D&D General DM Says No Powergaming?

[overgeeked]

Oh, I know people get upset about it. It's still my stance though. If I went against my patrons interests as a warlock, I wouldn't expect to keep my power.

It is a really odd stance. You owe all your power to this other entity and they can never take it away no matter what. You can straight betray the patron yet expect to not only keep the power they already gave you, but expect them to give you more as you level. Sorry, nope.

 

[Bayushi_seikuro]

I agree that a discussion should be had about what is powergaming, and either/both of you may decide that this isn't the right group for each and that's OK.

On a tangent, it reminded me when I first got a gaming group after I moved. Met the DM and we talked about things and I said I had a character idea. I ran it past him and mentioned the character was CN. Now, that was a red flag due to previous experience for the DM but he asked me why, and I put it this way. The character was chaotic neutral because he took everything to an extreme, but he recognized the cost would be one day that attitude would be the death of him. The discussion went smooth and I joined the game.

Before session 0, lay out a list of your boundaries, such as no multiclassing, no 'combo X of the week' etc. Don't wait for it to come up midsession or when someone is levelling their PC. That's really not a cool move.

 

[HaroldTheHobbit]

Thankfully my players are very good at making technically bad characters, and always go for interesting concepts rather that the most efficient system breaker.

They are also pretty good min-maxers in many systems, and that they don't tend to use that is the reason I love them at my table.

I give them a one- or fewshot once in a while though that is tailored for extreme powerbuilding, to get it out of their system.

 

[Dausuul]

It is a really odd stance. You owe all your power to this other entity and they can never take it away no matter what. You can straight betray the patron yet expect to not only keep the power they already gave you, but expect them to give you more as you level. Sorry, nope.

To me, this is the whole point of being a warlock instead of a cleric.

A cleric's relationship with their deity is one of mutual cooperation. You and your deity are mostly in agreement about how things ought to be. The deity gives you power and you use it in service of those goals.

A warlock's relationship with their patron, however, is at best a wary truce and can easily be downright antagonistic. That's why your power is a pact -- a bargain, a contract, with specific terms binding on both parties. So long as you don't breach the terms of the contract, the patron must provide you power. If the contract does not specifically forbid you to work against the patron's interests, you are free to do so. Even if it does, you can look for a loophole.

How else can you possibly make patrons like the Fiend work? If the Fiend can withdraw the warlock's powers at will, then the warlock is nothing but an instrument of evil. Anything you do is with your patron's permission and approval, and therefore serves an evil cause. There's no way for them to work within a good-aligned party.

 

[overgeeked]

To me, this is the whole point of being a warlock instead of a cleric.

A cleric's relationship with their deity is one of mutual cooperation. You and your deity are mostly in agreement about how things ought to be. The deity gives you power and you use it in service of those goals.

A warlock's relationship with their patron, however, is at best a wary truce and can easily be downright antagonistic. That's why your power is a pact -- a bargain, a contract, with specific terms binding on both parties. So long as you don't breach the terms of the contract, the patron must provide you power. If the contract does not specifically forbid you to work against the patron's interests, you are free to do so. Even if it does, you can look for a loophole.

To me, the only difference between a cleric, paladin, and warlock is the mechanics of the class. None of them stipulate in the mechanics that the power can be taken away, but in the fiction there’s no way it couldn’t be. Betray the provider of your power and, guess what, you lose that power. Want it back? Quest for it.

How else can you possibly make patrons like the Fiend work? If the Fiend can withdraw the warlock's powers at will, then the warlock is nothing but an instrument of evil. Anything you do is with your patron's permission and approval, and therefore serves an evil cause. There's no way for them to work within a good-aligned party.

That’s an odd stance. At a guess it’s based on the mistaken notion that all evil is mustache twirling and utterly stupid. That’s not the case.

Good and evil work together just fine on the regular. So-called good characters commit utterly evil acts all the time and so-called evil characters commit utterly good acts all the time.

Having a patron in no way implies the patron must be a micromanager. And no patron would be stupid enough to not include a “don’t betray me or my interests” clause.

 

[Pedantic]

It is a really odd stance. You owe all your power to this other entity and they can never take it away no matter what. You can straight betray the patron yet expect to not only keep the power they already gave you, but expect them to give you more as you level. Sorry, nope.

This always struck me a design failure, where the proposed flavor isn't supported by the mechanics. Either could be changed to resolve the problem, and should be done in a way that doesn't offer the DM authority to strip your abilities. Something like the 3e binder's visage signs (with some tweaks to make them more relevant) is a good start, or alternatively you could shift the warlock to representing something like unorthodox clerical worship or perhaps ritualistic emulsion of an occult force to derive power. Or maybe it's a simple "you can't be conventionally resurrected" clause in the spellcasting ability to explain what you're paying.

There's lots of options, but it is lazy and frustrating to start with "you made a dark bargain for power" and not then actually have any terms.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

This always struck me a design failure, where the proposed flavor isn't supported by the mechanics. Either could be changed to resolve the problem, and should be done in a way that doesn't offer the DM authority to strip your abilities.

That's implying that a DM wouldn't warn you about these sort of things. Either from the patron going "Oi", the patron taking the powers away for a few minutes before giving them back, or something similar.

It's basically like Paladins and Clerics. Granted, some of the patrons wouldn't be as nice as the things that give Clerics and Paladins their power, but to some people what their Fiend Patron doesn't allow them to do is more palatable then what the Cleric's god would do.

side note: it's kinda weird how eager people are to call out DM's for being jerks, to the point where people often assume that a DM is just waiting for the chance to take away a player's abilities.

 

[jmartkdr2]

side note: it's kinda weird how eager people are to call out DM's for being jerks, to the point where people often assume that a DM is just waiting for the chance to take away a player's abilities.

I think it’s because most of us have had That DM, and the memory stays with you.

On the other hand, I suspect most of us either don’t plan on betraying the Patron or would have a conversation with the dm long before it actually happens in game.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Hypothetical here DM says that.

It's kinda clear what they mean what's not clear is where they draw the line.

Then it is incumbent on them to clarify where the line is. If you intend to exercise authority, you need to be clear.

This is why I always specify that:

• I support all genuine player enthusiasm, and I will bend over backwards to makethat happen.
• Enthusiasm is genuine when it is not exploitative, coercive, or abusive.
• "Exploitative" means using rules to break the game's spirit. Nigh-infinite damage, invulnerability from joining three highly specific features, etc.
• "Coercive" means manipulating others, mechanically (e.g. char-building) or thematically (e.g. "date my char because I'm sweet on you.")
• "Abusive" is hurtful, belittling, demeaning, etc. Making others feel bad, mocking, etc. This is relatively rare, but I've seen it.
• PLEASE TALK TO ME. I want your experience to be awesome. If you have an idea, any idea, run it past me. We can work it out if it's genuine.

I am a huge believer in supporting damn near anything the players want, so long as it isn't any of those three things (exploitative, coercive, abusive.) I'm not a pushover, I won't tolerate crappy behavior, but I will absolutely do everything short of compromising the spirit of the campaign and the other players' fun in order to see an idea come to fruition. It may take time, or involve a lot of work on the character's part, or be only a partial fulfillment, or require some serious re-thinking of exactly what it is/how it works/etc. But I will throw everything I have at making it happen, one way or another, because that's how I earn my players' trust and respect.

There are a lot of DMs out there who think they simply deserve player respect because they do world-building work, and that's simply not true. Just like how an author does not deserve the respect of the reading public simply for doing the years of work it takes to create a solid manuscript and get it published. It is incumbent upon the creator to demonstrate that the creation is worthy of the audience's time. For the DM, part of proving that you are worthy of the players' respect and trust lies in showing that you are willing to not just meet them halfway, but to walk a mile at their side, so that they'll be willing to walk a mile at yours.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

side note: it's kinda weird how eager people are to call out DM's for being jerks, to the point where people often assume that a DM is just waiting for the chance to take away a player's abilities.

Because DMs are the ones expecting (and, in some cases, outright demanding) respect, trust, and authority.

Claiming authority always subjects you to higher scrutiny. It is an inherent consequence of staking the claim.