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

Hussar · Oct 12, 2018

Kobold Boots said:
/snip

So when certain things line up through the course of game play, you need the DM to be the one managing the patron relationship. Now it's entirely possible that any given DMs stories never get this convoluted, but it's happened to me in games where shared fiction and high player agency have been in play.

But, here's the rub. The player has told you that he or she is not interested in this. He or she does not want to deal with the patron in the game. Full stop. So, why is the DM then putting this in the game? It's not like contacting the patron would be player initiated. This would pretty much be entirely the DM's idea to put this in the game, considering that the player has already indicated that the player is not interested.

So, again, why is it being brought up? What's being gained here? Who is this being done for?

Kobold Boots · Oct 12, 2018

Hussar said:
But, here's the rub. The player has told you that he or she is not interested in this. He or she does not want to deal with the patron in the game. Full stop. So, why is the DM then putting this in the game? It's not like contacting the patron would be player initiated. This would pretty much be entirely the DM's idea to put this in the game, considering that the player has already indicated that the player is not interested.

So, again, why is it being brought up? What's being gained here? Who is this being done for?

The warlock has a patron as a class feature that the character is beholden to. If the player doesn’t want the relationship, don’t play a warlock. Them’s the rules. Paladins may or may not be the same.

Of course any table may alter that. I wouldn’t. Plenty of other options for folks that don’t want to bother.

5ekyu · Oct 12, 2018

billd91 said:
To a certain degree, there's a scale of shirking costs. A really mundane animal companion like a horse, dog, hawk, or even wolf are usually pretty compatible with settlements. Bears and wild cats are less so, but not that hard to have them lay low in a civilized area without causing a stir. But there's no way in hell I'm going to let a character put something really exotic on background.
"Oh, yeah, that's just my allosaurus. Don't mind him."
Shyeah, right.
Exotic screams complications. Don't want the complications? Don't invite them.

Exactly... Bear was not my choice... just the example put forth as backgrounded.

You get to the heart... Picking smaller companions like hawks, smaller cats or dogs has implicit benefits including that they are more acceptable in towns that are a trade off for the combat benefits for the big bears or wolves etc. Trade offs.

But if one can declare the bear in town off limits, hey why make trade offs?

Its seeming more and more obvious not that this is seen as abuse but intent.

5ekyu · Oct 12, 2018

Hussar said:
And that's totally fair. The Dm has done his part. He's made orc babies not an issue. Now, if the player chooses to make it an issue, that's on the player. The player has obviously changed his mind here. But, since it's up to the player, what's the problem? If the Paladin player doesn't want to deal with it, he lets them go and nothing more is said. And, implied here, that choice doesn't then bite him on the ass either.

Why not? Presuming there's no mechanical benefit from the companion (now allosaurus is a bit on the big side, so, I'm assuming a high level campaign), what difference does it make if the companion is backgrounded? Realistically, how much of a difference is it actually going to make in the game? Without Backgrounding, the player spends time ensuring that the allosaurus isn't a problem - maybe hiding it somewhere. Which is fine. But, after the fifteenth time that he has to hide his pet, it gets a tad repetitive.

What are we actually losing here? It's not like this is a balance issue at all. Having an Allosaurus, for example, is perfectly allowed by the 3e rules for druid companions. It's already balanced in the class which assumes that you are going to have a pet of a certain beefiness by a certain level - whether that's an upgraded basic pet or a new, more exotic one. I'm kinda failing to see the problem here. At the end of the day, it's going to wind up being exactly the same - the pet gets hidden and the group moves on because we don't want to waste the table's time futzing about with it every time they go into a town.

Yup, you got me [MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION]. It's all about power gaming despite example after example showing that it's not.

The player just wanted a cool bike. He liked the image. But, he didn't want to spend table time screwing around protecting it. So, we placed it in the background and off we go. Whoopee. He's got a motorcycle. Man, in a game with immortal vampires who can rip the side out of a tank, that's totally game breaking.

But, let's run with the Enterprise example. Say we're running an SF game where the PC's have a spaceship. But, the players don't want to futz about with the spaceship being the center of attention. It's just something they use to go from A to B and a base of operations. Kind of like how no one steals/takes over the Millenium Falcon. Or Luke's X-Wing. Or any number of other space ships that appear in SF serials. How is the game harmed by placing the Enterprise in the background?

The players are telling you, again, quite clearly, that they don't want the action of the campaign taking place on their spaceship. They want stuff to happen "out there". Away missions, exploration, that sort of thing. The Enterprise then just becomes a starting place for adventures, not the site of adventures itself - just like Luke's X-Wing or, really, the Millenium Falcon. Or, most of the time, the Tardis. While there are a few episodes of Doctor Who which focus on the Tardis, the vast majority don't. The Tardis is the starting place and the ending place. But, most of the time, it's not the locus of adventure. Would Doctor Who fail as a series if you replaced the episodes that focus on the Tardis as the locus of adventure?

Is this really too much of a limitation on a campaign? Are people really that incapable of building a Star Trek campaign that doesn't feature the Enterprise being taken over by aliens?

On the bear... As stated above, but to be clear you are not given a bear or trex you are given a choice. The choice means treade offs. Want the combat power of bear and TRex then those come with drawbacks including bear and trex reactions from npcs.

Just like rogues, barbarians, wizards get strengths and weaknesses, so do the companions. Allowing one to declare off limits the drawbacks is blowing the trade off.

Same with getting bikes for transport and then not wanting to take any in game expense to keep it safe.

And, again you drop to the fallacy of "is it game breaking" mockery. A lot of things are bad ideas that are not game breaking.

As for Star Trek, frankly, the ship takeover is a pretty core element. At what point does a player have the slightest iota of bringing in characters appropriate to the setting the group is going to play in as opposed to ones that force changes to the setting that hit pretty standard core elements?

Lets play Gilligans Island the rpg but not do those where they almost get off the island til Gilligan screws it up?

True story... One of my longest running players established he had an issue with captured scenarios. Ok, was no problem and he either worked harder to avoid the capture or got himself killed rather than captured almost always. The few times he got captured, i let his character bit be off screen.

When i started up Stargate d20 campaign, sst down with him and ssid i was not gonna invite him because getting captured and working thru it was not just a trope in SG but often it was the plan.

He was fine with that and joined the next non SG game.

Itvwas fine.

Its ok for some characters and some player preference to,not be acceptable in every campaign.

5ekyu · Oct 12, 2018

Hussar said:
But, here's the rub. The player has told you that he or she is not interested in this. He or she does not want to deal with the patron in the game. Full stop. So, why is the DM then putting this in the game? It's not like contacting the patron would be player initiated. This would pretty much be entirely the DM's idea to put this in the game, considering that the player has already indicated that the player is not interested.

So, again, why is it being brought up? What's being gained here? Who is this being done for?

In my case the answer to,the player is no.

This is not a case of gm agreeing to it then forcing it. Its a gm saying no at the outset. That its not suitable for this campaign.

Hussar · Oct 12, 2018

5ekyu said:
/snip

And, again you drop to the fallacy of "is it game breaking" mockery. A lot of things are bad ideas that are not game breaking.

It's not a fallacy. Nor is it mockery. And, frankly, I don't see it as anything close to a bad idea. But, more on that later.

/snip
True story... One of my longest running players established he had an issue with captured scenarios. Ok, was no problem and he either worked harder to avoid the capture or got himself killed rather than captured almost always. The few times he got captured, i let his character bit be off screen.

When i started up Stargate d20 campaign, sst down with him and ssid i was not gonna invite him because getting captured and working thru it was not just a trope in SG but often it was the plan.

He was fine with that and joined the next non SG game.

Itvwas fine.

Its ok for some characters and some player preference to,not be acceptable in every campaign.

Whereas me, telling a player, nope, sorry, my ideas are so important to me that your ideas and what you want don't matter and if you don't like it, there's the door, is probably the poorest kind of DMing out there. If you flat out know that your player hates capture scenarios, why on earth would you design a campaign deliberately using that?

The mind just boggles. I run campaigns for my players. Not, "Hey, would you like to come and experience my story? You don't get to actually have any input on what the story is, but, you get to play out whatever my idea is." No thank you.

Like I said earlier, it would be far, far easier for me just to hand you a blank character sheet and you tell me what you want me to play because obviously my ideas aren't welcome at the table. Or, rather, my ideas are welcome but, only so long as they don't conflict with yours. Yeah, no thanks. I'd much rather my players challenge me than passively wait while I roll up the plot wagon and spoon feed them whatever fan fic I want to play today.

I find it incredible that players actually put up with this sort of thing. It's our game, not your game, not my game. Which means that my ideas are just as valid as yours, regardless of who is sitting in the Big Daddy chair at the time. :erm:

5ekyu · Oct 12, 2018

pemerton said:
Some of the points being made in this thread are pretty surprising to me. They're completely at odds with my experiences of how RPGing works.

Even allowing for the badness of the example, this is just bizarre to me. The games I play that involve magic items have rules (express or implicit) for how items are awarded to PCs. The GM often has a strong mediating role in respect of that.

The rules also tell us what the typical bonuses are that are granted by a patron to a follower - namely, the class abilities!

The idea that the GM needs to police the role of the patron as a figure in the fiction so that players won't gift themselves benefits outside the rules is just bizarre in so many ways!

If I had a PC with a bike as core part of the character, I would expect to have the bike come under threat only in ways in which other core parts of PC identity come under threat. If - as per the approach [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] is suggesting - that is "never" than fine. In a more gritty game, it might be a result of a failed check.

But the idea that the GM would just decide the bike gets stolen is bizarre.

As far as bears are concerned, when the PCs in my 4e game were 1st level they tamed a bear. It wandered around with them for a session or two. I can't remember exactly what we did about it when the PCs arrived at a forester's steading, but I don't think it was that big a deal. It would be pretty crappy GMing, in my view, to undo ther players' success in taming the bear by having the NPCs kill it or refuse to let the PCs keep it with them or whatever.

And doubly so if it was a class feature that had been paid for with PC build resources.

There is a difference in the rules, yes. But what difference is it going to make to D&D to play it in the way I and [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] are descriing? How will it break the game? What happened to the purported modularity, flexibilkity, "rulings not rules" etc of 5e?

On patron policing - 5e the patron is provided in class description etc with relationships to be worked out between player and gm and ongoing obligations services etc. So, thats not a one sided affair. As GM i would not agree to tabling that.

As for the motorcycle, it should be as much a benefit or problem as befits the setting. Does the pc leave it alone in really bad neighborhoid because the player doesnt want to bother? Things might go bad.

Lets refer to another system that makes the distinction clear - HERO.

HERO allows a shield or jetskates to be bought at four different costs...

Free - some cases, picked up, rarely lasts.

Equipment - really cheap, on hand rarely lasts replaced by in game money. Cost like 80% reduced.

"Focus" - reduced cost - cost reduced 50% to 20% specifically depending 9n how often you get bit by its "item" natures, how often stolen, hard to replace etc.

FX - price full typically and essentially its just another super power and you almost completely ignore the "item" nature.

Key is, these hardships - ignoring them costs more. Losing the drawbacks costs. There is no "get suff for free with no drawbacks"

In 5e for instance, its more the heroic tier - items for free and acquisition but no "non-drawback".

Can 5e be played differently - sure.
You can allow rhe players to run three classes gestalts if you want.

But if you shpw upat a table and say you want to do that and get told no, might wanba look for better responses thst questioning the decency of the gm, questioning why they cant handle it, the flexibility etc.

Again, ay my tables lockboxing out reasonable trade offs of choices, defining sspects of choices like class or race etc get a no, an invite to try again or a suggestion to find a game where the setting is more in line with that.

I gave up on accepting any concept pc long ago. If you dont want scifi wirh ships captured, why are you lining up for a Star Trek game? If you dont want patron or god stuff, why are you wanting warlock or cleric.

Anyway, thats how i see it.

5ekyu · Oct 12, 2018

Hussar said:
It's not a fallacy. Nor is it mockery. And, frankly, I don't see it as anything close to a bad idea. But, more on that later.

Whereas me, telling a player, nope, sorry, my ideas are so important to me that your ideas and what you want don't matter and if you don't like it, there's the door, is probably the poorest kind of DMing out there. If you flat out know that your player hates capture scenarios, why on earth would you design a campaign deliberately using that?

The mind just boggles. I run campaigns for my players. Not, "Hey, would you like to come and experience my story? You don't get to actually have any input on what the story is, but, you get to play out whatever my idea is." No thank you.

Like I said earlier, it would be far, far easier for me just to hand you a blank character sheet and you tell me what you want me to play because obviously my ideas aren't welcome at the table. Or, rather, my ideas are welcome but, only so long as they don't conflict with yours. Yeah, no thanks. I'd much rather my players challenge me than passively wait while I roll up the plot wagon and spoon feed them whatever fan fic I want to play today.

I find it incredible that players actually put up with this sort of thing. It's our game, not your game, not my game. Which means that my ideas are just as valid as yours, regardless of who is sitting in the Big Daddy chair at the time.

Why did i run a stargate game? Because many of the players wanted it. All of us are adults and so we get that we dont have to only ever eat at places we all like. Some of us can go eat seafood while others sit it out. Some of us can go see horror movies while others take a pass. Some of use can play VtM while some take a pass. Some can play Stargate while others take a pass. Etc etc etc.

Don't know where we got the idea that groups of friends can share some interests, not others and pursue them independently.

But we did. Seems to have worked fine.

Then again, once we agree in a setting, genre, tone - we dont then show up with demands to cut core bits out of it and characters inappropriate for it.

Your mocking graphs about who's story and no say in it just shows a lot more about the underpinnings of your position, so keep it up, its very illuminating how you feel about a GM being allowed to say no.

billd91 · Oct 12, 2018

Hussar said:
The mind just boggles. I run campaigns for my players. Not, "Hey, would you like to come and experience my story? You don't get to actually have any input on what the story is, but, you get to play out whatever my idea is." No thank you.

I don’t just run games for my players. I run the games I want to run that they also want to play, and vice versa when one of them is GMing. If Rob or Stephen want to run a Vampire or Mechwarrior game and others want to play them, I’m OK with sitting out because I don’t want to play either of them. And we’re all fine with that. After all, why should someone feel obligated to either play or run a game they don’t want to play. And also, why should any one player have a veto over the whole group’s game choice when we can still be friends otherwise?

Hussar · Oct 12, 2018

billd91 said:
I don’t just run games for my players. I run the games I want to run that they also want to play, and vice versa when one of them is GMing. If Rob or Stephen want to run a Vampire or Mechwarrior game and others want to play them, I’m OK with sitting out because I don’t want to play either of them. And we’re all fine with that. After all, why should someone feel obligated to either play or run a game they don’t want to play. And also, why should any one player have a veto over the whole group’s game choice when we can still be friends otherwise?

Maybe because I don't get a lot of game time, so, telling one player, "nope, sorry, the rest of us want to play this, see you in about six months or a year when we're done" is a pretty dick move.

I mean, I only game once a week. I game with a group. If the group decides to play something and one player opts out, that p layer isn't gaming for a while. I'd much, MUCH rather that we all get to play rather than decide that my fun is more important than yours.

I dunno, that sounds like an incredibly dick move to me. Ejecting a player just because you want to play something else? Not really groovy in my book. For a one shot? Sure, ok, no worries. But for something as long as a campaign? Yeah, the group is more important to me than getting to play something that I know my friend hates.

See, that's where [MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION]'s seafood example fails. It's one thing to go to a movie or eat at a restaurant. That's one day. No harm no foul. But if you tell your friend that hates seafood, "Hey, we're going to eat at a seafood restaurant EVERY TIME we get together for the next 6 months to a year. " that's not a friend that I want.