D&D General The Player's Quantum Ogre: Warlock Pacts

[Morrus]

Then why

in God's name

Does bloody EVERYONE

Who talks about the "social contract"

Completely refuse to ever even gesture at this

Unless I beg and plead and shout and hyperbolize?

I've asked nicely. I've begged. I've done practically every damned thing I can think of to get people to give examples of this, which I will note you are specifically calling collaboration because it is you telling ME to write up the pact, and they adamantly refuse to give even the teeniest, tiniest bit of limitation whatsoever beyond "social contract social contract social contract".

Y'know. The thing I have repeatedly said isn't enough, that is confusing and invisible and constantly shifting and incredibly prone to promoting misunderstandings because people presume agreement where there might be none whatsoever and enthusiastic consent where the exact opposite is true.

Calm down, please. You’re getting excited.

 

[Bae'zel]

We should start a thread on tips for DMs and Players on how to create stronger narrative ties and motivations from character Class, Background and Species (beyond game mechanics).

How to use these 3 things to entice scenario rewards, kickoff interaction with factions and introduce more meaningful roleplaying hooks.

edit: especially for classes that don't usually get this focus, eg, Fighters (like my earlier example of leveraging Fighter / Mercenary Guilds).

 

[CreamCloud0]

We should start a thread on tips for DMs and Players on how to create stronger narrative ties and motivations from character Class, Background and Species (beyond game mechanics).

How to use these 3 things to entice scenario rewards, kickoff interaction with factions and introduce more meaningful roleplaying hooks.

edit: especially for classes that don't usually get this focus, eg, Fighters (like my earlier example of leveraging Fighter / Mercenary Guilds).

do we need a new thread for that? would it not merely continue this same conversation in a different place?

 

[Bae'zel]

do we need a new thread for that? would it not merely continue this same conversation in a different place?

Because this thread is mostly about the Warlock and how GMs want to codify the pact in-game with consequences and such. One of the major arguments is "why not this much focus on other classes too?" and so yeah how about we take a side conversation on specifically that?

Not a thread for debate, but different takes and opportunities? Or not, whatever, it was just an idea.

 

[TorgoTheWhite]

Agree with this.

I'm not against games where the setting is defined first, and than the mechanical options for player characters are all derived from the setting conceits. I'm just against that approach for D&D.

And I'm really against the GMs who generate a bunch of detailed setting info putting classes and subclasses into specific setting roles, thus making it much harder for players to simply make characters and get the game going.

I'm going to come off as a bit smarmy here. And, I do respect your posts, so take my tongue-and-check with less than a grain of .

It sounds like you are against DMs making a setting.. that you play that role in... almost like the DM is making you... play a role? Where have I heard of this?

 

[TwoSix]

I'm going to come off as a bit smarmy here. And, I do respect your posts, so take my tongue-and-check with less than a grain of .

It sounds like you are against DMs making a setting.. that you play that role in... almost like the DM is making you... play a role? Where have I heard of this?

Yes, I am 100% against DMs making players have a role to play. That is, generally, something I don't enjoy. (There are always exceptions for special games with unique play parameters.)

The DM is already the director and cinematographer; I don't want them to be the screenwriter and casting agent also.

 

[TorgoTheWhite]

Yes, I am 100% against DMs making players have a role to play. That is, generally, something I don't enjoy. (There are always exceptions for special games with unique play parameters.)

The DM is already the director and cinematographer; I don't want them to be the screenwriter and casting agent also.

So is it that you dislike roleplaying in your roleplaying game? I guess it is fine if you do... but a tough pill for any DM to swallow

 

[Voadam]

So is it that you dislike roleplaying in your roleplaying game? I guess it is fine if you do... but a tough pill for any DM to swallow

Role playing does not have to mean playing someone else’s created role or their idea of the role. Playing your idea of a role you choose is still roleplaying.

 

[Umbran]

So is it that you dislike roleplaying in your roleplaying game?

Mod note:

I am pretty sure you know that's not actually what was said, but the insulting stinger too good to pass up.

I am here to make it clear that, for you, this was not good. This was bad, and resisting the urge would have been better. Because now you are getting the hairy eyeball from a moderator and being publicly noted for behaving poorly.

So, be better going forward. Thanks.

 

[TwoSix]

So is it that you dislike roleplaying in your roleplaying game? I guess it is fine if you do... but a tough pill for any DM to swallow

I'm against the DM dictating the role ahead of time, by pre-building a bunch of specific roles that a player can slot into. That, to me, should be the job of the player, even if that means the player is doing some loose "setting authorship".

As an example, if you want to come up with five knightly orders for a starting kingdom, that's totally fine. Lots of players will gravitate towards a defined list to just be able to pick an option. But your setting should be flexible enough to allow for a sixth order (or a replacement fifth) if a player has a differing idea for their PC knight.