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

[EzekielRaiden]

It's not a double standard, it's how the game is played. The GM runs things so they get to decide how things go.

If you don't like how the GM does things then find a different GM.

Nobody is forcing you to play with GMs if you don't like how they do things and you're not allowed to force the GM to do anything they don't want to do.

GMs aren't obligated to put up with players who refuse to abide by their rules.

Then why are players so obligated?

 

[Necropolitan]

Then why are players so obligated?

Because the GM is the one providing the campaign.

That's like demanding to know why the umpire gets to make all the calls in baseball.

 

[Amphytrion]

I don't accept this double standard.

If players are subject to guaranteed automatic limitations, so should GMs be.

Nobody gets a free pass. Either I have limits and so do you, or you don't and neither do I. Anything else is "I get power and you get nothing."

Then we simply disagree. I think (and this perspective predates my GM-ing days) that the power asymmetry between GMs and players is built into the game.

The GM does yield what one could feasibly call absolute power, and that power can only be curtailed by self-imposed temperance and good judgment. Should the GM want, he could take away all the powers of the all PCs via some magical curse, or have a Tarrasque burst through the floor and eat them, or have a portal to the Abyss swallow them, or have the Death Star blow up the planet they are currently on, or have a particular NPC appear and best them, etc. All of that would be horrible GM-ing, obviously, because the GM's role is to foster story, narrative and adventure, not to best the PCs on some equally-matched game.

When I play, I accept that I am trusting the GM to yield his unlimited powers responsibly in the interest of the shared narrative and fun adventuring. When I GM, I expect players to offer me that trust as well. I struggle to imagine a game in which this isn’t the starting point. This also isn’t too different from the trust a collaborator would place on another in other creative activities.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Because the GM is the one providing the campaign.

That's like demanding to know why the umpire gets to make all the calls in baseball.

But the umpire doesn't make all the calls. They make some calls--and they are subject to review and dispute. Further, the players have advocates. It isn't absolute authority. The umpire doesn't have the ability, for example, to tell a particular player they're forbidden from pitching in this specific game because they said something rude to the umpire's mother. The umpire doesn't have the ability to force the batter to use a pool noodle instead of a proper baseball bat.

The analogy doesn't hold, very specifically because the umpire neither has nor claims the kind of authority you are asserting here. The umpire doesn't claim the ability to remove a player's skill at baseball.

 

[TiQuinn]

If a player is worried their DM is going to screw them over on their Warlock, Cleric, or Paladin character, don’t play with them.

Alternatively, if a DM is worried their player is not going to play their character seriously, don’t play with them. (It works both ways.)

 

[Necropolitan]

But the umpire doesn't make all the calls. They make some calls--and they are subject to review and dispute. Further, the players have advocates. It isn't absolute authority. The umpire doesn't have the ability, for example, to tell a particular player they're forbidden from pitching in this specific game because they said something rude to the umpire's mother. The umpire doesn't have the ability to force the batter to use a pool noodle instead of a proper baseball bat.

The analogy doesn't hold, very specifically because the umpire neither has nor claims the kind of authority you are asserting here. The umpire doesn't claim the ability to remove a player's skill at baseball.

That's completely irrelevant. And the analogy still holds up.

Are you demanding that the GM be forced to run the campaign the way you want them to?

If not then you're just complaining about the rules D&D has had ever since it was first created.

If a player is worried their DM is going to screw them over on their Warlock, Cleric, or Paladin character, don’t play with them.

Alternatively, if a DM is worried their player is not going to play their character seriously, don’t play with them. (It works both ways.)

Exactly. It's as simple as "Don't like, don't play."

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Mod Note:

My peeps, we need a return to more civil posting up in here.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If a Celestial warlock uses the Tomb of Levistus invocation, would they actually be calling on Levistus?

Perhaps. Why else is it called that?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Okay, but this is precisely the problem. You've opened with "go as far as they want" on both sides.

So why can't I go so far as, "I don't accept this, this is not actually fun or engaging, I don't want to do that"?

Why is that an automatic guaranteed violation of the social contract, but the GM doesn't have any limits we can predict in advance?


Cool. That sounds like it could be fun.

Do you think that the player went into it writing a blank check for the GM, on the unstated hope that the stuff that would happen wouldn't be suddenly really upsetting with zero possibility to alter course or do something different?


To the worshippers. As in, any random person, or a random person who did something the deity specifically doesn't like.

Not to their dedicated clergy actively trying to do said deity's will in the world.

Biiiiiiig difference.

You don't think a cleric has requirements of the faith to follow every bit as important as a paladins oath?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Okay! This is great!

You are actually setting limitations here. You would not ever begin with getting cut off. You would have regular communication--not just in-character, but OOC as well. If a hard cutting-off were to occur, the player can and should expect alternative pathways to present themselves.

That, that right there, is all I wanted out of this. I just wanted some limits, some idea of where things start and how they could potentially proceed. It doesn't need to be hyperspecific. It doesn't need to be detailed and extensive. I just need to know where I stand. Writing that off with "Anything goes....within the social contract" is actively unhelpful. It comes across to me as actively avoiding setting any boundaries whatsoever--and that active avoidance is what communicates "something is fishy here" to me.

I stand by my previous statement, but the above is a explication of my technique, because I had time for a longer post.