D&D (2024) D&D 2024 Player's Handbook Reviews

Chaosmancer · Oct 11, 2024

Emerikol said:
Well if I've banned a particular race, sometimes I will stand firm. In fact most of the time. A player that has not read the intro to the campaign world and has chosen against it's theme is often not a player I want anyway so if they are going to quit over it I'm fine with that outcome. But I have allowed a race but I insisted on a unique backstory explanation because the "race" as a race did not exist. The PC was a one off. It depends on why I banned the race to begin with in this particular campaign.

IF your main criteria is species, then there would be no reason for you to reject any particular patron or pact. Even with the caveat "fits into the world" there are a LOT of non-standard things that would fit into a world.

Emerikol said:
No the equivalent would be a fighter wanting to play his intelligent magical sword. And look I'm not there to make life hard for the PC and his or her powers. So I don't play the NPC who provides their powers especially hard though with clerics I do insist on faithfulness to that religions creeds.

Fighters do not start the game with an intelligent magical sword as part of their background. Every single warlock starts the game with a patron as part of their background. So your example is not actually equivalent.

And, you don't want to make it hard on them, that's fair. But why MUST you, under all circumstances in all scenarios, be absolutely the only one who RPs that particular NPC? If a player made a deal with a Sphinx, and decided to describe a dream they had as coming from their patron... with just that information being established, what reason would you have for stating that that CAN NOT and NEVER SHOULD happen? What makes it, as a concept, unacceptable?

Emerikol said:
Running a successful campaign is hard. I don't do it lightly. And while players may have fun ideas in general to contribute they are only good ideas for the campaign if they mesh with the campaign. If I am trying to provide a distinct flavor in the campaign the idea jars with that flavor then I will certainly reject it. I'm going to have a fun successful campaign. I'm not rolling the dice, forgive the pun, on some idea that may ruin the campaign.

You are rolling the dice either way. Because the tone you may think you are presenting is not what the player is getting, and they may have brought that idea to you in good faith. I think these kind of hard stances of "I shall protect the sanctity of the game!" are a bit misguided.

In part, because they encourage the players to be more passive, less involved, and therefore they never really learn what it takes to become a DM, or to do what you do. If you act like it springs fully formed from the mind of Zeus, then when they don't have an entire campaign world suddenly appear in their mind perfectly detailed, they may feel like they can NEVER engage with that side of the game.

Chaosmancer · Oct 11, 2024

Emerikol said:
I guess I'm a Gygaxian at heart. I always say "I'm playing in so and so's campaign" when I play. Sometimes if you have a lot of games going you may give each of your campaign's a name. Or if you are famous, like Gygax. Or you want to sell it.

That has nothing to do with my point. You can't sell a campaign. You can sell a setting, or a series of adventurers, but to sell a campaign, you would need to sell the players that make the campaign happen.

Emerikol said:
Yes. I'm insistent on Actor stance. I may allow "off camera" broad instructions to be state. Something like, "I've told my henchman to stay at the castle and practice his swordplay". Now. No conversation happened. That is the Player talking to the DM. The DM then handles that off camera. All kinds of things could happen including the henchman doing something different. To me that is not "in game" activity. In game, the players stay in actor stance. It improves immersion. We also avoid games that break people out of actor stance.

I don't do this, and I don't think it is good long-term. Because you are insisting on people engaging in the game your way, with no real regard to how they may want to engage with the game. Maybe the player isn't seeking immersion, so you insisting on it isn't helpful for them.

Emerikol said:
Well there are three ways.
1. Just allow the PC to do it and you automatically accept it into the campaign world. Outcomes include success and totally wrecking of your campaign world.
2. Let the PC develop something you must approve that fits your world well. This wastes time but it can work as long as you approve it. I think the PC should present broad ideas and the DM should collaborate. So start with a broad suggestion and if that seems non-campaign damaging go to the next step. The key here is the player has really engaged with the world well and his work fits the campaign concept. Not every player can do this but some are great at it.
3. Reject everything. This potentially loses you some good ideas. I find with some groups this actually is the best approach because they are the type of personalities to not read the intro and not even try to mesh with the world.

I'm not saying people can't or won't do things differently and succeed. I'm just saying my formula consistently results in fun and good campaigns for my players and me. I often get complemented that my world just seems real and other campaigns don't.

There are three ways to raise children. You can let them do anything they want, you can discipline them, or you can beat them bloody for everything they do. Does that feel like an accurate and complete description of how to raise a child? Why would we accept that that is an accurate and complete way to discuss this then?

See, you keep making an assumption that I think needs examined. You keep assuming a single player comes to you the DM and pitches an idea to you in secret, that you then become the sole arbiter of whether or not it should be included. But that is not the only way to handle things.

I had a DM for a game, it was set in a modern post-apocalypse caused by magic becoming real (a concept I love). During that game, the DM had a strong desire to make Neo-Nazi's the enemy. He researched them quite a bit, included small details and it was a consistent theme. Then, during one of our battles against an enemy force, we were facing gnolls. And the DM put out into the narrative that the Gnolls were born evil, could only be evil, and the only way to deal with them was to genocide them. Which drew us all up short, because... that's Nazi stuff, and the enemy are Nazis. We paused the game. We started discussing how we could handle gnolls. He realized the issue pretty quickly. Not that it ruined the world to have unrepentantly evil gnolls, the world logic could handle that just fine, but he hadn't considered the dissonance in the themes. And he agreed it was a problem. And we didn't solve this by sitting back and waiting for him to solve it for us. We didn't solve it by only one person presenting an idea for his approval. We solved it by the entire table talking it out and presenting ideas and discussing them.

You consistently present the idea that a single player will come to you, offering an idea, and that you alone must be the guardian of the world's integrity. But... the players care about the world's integrity too. And the idea I've tried getting across is that this approach is not the only way. The player could bring the idea to the entire table. The entire table could discuss it and see if it fits into the world. And maybe it impacts something you have planned in secret... but you can just say that, and even offer to change that secret thing if they really like this new idea well enough. It is a fourth approach. And one that can possibly work. I know because I've seen it work.

Chaosmancer · Oct 11, 2024

Micah Sweet said:
Two NPCs must talk to each other in front of the PCs? I'm sorry, I assumed that was obvious.

So the PCs are in front of them, and therefore involved, correct?

Chaosmancer · Oct 11, 2024

Micah Sweet said:
Again, where are you getting anyone telling you what you want is impossible? Please show me. Otherwise, please take the hyperbole down a couple notches. I honestly don't know who it's helping.

No one has said the word "impossible" if that is what you mean. However people have said "that isn't how the game works" or "that isn't what is done" or "this should not happen" which are all basically the same point.

Chaosmancer · Oct 11, 2024

Micah Sweet said:
Except every pact gives the PC power they would not otherwise have, which means the patron was in a position to provide such power. That is a built-in disparity at the very least.

And there is a disparity between the PCs and a King, or an archmage, or the not!Pope. Just because there is a power disparity doesn't mean basically anything except that there is a power disparity.

Micah Sweet · Oct 12, 2024

Chaosmancer said:
So the PCs are in front of them, and therefore involved, correct?

Not really. They could easily just be observing, which only counts as involved if one of the PCs is named Heisenberg.

Micah Sweet · Oct 12, 2024

Chaosmancer said:
No one has said the word "impossible" if that is what you mean. However people have said "that isn't how the game works" or "that isn't what is done" or "this should not happen" which are all basically the same point.

None of those mean "impossible". They all mean variations on "I wouldn't do it". Your claim that they all mean impossible is more of your hyperbolic style.

SkidAce · Oct 12, 2024

Just tossing this out here....

We go by the description where the Patron, is teaching eldritch secrets to the warlock, perhaps quid pro quo.

So once the Warlock gains such power, they have it.

This distinguishes it from Cleric, being sponsored at higher levels.

pemerton · Oct 12, 2024

Micah Sweet said:
So binding the PC just binds the DM, and not binding the PC binds the DM?

I'm not sure where not binding the PC comes from - the PC is a party to the pact.

But you are correct that my general view is that the player gets to play their PC. It's not the GM's job to tell the player what their PC needs to do to retain their core abilities.

Crimson Longinus said:
Why I'm turning up to play a game with other people, if along with my PC I play the NPCs too? I can just write fan fiction about my character at home if I don''t want input from the other people.

Are you really meaning to imply that the only way to put pressure on a player of a warlock is via their patron? Or that the only way to put pressure on the player of a PC who has a mother is by threatening the PC's mum?

If not, then I don't see where your comment is coming from. I've played cleric and paladin PCs. In so doing, I've been put under pressure, as a player. In this thread I gave an example of a paladin player being put under pressure about his PC's faith. None of this requires the GM to use the character's deity to tell them what they should do or believe, if they are to retain their god-given abilities. Why should a warlock be any different?

Micah Sweet said:
I'm not intending to mess with my player's ability, but I also want the setting to make logical sense and to be consistent. Warlocks, just like clerics and paladins, owe their power to another being. It's right there in the class fiction. If you don't want your patron to matter in that way, why are you playing a Warlock?

You seem to be assuming that the patron can only matter if the GM plays it. But that's not true, just as it is not true that a paladin or cleric's faith and devotion can matter only if the GM plays the deity. I posted some actual play upthread to illustrate this point - D&D (2024) - D&D 2024 Player's Handbook Reviews. You read and "liked" the post.

So given that you have read an actual play account of how faith and devotion can matter without this requiring the GM to play the deity or tell the player what faith and devotion demand of their PC, why would you insist that when it comes to a warlock and their patron matters must be different?

Crimson Longinus said:
You're absolutely correct that the same issue may potentially affect clerics and paladins too. It is just like I said earlier, it coming up with them is somewhat less likely. Gods tend to be more distant than patrons, and the cleric presumably chose a god whose tenets they mostly agree with. The relationship with patron is more personal and more transactional, so some sort of conflict is more likely.

I don't know where this idea of distant and non-demanding gods comes from. Historically in D&D play there has been a lot of debate about interventionist GMing in relation to clerics and paladins, just as in this thread there is debate around interventionist GMing in relation to warlocks.

I don't even think there is that big a gap between a warlock and an old-fashioned anti-cleric: one way of thinking of the old anti-cleric or anti-paladin is precisely as someone who has struck a deal with a devil or demon.

But anyway, my view in relation to paladins and clerics is the same as in relation to warlocks: it's the player's job to play their PC, not the GM's. And so it is the player's job to work out what their faith, or pact, or whatever it is demands of them. As I've said, my own experience in play is that there is no need for the GM to play the deity or patron as an adversary of the PC, in order for matters of faith, devotion, loyalty etc to be made part of the subject-matter of play.

Here's another old post of mine, where I elaborate a bit on my views:

pemerton said:
I get the sense, from reading others' posts and from back when I used to play in wider circles than I do now, plus even earlier accounts from Dragon and White Dwarf, that various players have quite varying conceptions of paladins and (trad, armour-and-mace) clerics.

I think you're right that for some they are primarily healers (perhaps secondary undead slayers) - so their role in the game is basically defined by function, and if someone else can perform that function then clerics et al aren't needed any more.

I think some see clerics and paladins as almost contracted servants and agents of deities, who set adherence to codes and alignments as part of the contractual terms. The player's job, assuming s/he wants to keep his/her PC in its current form, is to stick to the contract. The GM's role is to play the "boss" who gets to decide whether or not the PC has adhered to the contract, and hence whether or not the PC keeps the job. This is, for me, probably the least appealing way of approaching these sorts of characters (whether as player or GM).

In my case, and several of my players, I see the cleric or paladin as an exemplar, who adheres to the code/alignment not out of duty, but out of deep conviction that it is right and proper (there is nothing analogous to a contractual or promissory obligation operating on otherwise morally optional subject-matter). The relationship to the deity, therefore, is more like one of being called. Because it is the player who is choosing to play this PC, and to determine this PC's conception of what it means to honour these convictions and this calling, it has to be primarily the player who takes responsibility for expressing that during play. The GM has a role, of course, in applying pressure or asking questions, but that is no different from the GM's role in applying pressure to a player who wants to play a brave fighter or a scholarly wizard or a sharp rogue. It's about testing the player's depth of commitment to the issues the player has brought into the game via his/her PC (especially where there are conflicts). But unless the player him-/herself wants to make loyalty to the gods one of those issues, I don't see any reason to put that particular issue under pressure.

So, for instance, if a player's PC is (ostensibly) devoted to both honour and justice, I'm happy to frame situations that force hard choices between the two. (Here's an example from my 4e game.) But if the player reaches a conclusion as to how to resolve the situation (in my example, the player sacrificed justice to the demands of honour), I am not then going to second-guess that decision by suddenly asking the question "But does your god agree with you?" That would be nothing but a pointless distraction from the roleplaying that just took place at the table, and which (at least for my group) was relatively intense by our (modest) standards.

And some more thoughts are here <Do alignments improve the gaming experience?> and here <Do alignments improve the gaming experience?>:

I do involve the deities directly in my game, but I take it for granted that if one of the players is playing a cleric or paladin of that deity then I am not the only one who has a stake in that NPC. Just as if I bring a PC's parent, or hometown, into play, the player of that PC has a stake in that too.

So, for instance, in my 4e campaign more than one of the Raven Queen worshippers has met with and interacted directly with their god, played by me as an NPC - mostly in the course of being resurrected - but that doesn't mean I assume I'm at liberty to have her do whatever I might feel like, including stripping them of their abilities based on an adverse moral judgement.

I see this as a special case of a more general principle - that in certain mechanical situations the GM does not have sole authority over NPC behaviour. So, for instance, if the game involves morale rules, and the NPC fails a morale check, then the GM is obliged to honour that. Or, if (as in 4e, for instance) the game has social resolution mechanics, and the players by dint of those mechanics extract some concession or favour from an NPC, then the GM is not at liberty to just disregard that (any more than s/he can just disregard a damage roll against an NPC's hit points during combat) - s/he is obliged to honour that.

So in the case of a god, or a PC family or hometown, the player has automatically acquired a stake in that simply by dint of PC creation. And as a GM I am obliged to honour that.

***************************

If a player chooses to serve a god who is the exemplar of a value, then in my game there is no "vision of that deity" separate from the player's conception of the value in question. And what is the player's conception? That will be explored in play. Part of good GMing, for me at least . . . is framing situations that put the player's conception to the test.

I think the extrapolation from the approach I've been using for over 30 years for clerics and paladins, to warlocks, is pretty straight forward.

Paul Farquhar · Oct 12, 2024

Micah Sweet said:
Not really. They could easily just be observing, which only counts as involved if one of the PCs is named Heisenberg.

You don’t need to be quantum for someone to change what they say if they know they are being observed. And what if a PC decides to butt in? Or, more likely, this being D&D, kill both of them?

And players being in the right place at the right time to overhear a particular conversation is very narrative. I don’t have a problem with that, but…

D&D (2024) D&D 2024 Player's Handbook Reviews

Chaosmancer

Legend

Chaosmancer

Legend

Chaosmancer

Legend

Chaosmancer

Legend

Chaosmancer

Legend

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast

SkidAce

Legend

pemerton

Legend

Paul Farquhar

Legend

Similar Threads

Related Articles