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

[Sadras]

This whole discussion seems permeated by some sort of fear (or at least concern) that letting players establish fiction - about their PC's backgrounds, or relationships, or loyalties, and the like - will somehow break the game. But how? Surely most GMs have ideas for scenarios for a Devotion Paladin other than having to choose whether to foster or slaughter the orc babies?

I imagine just like some players (includes DMs) of the game prefer to play with minimal to 0 house rules (and we do not necessarily object to that), there are certain players (includes DMs) that prefer to play true to setting hence the desire not to create characters and/or backgrounds that go against type.

 

[Sadras]

Sorry, but, just to clarify, do you mean that if I Backgrounded the fact that my character was an elf or a dwarf?

Or, do you mean that when I create a dwarf, say, do I get to tell the DM what dwarves in the setting think and do?

What I mean is, say I decide to play a character that serves a greater power (warlock, cleric...etc). The argument is that the relationship between the greater power and the character is untouchable by the DM. Does the same sort of privilege exist between say my dwarf and his clan or is the DM free to tinker on that relationship based on actions performed by the character, in your view?

If the DM has to ask the player, well then he is not truly free. Despite that I might not agree with it, then at least the thinking is consistent with the relationship between character and patron. If it is different, well then I have to ask where does one draw the line with what relationships are off-limits?

 

[Lanefan]

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.

This assumes the player can be counted on to do this in good faith, and produce requirements that might actually constrain the character now and then and-or force difficult choices upon it...in other words, requirements that represent a drawback suitable to counterbalance the powers given, which is what the RAW intends I think.

Not everyone has such players. If everyone did, there'd be no need for so many rules.

 

[S'mon]

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

Even mentioning these two points feels like breaking a taboo!
While I certainly abide by both these taboos when GMing, judging by Internet ancedotes I'd actually say that "don't ambush defecating PCs" is a much more universal taboo than "don't rape the PCs". The need for PCs to answer the call of nature is a great example of a well nigh universal Backgrounded element.

 

[Aldarc]

What I mean is, say I decide to play a character that serves a greater power (warlock, cleric...etc). The argument is that the relationship between the greater power and the character is untouchable by the DM.

Mainly in the sense that the player wants it to be a marginal part of their play experience or something that is not the focus of said experience. It's simply not the sort of story that the player wants to experience or deal with.

Does the same sort of privilege exist between say my dwarf and his clan or is the DM free to tinker on that relationship based on actions performed by the character, in your view?

Why shouldn't it?

If the DM has to ask the player, well then he is not truly free.

Oh noooos! Will no one ever think of the poor oppressed DM?!

Despite that I might not agree with it, then at least the thinking is consistent with the relationship between character and patron. If it is different, well then I have to ask where does one draw the line with what relationships are off-limits?

Probably depending on how slippery you make that slope.

 

[Lanefan]

There seems to be a trend in the posts here, and it boils down to this:

Wherever there's a benefits-drawbacks trade-off, foreground the benefits and background the drawbacks.

Sorry, but that ain't how life works. Benefits and drawbacks go hand in hand, largely because the drawbacks are often there to either temper the benefits or make the choice to take them more difficult; and to take the benefits while in effect ignoring or backgrounding the drawbacks is, in a way, just another definition of cheating.

You want the benefits of having a tiger as your animal companion and co-warrior? Fine, but you'd better be ready to deal with the drawbacks that'll come if you ever try to take it into town.

You want the mechanical benefits of playing a Dragonborn (or Tiefling, or Drow...) instead of an Elf? Fine, but you'd better be ready to deal with the role-playing drawbacks of playing what is, in the eyes of most civilized inhabitants of the game world, a monster.

You want the benefits of playing a Paladin instead of a Fighter? Fine, but you'd better be ready to follow your Oath (or alignment, in earlier editions), make the required donations and to be faced with some very hard choices now and then; with said choices sometimes really p-ing off the rest of your party.

In short, if you can't handle the drawbacks don't try for the benefits.

Lan-"I think I'm in a minority of one on this, but for some reason I've always despised 'animal companions' for Druids and Rangers - familiars for casters are bad enough"-efan

 

[Sadras]

Why shouldn't it?

Fair enough, the question has been answered, as I mentioned, I just wanted to know if there would be consistency between the various background relationships in that style of play.

 

[S'mon]

There seems to be a trend in the posts here, and it boils down to this:

Wherever there's a benefits-drawbacks trade-off, foreground the benefits and background the drawbacks.

Sorry, but that ain't how life works. Benefits and drawbacks go hand in hand, largely because the drawbacks are often there to either temper the benefits or make the choice to take them more difficult; and to take the benefits while in effect ignoring or backgrounding the drawbacks is, in a way, just another definition of cheating.

You want the benefits of having a tiger as your animal companion and co-warrior? Fine, but you'd better be ready to deal with the drawbacks that'll come if you ever try to take it into town.

You want the mechanical benefits of playing a Dragonborn (or Tiefling, or Drow...) instead of an Elf? Fine, but you'd better be ready to deal with the role-playing drawbacks of playing what is, in the eyes of most civilized inhabitants of the game world, a monster.

You want the benefits of playing a Paladin instead of a Fighter? Fine, but you'd better be ready to follow your Oath (or alignment, in earlier editions), make the required donations and to be faced with some very hard choices now and then; with said choices sometimes really p-ing off the rest of your party.

In short, if you can't handle the drawbacks don't try for the benefits.

I don't get the impression that playing a 5e Dragonborn, Tiefling or Paladin actually does give any net mechanical benefit over playing a Human, Elf or Fighter (or if not Fighter, then Barbarian). This seems like more 1e thinking.

I agree about animal pets and if the PC has an Allosaurus following them around pseudo-medieval Berkshire that is definitely going to be an issue IMC if I allowed it at all. With a bear it's more marginal, in a more wilderness setting I could imagine Backgrounding it so the bear was off foraging in the wilderness while the PC was in town.

 

[Sadras]

In short, if you can't handle the drawbacks don't try for the benefits.

Perhaps, where the PCs are the story drivers, like at Pemerton's table, the players might be encouraged to push those drawbacks to the foreground as part of their drivers otherwise they might not have an interesting game or story to tell and it risks falling flat.

At a different table for instance, where the DM is primarily the driver he/she is encouraged to bring those drawbacks to the fore to explore the characters' backgrounds, their allegiances/loyalties, their oaths, their alignment, their patrons...and thereby build the campaign story.

So when @Aldarc and @pemerton say that relationship x is off limits, it's because they expect the characters to bring that to the fore, it is not the DM's job to meddle with that, whereas for say for me (and presumably you) we bring it to the fore to create a tighter connection for the pc to the story and the setting.

Now when you have a player like in [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION]'s instance who did not want background material brought to the fore, then it becomes a little messy. If the DM is doing it for every other PC except for one, then it feels like they're leaving him/her out.

Lan-"I think I'm in a minority of one on this, but for some reason I've always despised 'animal companions' for Druids and Rangers - familiars for casters are bad enough"-efan

Curiously why?

 

[Nagol]

Perhaps, where the PCs are the story drivers, like at Pemerton's table, the players might be encouraged to push those drawbacks to the foreground as part of their drivers otherwise they might not have an interesting game or story to tell and it risks falling flat.

At a different table for instance, where the DM is primarily the driver he/she is encouraged to bring those drawbacks to the fore to explore the characters' backgrounds, their allegiances/loyalties, their oaths, their alignment, their patrons...and thereby build the campaign story.

So when @Aldarc and @pemerton say that relationship x is off limits, it's because they expect the characters to bring that to the fore, it is not the DM's job to meddle with that, whereas for say for me (and presumably you) we bring it to the fore to create a tighter connection for the pc to the story and the setting.

Now when you have a player like in [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION]'s instance who did not want background material brought to the fore, then it becomes a little messy. If the DM is doing it for every other PC except for one, then it feels like they're leaving him/her out.

<snip>

Some players (like me) prefer less spotlight anyway.

But Background as its been described doesn't have anything to do with spotlight time or negation of drawbacks. It's about not using an element as a driver for play. The player is signaling "I'm including something that might look like a plot hook. Please don't use it; I don't want to bother with this. It exists because I thought it appropriate, but exploring it is not interesting to me." So the PC might have a spouse and child "somewhere" (like Winger in Glen Cook's Garrett series), but the player doesn't want them to appear, whether threatened, in need, or angry at abandonment.

"Ah ha! I hear the strawmen cry! But that means the DM can't threaten to destroy the region/world because the NPCs are off-limits!" No. No, it doesn't. What it means is any effect on the Backgrounded element is collateral only. The element and its status just don't get mentioned. If the region is struck by a disaster, the PC may start to believe the family is destroyed, but will do nothing to determine the actual status.