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

[Sadras]

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?

Agreed, but that is the style of a story now table.

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.

How does it signal what the player doesn't want?
If the player went to all the effort to draw up a background, to me that is an obvious indication that the player would like his background to matter somehow.

3 out of my 5 players drew up backgrounds:
The first is attempting to discover the origin of a shard left by his parents and actively pursues this in the campaign. The rest is left up to the DM. He continues to provide information which I tie into what I have I have planned. He is happy with this arrangement.

The second is attempting to bring his fallen deity (dead god, long story) to former glory by reigniting the god's divine spark. He is actively attempting to find a way to do this, again with the DM providing the way.

The third drew up a detailed background about his past. I have tied it into the theme of the AP we are currently playing. No issues.

Players 4 and 5 did not provide me with anything and that is how I have left it. One of them has a writing-type phobia which I barely understand, the other is presumably lazy.

 

[Aldarc]

How does it signal what the player doesn't want?
If the player went to all the effort to draw up a background, to me that is an obvious indication that the player would like his background to matter somehow.

There may be a miscommunication of terms here. [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] much earlier discussed a mechanic in another system called the 'Background. We are not necessarily talking "small b" background, in a general sense, or the 5e sense of the Background.' In this other system - from what I understand - the players designate a few things about their characters are essentially placed in the "background" of narrative play, in the sense that the GM will not touch upon them and they are not necessarily things that the player wants as focal points of play. For example, if the PC "backgrounds" their family, then the GM would not introduce orcs into the campaign who would murder them, which would bring them to the foreground of play. Or another player may "background" the racism or exoticism of their dragonborn PC, because they do not want to repeatedly play through "we don't serve your kind here" scenarios every time they enter a town or bar. So by the players using this "background" mechanic, then they would be effectively signalling what they do not want to see as a forefront issue in play from the DM.

In some respects, this Background mechanic almost seems like the reverse of a Trouble from Fate. A Trouble signals issues that the player wants for their character to face in the game. The GM should include them for players. The Background mechanic, however, signal issues that the player does not want their characters to deal with.

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.

So why couldn't the player and GM agree that the warlock's patron is one such NPC?

[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.

Pemerton but he does pose an interesting question here. In some D&D settings, such as Eberron, the primary deities are remotely distant and of questionable existence. So why couldn't a PC believe that they have received a vision from their deity during the campaign without any input from the DM?

 

[Nagol]

Agreed, but that is the style of a story now table.



How does it signal what the player doesn't want?
If the player went to all the effort to draw up a background, to me that is an obvious indication that the player would like his background to matter somehow.

3 out of my 5 players drew up backgrounds:
The first is attempting to discover the origin of a shard left by his parents and actively pursues this in the campaign. The rest is left up to the DM. He continues to provide information which I tie into what I have I have planned. He is happy with this arrangement.

The second is attempting to bring his fallen deity (dead god, long story) to former glory by reigniting the god's divine spark. He is actively attempting to find a way to do this, again with the DM providing the way.

The third drew up a detailed background about his past. I have tied it into the theme of the AP we are currently playing. No issues.

Players 4 and 5 did not provide me with anything and that is how I have left it. One of them has a writing-type phobia which I barely understand, the other is presumably lazy.

I believe you are conflating two different things: a PC background which literally provides information on the PC's pre-play experience and Background which as described by [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] is a game element that takes some of those things on the PC background and informs the table that they effectively exist as colour only. Neither the player nor the DM are to use them as resources or hooks for play.

 

[Nagol]

There may be a miscommunication of terms here. [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] much earlier discussed a mechanic in another system called the 'Background. We are not necessarily talking "small b" background, in a general sense, or the 5e sense of the Background.' In this other system - from what I understand - the players designate a few things about their characters are essentially placed in the "background" of narrative play, in the sense that the GM will not touch upon them and they are not necessarily things that the player wants as focal points of play. For example, if the PC "backgrounds" their family, then the GM would not introduce orcs into the campaign who would murder them, which would bring them to the foreground of play. Or another player may "background" the racism or exoticism of their dragonborn PC, because they do not want to repeatedly play through "we don't serve your kind here" scenarios every time they enter a town or bar. So by the players using this "background" mechanic, then they would be effectively signalling what they do not want to see as a forefront issue in play from the DM.

In some respects, this Background mechanic almost seems like the reverse of a Trouble from Fate. A Trouble signals issues that the player wants for their character to face in the game. The GM should include them for players. The Background mechanic, however, signal issues that the player does not want their characters to deal with.

So why couldn't the player and GM agree that the warlock's patron is one such NPC?

Pemerton but he does pose an interesting question here. In some D&D settings, such as Eberron, the primary deities are remotely distant and of questionable existence. So why couldn't a PC believe that they have received a vision from their deity during the campaign without any input from the DM?

Backgrounding the patron relationship wouldn't even necessitate a hands-off approach to the patron. It Just signals that the patron/Warlock relationship is ultimately uninteresting and won't occupy table time. The patron is unlikely to ever be met by the group, but can still impact game events.

 

[5ekyu]

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.

iof that is reached by agreement, thats fine.

if that is approached with the player makes that decision and the gm has to abide by it or gets blasted as being a indecent human being, thats not.

 

[5ekyu]

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.

So, you know if that was just a joke then fine but in case you meant any of it to be seen as an actual serious response, not just a nudge in jokes clothing... show where i have said the Gm does anything in this regard against the players expressed interests to their character.

I have said repeatedly we will reach agreement on the subject or i will say no to the player character being included.

 

[Nagol]

<snip>

Pemerton but he does pose an interesting question here. In some D&D settings, such as Eberron, the primary deities are remotely distant and of questionable existence. So why couldn't a PC believe that they have received a vision from their deity during the campaign without any input from the DM?

The PCs can declare they believe anything they want. That declaration does not necessitate the belief reflects reality. Whomsoever is in charge of adjudicating reality can decide to go along with it and make it true, decide that claim is incorrect and make it false, or decide that the claim does not warrant adjudication and leave it open.

If such a claim helps hook the PC into an adventure that they otherwise are indifferent about, it's probably a helpful thing.

 

[SkidAce]

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.

Exactly.

Some games the players develop the drivers and the DM elaborates, other games the DM develops drivers and the players elaborate.

Most games should be a mix of both I think.

 

[Maxperson]

So why couldn't the player and GM agree that the warlock's patron is one such NPC?

I'm pretty sure I answered this multiple times in recent posts of mine.

Pemerton but he does pose an interesting question here. In some D&D settings, such as Eberron, the primary deities are remotely distant and of questionable existence. So why couldn't a PC believe that they have received a vision from their deity during the campaign without any input from the DM?

Sure, the player could have the PC be insane and have "visions" that aren't real, and that the PC attributes to the patron. That fails to have the player do his duty in portraying the patron as @pemerton says is the player's responsibility, though.

 

[Sadras]

Ah, apologies.
Thanks for clearing that up Nagol and Aldarc.
Serves me right for joining half-way.