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

[Bae'zel]

I feel like this debate is veering into the general “GM best practices around trust, fairness and properly reading the room”.

After 25 years of DMing, I personally don’t like using meta currencies to control the ebb and flow of DM “interference”. However, I feel that they are likely a fantastic tool for training newer DMs (like training wheels) to help them constrain their “interference”, or at least use better narrative timing.

I loved the Cypher System’s take on this, as well as Apocalypse World’s Moves. I think that this stuff can really help DMs learn the ropes.

As someone said earlier, some a-hole people will make awful calls as a DM due to personality or inexperience, regardless of the rules. But these conversations are helpful, I think.

Getting back the topic at hand, yea, I think that DMs who routinely target certain classes with extra intervention, but ignore others, need to re-evaluate things a bit. Be fair and make sure everyone is okay with it. Maybe the Fighter class, usually exempt from this stuff, SHOULD have stronger ties to a Fighter’s Guild or mercenary band? Know what I mean?

Fair’s fair, some players may WANT the extra attention, right? I admit that I like the Warlock the most BECAUSE of the extra narrative opportunities it presents over the other classes. If the others had such narrative possibilities, I’d shop around a bit more.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Agreed, but acknowledging that also opens up some other potential can of worms when it comes to what is appropriate action for the GM roleplaying as the cleric's deity, particularly when the player chooses to roleplay in a way that goes against the edicts or will of their god. Different settings handle this differently. The gods are pretty hands-off in Eberron, for example.

So here is my next hot take in my quest to share opinions that will undoubtedly make @CreamCloud0 sad:

Considering the sort of game that D&D has become, it should potentially move away from the Cleric as the god class; instead, maybe something more akin to the White Mage from Final Fantasy or the Priest from WoW would arguably be more conducive for modern D&D. This is not to say that the game should move away from gods and religion.

And I say this as someone who plays mostly clerics, druids, and paladins in D&D.

i have no issue with making the cleric more of a 'white mage', i don't know why you would think it would? unless that was merely a ping to the wrong person or if you are referring to my response to your proposition of 'mechanically distinguishing the classes' mentioned in the wiz/sorc/lock thread(wasn't it?) my objection to that was the focus on exclusivity of spell schools (which can be both inconsistent and indistinct at best) rather than any sort of thematic narrowing.

 

[Aldarc]

i have no issue with making the cleric more of a 'white mage', i don't know why you would think it would? unless that was merely a ping to the wrong person or if you are referring to my response to your proposition of 'mechanically distinguishing the classes' mentioned in the wiz/sorc/lock thread(wasn't it?)

I seemed to voice opinions about changing classes that displeased you. But I'm glad to hear that you have no issue with making the cleric more of a "white mage."

my objection to that was the focus on exclusivity of spell schools (which can be both inconsistent and indistinct at best) rather than any sort of thematic narrowing.

I'm not sure what you are talking about with the "exclusivity of spell schools," as I talked nothing of the sort when talking about the new hypothetical classes in that thread. I did, however, invite you to ask me for clarification about that for a more fruitful discussion, but you never took me up on that offer. Instead, it looks like you preferred to make unfounded assumptions of your own devising about my potential setup. If you can keep your assumptions in check, I'm still open to conversation.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I seemed to voice opinions about changing classes that displeased you. But I'm glad to hear that you have no issue with making the cleric more of a "white mage."

I'm not sure what you are talking about with the "exclusivity of spell schools," as I talked nothing of the sort when talking about the new hypothetical classes in that thread. I did, however, invite you to ask me for clarification about that for a more fruitful discussion, but you never took me up on that offer. Instead, it looks like you preferred to make unfounded assumptions of your own devising about my potential setup. If you can keep your assumptions in check, I'm still open to conversation.

i fully admit i may have misconstrued your suggestions at the time, my lack of response was less due to wanting to let the assumptions stand and more just a preference to walk away and cool off from arguments when heated combined with the fact that so many topics are active on enworld that i just forgot to go back to that offer or felt the topic had already been passed when i did remember.

 

[Aldarc]

i fully admit i may have misconstrued your suggestions at the time, my lack of response was less due to wanting to let the assumptions stand and more just a preference to walk away and cool off from arguments when heated combined with the fact that so many topics are active on enworld that i just forgot to go back to that offer or felt the topic had already been passed when i did remember.

No problem, and I appreciate your honesty. I think that's a healthy practice, and I commend you for it.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

This has been getting heated and generating more smoke than light.
To go back to the OP, having read the thread.

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?

In reverse:

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?

Both, neither and all of the above. There is more than one way to interpret the warlock pact. It may be a Faustian pact, an ongoing relationship or a one-off gift. It does not necessarily all come from the same source.
In the Classic Faustian pact, the petitioner Faust bargains with Mephistopheles for power at the price of his soul. After the bargain, Mephistopheles does not really care what Faust does with the power, his soul is in the bag. In fact, imposing on Faust gives Faust the opportunity to renegotiate the terms from a position of some power.

Now the player may not be interested in that kind of play.

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.

This comes back to the relationship between the players and the DM. The plain fact of the matter is that if the players is not interested in that kind of play there is no way for the DM to make them, short of throwing the player(s) from the table and getting player(s) interested in that kind of game. This is a recreational activity, most players are casual and play for fun and amusement not to explore themes or create art.
Not that there are not some groups out there doing that kind of thing, more power to them.

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?

They like the mechanics? There really is no substitute to talking to the players. There really is not going to be any satisfying story of the warlock and their pact without the player(s) active and willing cooperation.
A DM may reserve all the authority they like but if they remove class powers and features from a character without consultation and permission they will get pushback even to the collapse of the campaign.

This is a session zero thing, which is why the rules are never likely in a game like D&D to ever again explicitly support this playstyle. I am not saying it would not be fun, but would it be fun more than once with the same players?

This like the railroad vs linear adventure. A lot of groups have no issues with a linear adventure but do not want to see the rails. If you place Briarwood on the map as colour then be prepared for the party to visit Briarwood and have figured out how to make it a stop on the line. It is reasonably fair if it not on the line to tell the players that and ask for time to prepare.
Similarly with pacts, oaths and the like, ask the player if this is to be fodder for the DM, same really with any backstory element. If can get tedious if every relative and neighbour of a pc gets kidnapped and/or killed by the bag guys to create stakes but it can drive players into removing backstory elements to avoid this from happening.
It never hurts to ask and maybe the player may have some ideas as to where to take this that are better than anything you can come up with.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes, very much this.

"I made an exchange with a powerful being in order to have power myself" does not justify heavy-handed GMing, and all this "making patrons matter" constantly dances around what exactly it means for them to "matter", hence why I've asked. @Micah Sweet has made clear that it "mattering" has some significant limits. They'll come up, they'll communicate, they'll possibly even ask for favors, services, or demanded acts. Only in fairly extreme circumstances would anything like being cut off occur, and if it did, the player should expect options to proceed from there, such as alternative patrons expressing interest. These things need to take time, so that the player actually gets a chance to respond.

In other words: the GM agreeing to limitations. Openly. Specifically. Not just relying on some nebulous "social contract" to handle absolutely all concerns, meaning you never have any idea where you stand and expectations are airy-fairy right up until they're ironclad and you should've known them from the beginning. But this, just...communicating, setting some boundaries, providing room for give and take? That's all I really ask for. But doing so, rather than relying on the "social contract" to handle absolutely everything, is like pulling teeth--or so you'd think given the discourse around here.

To be fair, I doubt I'd give that speech I wrote above to a warlock player straight up during session zero. Instead I would work out with the answers to my big questions (who is your patron? Why did you enter a pact with them? Why did they enter a pact with you) and make sure they knew that the expectation is that the patron will come up in the campaign and is more than a narrative tag sourcing their abilities. Now how it will come up will be along the lines of my statement above.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Agreed, but acknowledging that also opens up some other potential can of worms when it comes to what is appropriate action for the GM roleplaying as the cleric's deity, particularly when the player chooses to roleplay in a way that goes against the edicts or will of their god. Different settings handle this differently. The gods are pretty hands-off in Eberron, for example.

So here is my next hot take in my quest to share opinions that will undoubtedly make @CreamCloud0 sad:

Considering the sort of game that D&D has become, it should potentially move away from the Cleric as the god class; instead, maybe something more akin to the White Mage from Final Fantasy or the Priest from WoW would arguably be more conducive for modern D&D. This is not to say that the game should move away from gods and religion.

And I say this as someone who plays mostly clerics, druids, and paladins in D&D.

Current official D&D is definitely moving in a direction that would seem to make a White Mage type more appropriate to the game than a traditional D&D cleric. Perhaps they consider that path. Fortunately, there are plenty of other games, even other versions of 5e, that don't have to follow WotC's trail.

 

[cranberry]

It seems that a lot of the arguments stem from the assumption that the player has no idea what the pact requirements and consequences are. If the DM is upfront and clear about the requirements, and potential consequences, the player can make an informed decision.

But this assumes the GM is reasonable person, and isn't out to "get" the player...

 

[Mort]

It seems that a lot of the arguments stem from the assumption that the player has no idea what the pact requirements and consequences are. If the DM is upfront and clear about the requirements, and potential consequences, the player can make an informed decision.

But this assumes the GM is reasonable person, and isn't out to "get" the player...

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