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

pemerton said:

And is this the answer - that it's all for the entertainment of the GM? Why can't the GM just tell him-/herself a story about a warlock who got bossed around by a patron, a paladin who did XYZ with some orc babies, etc. This sort of response actually makes me more sympathetic to [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s suggestion that we are talking about RPGing driven by the GM's ego.

Click to expand...

Wow. If that’s how you read my post, you need to read it again.

5ekyu said:

Again the false dichotomy

<snip>

we have found the game more enjoyable when choices have consequences

Click to expand...

Delberate irony? As if the only way a game can have consequences is if the GM says to the player of the paladin "Do X, or you'll lose your class power"?

I play games with consequences too. Burning Wheel is the most intense RPG I know - far more than any version of D&D. But it doesn't depend on the sort of approach to establishing a cleric or paladin PC's obligations that you are advocating in this thread.

pemerton said:

Delberate irony? As if the only way a game can have consequences is if the GM says to the player of the paladin "Do X, or you'll lose your class power"?

I play games with consequences too. Burning Wheel is the most intense RPG I know - far more than any version of D&D. But it doesn't depend on the sort of approach to establishing a cleric or paladin PC's obligations that you are advocating in this thread.

Click to expand...

You know, i normally try and give benefit of the doubt...

But you intentionally snipped the expression of the elements of dichotomy "Again the false dichotomy - juxtaposing player choices having consequences with Gms forcing something on someone against their will." and who,e sections that explained it in detail to basically falsify the juxtapositon in your posting... That seems deliberately and intentionally misleading and misrepresenting.

In repsponding to thie statement by you "How is RPGing better because the GM threatens to stop you playing a paladin, warlock or whatever - "consequences of the way you play your character" - unless you pursue XYZ side quest or barmaid rescue or whatever it is the GM decides would be fun." my responses were very much focused on the fact that there are other ways and these two are not what needs to happen.

Some of the parts you cut out show its not about forcing...

***

I do not force sworn and beholden patrons on players - i dont force faith and loyatly to gods on players - heck i rarely involved any sort of major direct god-related angles on players at all of any class... i am not all that much into the "pcs go up against gods" and "pcs save gods" type of storytelling. i cannot remember a case of divine intervention in one of my games - but the 80s are fairly blurry.

if a player doesn't want "god" or "church" or "oaths" or "patrons" or sworns or dogma or codes of conduct to be a facet of their characters - do not choose to have them be there by choosing cleric, warlock, Guild artisan, etc etc etc and reach an agreement with me that says they are.

As i said above, to me and my players, we have found the game more enjoyable when choices have consequences and the world is consistent enough that we can see them when appropriate.

***if this is what you bring to the discussion... that says a lot and informs a lot - so thanks!!!

Kobold Boots said:

Hussar's "force" means that the GM will force a player to do something to maintain his patron relationship and the powers that result from it. Our point of view is that a patron can not like something a character does and pull the power but the player still has free will to do what he or she wants when that situation comes up.

Click to expand...

Actually, my understanding of the warlock was that they are not sponsored like a cleric, but made a deal and got power.

Hence why some warlocks can work against their "patron". They got the power, the knowledge, the secrets that allow their class to operate.

So the patron can get pissed and send ninjas or something, but can't pull the plug so to speak.

I am fairly certain I read that somewhere, but don't remember.

Anyho...thats how it works imho, cause I dont like warlocks as clerics. (unless they take cleric levels of course).

Hussar said:

See, at the end of the day, I really have to ask, who is all this for? I mean, the other players probably don't care too much about my character's relationship with his patron. I obviously don't care (as an example. I would actually not background this, but, I'm using myself as an example) because I want to background this element. So, exactly who is this for?

"Mr. DM. I really liked that session, but, you know what would have really put it over the top? Orc babies!" said no player ever.

"Last night was pretty good, but, what would have really made it great was if we spent more time hiding the druid's allosaurus," again, said no player ever.

So, if it's not for the player of the character, and the rest of the group likely couldn't give two rat's petoots, all we're left with is the DM. Who, at the end of the day, is just doing it for him or herself. Because the DM certainly isn't doing it for the group.

Click to expand...

Not entirely. I mean the characters dont say it like your examples, but similar things have happened.

Fighter: "Dude, the pet anaconda might stand out a bit you think?"

Barbarian: "Yeah, let me think what we can do. Wiz, can you shrink animals?"

OR

"Okay Dirinian, you set fire to the left flank and the front rows, while our hired cavalry sweeps in from the back. Castamir, make sure there is an opening in the rear for the camp followers and children to escape."

SkidAce said:

Actually, my understanding of the warlock was that they are not sponsored like a cleric, but made a deal and got power.

Hence why some warlocks can work against their "patron". They got the power, the knowledge, the secrets that allow their class to operate.

So the patron can get pissed and send ninjas or something, but can't pull the plug so to speak.

Click to expand...

That may be, but if the whole patron thing is backgrounded, they can’t even send ninjas or do anything to exact retribution for having their power stolen or conned out of them.

billd91 said:

The DM is not your trained monkey. Are the player there just to entertain the DM and the other players? Nope. They’re there to entertain themselves too. So’s your DM.

Click to expand...

Seriously?

You're going to hate the game and not have fun because that one character doesn't have to deal with his or her patron? Really?

And note, if we go with the way [MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION] has described his games, if the player doesn't want to deal with the patron, that player should play another character. In which case you aren't going to get to play the patron anyway. If playing the patron doesn't really matter for the DM's enjoyment (since the DM is perfectly fine if the player plays a different character) then what difference does it make at the end of the day?

5ekyu said:

again you choose the posing it as if "I" and forcing something on the player...

The player first chooses to play in my game or not. i am pretty sure nobody gets chained down and held at gunpoint and i make dang sure the style of play is clear at the outset.

The player than chooses class (and race, and background, and gear and maybe companions etc etc etc etc) and with each of them come direct gains, sometimes direct losses and almost always indirect gains and losses. That player then (based on the style and transparency and our pre-game character discussions) expect to see benefits and drawbacks from those choices occur in play as is suitable for the setting and what we agreed to.

if any of those choices involve NPCs, then hey, that is just another part of our discussion pre-game.
if that choice involved patrons, churches, gods, guilds etc... again we reach agreement pre-game and you see it in play.

If we cannot reach agreement pre-game, i am not "forced" to say yes to the character and can say "no" (unless of course the table establishes different rules for character approval and Gm selection - in which case it might be me who steps aside as Gm and others take over.)

So, again, I do not as Gm force anything on the player.

In game, for the patron warlock or divine guy with god etc - if we agreed pre-game that the NPC had certain leverages to use, they can use them within the guidelines we established. if that means the patron can literally COMPEL or DOMINATE the character then sure that is an option - one both sides agreed to.

We could go over the same turf that we have already gone over but it boils down to the same point - as a basic premise we reach agreement or we go another way and really no "force" is applied.

Click to expand...

When the choices are, "Play the way I want to play or don't play that character", I'm going to say that that is the DM forcing things on the player. I dunno, I see things like having a discussion and reaching an agreement as compromise where both sides are happy. You certainly haven't presented any options other than "my way or the highway". Doesn't sound like there is much to discuss is there?

You're right that if we agreed pregame that the NPC had certain leverages to use, then it's perfectly fine if you, as DM, use those leverages. But, from what you're saying, there is no other option here. It's, "if you play this character you WILL have these leverages that I can use". My only other option is to play another character.

How is that not the DM forcing his preferences on the player?

SkidAce said:

Not entirely. I mean the characters dont say it like your examples, but similar things have happened.

Fighter: "Dude, the pet anaconda might stand out a bit you think?"

Barbarian: "Yeah, let me think what we can do. Wiz, can you shrink animals?"

OR

"Okay Dirinian, you set fire to the left flank and the front rows, while our hired cavalry sweeps in from the back. Castamir, make sure there is an opening in the rear for the camp followers and children to escape."

Click to expand...

And fair enough. But, again, at the end of the day, what changed? The animal companion is still hidden and fades into the background (not the mechanical version, just, not in the front of play) and those orc children escaped. And, after the third, fourth, tenth time, most groups are just going to take it as read anyway.

This is the point I keep coming back to. We already Background tons of stuff in play because it's not terribly interesting. How many groups actually, consistently, track spell components? How many groups worry about paying the monthly living expenses? So on and so forth. Sure, you might do it from time to time, but, realistically, it just fades back and becomes a non-issue. Do you seriously destroy a wizard's spell book every time he falls in water? Or gets fireballed or whatnot? Naw, you just take it as read and move on because it's too much of a PITA.

Here, we have examples that only really affect one player and the DM. The rest of the group couldn't likely give a toss about it. Do you seriously care how we hide the Druid's animal companion every single time?

The funny thing about this conversation is that some posters, like [MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION] are framing it as a powergaming thing. But, look at that warlock's patron. There's two sides to that. Sure, if you have an active patron, then the patron might ask the PC to do something. But, it also works the other way. There's times when the PC can and should be able to call upon his or her patron for help - be it information, or contacting other NPC's or whatnot.

By backgrounding, the player loses that side of things as well. Sure, the DM can't force behavior from the player, but, by the same token, the player cannot expect to get anything as well.

Hussar said:

And fair enough. But, again, at the end of the day, what changed? The animal companion is still hidden and fades into the background (not the mechanical version, just, not in the front of play) and those orc children escaped. And, after the third, fourth, tenth time, most groups are just going to take it as read anyway.

Click to expand...

Indeed, but notice.... they dealt with it in the foreground because it was a complication. They addressed it and maybe made it a standard operating procedure - but in fact, it's one that may be undone depending on circumstances. Suppose they end up in an anti-magic field (or willingly enter one), that hidden snake is an issue again. And by addressing the situation in a particular way, that snake may be something the PC can activate and bring back into the situation, if they leave it hidden in a barn somewhere, they wouldn't be able to do so.

Hussar said:

The funny thing about this conversation is that some posters, like [MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION] are framing it as a powergaming thing. But, look at that warlock's patron. There's two sides to that. Sure, if you have an active patron, then the patron might ask the PC to do something. But, it also works the other way. There's times when the PC can and should be able to call upon his or her patron for help - be it information, or contacting other NPC's or whatnot.

By backgrounding, the player loses that side of things as well. Sure, the DM can't force behavior from the player, but, by the same token, the player cannot expect to get anything as well.

Click to expand...

Except that's not what you're doing with things like the animal companion or the guy's motorcycle in the other game. In both cases, the player really wants to have them when they, they just don't want to have to deal with them. You get a lot of people talking about "meaningful choices" around here but only seem to want those to matter if the consequences are good - not if they're a PITA. I'm not going to run my games that way. If you choose to play with something that has complications, that choice will have meaning. Some of those you'll set on your own, some you won't.