doersn't want to run a game about patron's messing with their warlocks[/I]. We're not discussing a game where the GM's pitch is "Let's play a game in which you're warlocks and I get to play your patrons who mess with you." The GM's desire to do that is entirely conditional on the player playing a warlock. Mutatis mutandis for the motorcycle. So I'm an asshat but you're just expressing reasonable preferences? What is the "inconvenient consequences" of playing a warlock rather than a wizard? You're not getting a mechanical advantage. [I]I got my power from Cthulhu[/I] is not inherently more powerful fiction than [i]I got my power from reading this ancient tome that I discovered[/I]. Mutatis mutandis for clerics. Why is the player of a warlock obliged to accept GM interference in PC backstory and the player of the character that the player of a fighter is not? How is that improving the RPG experience if the player doesn't want it? How is it hurting the experience of the GM not to do it? I've never read any of your actual play posts - if you've got them I'm happy to follow some links - but I'm confident that the consequences in the games I run are as hard and engaging as any of those being posted about by you and others on this thread. The idea that a game can't have consequences unless the GM tells the player of the paladin "If you make the wrong choice about the orc babies, it's goodby powers" is silly. And if the idea is that the player [I]first asks the GM what the right answer to the orc babies is[/I], and [I]then[/I] loses class powers if s/he does the opposite, combines lame consequences with railroading. Roger E Moore wrote an article which displays some insight into this aspect of playing paladins way back in a Dragon article nearly 40 years ago (Dragon #51, July 1981): [indent]Not all of the problems Paladin-players encounter in this area of whether killing is right or not are the player’s fault. Sometimes a DM will set up a situation in which, for example, the Lawful Goods have slain all the males of a tribe of Werewolves, and all that’s left are the females and young, who cower in the rocks and refuse to fight. Civilization is hundreds of miles away and no means exists at the moment to render the captives free of lycanthropy. If released, the young will grow up and terrorize the neighborhood again. If they are kept as captives, the party will be severely hampered and may meet new monsters at any moment. Killing the captives could well be the only alternative the Paladin is left with, yet if done the DM might say it was evil and remove the player’s alignment and status as a Paladin. A touchy situation, right? The DM should keep well in mind how he or she would react if placed in the same situation in the game, essentially trapped with no way out. It isn’t fair, and the players will know it and resent it. If captives must be slain, it should be done quickly, without torture, and with the assurance that there was no way to avoid it. . . . One Paladin in our group encountered a Dryad who tried to charm some of the players right after the group had rescued her from being ravished by a bunch of nasty, unwashed orcs. The Paladin punched the Dryad in the nose and she fled. While the group (and myself, who was the DM) was shocked by this, in retrospect it might have been a little strong but it was right. She had her life and a bloody nose to show for attempting to kidnap party members. By Lawful Good standards she could have done a lot worse. Though I had the Paladin chastised for this, I think now I shouldn’t have and should have let it stand (perhaps I should have congratulated him; he had a Vorpal Sword and might have used it, but that response would have been too strong and not good).[/indent] Consequences don't become less interesting or less significant because they are driven by a [I]player's[/I] sincere conception of what his/her PC's oath, or allegiance, or pact, or whatever it is requires. In fact, in my experience they become more interesting and more significant, and the game changes from a puzzle-game to a genuine exercise in creating compelling fiction. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What DM flaw has caused you to actually leave a game?
Top