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

[Scribe]

Except for when your DM says "I'm going to run Shadow of the Dragon Queen" and you have to have to sit at home for months or even years until the DM finishes and picks a game that "fits".

Or you buy in. Yeah.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Except for when your DM says "I'm going to run Shadow of the Dragon Queen" and you have to have to sit at home for months or even years until the DM finishes and picks a game that "fits".

I don't see a way around that if you can't or won't game with anyone else, and won't run your own game, except trying to force the GM to run something else for you.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Or you buy in. Yeah.

My old GM once decided to run a game I didn't like, so I decided not to play. We still hung out socially (we were all friends), and a couple months later I got in on the next game. If I really missed playing and couldn't wait, I would have find another game for a little while.

 

[Scribe]

My old GM once decided to run a game I didn't like, so I decided not to play. We still hung out socially (we were all friends), and a couple months later I got in on the next game. If I really missed playing and couldn't wait, I would have find another game for a little while.

Yeah, I used to game with some guys every weekend, then they decided to play a game I had zero interest in. So we didnt for a bit. /shrug

 

[Seramus]

Is this a common sentiment in the D&D community? That if you're using the D&D game system, the setting should never place constraints on the "realities" of Class, Background or Species?

Not that I've found. It's been pretty all over the place, with a few extremely restrictive DMs, a few very permissive DMs, and then a bunch floating around in the middle? I see a lot of focused games where there are thematic restrictions, or games taking place in homebrew settings that don't allow this and that races or classes. Or the ever-recurring "arcane or divine magic is hated, and you will be hunted" stipulation. Some are big on survival elements (and thus survival choices are favored). Just... all over the place.

 

[Seramus]

My old GM once decided to run a game I didn't like, so I decided not to play. We still hung out socially (we were all friends), and a couple months later I got in on the next game. If I really missed playing and couldn't wait, I would have find another game for a little while.

Yeah, I used to game with some guys every weekend, then they decided to play a game I had zero interest in. So we didnt for a bit. /shrug

Absolutely. It can sting a bit knowing your friends are off having game night without you, and sometimes it's even worth it to bite the bullet and buy in just so you can hang out with your friends in a social capacity. But it's alright to sit out games you won't enjoy, both for your own benefit so you can spend the time doing something else you enjoy, and for the other players if you're the kind of person to cringe or make a snarky remarks whenever something about the setting you dislike comes up.

Hop online, see what else is out there. Tons of cool things going on! Some of those might have pros and cons of their own, but at least you're checking out your options.

 

[TorgoTheWhite]

So a spin-off question from another thread. This one about warlock pacts...

If the idea of making a pact with some supernatural power in exchange for power is a key part of the fantasy, why are so many warlock players vehemently against the notion of that pact ever being a part of the actual fiction of the game?

For example, if the patron makes a request or demand of the PC, the player can and will refuse. Or if the patron even threatens to undermine the PC's power, the player gets mad.

The pact is treated as entirely one-sided and permanent and anything suggesting otherwise is rebelled against or attacked.

So which is it? Is the pact the central theme to the character and should be included in the fiction of the game or is the pact simply a light coating of irrelevant story over the game mechanics that we should never really bring up?

So, I'm not sure that many warlock players are truly that resistive. Also, part of any oppositional defiance may be hard wired into players' collective heads in regards to the whole adversarial patron- a common motif- and sometimes they may be too ready to jump to that. With a charisma based deal-making character it would be a common motif to try to gain the most power while spending the lowest input.

Now as far as players outside of roleplay, maybe some of these players don't do well with authority: as PC or IRL. IMO choosing a class that, by description, is more likely a subordinate or dependent is a poor choice for that player profile. Unsurprisingly, that player likely will also be oppositional about the DM's authority

The other questions. Pact as central theme? Yes, the big powerful deal should be. It should loom on the warlocks mind, be intrusive thoughts, etc..shape the character. Should the DM test what the PC would do to escape payment if the player runs the oppositional route? I think so. Included in the fiction of the game? Yes, the player lacks the authority to tell the DM what external forces are in the story. Pact as a light coating only? No, the DM is the final authority on the level of import of lore items. Character lore points are important and the DM does not need to cheapen them at anyone else's behest.

That is my final opinion on the matter after looking over the original post