There is this idea among some players that D&D is a competition, of which the only goal is to win, and gamesmanship is completely applicable. "Anything that gives my PC an advantage that is not specifically prohibited by the rules is fair game and necessary on my path to victory."
I don't know if you've read Gary Gygax's advice on "successful adventuring" in the closing pages of his PHB (before the Appendices). It contains advice on planning party composition, equipment load outs, spell load outs, magic item selection, all of which is oriented to "winning" (ie successfully exploring and looting the dungeon) and none of which pertains to "fluff" or characterisation or anything of that sort.
There is also advice on how to avoid being distracted or misled by the various lures and "tricks" the GM places in his/her dungeon.
I don't play D&D in that Gygaxian style, but there is certainly a long tradition of it: it was the original way of playing the game.
We all see these people, the people who believe the "DM should be completely neutral and just follow the rules" but completely miss the long hold rule (and most other stuff that's bad for them) that its the DM call and its final. It isn't a competition, players don't "beat" the DM.
But in Gygaxian play they do beat the GM's dungeon. And in this style of play the GM
should be neutral - once the dungeon is mapped out and stocked, the GM's role is to be a neutral arbiter (like a wargame referee - hence those early terms for GMs "referee" and "judge").
To reiterate, I don't play Gygaxian D&D, but I don't deny that it's a real thing. I do think that the tend in the modern game to shift the emphasis in respect of preparation from equipment and spell load out to mechanical minutiae of PC build complicates this sort of wargaming play, and makes it more prone to breaking, but that's really a separate point.
What I see here in some cases is players MC to gain a perceived advantage in a competition that doesn't exist against an enemy that isn't there.
In modern D&D (really beginning with Players' Options in the mid-to-late 90s, and consolidated with 3E)
all all PC building is apt to be aimed at gaining an advantage. Just like, in the classic game, choosing equipment and choosing spell load outs was assumed by Gygax to be aimed at gaining an advantage. It's part of how someone builds up their player-side resources to gives themselves the best chance at beating the challenges the game will confront them with.
No doubt back in 1978 there was someone who built a fighter PC wearing leather armour and wielding a shortsword because s/he thought it was cool, even though it was - in mechanical terms - quite suboptimal. Not everyone followed Gygax's advice. Likewise, today, I'm sure there are plenty of 5e players who choose PC build elements not because they think they are mechanically effective but because they like the "flavour" (what it means to like the flavour of a feat or a spell - which is primarily a mechanical rather than a story element - is a further question that I put to one side for the moment). But there are clearly many others who
don't choose in that way.
Choosing a multi-class option because it is mechanically effective doesn't seem to me any more or less outrageous than choosing for your fighter to use a longsword rather than a mace, or choosing for your MU to prepare spells in the morning rather than take the day off and go around with no spells prepped, or choosing for your thief to take the Mobility feat because it will help you set up your sneak attacks, or whatever else.
Technically the DM never "wins:"
That's because, even in Gygaxian play, the GM is a judge, not a competitor. But the GM in that sort of play can feel satisfaction if his/her tricks, mazes, etc cause trouble for or outwit the players!
if the DM kills them all the group has to start over (a loss for everyone)
In Gygaxian play this is not a loss for the GM. The GM doesn't lose because the players had to roll up new PCs.
if the DM miscalculates something and it results in a TPK the players say "What the hell was that?"
Again, you are making assumptions about approaches to play that don't hold good in all styles. In Gygaxian play there are conventions that govern creature placement in dungeons (the deeper the level, the more dangerous the monsters) - so if a GM departs widly and capriciously from those conventions, then the players can justly call it a killer dungeon. But if the GM builds a dungeon that conforms to the conventions, then a TPK is on the players - they should have scouted better, or tried to escape when they started losing, etc.
In my 4e game, there was a "TPK" at 3rd level when the PCs were defeated by a mechanically fair although deceptively framed encounter. That's a possible consequence of playing a game with wargame-style combat resolution. (I put "TPK" in inverted commas because, in fact, only 2 PCs died while the other 3 found themselves taken prisoner - zero hp in 4e doesn't have to mean literal death.)
The DM is the director and set manager of a improv theatre, the players are all actors and assistant directors.
That's one style of play - where everything ultimately is decided by the GM with other participants having the right to make suggestions. It's along way from how I prefer to play and GM, though.
How many times have you played and see the DM miss something that bad for your PC and you stepped in to remind the DM?
I can't remember in my own case, as I GM far more than I play. But me and my players do our best to remember all applicable modifiers. When we're playing Cortex+, for instance, players will remind me to include their stress dice in my pools if I've forgotten to do so.
There's a significant difference, in my view, between playing hard and pushing for advantage to the extent that the rules of the game permit, and cheating or deception.
Like I said I would allow and break MC rules for an MC idea as long as you have a good backstory and good idea on how it all fits together.
<snip>
The biggest problem I had was the Player is "in" on the PC deception, he knew from the beginning his PC was being deceived and tricked and used that to get the MC he wanted without any repercussions of course. To me that's like starting off as a Paladin and just planning your downfall without consulting your DM just so you can get into the Oathbreaker oath, which is DM controlled: "At the DM's discretion, an impenitent paladin might be forced to abandon this class and adopt another, or perhaps to take the Oathbreaker paladin option that appears in the Dungeon Master's Guide." It seems to me the DM needs to be in on that from the very beginning, starting with "I want to try out the Oathbreaker option, what are the ideas that fit into the campaign so we can make this work for everyone."
As I said, I find the approach of the GM opening up or closing off options because s/he likes or doesn't like the player's idea unappealing.
If the option is mechanically broken - an error in the game design - then the group should be able to agree not to go there regardless of the quality of any backstory. And if the option is not mechanically broken, then a player is entitled to choose it like any other option even if s/he is not very imaginative in relation to PC backstory.
As far as [MENTION=6799649]Arial Black[/MENTION]'s idea is concerned, I didn't see any issues with it and I don't understand your complaint. If it would be fine if the GM invented it, why is it suddenly a problem because the player invented it?
he did say Odin is not omniscient (that's not true, there is no rule that explicitly states that, its up to the DM) and of course he KNOWS that Odin doesn't know anything about this particular relationship (how would the player know that to be true?, Its also up the DM.) He is forcing these ideas on the DM to create a PC.
You don't think that's limiting on how the DM presents Odin?
When players play devout characters - in D&D that's mostly clerics and paladins - I assume that they are capable of taking the lead on what the god is about, what it means to be faithful or unfaithful, etc. If I have my own ideas I met inject them with due care, but I've got enough to think about when running a game without also managing a player's implementation of his/her PC's religous conscience.
The biggest DM problem in a general sense is Omniscience. If some being is omniscient then in a sense the DM is always metagaming the players, which probably isn't good for the table. It also rules out even a god-like being every being able to get one over on that god.
In the instant case this could be resolved by Odin knowing what is going on, allowing it to continue, then showing himself to the PC and telling the PC exactly what is being done to them and by whom. To me this presents the PC with a choice of
1. going along with it, so keep advancing in Warlock class but cutting off Paladin class:
2. rejection and revenge against the patron but not siding with the real Odin (for tricking the PC.)
<snip>
3. or a new path with the actual Odin using 2 above or some other idea.
Or there is the even easier option, which Arial Black already suggested, of assuming that Odin doesn't know that this would-be worshipper is being tricked. I'm missing the reason not to go along with the player's idea for his/her PC.
you are definitely being disingenuous if you really want to claim that his core backstory as presented <snippage> was "forcing" the DM to present Odin in a particular way. And even if it was, it certainly was not forcing the presentation of Odin that you originally claimed in your post that I was responding to.
As per my long-ish post a few pages upthread, I want to push a bit on this.
The idea that the GM gets to decide everything about the gods, in the context of a game which allows players to play PCs whose powers, and whole raisons d'etre, are all about their connections to those gods, is a recipe for railroading, conflict, and mediocre RPGing. It's a recipe for the player of those PCs being about either guessing what the GM thinks about the god, or spending your time trying to find out what the GM thinks about the god and then according with that.
What a sucky game!
I think Paladins are very good and great fun to play with the right DM. By right I mean enforces your Oath and alignment and pushes you into moral dilemmas for which you need to find creative solutions for or are stripped of powers and forced to quest to atone for ( a personal dangerous adventure.)
Any DM who sees the word 'paladin' on a character sheet who is then triggered to do their utmost to try and strip their RAW abilities away is showing themselves to be the wrong DM!
Paladins are my favourite archetype in FRPGing. Of the last six characters I've played, five have been paladins (in thematic terms: mechanical implementation has varied depending on system).
In my past 20 years of GMing, I've also had paladin PCs in the party for 15+ years (again, mechanical implementation varying with system).
As a GM I have zero interest in telling a player how to run his/her PC. If the player has chosen to play a devout holy warrior, I assume that s/he has some conception of what that means, and will play accordingly. I will certainly present thematic challenges for that PC (
here's an example of what I mean by that), just as I will for all the PCs - that's my job in the sort of games I GM - but the paladin isn't in any sort of special place here.
My response to the idea that playing a paladin means having to guess the "creative solution" that accords with the GM's moral sensibilities is prety similar to Arial Black's - I would run a mile from that game.
How this fits into what I'm saying; first, cooperation is best, no-one disagrees with that.
Second, sure the DM can say "you feel angry". But I, the player of that PC, can say "Actually, I was expecting this so I don't feel angry, but I'll pretend to, just to let him think he's riled me".
Or, I can go with it.
It's up to me.
What I'm saying is that I don't see that the player should be able to unilaterally veto that any more than s/he can unilaterally veto the GM saying "You're cut and bleeding from being stabbed by a goblin".
Of course it depends on the system details, but eg in 4e a PC can take psychic damage which reflects emotional stress. In Marvel Heroic RP/Cortex+ Heroic, a PC can suffer emotional or mental stress or trauma and doesn't get to unilaterally veto it.
If PCs only ever suffer emotionally when a player decides so, I think this cuts off story possibilities. There may be particular RPGs where that's OK, though they're probably not going to be my favourites: so even moreso I don't think it's any sort of general principle for good RPGing.
