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

[billd91]

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?

It's not about hating the game. But it is about making sure the game is also what I as DM want it to be, not just the players. Like I've said many times around here, you can't force a DM to play a game he doesn't want to play any more than you can make players play in it.

 

[billd91]

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?

But you're not talking compromise any more than you think I or 5ekyu are because you're insisting on the player's vision of their character over a DM's objections. You're telling us here that you're in favor of reaching an agreement as a compromise... as long as it goes the player's way. You're insisting the DM should give up his preferences in favor of the player's. I haven't seen you acknowledging that, "yes, an animal companion could be a more advanced version of a more mundane animal that requires very little complication to get around in both civilization or a dungeon" - just a continual stand like "Yes, I am going to choose something out of the ordinary, but I want it only be out of the ordinary when it's to my advantage and not any other time".

Or "I want to choose to play something that has a shared meaning (like a paladin) and then change what it means but everyone's going to treat it like it still means the same thing except when it would inconvenience me".

 

[Hussar]

It's not about hating the game. But it is about making sure the game is also what I as DM want it to be, not just the players. Like I've said many times around here, you can't force a DM to play a game he doesn't want to play any more than you can make players play in it.

But, who's forcing the DM to do anything here? If anything, I'm giving less work for the DM. The DM no longer has to worry about what to do, if anything, with this patron. The player is not interested in playing that out. Why would you, as a DM, knowing that the player isn't interested, bring it into the game? Again, who is it for? It's not for the player. It's not for the other players. So, the only person it's for is you, the DM. You want to bring it into the game purely for your own enjoyment, knowing that the player doesn't want it.

Good grief, talk about mountains out of molehills here. We're talking about one small change to one character that isn't going to affect ANYTHING. But, now it's forcing a DM to play a game he doesn't want to play?

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

Meh, the player isn't going to have access to the backgrounded motorcycle except when he needs to travel from A to B. Note, the motorcycle is only backgrounded to the extent that it won't be stolen. If the player chooses to ride the motorcycle off a cliff, well, the bike get's smashed. The only thing that was backgrounded was the idea that the DM shouldn't mess with the bicycle off camera. I know right? Talk about player entitlement. What a jerk player for wanting the motorcycle to only matter when it's on camera. Sheesh, what a terrible player.

Or the pet. Again, it's going to be SOP and dealt with exactly once in the campaign. It's kind of like how you have one and only one random encounter when traveling from A to B because everyone at the table knows you don't want to waste a bunch of table time on pointless stuff. Again, what a horrible, power gaming player, who simply recognizes that fact. "But what about an anti-magic shell"? Seriously? One, how often has that EVER come up in a game? Two, any time it might come up, what are the odds that the druid player won't have his pet snake out and ready?

Sure, scarlet, flaming monkeys might explosively exit my posterior at any given time, but, it's really, really unlikely.

 

[Maxperson]

But, who's forcing the DM to do anything here? If anything, I'm giving less work for the DM. The DM no longer has to worry about what to do, if anything, with this patron. The player is not interested in playing that out. Why would you, as a DM, knowing that the player isn't interested, bring it into the game? Again, who is it for? It's not for the player. It's not for the other players. So, the only person it's for is you, the DM. You want to bring it into the game purely for your own enjoyment, knowing that the player doesn't want it.

Are you deliberately misunderstanding [MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION], or do you genuinely not understand that if the DM wants a game where he controls the NPCs, he's forced to play a game he doesn't want to play if players can force him not to play the patron?

We're talking about one small change to one character that isn't going to affect ANYTHING.

If it's not going to affect anything, the player shouldn't have a problem with the DM playing the patron.

 

[Hussar]

Are you deliberately misunderstanding [MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION], or do you genuinely not understand that if the DM wants a game where he controls the NPCs, he's forced to play a game he doesn't want to play if players can force him not to play the patron?



If it's not going to affect anything, the player shouldn't have a problem with the DM playing the patron.

Nobody is saying the DM should not control the NPC's. We're saying that this one specific NPC, that only impacts one PC and no other PC can ever interact with, gets taken off the table. Infinity-1 while smaller than infinity is still pretty damn big. Losing control of one NPC and making a player happy seems a pretty small price. Claims that this is going to ruin the game for the DM seem a bit overblown to me.

 

[5ekyu]

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?

I have no idea how many times or ways one can say that two people must discuss and reach agreement and things like if that's the agreement they reached it is fine to get across that there are options or things to discuss.

At the end of the discussion tho, of any attempt to reach an agreement, both sides have to be able to say no.

Let's put it another way, for anyone reading with a partially open mind...

If a gm offers up "hey I plan to run a scifi game based in stargate, who is in?" Is that forcing his preferences on people who prefer to play horror RPGs or fantasy swords and sorcery or simply giving them an option to play in a game? Is this a sign of indecency or dickishness?

If a gm creates a setting and offers to run a game and part of the pitch is "in this game there are no cleric, warlock or paladin class pcs. Who is in?" Is that forcing his preferences on people or giving them the option to join a game? Is this a sign of indecency or dickishness?

If the answer to either of those is "that's ok, not forcing, not indecent, not dickishness" then why or how is it forcing, indecent or dickish to say "hey, I plan to run a game where the clerics, warlock and paladin classes require agreement between gm and player over the specific god-temple-patron-oath before game but you can choose to play the other classes if you dont wsnt such ties."

 

[5ekyu]

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.




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.

Exactly right imo on both counts.

And yes, when the claims shifted from "my patron is backgrounded yo having a motorcycle that I actually use in play but never have to spend effort or un gsme money to prevent theft and npcs dont make problems for my race all the way to bears and elephants being non-problematic or even always useful - they crossed even a further line.

There are a gazillion choices within 5e where meaningful choice has to be made and costs you something. Choosing a less awesome combat pet in wide open spaces (not a big dino) so that you can have one that you can take into towns and basements and tunnels is just one such choice.

 

[5ekyu]

But, who's forcing the DM to do anything here? If anything, I'm giving less work for the DM. The DM no longer has to worry about what to do, if anything, with this patron. The player is not interested in playing that out. Why would you, as a DM, knowing that the player isn't interested, bring it into the game? Again, who is it for? It's not for the player. It's not for the other players. So, the only person it's for is you, the DM. You want to bring it into the game purely for your own enjoyment, knowing that the player doesn't want it.

Good grief, talk about mountains out of molehills here. We're talking about one small change to one character that isn't going to affect ANYTHING. But, now it's forcing a DM to play a game he doesn't want to play?



Meh, the player isn't going to have access to the backgrounded motorcycle except when he needs to travel from A to B. Note, the motorcycle is only backgrounded to the extent that it won't be stolen. If the player chooses to ride the motorcycle off a cliff, well, the bike get's smashed. The only thing that was backgrounded was the idea that the DM shouldn't mess with the bicycle off camera. I know right? Talk about player entitlement. What a jerk player for wanting the motorcycle to only matter when it's on camera. Sheesh, what a terrible player.

Or the pet. Again, it's going to be SOP and dealt with exactly once in the campaign. It's kind of like how you have one and only one random encounter when traveling from A to B because everyone at the table knows you don't want to waste a bunch of table time on pointless stuff. Again, what a horrible, power gaming player, who simply recognizes that fact. "But what about an anti-magic shell"? Seriously? One, how often has that EVER come up in a game? Two, any time it might come up, what are the odds that the druid player won't have his pet snake out and ready?

Sure, scarlet, flaming monkeys might explosively exit my posterior at any given time, but, it's really, really unlikely.

See, again with the assumptions of play to support your point.

Not every gm or every table sees random encounters as pointless and for sure not everyone establishes them as only one between a and b because a hm can use them as a tool to add lots to the game, not the least of which is letting characters with wilderness or travel expertise shine a bit and see those player choices pay off.

 

[5ekyu]

Nobody is saying the DM should not control the NPC's. We're saying that this one specific NPC, that only impacts one PC and no other PC can ever interact with, gets taken off the table. Infinity-1 while smaller than infinity is still pretty damn big. Losing control of one NPC and making a player happy seems a pretty small price. Claims that this is going to ruin the game for the DM seem a bit overblown to me.

Again, assumptions, a while back I mentioned a patron in SKT campaign run who might ask the character to make sure certain folks got out alive when one poster brought up whether play thru that one AP would change.

Well, it should be obvious that character to be kept alive might could be another PC? Heck one of the Patron tasks requests could even be finding this group of pcs and joining them - the patron request establishing a tie with the party for the character.

Maybe some would see that as more involved or enjoyable than the other types of initial party hook ups that have been used as opposed to an indecent act.

 

[5ekyu]

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.




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.

"Indeed, but notice.... they dealt with it in the foreground because it was a complication. "

Especially when contrasted to the sort of "yeah but what does it matter" kind of a response...

This does cut to the heart of some of the difference in play style that may make some combos of players not well suited.

I mentioned that over the years my and mine grew dissatisfied with meta-game level gimmick pools - basically where success fail was more an out-of-game pool thing with Screen edits etc.

One example was "do we recon and case the joint or just go in" with obvious risk of tipping the hand if spotted. But with scene editing, you can be "assured" there will be a back door unblocked or such without s risky tip off scouting mission. Note, in a previous scifi game a character had a didintigrator "pop gun" so that could be a "door maker" and that was often used to get the same result - but that felt wholly different cuz it was character doing so using an in-game-world resource yo overcome a problem, not player at table side spending gimmick point to cancel the existence of a problem.

Doubt many stories get retold of "remember that time our Blue Angel's Rapid Extraction team got out the backdoor with our lives and the client (well, most of the vlient) because Joe drew a door in with his screen edit - that was awesome." At least ***at our table*** those are not the stories we retell.

But key point is this - groups/players who see a lot of fun in the overcoming of obstacles in character in game and who expect that might not be the best fit or even a viable mix for players/groups where the idea is more in favor of out of game meta-solutions to more make those challenges not come up... where you know there will be a door or your bike isn't really at risk and your big honking battle dino will always be there and accepted - expected to be done away with at table-side resolution - not in-game in-character.

If you cant reach an agreement on key character issues, core to the class, called out in the book itself, that might be a sign of just such a non-viable mix of expectations.