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

[Hussar]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I once went to a game where the players and DM were very silly throughout the entire game. I politely said thank you and informed them at the end of the night that I would not be returning. It wasn't the game for me. What I didn't do, was expect them to stop playing so silly because I was a player and I didn't like it.

Slight difference though. I'm presuming since you said you "once" went to a game, that it wasn't a long term thing. It's not like you had been playing with this group regularly for some time and then they changed, right? You were the new player at the table?

Contrast to [MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION]'s example where this is a long time player who, presumably, had been enjoying games with the group before but had one very strong preference - no capture scenarios. Would you seriously then design a campaign predicated on capture scenarios? Really?

/edit after reading [MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION]'s description of the situation.

You went so far as to boot a player before the campaign even started (I wasn't inviting him to the game and explained why). :boggle: Wow. You actually kicked this guy out of your group so you could play a different game.

And I'm taking flak for entitlement issues?

Sorry, I don't do that. I wouldn't consider anyone who did that to actually be a friend. That's about as douchey a thing to do as you can. "Sorry, I know we like gaming together, but, this idea I have for a game just sounds like more fun than spending time gaming with you."

 

[Nagol]

Slight difference though. I'm presuming since you said you "once" went to a game, that it wasn't a long term thing. It's not like you had been playing with this group regularly for some time and then they changed, right? You were the new player at the table?

Contrast to [MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION]'s example where this is a long time player who, presumably, had been enjoying games with the group before but had one very strong preference - no capture scenarios. Would you seriously then design a campaign predicated on capture scenarios? Really?

I design campaigns based on what I want to run. Typically, I'll have 2-3 pitches to make at a time. The pitch that gets the best response is the one I'll run. There's no hard feelings if a player doesn't want to participate in a particular campaign; I'll see them at other times.

What I won't do is bait and switch. I lay out the campaign basics and while individual adventures may vary from the baseline, the only seismic campaign shifts come from player choice.

 

[Lanefan]

But, assuming it's not compulsory for the player to play a warlock, then it seems you could have enjoyed the game without that relationship. So what harm does it do to have the player play the mechanics of a warlock but not add any more flavour than a "man with no name" fighter?

Because the mechanics of a warlock may be flat-out more powerful/flexible/useful than those of a wizard, and the relationship represents a trade-off.

But what if the player wanted to play a "man with no name" fighter instead? Would you and/or your other players forbid that because it's too boring?

I wouldn't, but I believe I've seen posts from people in here that would.

Let's consider a different example which doesn't bring any game book text with it: I decide that, at home in the village, my PC's dear old dad is waiting for my return at the end of my quest. (Like Samwise Gamgee's Gaffer.) If the GM decides that my dad is in fact a serial killer, that is playing an NPC in a way that brutally treads on the concept of my character.

In LotR, the GM in effect did decide that the Gaffer wasn't completely backgrounded, thus the readers learn he had a rough go of it while Sam was away.

Now let's go to a cleric example. If I decide to play a follower of the Lord of Battle (true example - I'm playing such a character in an active campaign) and my conception of the Lord of Battle is noble knights, honour, defend the innocent, uphold the right, blah blah blah; and if the GM decides that the Lord of Battle directs my PC to enter an inn under cover of darkness and assassinate the innocent innkeeper sleeping in her bed; then the GM is brutally treading on my character concept.

Again a needlessly extreme example.

More common would be that your party's current mission involves just these sorts of actions - breaking into an inn during the night and assassinating (or capturing for later painful information extraction) someone who you've been told is not innocent but you've only got your informant's maybe-not-reliable word to go by. The Lord of Battle rather frowns upon this sort of thing, so now what do you do? Pull a first-year Neville Longbottom and fight your party? Turn them all in as criminals? Intentionally ignore the whole situation and hope it goes away? Go along with the mission and hope the Lord of Battle happens to be looking elsewhere?

 

[Lanefan]

Eh...I'm a bit leery of going that far. Assuming a table of friends who have been playing a while together, sure. My own groups definitely have that right of refusal, and we also have a group where almost everyone takes a turn DMing. But there are plenty of games where new people are constantly moving in and out, and where the only constant is the DM, their style of play, and maybe a few old hands. In those situations, I definitely feel the onus is on you as a player to adapt to the table if you wish to play.

I mean, I wouldn't feel comfortable going to Lanefan's table, which has been running a continuous game for like 150 years, and saying that I felt the urge to play a protagonist centered game. GM force becomes more useful when the connection of the individual player to the game is more tenuous.

That being said, I don't think I'd last two sessions at Lanefan's table, so it's mostly a moot point.

Oh, I don't know - not knowing your play style I can't say how long you'd last. Hell, for all I know you might be good for the next 150 years!

Beer, food, some vague attention to detail and realism, and not too much concern over how much gets done in a session provided we're all having fun. And a rule-set that's a very modified version of 1e D&D. Think you can handle those?

Lan-"if yes, and if you're up to a weekly coast-to-coast commute for the games, you're always welcome"-efan

 

[Hussar]

I design campaigns based on what I want to run. Typically, I'll have 2-3 pitches to make at a time. The pitch that gets the best response is the one I'll run. There's no hard feelings if a player doesn't want to participate in a particular campaign; I'll see them at other times.

What I won't do is bait and switch. I lay out the campaign basics and while individual adventures may vary from the baseline, the only seismic campaign shifts come from player choice.

Let's put it more directly then.

If you know that one of your players would hate an idea, would you still pitch it?

 

[5ekyu]

Slight difference though. I'm presuming since you said you "once" went to a game, that it wasn't a long term thing. It's not like you had been playing with this group regularly for some time and then they changed, right? You were the new player at the table?

Contrast to [MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION]'s example where this is a long time player who, presumably, had been enjoying games with the group before but had one very strong preference - no capture scenarios. Would you seriously then design a campaign predicated on capture scenarios? Really?

/edit after reading [MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION]'s description of the situation.

You went so far as to boot a player before the campaign even started (I wasn't inviting him to the game and explained why). :boggle: Wow. You actually kicked this guy out of your group so you could play a different game.

And I'm taking flak for entitlement issues?

Sorry, I don't do that. I wouldn't consider anyone who did that to actually be a friend. That's about as douchey a thing to do as you can. "Sorry, I know we like gaming together, but, this idea I have for a game just sounds like more fun than spending time gaming with you."

Thanks for helping.

 

[Hussar]

Because the mechanics of a warlock may be flat-out more powerful/flexible/useful than those of a wizard, and the relationship represents a trade-off.
/snip

But, they aren't. That's been established multiple times in this thread that the trade off isn't one of power or mechanics. This isn't 1e where this sort of thing was done quite commonly (paladin oath, ranger wealth limitations, druid and monk fighting for levels, etc). And, it's been agreed, one of the few things that we're all pretty much in agreement about, that this has nothing to do with the player trying to get unfair advantages.

Although, the fact that this bugaboo keeps getting brought up as a counter argument - apparently we need these things to keep classes in check, even when we don't - tells me that there is something of a break down in communication.

 

[Hussar]

Thanks for helping.

It's funny. You keep insinuating that I'm somehow a special snowflake or entitled, or triggered, or whatever the heck.

Hrm, let's do a side by side comparison shall we?

You: Design a campaign you know a player will hate. Specifically uninvite said player so that you can run the game you want to run.

Me: Goes the extra mile to take player preferences into consideration and has no real problem putting player preferences ahead of my own.

Yeah, I'm not really sure you want to play this game. I can't help but feel that you're going to come off looking a lot worse in the comparison.

But, sure, I'll keep helping you. I'm not really sure what you think I'm helping you to do, but, whatever it is, I'm thinking that it's not what you think it is.

 

[Lanefan]

Slight difference though. I'm presuming since you said you "once" went to a game, that it wasn't a long term thing. It's not like you had been playing with this group regularly for some time and then they changed, right? You were the new player at the table?

Contrast to [MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION]'s example where this is a long time player who, presumably, had been enjoying games with the group before but had one very strong preference - no capture scenarios. Would you seriously then design a campaign predicated on capture scenarios? Really?

/edit after reading [MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION]'s description of the situation.

You went so far as to boot a player before the campaign even started (I wasn't inviting him to the game and explained why). :boggle: Wow. You actually kicked this guy out of your group so you could play a different game.

And I'm taking flak for entitlement issues?

Sorry, I don't do that. I wouldn't consider anyone who did that to actually be a friend. That's about as douchey a thing to do as you can. "Sorry, I know we like gaming together, but, this idea I have for a game just sounds like more fun than spending time gaming with you."

So you're saying, if I'm reading this right, that in your view a DM doesn't or shouldn't have the ability to choose who she invites into each game she runs?

Because yes, FLGS and drop-in situations aside, if you're coming into my house to play in my game it's only going to be because I've invited you. And I'll invite who I want to invite, thank you very much; and it probably won't be the same from one campaign to the next.

Example: last time I changed campaigns I had something like 9 players in the ending one (two interweaving groups, run on different nights of the week). A year or so later when I started the next one I invited, I think, 4 of those 9 back in (two declined at the time, then came in later as the game expanded), along with a couple of people new to our crew. My criteria for who I invited in was very simple: who among the quite-a-few potential players I could invite did I think would provide the most entertainment to the rest of the table?

In the ten years since there's certainly been some ups and downs; but that first year or so with just those four players (two returning, two new) was gonzo as hell, and probably the most sheer fun any of us have ever had with a game.

Lanefan

 

[5ekyu]

It's funny. You keep insinuating that I'm somehow a special snowflake or entitled, or triggered, or whatever the heck.

Hrm, let's do a side by side comparison shall we?

You: Design a campaign you know a player will hate. Specifically uninvite said player so that you can run the game you want to run.

Me: Goes the extra mile to take player preferences into consideration and has no real problem putting player preferences ahead of my own.

Yeah, I'm not really sure you want to play this game. I can't help but feel that you're going to come off looking a lot worse in the comparison.

But, sure, I'll keep helping you. I'm not really sure what you think I'm helping you to do, but, whatever it is, I'm thinking that it's not what you think it is.

Again, thanks. Its very helpful.

Just to be clear, you do realize there were other players in my friends who wanted to do Stargate and the player who didnt was fine with the situation, right? You didnt mention any of that in your oh so very helpful recounts so i just wanted to point that out in case it matters to others...

Keep it up, you are doing fine.

.