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="Aldarc" data-source="post: 7509189" data-attributes="member: 5142"><p>You are mistunderstanding what construes an assumption. It's not an assumption to raise the possibility that the DM and player may not be on the same page regarding the PC's deity/patron/oath when initiating play and that this can only become obvious later into play. An actual error of assumption in this case would be assuming that the DM and player are on the same page when play begins. And my comment was directed towards this egregious assumption. </p><p></p><p>To answer your begged question, I would say "yes" in the sense that it's obviously both. And here we may also point out the obvious that the PC by virtue of participating in play is also an aspect of the "DM's world." Nevertheless, players often tacitly mold the DM's world. When the player establishes as part of their backstory "my character was raised by his blacksmith mother in the town of Heretown," the player has now dictated something about the "DM's world." Heretown may or may not have existed before the player created their backstory, so this too may have been created for play. The character's mother exists in Heretown, and there is a smithy there where she works. Though this may remain subject to DM approval, the player has effectively dictated an aspect of their character and the world that the DM facilitates. </p><p></p><p>I hope you don't mind me cutting the rest, but given how the rest of your paragraph follows from this gross misreading or mischaracterization, then it may be best to nip this at the bud. So let us first go back to what I said, and I will do my best to clarify my position better for you. And hopefully then you can respond in a manner that better respects what was actually communicated. </p><p>I am not suggesting here that the hypothetical player here wants to engage in one-man theater. I am arguing here that the hypothetical cleric or warlock are people who want to explore engaging the world and their themes through a particular lens. </p><p></p><p>Let us take, for example, a cleric. The cleric has faith, tenents, and likely a code. The cleric can explore their faith without the deity ever once showing up into play or the DM even dangling that possibility. The idea that a deity must or should show up in order for an adherent or priest to explore their faith strikes me as offensive and non-sensical from any real life sensibilities. In many respects it is the default position of the human perspective. Gods in D&D can be real and embodied (e.g., Forgotten Realms), but this is not always the case (e.g., the Sovereign Host in Eberron). And likewise from within the worldview of many religious adherents, the supernatural elements that constitute their faith (e.g., God, gods, spirits, etc.) likewise are regarded as real. And I believe that players, in my case at least, often do prefer playing from this human perspective over against one in which the deity exists as an NPC who exists as the DM's sockpuppet and for the sake of the DM's desire to "control all the things." As a frequent cleric player, I am often completely uninterested, if not turned-off, by the DM using my character's deity as an NPC for micromanaging my character. </p><p></p><p>Recently I had been playing a dwarf cleric of the forge in a campaign coming to a close. The DM has been entirely hands off with my deity. I established the fiction of the deity from scratch. I created a dwarf creator deity, loosely based on Moradin, who had male and female aspects: a male aspect of labor, crafting, and commerce (weapon: hammer) and a female aspect of agriculture, family, and brewing (weapon: sickle). I established my character concept as essentially a revolutionary pro-labor, socialist, Communist dwarven priest. Exploring my character's faith is built into the themes of the campaign and how my character with their particular religious ethos engages the adventure setting. My character and his barbarian sister (another PC) immigrated to a frontier "new world" colony across the ocean that also serves as a penal colony. My character has been engaging this setting from the perspective of their faith. How should a pro-labor and anti-slavery priest feel or respond to issues surrounding the penal colony? How might a revolutionary, heretic priest make a fresh start for his cult in this New World? What are objectives that a pro-labor priest might want to achieve to improve the conditions for working class laborers in this colony? </p><p></p><p>The idea that I am therefore somehow playing "lone theater" or that I am incapable of having other players/the DM see my decision-making process or the influence of my faith is not only downright insulting but also contradicted by actual play experiences. Just because my deity is "absent" or removed-from-play as the DM's plaything does not mean that my character and their faith exists in some sort of vacuum. It engages the world. My character's ethos and faith has been the most well-defined, grounded, and consensually understood among the group. It has made my character a moral beacon and pillar for the group. My faith has vocally informed many important decisions that my character has made. If the DM wants to explore my faith, they do not reach their hand up the deity as a sockpuppet; they establish human situations and scenarios for my character to engage. I am not running amok and abusing power without any responsibilites; those responsibilities are accumulating. And I wanted to engage those responsibilities as part of how I envision the character. I have established contacts, begun reforming prisoners, laid the groundwork for coordinating the guilds, and laying the foundations for a chapel and future temple. </p><p></p><p>This is similarly what I have in mind in my above paragraph. A player character is more than capable of exploring their religious devotion or arcane patronage without requiring the in-game intercession of the NPC or the DM's control thereof. </p><p></p><p>This is an incredibly broad question, and one that has been discussed before numerous times already. Given the broadness of your question, it may be more conducive for discussion for you to consider and answer why you might believe that would be the case. I am asking you to extend yourself out of your own comfort zone and preferences for a second. Scary, I know. Why might others who are not you or your group feel, think, or believe that based upon their own experiences in play? Are there circumstances that you can consider where the DM's play of a backstory-related NPC could encroach, tread, or impair a player's PC concept? </p><p></p><p>I believe that it can, and often does, apply to other NPCs the PCs have established backstory connections. We have been discussing the issue primarily in terms of the warlock and their patron (and the similar cleric/deity relation), but the issue has also been raised in terms of other backstory-pertinent NPCs that a player may want "backgrounded" for their character (e.g., family, animal companions, etc.) to varying degrees.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Aldarc, post: 7509189, member: 5142"] You are mistunderstanding what construes an assumption. It's not an assumption to raise the possibility that the DM and player may not be on the same page regarding the PC's deity/patron/oath when initiating play and that this can only become obvious later into play. An actual error of assumption in this case would be assuming that the DM and player are on the same page when play begins. And my comment was directed towards this egregious assumption. To answer your begged question, I would say "yes" in the sense that it's obviously both. And here we may also point out the obvious that the PC by virtue of participating in play is also an aspect of the "DM's world." Nevertheless, players often tacitly mold the DM's world. When the player establishes as part of their backstory "my character was raised by his blacksmith mother in the town of Heretown," the player has now dictated something about the "DM's world." Heretown may or may not have existed before the player created their backstory, so this too may have been created for play. The character's mother exists in Heretown, and there is a smithy there where she works. Though this may remain subject to DM approval, the player has effectively dictated an aspect of their character and the world that the DM facilitates. I hope you don't mind me cutting the rest, but given how the rest of your paragraph follows from this gross misreading or mischaracterization, then it may be best to nip this at the bud. So let us first go back to what I said, and I will do my best to clarify my position better for you. And hopefully then you can respond in a manner that better respects what was actually communicated. I am not suggesting here that the hypothetical player here wants to engage in one-man theater. I am arguing here that the hypothetical cleric or warlock are people who want to explore engaging the world and their themes through a particular lens. Let us take, for example, a cleric. The cleric has faith, tenents, and likely a code. The cleric can explore their faith without the deity ever once showing up into play or the DM even dangling that possibility. The idea that a deity must or should show up in order for an adherent or priest to explore their faith strikes me as offensive and non-sensical from any real life sensibilities. In many respects it is the default position of the human perspective. Gods in D&D can be real and embodied (e.g., Forgotten Realms), but this is not always the case (e.g., the Sovereign Host in Eberron). And likewise from within the worldview of many religious adherents, the supernatural elements that constitute their faith (e.g., God, gods, spirits, etc.) likewise are regarded as real. And I believe that players, in my case at least, often do prefer playing from this human perspective over against one in which the deity exists as an NPC who exists as the DM's sockpuppet and for the sake of the DM's desire to "control all the things." As a frequent cleric player, I am often completely uninterested, if not turned-off, by the DM using my character's deity as an NPC for micromanaging my character. Recently I had been playing a dwarf cleric of the forge in a campaign coming to a close. The DM has been entirely hands off with my deity. I established the fiction of the deity from scratch. I created a dwarf creator deity, loosely based on Moradin, who had male and female aspects: a male aspect of labor, crafting, and commerce (weapon: hammer) and a female aspect of agriculture, family, and brewing (weapon: sickle). I established my character concept as essentially a revolutionary pro-labor, socialist, Communist dwarven priest. Exploring my character's faith is built into the themes of the campaign and how my character with their particular religious ethos engages the adventure setting. My character and his barbarian sister (another PC) immigrated to a frontier "new world" colony across the ocean that also serves as a penal colony. My character has been engaging this setting from the perspective of their faith. How should a pro-labor and anti-slavery priest feel or respond to issues surrounding the penal colony? How might a revolutionary, heretic priest make a fresh start for his cult in this New World? What are objectives that a pro-labor priest might want to achieve to improve the conditions for working class laborers in this colony? The idea that I am therefore somehow playing "lone theater" or that I am incapable of having other players/the DM see my decision-making process or the influence of my faith is not only downright insulting but also contradicted by actual play experiences. Just because my deity is "absent" or removed-from-play as the DM's plaything does not mean that my character and their faith exists in some sort of vacuum. It engages the world. My character's ethos and faith has been the most well-defined, grounded, and consensually understood among the group. It has made my character a moral beacon and pillar for the group. My faith has vocally informed many important decisions that my character has made. If the DM wants to explore my faith, they do not reach their hand up the deity as a sockpuppet; they establish human situations and scenarios for my character to engage. I am not running amok and abusing power without any responsibilites; those responsibilities are accumulating. And I wanted to engage those responsibilities as part of how I envision the character. I have established contacts, begun reforming prisoners, laid the groundwork for coordinating the guilds, and laying the foundations for a chapel and future temple. This is similarly what I have in mind in my above paragraph. A player character is more than capable of exploring their religious devotion or arcane patronage without requiring the in-game intercession of the NPC or the DM's control thereof. This is an incredibly broad question, and one that has been discussed before numerous times already. Given the broadness of your question, it may be more conducive for discussion for you to consider and answer why you might believe that would be the case. I am asking you to extend yourself out of your own comfort zone and preferences for a second. Scary, I know. Why might others who are not you or your group feel, think, or believe that based upon their own experiences in play? Are there circumstances that you can consider where the DM's play of a backstory-related NPC could encroach, tread, or impair a player's PC concept? I believe that it can, and often does, apply to other NPCs the PCs have established backstory connections. We have been discussing the issue primarily in terms of the warlock and their patron (and the similar cleric/deity relation), but the issue has also been raised in terms of other backstory-pertinent NPCs that a player may want "backgrounded" for their character (e.g., family, animal companions, etc.) to varying degrees. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What DM flaw has caused you to actually leave a game?
Top