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

On the Enterprise.

I was a bit curious about this, so, I did a bit of Wikipedia diving. Of the first three seasons of Next Generation, there are 74 episodes. Of those 74 episodes, 14 actually feature the Enterprise as anything other than just a background set - either the ship is threatened directly, taken over by aliens, or is somehow central to the plot of the episode. So, 14 out of 74 stories would be affected by Backgrounding the Enterprise. That means that 80% of the stories could be told.

A bit high, perhaps, but, really, considering that it's still a pretty small minority of stories, is that really all that unreasonable of the player? The DM still has 80% of the stories to work with. It's not like the DM suddenly cannot run the game. And the changes that I actually proposed - backgrounding a motorcycle, a single PC's Patron, a single PC's pet, are not going to impact a campaign to anywhere near that degree.
[MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION] seems to be arguing that any limitation on the DM is too much, but, do people really feel that's true? That a DM needs to not have any limitations placed upon the campaign by the players when at least one of the players would actively not enjoy that other 20%? How is this unreasonable?

Hussar said:

I run campaigns for my players.

Click to expand...

I used to run player-centric stuff. I'd work hard on a big setup for a PC, like a "Riker episode" on STTNG, only to never see that player again... or they'd miss the vital session or something. I found it exhausting. These days I run a status quo sandbox setting for whoever shows up. I get to run it several times a week if I want, with multiple PC groups, and it works much better, for me.

This kind of campaign still involves lots of Backgrounding though, probably more than in a player-centric game. As in Ben Robbins' West Marches, the town in my Greyhawk-type megadungeon Stonehell campaign is Backgrounded except for the talk with the Sage Dr Rosa that typically kicks off each session. As far as the PCs go, their entire Backgrounds get Backgrounded, since it is only what they do in play that matters. And I don't have thieves steal the tens of thousands of gp some PCs leave in town.

Hussar said:

So, the fact that your player has told you, in no uncertain terms, that they are not interested, and that this is unfun for them, doesn't matter? The most important thing is your setting? Setting fidelity?

We simply have different priorities.

Click to expand...

A few things. No, I'm not suddenly going to fill a village of 400 orcs with only adult males. It's complete and utter nonsense that there would be no elderly, females or children just because your paladin is in the group.

Second, if it's that big of a deal to you, don't go into a village of orcs. You are fully capable of making the decision not to go into a place where orc babies will be.

Third, the extent of this silliness extends far beyond orcs. If you walk into a city, there can be no urchins, because urchins are children who steal and do bad things. Oh no! They are small and innocent, except they aren't, except that they just need to survive. Oh, what will the paladin do!! There can never be anyone weak in the game, because then you might have to choose whether or not to defend them, or punish those who threaten them. Can't have any foes in the game, either. I'd be being a mean, nasty DM to make foes. You'd be forced by me to decide whether or not to be merciful to them according to your oath. We can't have any kings, mayors or anyone in a position of power in the world, either. Forcing you to decide whether or not to obey the laws created by the just authority would be too much!

None of those examples are any different than a child orc. All of them involve the DM creating a situation in the game world that runs smack dab into your oaths and causes you to make a decision based on those oaths.

Hussar said:

Heck, thinking about Doctor Who, that's a perfect example of Backgrounding. The Tardis always appears as a big blue box. Yet, other than as a sort of running gag, it is never made an issue in the story. It's background. The "realistic" reaction would be considerable curiousity or even panic if this big blue box appeared out of nowhere and plunked down where anyone can see it. Yet, no matter where the Doctor goes, the Tardis never causes a stir.

Why? Because the appearance of the Tardis has been put in a Background by the player. The player doesn't want to deal with it and isn't interested. So, it gets Backgrounded and poof, problem solved..

Click to expand...

The Tardis has a perception filter that causes itself not to be noticed by people. Did you really think that there wouldn't be an explanation for that?

http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Perception_filter

Kobold Boots said:

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.

Click to expand...

Here's the thing, the warlock flavor text establishes that the player has input as to how that relationship will play out:

Work with your DM to determine how big a part your pact will play in your character’s adventuring career.

Click to expand...

This right here implies that the player is establishing their expectations for play with the DM. That is not the DM dictating the terms of the pact and the patron to the player. That is most definitely space that suggests the possibility of "backgrounding" the pact. It seems like there would be a massive breach of the social contract if the DM reneged on that agreement of having it in the background.

Maxperson said:

The Tardis has a perception filter that causes itself not to be noticed by people. Did you really think that there wouldn't be an explanation for that?

http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Perception_filter

Click to expand...

Explanation for a Backgrounded Tardis is still a Backgrounded Tardis.

Aldarc said:

Here's the thing, the warlock flavor text establishes that the player has input as to how that relationship will play out:
This right here implies that the player is establishing their expectations for play with the DM. That is not the DM dictating the terms of the pact and the patron to the player. That is most definitely space that suggests the possibility of "backgrounding" the pact. It seems like there would be a massive breach of the social contract if the DM reneged on that agreement of having it in the background.

Click to expand...

If the DM agreed not to use the patron, then yes, using the patron would be bad form. The warlock as written, though, doesn't automatically involve such an agreement. If no agreement is hammered out in advance, it's not a breach for the DM to have the patron issue a task to the warlock.

Explanation for a Backgrounded Tardis is still a Backgrounded Tardis.

Click to expand...

If the PC has an in game ability that alters the pact, relationship or oath, like the Tardis does, I'd go with that.

Maxperson said:

If the DM agreed not to use the patron, then yes, using the patron would be bad form. The warlock as written, though, doesn't automatically involve such an agreement. If no agreement is hammered out in advance, it's not a breach for the DM to have the patron issue a task to the warlock.

Click to expand...

Hence our discussion of the Patron as a possible player-selected Background feature. Again, consent is key here.

If the PC has an in game ability that alters the pact, relationship or oath, like the Tardis does, I'd go with that.

Click to expand...

Here's the feature: the current campaign adventure path is irrelevant to the interests or even whims of the Patron.

S'mon said:

I don't have thieves steal the tens of thousands of gp some PCs leave in town.

Click to expand...

Right. The classic D&D approach of looting dungeons and saving up your gps to build a castle depends on an understanding of what's "onscreen" and what's purely implied or understood. Any given table might establish exactly what that is by a bit of give and take - eg if I join a group where the existing players have esetablished that they store their loot at a well-guarded temple then I leave my loot in my room in the pub I'm probably taking my chances! - but the game will break down if literally anything goes on the GM-side of play.

Kobold Boots said:

Whether or not the companion or the patron is a problem in any given circumstance is up to the DM alone, but it's certainly not going to be a good thing in every circumstance.

Click to expand...

5ekyu said:

You have now moved from " its background from the game" to its backgrounder when I want it to be. Your bear can still apparently be benefit in the woods (help in fights, track be scents etc) but when having that bear might be an impediment in town you get to cut away those deficits that would naturally as part of the setting get in your way.

<snip>

In our last dnd game, when we were attacked in caravan on the road the raiders killed the horses and when we abandoned those wagons we lost a lot of gear... man if only we had backgrounded our caravans against theft

Click to expand...

There are two things here.

(1) Why shouldn't an animal companion be a good thing in every circumstance? When are a fighter's hp not a good thing? When is a MU's spell slot not a good thing?

The game makes it clear that some class features are liabilities - a magic-user's spellbook is the most notorious example; a classic paladin's limitation on magic items owned is another. But nothing has ever suggested that a ranger's animal companion fits that description. The ranger in the first AD&D campaign I ever ran acquired a bear companion when she reached 10th level. It never occurred to me that the bear was meant to be a problem for her.

(2) Suppose the caravan was "backgrounded" against theft - how would that hurt the game? There are a million-and-one scenarios that can be played involving a caravan. You played one of them. If the caravan were backgrounded against theft, you'd play one of the other million.

I mean, there's a whole range of scenarios that are implicitly "backgrounded" at many tables - PCs don't get ambushed while urinating; captured PCs don't get raped; in FRPGs there are few encounters that bring the PCs (and thereby the players) into confrontation with the social realities of mediaeval life (I've never come across a published adventure that tackles in any serious way the infant mortality rates and life expectancy of the mediaeval peasantry). We don't deal with these things because no one finds the prospect appealing, and there's plenty of other stuff that can be dealt with. How is the sort of thing [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] is talking about any different?

Hussar said:

What are we actually losing here? It's not like this is a balance issue at all.

<snip>

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?

Click to expand...

Exactly this.

Kobold Boots said:

Well I suppose it comes down to wherever you are on the paradigm of story as an extension of rules and rules as the boundaries of story.

I'd say that in my experience what has happened is that a patron clearly provides class abilities to a warlock and a god clearly provides class abilities to a cleric etc. So long as the patron never directly acts on behalf of the character or never attempts to interact with the character, all is well. Rules is rules.

At the point where a patron actively provides or asks a character to take on a task there ends up being some give and take inside the narrative or story where the character becomes "favored" moreso than other folks with the same patron. It's an argument that makes sense on two levels.

1. Character is interacting with a supernatural being on some level. Once that happens there's a reason for it.
2. Character is a PC so of course he's got something going for him more than everyone else.

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.

Click to expand...

I don't know if I'm following this.

Your (2) is (if I'm understanding) the point that the PC will be a locus of protagonism because that's how a RPG works. OK.

Then (again, if I'm understanding) you're saying that, in the fiction, this makes the PC a "favoured" warlock/worshipper. The sort who will be asked to take on a task. And all this has to be managed by the GM.

Given that (2) is a necessary consequence of turning up to play a warlock or cleric in a RPG, you're saying that it's inherent in those classes that the GM has to decide how the PC is instructed/directed by the patron.

Why?

For instance - just to give one example - suppose I start the game from the premise that my (cleric or warlock) PC received a vision of XYZ from my patron, and I'm going to realise it! Now we have my PC as a "favoured" one but the GM didn't have to manage the backstory at all. The player came up with it!

That's how I started my Cortex+ Heroic Fantasy game: the players established some backstory to kick things off, which included visions/portents from the gods and spirits.

And lest anyone think it's foreign to D&D: the same thing has been part of my 4e game (in accordance with the advice in the DMG and PHB about player-authored "quests"). Is 5e so fragile it's going to break under this sort of pressure in a way that 4e (or Cortex+ or Burning Wheel or . . . ) won't? That seems pretty implausible to me.