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

5ekyu · Oct 12, 2018

Kobold Boots said:
That is language that manages the expectation that the player is not solely responsible for how the pact works. Whether it's interpreted your way or mine is largely dependent on the table and the people involved. In my games, the patron is important as it's the source of all the player's power. If the patron is benevolent then it may not impact the player much so long as the actions of the player align with the patron's needs. If the patron is evil, then you can expect the patron to be directly involved in how their power is used.

However, in my opinion, the wording suggests nothing other than the need to manage expectations to avoid arguments.

Thanks,
KB

Yup.. put simply the warlock comes with a patron and both player and gm need to discuss and agree on what that will entail. Neither is required to agree to the others terms, both can say no, and no warlock is created unless they reach agrerment.

much like say a negotiation and bargain between character and patron.

Funny thing that.

Nagol · Oct 12, 2018

pemerton said:
Right.

<snip>

I don't use this "Background" system - I've never encountered it as a formal device until [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] mentioned it in this thread. As I've been discussing with [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION], there is some stuff that is implicitly not to be understood as up for grabs as subject matter of play; but at my table this is all established through informal cues, not via a formal device.

But the idea that if the GM can't put pressure on the player of the warlock by having the patron boss the PC around then the player is getting a free ride is absolutely bizarre to me! Do those who think this not have any other ways they can imagine putting pressure on a warlock PC? What do they do when their players decide to play sorcerers instead?

To be fair, the Background system described requires the PC to be effectively "hands off" the element as well. So Background element of a factional membership/patronage/code of conduct could only remain on the Background so long as the PC is behaving in ways that are considered appropriate. A paladin of devotion can't go around burning down orphanages that were otherwise minding their own business; the player doesn't get a free pass from inappropriate behaviour. It's more of a "Don't ask; don't tell" situation. The DM won't bring situations into play specifically test adherence to the oath and the player will play generally compliant with the oath. A Warlock's patron might have him performing actions in downtime in the background, but the table won't be spending time on furthering the Great Old One's goals in the world.

5ekyu · Oct 12, 2018

pemerton said:
What system are you talking about?

In 4e the animal companions clearly are intended to be balanced. Likewise in 3.5, as best I can tell - tougher animal companions can't be got until higher levels.

Even AD&D and 3E (original version) put a level cap on Animal Companion, based on HD, which in AD&D at least is a pretty good proxy for toughness even if not a perfect one.

If I'm playing a ranger in a predominantly urban campaign it seems like I'm already sucking a bit. A GM who insists that all the townsfolk try and kill my bear, or won't talk to me because they're scared of my bear, or whatever, is just making me suck more! What happened to all the people who are intrigued by this guy with a tame bear? The real world is full of those sorts of people, so why not the gameworld?

Right.

I don't use this "Background" system - I've never encountered it as a formal device until [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] mentioned it in this thread. As I've been discussing with [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION], there is some stuff that is implicitly not to be understood as up for grabs as subject matter of play; but at my table this is all established through informal cues, not via a formal device.

But the idea that if the GM can't put pressure on the player of the warlock by having the patron boss the PC around then the player is getting a free ride is absolutely bizarre to me! Do those who think this not have any other ways they can imagine putting pressure on a warlock PC? What do they do when their players decide to play sorcerers instead?

And this is an instance of exactly what I mean. Is it really not possible for someone to play a warlock in your game without you treating that as an invitation to take radical control of that PC's story focus/direction? And as an invitation for the PC to be hosed in some fashion by a GM-controlled patron?

I mean, suppose the PCs meet at a tavern and get given quest X. Why can't the player decide My patron has sent me a vision that I should pursue X? Now the PC is serving the patron's will, but the player is not being told by the GM what his/he PC has to do.

I expect my players to signal, either explicitly (in some systems or if I call for it) or implicitly, what they think is at stake for their PCs. Having done that, why would I waste everyone's time on something else?

Eg a player establishes as the "kicker" for his Veiled Alliance PC in Dark Sun As I was about to meet my contact at the arena, he suddenly collapsed in front of me, dead! Well, then, I'm going to have something happen in response to that - why would I instead suddenly have a messenger turn up letting the PC know about a robbery at home?

The "Background" technique sounds like a weaker version of this - rather than signalling what the player wants, and thereby establishing a tight focus, it signals what the player doesn't want, thereby ensuring that at least the focus won't be on that. I'm absolutely astounded that it's such a big deal for so many posters. In terms of the thread topic, I could not play in a game where the GM regards the role of the players in contributing game focus as so unimportant.

I confess my 4e experiene is limited but every edition I played where the ranger got companions had a choice of companions and was able to choose within certain parameters. Those choices mattered so choices of BIG vs SMALL and commonplace vs unusual all had consequences.

Maybe your experience was different.

As for can some nods ne friendly and curious etc absolutrly.
As for fo all towns rush to kill the bear... of course not.
That's what involved in having nods who react as nods to events as opposed to having one set of reactions pre-ordained by kickboxing out the downsides of your choices.

In my ESO mmo, my wardens bear and sorcerer demon spawn are ignored by everyone until they attack. Same game my firestorms only affect hostiles and a few semi-hostiles so I get where some might see that as the way RPGs must work.

But it's not the style of rpg flavor built into 5e and while it certainly can be added, it's not a question of decency or fivkishness to decide "nope".

Maxperson · Oct 12, 2018

pemerton said:
And this is an instance of exactly what I mean. Is it really not possible for someone to play a warlock in your game without you treating that as an invitation to take radical control of that PC's story focus/direction? And as an invitation for the PC to be hosed in some fashion by a GM-controlled patron?

I've never hosed my players. They all understand that certain classes come with obligations which will occasionally(rarely really) come calling. They enjoy when it does, because they know that it's a part of their class and their choices.

I mean, suppose the PCs meet at a tavern and get given quest X. Why can't the player decide My patron has sent me a vision that I should pursue X? Now the PC is serving the patron's will, but the player is not being told by the GM what his/he PC has to do.

Players don't control NPCs. That's explicitly the DM's job. Now, if you play a non-standard D&D game where the DM gives up that ability, then the player can decide those things. It should be agreed upon before game play starts, though. The default is the standard method described in the PHB and DMG where the DM controls NPCs, including patrons.

5ekyu · Oct 12, 2018

pemerton said:
This thread is about "flaws that have/would cause(d) you to leave a game".

I think it's on topic for someone to say that a certain GMing approach has caused him/her to leave a game, or would do so if s/he encountered it.

You will maybe have noticed I have said repeatedly folks can say no. That includes walking away from a game.

But the idea that saying no brings your decency into question or makes you a sick is a wholly different topic than that.

If you font see that walking away from or choosing not to participate in is different from a personal attack on someone, not much I can do about that.

Aldarc · Oct 12, 2018

5ekyu said:
You are absolutely correct the gm and player work together to determine the nature of the patron and its obligations and neither gets to dictate those terms.

So, neither can unilaterally say "this is how that relationship must be" which is exactly what you get when both CAN say "no".

But if one saying "no" is subject to cries of dick, move, questions of their human decency etc... seems like one side of that collaboration is showing up in bad faith.

A GM cannot in any of the discussions so far force you to play a warlock with a patron you dont agree to. But apparently some feel the player should be able to force the gm to agree to one.

But as you have apparently already established that a GM can coerce a warlock with their patron regardless of the PC's consent or how this may contradict with what the player wants, it's difficult for me not to wonder how that is not a DM lacking respect for their players.

5ekyu · Oct 12, 2018

Maxperson said:
I've never hosed my players. They all understand that certain classes come with obligations which will occasionally(rarely really) come calling. They enjoy when it does, because they know that it's a part of their class and their choices.

Players don't control NPCs. That's explicitly the DM's job. Now, if you play a non-standard D&D game where the DM gives up that ability, then the player can decide those things. It should be agreed upon before game play starts, though. The default is the standard method described in the PHB and DMG where the DM controls NPCs, including patrons.

Yup.

A player can choose to create a PC with few of any ties to npcs, if that fits the agreed campaign style. Those choices would preclude clerics and warlocks and other types of choices just like honestly if their choice was to play a heavy armor great axe toting hulk they probably are opting out of rogue or wizard as primary class.

Barring of course the table agreeing to play games with different rules. Gazillions of tiles and systems out there.

Aldarc · Oct 12, 2018

Maxperson said:
Players don't control NPCs. That's explicitly the DM's job. Now, if you play a non-standard D&D game where the DM gives up that ability, then the player can decide those things. It should be agreed upon before game play starts, though. The default is the standard method described in the PHB and DMG where the DM controls NPCs, including patrons.

But what if - there are characters that exist in-world - that neither the GM nor the players control? And that's really where the whole concept of Backgrounding seems to come in. I don't think anyone is suggesting that the warlock PC is playing the NPC Patron, but, rather, that the player and GM are both essentially hands-off with the patron.

Aldarc · Oct 12, 2018

5ekyu said:
You will maybe have noticed I have said repeatedly folks can say no. That includes walking away from a game.

But the idea that saying no brings your decency into question or makes you a sick is a wholly different topic than that.

If you font see that walking away from or choosing not to participate in is different from a personal attack on someone, not much I can do about that.

When a player express to the DM that there are things that they would not like to deal with in the campaign with their characters and then the DM does it anyway in a manner that does not respect those requests? Yeah, sorry, I don't care how offended you get about it, but I would definitely say that calls the basic human decency of the DM into question.

Maxperson · Oct 12, 2018

Aldarc said:
But what if - there are characters that exist in-world - that neither the GM nor the players control?

There are millions of them. The vast majority of characters that exist in the game world are never encountered, and therefore never played by either the player or the DM.

And that's really where the whole concept of Backgrounding seems to come in. I don't think anyone is suggesting that the warlock PC is playing the NPC Patron, but, rather, that the player and GM are both essentially hands-off with the patron.

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] suggested just that in the post I responded to. He said, "Why can't the player decide My patron has sent me a vision that I should pursue X? Now the PC is serving the patron's will, but the player is not being told by the GM what his/he PC has to do.". If the DM isn't controlling the patron and sending the vision, then the player is the one controlling the patron and having that vision sent. It doesn't happen on its own.

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

5ekyu

Hero

Nagol

Unimportant

5ekyu

Hero

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

5ekyu

Hero

Aldarc

Legend

5ekyu

Hero

Aldarc

Legend

Aldarc

Legend

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Similar Threads