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

[5ekyu]

You seem to be equating the player and the PC.

No one (as far as I'm aware) is saying that the PC decides what the patron wants.

I (at least, but maybe [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] is sympathetic?) am saying that, as a player and as a GM, I expect the player of a cleric or warlock or whatever to establish the requirements imposed by his/her god/patron/etc. I've never found this to be a problem: eg if a player wants to play an assassin or freebooter then they simply choose not to play a cleric of Bahamut (much as [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] suggested upthread).

Since the beginning of this leg of lockboxed/backgrounded patron-warlocks, I have said I would suggest they play another class of they did not want an npc relationship that mattered in game, that was a part of the game in play. So if the last bit is where the backgrounder crowd has reached now, we are in agreement.

But if the BGC is still at controlling both sides of the patron-warlock or god-cleric relationship/bargain/agreement or being able to dismiss it from the game, then the point about the disconnect from the rest of the world in-game still stands. Why do other warlocks and clerics end up with arrangements that fit the relationships described in the rules and setting and not necessarily ones totally dictated by one side of these milquetoasts hand out "nah, really whatever you want" deals on demand?

Like the races examples, its insisting that your character be exempt from the setting impacts of choices... which gets a no at my table.

 

[pemerton]

Since the beginning of this leg of lockboxed/backgrounded patron-warlocks, I have said I would suggest they play another class of they did not want an npc relationship that mattered in game, that was a part of the game in play. So if the last bit is where the backgrounder crowd has reached now, we are in agreement.

But if the BGC is still at controlling both sides of the patron-warlock or god-cleric relationship/bargain/agreement or being able to dismiss it from the game, then the point about the disconnect from the rest of the world in-game still stands. Why do other warlocks and clerics end up with arrangements that fit the relationships described in the rules and setting and not necessarily ones totally dictated by one side of these milquetoasts hand out "nah, really whatever you want" deals on demand?

Like the races examples, its insisting that your character be exempt from the setting impacts of choices... which gets a no at my table.

I don't know that I follow all this, and I'm not sure what "BGC" is.

But anyway, if I am playing my cleric and deciding what it is that my god demands of me (with the expectation that the GM will be putting this to the test), how is my cleric different from any other cleric in the setting, who likewise faces demands from his/her god?

You seem to be equating setting impact with GM decision that is independent of the player's desires. I don't follow this equation. Just to give a simple example: when I started my first long-running Rolemaster campaign in 1990, one of the players played a wizard from Five Oak (a village outside the City of Greyhawk detailed in the CoG boxed set). The player also established some details of his PC's mentor, such as that he was a recluse, in hiding from powerful enemies, and living inside the trunk of a large hollow tree outside the village.

How is that sort of thing "being exempt from setting impacts"? The setting isn't any less of a setting because the player rather than the GM authored it.

 

[5ekyu]

You are equating player with character. It's got nothing to do with what's going on in the game. The character STILL has those obligations, just that the DM will not make those obligations the focus of play.



Breaking the setting? Seriously? To not spend table time futzing about with what does my druid do with his bear is "breaking the setting"? Not spending table time every single time my tiefling walks into some place futzing about with the gasps and the reactions is "breaking the setting"?

Methinks your settings are a tad too fragile.

IOW, you think it's more important that you, as DM, can impose whatever story you feel like on the player, regardless of the express wishes of the player. If the player doesn't like it, either play a different character or find another table.

Yeah, that's not ego at all. And the worst part is, even if you don't choose to impose those things, if you don't choose to invoke the warlock's patron (for whatever reason), you are still hanging that sword over the player's head every time they choose a character that has any ties to the setting. Yeah, no thanks. My players and my player's wishes are far, far more important to me than some mythical setting.

First, the player is the one insisting the preferences of the player impact the setting as far as it pertains to how that setting interactsxwith their character. They are insisting the NPC and very nature of the story not come from "what would be for others inside the gsme" but instead conform to what the player wants - be it racial, obligations, etc.

As GM, I am saying no. Once the character enters the world, the world treats it as a character, not a PC.

Second, to me saying its effectively off-screen not a thing in the game off-limits etc is the same as it not being there. You are turning it into more cosmetic than substantive. You are turning an agreement and a bargain into a non-entity from one side.

As GM, I am saying no.

As for your IOW, do you not see a difference between a GM saying not to a character proposal they see an unacceptable yo the setting and imposing a given story on the player?

As GM, I build 3/4 of the world specifics (approximately) after I see the characters that are to be the stars, but I still do not give up the right to say no.

 

[Sadras]

Like the races examples, its insisting that your character be exempt from the setting impacts of choices... which gets a no at my table.

@pemerton and @Hussar If a player selects to play an elf or a dwarf, does the player also have narrative control over the thoughts and actions of the entire tribe, clan or race?

 

[Aldarc]

But if the BGC is still at controlling both sides of the patron-warlock or god-cleric relationship/bargain/agreement or being able to dismiss it from the game, then the point about the disconnect from the rest of the world in-game still stands. Why do other warlocks and clerics end up with arrangements that fit the relationships described in the rules and setting and not necessarily ones totally dictated by one side of these milquetoasts hand out "nah, really whatever you want" deals on demand?

Like the races examples, its insisting that your character be exempt from the setting impacts of choices... which gets a no at my table.

You really do have a problem distinguishing PC from player in this discussion.

It's less about exemption and more about the player's desired narrative prominence of some aspect of their character. A player may want to play a dragonborn without being constantly harassed about it everywhere they go by the DM imposing their vision of a setting on what may have been an aesthetic or "ruler of cool" choice by the player. I do think there must be something wrong with a DM's basic human decency who fails to sympathize and respect that a player may not want the DM to constantly engage a particular aspect of their character in a manner they don't want as part of their play experience.

@pemerton and @Hussar If a player selects to play an elf or a dwarf, does the player also have narrative control over the thoughts and actions of the entire tribe, clan or race?

This sort of false equivalence and argumentative baiting seems unnecessary. Do you not believe that a player should not have some control over what relationship their character has, if any, with their patron/deity if that is relevant to their backstory? Why then can't the DM not just dictate to the player what that relationship entails (and its backstory) since the patron/deity is the superior party in that relationship and the DM theoretically controls that NPC anyway?

 

[SkidAce]

I personally dont have these issues with any group I have ever played with, I suspect cause we talk about it.



But both sides (I am taking neither side) of this discussion seem to argue from the best side of their point.

I.e. The character still has a code, just doen't want it as a game focus all the time (good example with the Captain America paladin [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION])

I.e. The world is full of restrictions and contracts that certain characters must follow to make sense. (several examples).



So here is my theoretical question;

What happens when the player of a warlock/paladin/cleric et al, requests/decides how the relationship works, and then starts playing/acting like an assassin when they are a cleric of Bahamut?
(Basically ignoring any contradictions in the relationship)

 

[Aldarc]

So here is my theoretical question;

What happens when the player of a warlock/paladin/cleric et al, requests/decides how the relationship works, and then starts playing/acting like an assassin when they are a cleric of Bahamut?
(Basically ignoring any contradictions in the relationship)

You talk to the player about it like a normal functioning adult would. I don't see why this necessarily needs to be policed in-game by proxy via the patron/deity.

 

[Sadras]

This sort of false equivalence and argumentative baiting seems unnecessary.

I'm trying to understand where exactly the lines are.

Do you not believe that a player should not have some control over what relationship their character has, if any, with their patron/deity if that is relevant to their backstory?

Ofcourse.
What about after backstory, what about during play- how much is that some control then?

Why then can't the DM not just dictate to the player what that relationship entails (and its backstory) since the patron/deity is the superior party in that relationship and the DM theoretically controls that NPC anyway?

At some tables this is the norm, it also often exists in pregen play.

 

[Sadras]

You talk to the player about it like a normal functioning adult would. I don't see why this necessarily needs to be policed in-game by proxy via the patron/deity.

So you're policing out of game?

Why is it ok to police (judge character actions) out of game and not in game?

 

[5ekyu]

@pemerton and @Hussar If a player selects to play an elf or a dwarf, does the player also have narrative control over the thoughts and actions of the entire tribe, clan or race?

I do not think they have claimed that.

but there was specific mention of choosing tiefling and not being allowed to limit npc reactions to their tiefling yo bounds they set. Same post as npcs not being too upset over bringing bear into town.

I wonder if they might consider not wanting merchants to haggle or cheat their characters as within something they can also dictate.