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

[TorgoTheWhite]

A lot really depends on the kind of game being run. I suspect that a lot of the people pushing for DM authority over aspects of the pact are running some kind of home brewed game. If one is published adventures then it is possible to run an entire campaign without the nature of the pact (or the gods for that matter) ever coming up.

I could also see a games where the DM pitches situations and hooks and only responds to hooks the party bites on also running a campaign where the specifics of the pact never comes up.
To be honest the nature of the pact is not something I would be likely to bring up unless the player expressed and interest in that and even better had some line they wanted to engage with.

Interesting, this take is a different angle. Yes, mine is homebrew as well & that does influence my opinion.

 

[TwoSix]

Ignoring power-tripping/tyranny for a second, I think there's a pretty simple question here.

The player tells you they have a warlock concept, but they want the patron to just be a background thing and not something that becomes an issue in the game.

Do you, as a DM, acquiesce to that concept? Do you require them to have a in-fiction connection to their patron to be roleplayed out? Or do you require them to change their concept?

 

[Necropolitan]

And a GM whose a tyrant is the same thing.

Somebody telling you "No" isn't them being a 'tyrant.'

The DM can't force you to do anything and you can't force the DM to do anything.

 

[Umbran]

Your game is not so special that I must submit to your every dictatorial whim.

I want to know where you all live that you have such a pool of available players that you can kick them out over refusing to be bullied by their God/patron?

Mod Note:
Hey, cut it out with the hyperbolic attitude, please and thanks.

 

[TorgoTheWhite]

It's not 'power-tripping' to tell you no.

Any player 'alienated' by not getting their way 100% of the time isn't one anyone should want to play with.

Nobody's said anything like that.

I was thinking too, the group goes as it will. If this seems to be a case of a player just not getting their way and the rest of the group doesn't chime in, then you know it was just the player. I have yet to see a playgroup where any of this happens with adults though

 

[Scribe]

The player tells you they have a warlock concept, but they want the patron to just be a background thing and not something that becomes an issue in the game.

Do you, as a DM, acquiesce to that concept?

In 5e/5.5? Without a doubt, as noted previously the game doesnt even mechanically do anything with the patron, its fluff.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Ignoring power-tripping/tyranny for a second, I think there's a pretty simple question here.

The player tells you they have a warlock concept, but they want the patron to just be a background thing and not something that becomes an issue in the game.

Do you, as a DM, acquiesce to that concept? Do you require them to have a in-fiction connection to their patron to be roleplayed out? Or do you require them to change their concept?

Yes, no, no, I mostly run pre-published material, either campaign arcs or something stitched together from shorter adventures. We are all here to have fun, if the players do not want to go there, I am not going to force it. I am not creating art, and am in the least bit precious about the campaign setting and themes.
If the players want to create some stuff, I will generally try to accommodate them.
I suspect that a lot around here would consider us to be playing at a simple and superficial level, but I think I have never seen a player delve into the deeper lore of a world. Hell, I do not think they ever even keep notes.

 

[TorgoTheWhite]

In 5e/5.5? Without a doubt, as noted previously the game doesnt even mechanically do anything with the patron, its fluff.

As long as it is still conceptually a warlock, yes. Also, you said there is still a patron (core feature), just minimized interaction, still fine.

I may ask for just a base pact background maybe it is simply a demon wanting to bring more chaos into the world by: "pulling the pin from the grenade, dropping it, and closing the closet door" this is fine to me. I may give the player a heads up that there may still me story driven patron elements popping up from time to time though, even if it is fluff of little mementos of patron-trolling. Like a little "how did using my dark power turn out for you there tiger?" So in my own turns I may let the player know their patron COULD matter to the NARRATIVE, even if the player is unaffected mechanically or really not going to pursue any patron interaction

 

[Epic Meepo]

If someone doesn't like that then they can find a DM who doesn't expect them to engage with the basic premise of the character they're playing as.

I imagine a lot of DM/player drama could be avoided by asking everyone during session 0: "Do you consider a characters' class to be the "basic premise" of that character?"

If different people at the table have different answers to that question, they might not be a good fit for one another in terms of play style, as their expectations for the game might vary.

 

[TiQuinn]

Ignoring power-tripping/tyranny for a second, I think there's a pretty simple question here.

The player tells you they have a warlock concept, but they want the patron to just be a background thing and not something that becomes an issue in the game.

Do you, as a DM, acquiesce to that concept? Do you require them to have a in-fiction connection to their patron to be roleplayed out? Or do you require them to change their concept?

I wouldn't have a problem with it. Some players just do not engage the game in that way. I much prefer to meet the players where they want to be met.