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

[cranberry]

If the GM is out to "get" the player(s) then the have is doomed from the start. Everyone needs to be approaching the game in good faith it it just won't be a good experience at all.

Right. But it appears that at least two people in this thread have had bad experiences with some GMs. And I'm trying to emphasize, that this isn't normal.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Right. But it appears that at least two people in this thread have had bad experiences with some GMs. And I'm trying to emphasize, that this isn't normal.

It appears, by their testimony on other threads, to be normal for at least one of them.

 

[cranberry]

It appears, by their testimony on other threads, to be normal for at least one of them.

Yea, and that's really unfortunate.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It appears, by their testimony on other threads, to be normal for at least one of them.

True. And that is very unfortunate for them. I feel for that poster, but I can't agree with their conclusions.

 

[TwoSix]

If the GM is out to "get" the player(s) then the have is doomed from the start. Everyone needs to be approaching the game in good faith it it just won't be a good experience at all.

I don't know. I feel like it's less about "gotchas", and more about DM's bringing in experiences from earlier versions that some classes are more powerful than others, and needed to be balanced by adding roleplaying restrictions and complications. Paladins are the poster child of this approach.

A lot of DM apply this logic to 5e warlocks or clerics where it isn't actually intended as anything other than flavor. It's great if the player and DM want to use that story hook, but it definitely isn't mandatory.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't know. I feel like it's less about "gotchas", and more about DM's bringing in experiences from earlier versions that some classes are more powerful than others, and needed to be balanced by adding roleplaying restrictions and complications. Paladins are the poster child of this approach.

A lot of DM apply this logic to 5e warlocks or clerics where it isn't actually intended as anything other than flavor. It's great if the player and DM want to use that story hook, but it definitely isn't mandatory.

My play is not informed by 5.5, or even 5.0, nearly as much as it is by 1e and 2e. Doesn't matter what version I'm actually playing.

 

[Voadam]

It does not have to be a bad faith thing. I have two friends who I consider great DMs who I really do not ever want to play a cleric or warlock in their games (and paladin in one of them) because what they consider the cool parts of the classes (specific ways to handle the god/patron relationship in challenging ways for specific narrative feels, one overwhelmingly christian and one crapsack grimdark) are stuff I generally would not enjoy. I have had great fun playing wizards and fighters in their games though. I have also had great fun playing clerics and warlocks and paladins in other games where the DM was fine with how I wanted to play my characters focusing on other aspects of the classes.

I found this came up a lot in pre 4e games where you had a bunch of things like alignment requirements for certain classes and some different emphasis on how certain classes should be handled by the DM. B/X basic does not really talk about gods nor does OD&D, while the 1e DMG talks a lot about interventionist gods and alignment tracking, and 2e and 3e are all over the place.

 

[Mort]

I don't know. I feel like it's less about "gotchas", and more about DM's bringing in experiences from earlier versions that some classes are more powerful than others, and needed to be balanced by adding roleplaying restrictions and complications. Paladins are the poster child of this approach.

A lot of DM apply this logic to 5e warlocks or clerics where it isn't actually intended as anything other than flavor. It's great if the player and DM want to use that story hook, but it definitely isn't mandatory.

But the DM and player MUST be on the same page as to expectations or the game will simply not go well.

It doesn't matter if there aren't "supposed" to be consequences when the DM is set on imposing those consequences.

And more to the point, if the DM doesn't tell the player that they (the DM) will be imposing consequences but then springs them anyway - that's a gotcha.

 

[TwoSix]

But the DM and player MUST be on the same page as to expectations or the game will simply not go well.

It doesn't matter if there aren't "supposed" to be consequences when the DM is set on imposing those consequences.

And more to the point, if the DM doesn't tell the player that they (the DM) will be imposing consequences but then springs them anyway - that's a gotcha.

For sure. I'm just saying that misalignment frequently occurs because GMs who are more experienced with previous editions (or the concepts from them) assume that the tropes of those consequences occurring are more widely understood and assumed than they actually are.

"Of course your warlock's patron is screwing with you! That's what a warlock is about, you knew that when you picked the class!"

 

[Micah Sweet]

For sure. I'm just saying that misalignment frequently occurs because GMs who are more experienced with previous editions (or the concepts from them) assume that the tropes of those consequences occurring are more widely understood and assumed than they actually are.

"Of course your warlock's patron is screwing with you! That's what a warlock is about, you knew that when you picked the class!"

Which is fine in my view, so long as the player actually did know that.