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

[Hussar]

The Tardis has a perception filter that causes itself not to be noticed by people. Did you really think that there wouldn't be an explanation for that?

http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Perception_filter

I.e. Backgrounded.

 

[Hussar]

Just like if you want heavy armor you get the problems associated with it as well as its AC. You want two handed weapons for damage, you dont use shield. You want fireball for aoe dmg, it's not the best choice inside some places.

DnD is full of cases where you make a choice, you get a mixed bag of plusses and minuses and then you do what you can.

Guess we should in some eyes have problem proof mounts, armor with no drawbacks, summoned companions that nobody reacts to and fireballs that only affect does, not friendlies or papers on desks we want...

Sounds oddly like a great many video games.

If that's someone's style that's great.

But it's not the premise dnd 5e was built on.

And it's ok for a gm to want to run a game that way without getting his decency questioned.

You mean like a 3e paladin's mount? That's summonable and dismissible at will? Or the 5e version of the same with the Mount spell that paladins get? Or that evoker wizard that gets to avoid allies with his fireballs?

Guess 5e is too video gamey.

 

[Tallifer]

The players of clerics, paladins and warlocks (and cavaliers serving a liege, and some other examples) have intentionally chosen to play a character whose freedom may from time to time be restricted by orders from above and-or by their own internal morality or alignment. Having intentionally made that choice, they're in no real position to complain if and when orders from above arrive now and then or if their morality gets in the way while adventuring.

Forsooth. All fluff has potential consequences. Furthermore the fluff of the dungeon master's world can also have consequences. A warlock's patron has to mean something or else his magical powers would be powerless. The cleric gets his powers from his god or else he is just a raving holy man with a mace.

 

[Hussar]

Waiting to see how his Gilligan research proves how rare it was Gilligan ever screwed up their escape plsns.

You're seriously going to take Maxperson's interpretations of anything at face value? After THIS thread? Really?

I mean, right off the bat, he he put's Encounter at Farpoint as an example of the Enterprise being threatened. It's not. It wouldn't matter if the crew were on the Enterprise or on Earth when Q shows up. The Enterprise is just background stuff there. It's totally not important. But, it's being threatened? Yeah, because everything is being threatened. Good grief.

Maxperson would insist that the sky is not actually blue if he thought it would win him an Internet discussion. I wouldn't trust him to tell me that rain was wet.

 

[Hussar]

To be fair, the Background system described requires the PC to be effectively "hands off" the element as well. So Background element of a factional membership/patronage/code of conduct could only remain on the Background so long as the PC is behaving in ways that are considered appropriate. A paladin of devotion can't go around burning down orphanages that were otherwise minding their own business; the player doesn't get a free pass from inappropriate behaviour. It's more of a "Don't ask; don't tell" situation. The DM won't bring situations into play specifically test adherence to the oath and the player will play generally compliant with the oath. A Warlock's patron might have him performing actions in downtime in the background, but the table won't be spending time on furthering the Great Old One's goals in the world.

Sauntering my way through a lot of pages. This is a busy thread.

But, it is good to see that someone here gets precisely what I'm talking about. If you don't like how I describe things, I suggest rereading [MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION]'s posts. He puts it perfectly well, gets the point immediately and can likely answer any questions better than I can.

 

[Hussar]

Exactly, and since this was a divine soul sorcerer - yes intentional divergence between actual sorcerer nature and the "dream flavor" and character interests - we would have had ample ground for a great working together collaboration.

if we couldn't come to an agreement, i would have been disappointed but would not have questioned your decency as a human being. In character, it would have simply been not being able to get a bargain made with the entities i found... try again later maybe.

BTW, the multi-calls dip never happened even tho it was setup and one of several things i had laid foundation for (performer/entertainer background and rock-start seer schticks for possible bard play.) I kept changing up some of the "planned build" based on what the character was actually seeing and experiencing - even to taking the darkvision spell after a long patch of night-time ambushes and ,ocate object when she saw a need and a lot of odd ideas for it as a means of lojacking and so on - none of which were ever on my "initial build priorities." But thats what happens when plans meet games.

.

Now, let's roll this around to what's actually being discussed. The DM comes to you and tells you, you have to do X because the dragons are telling you to do X. If you don't do X, you will no longer be a sorcerer.

After all, you "chose" to have this patron relationship. It's perfectly acceptable, according to you, for the DM to use that relationship. So, the DM exercises his or her power and tells you that you must do X or lose your class.

How are you feeling? No problems? Not a qualm? Perfectly acceptable DM practice?

 

[Hussar]

Argh, sorry about the multiple posts. It is a rather busy thread.

But, stepping back a second here because people, including myself, seem to be getting lost in the weeds a bit.

What are we actually talking about here? I mean, how much of an impact would Backgrounding actually have on a campaign? Sure, if your campaign focuses on warlock/patron relationships and the entire party has warlock levels, then ok, fair enough. That's obviously going to be a problem if one player Backgrounds the relationship.

But, let's look at a more common example. Say you're playing Storm King's Thunder (or any WotC AP). In what way would that game come out any differently if the DM let the warlock's patron fade to the background? Would any of the encounters be different? Would the basic plot or story be any different? Would this somehow change the NPC's?

No, it wouldn't. It would have absolutely zero impact on the game to let the warlock/patron relationship fade to the Background. Is it something of a missed opportunity? Maybe. The DM might add in some goodies for the warlock to play with during the AP that center around his or her patron. Sure, could happen. But, since the player has said, and I can't stress this enough, very clearly, that the player is not interested in those goodies, what's being lost here?

Like I've said all the way along here, people are treating this as a much bigger issue than it needs to be. Sure, hiding your pet is interesting the first time. Maybe the second time. But, it's going to take a pretty bloody minded DM to enforce hiding that funky pet every single time. Backgrounding is by and large just a formalized approach to what typically happens in most campaigns anyway.

 

[pemerton]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the warlock PC is playing the NPC Patron

I am. If I have a player playing a cleric of the Raven Queen, I expect that player to take the lead in establishing what the Raven Queen wants, and what she demands of her followers.

If I have a player playing a feypact warlock whose patron is Corellon, I expect that player to take the lead in establishing what it is that Corellon wants, and how s/he thinks it can be attained by granting this person (the PC) these powers.

And when I play a kKight of the Iron Tower devoted to the Lord of Battle, I expect that it will be me who takes the lead in establishing what the Knights of the Iron Tower are about, what my honour as a knight requires, what the demands of the Lord of Battle are, etc.

This is all part of establishing the PC and what his/her goals/theme/dramatic trajectory is.

 

[pemerton]

How does it signal what the player doesn't want?

I'm talking about the system [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] described, where by putting a PC-related story element into the (capital B) Background, a player is establishing that it will not be brought into play by the GM.

 

[5ekyu]

You mean like a 3e paladin's mount? That's summonable and dismissible at will? Or the 5e version of the same with the Mount spell that paladins get? Or that evoker wizard that gets to avoid allies with his fireballs?

Guess 5e is too video gamey.

keep on at it. keep pointing out the various features which had baked into their design the ability to avoid some of their issues and complications - like the particular class ability that lets some specific class abilities etc reduce the risk of fireballs and the exposure of mounts - because that so helps the case that the ability to "background" your choice's downsides should be free for all.

You are doing so fantastic on this - its very illustrative - especially when you need to bring in previous editions.