D&D 5E What DM flaw has caused you to actually leave a game?

Aldarc

Legend
But in the end, yes, it's the DM's world*.

* - for a homebrew world, a quick way to confirm this is to ask "if this setting got published, who would hold the copyright?".
I'm speaking less in terms of ownership but more in terms of membership and participation. And also consider how often players use pronominal possession to discuss games they play in.

At risk of setting myself up for the slaughter, I suppose I should ask what in your view those things might be. :)
Without getting into the nitty-gritty, just recall some of the back catalogs of our disagreements.

No, it wouldn't exclude it; but it could certainly change it considerably: instead of just defining the setting and locking it in (and thus having to think about it a lot less going forward) the DM now has to account for player-side alterations to the setting, somewhat on the fly.
I don't think that anyone is advocating anything too extreme, so I think this is less of an issue than one might imagine.

Keep in mind, though, that the Norse and Greeks (and Romans? Not sure) believed their deities were real and occasionally walked among them, and weren't all that elusive - just ask all the ancient-Greek women who believed they'd had Zeus in their beds or Norsemen who believed they'd met Odin on a road. Various D&D settings follow this model for the game, as do I; and as a double-edged side effect it's nigh impossible to be a true athiest in such a setting.
I actually had these cultures also in mind. They believed (as nearly all theistic religions do) that their deities were real and occasionally walked among them, but it is questionable and a matter of faith and worldview. In Eberron as well, for example, they believe that the Sovereign Host are real and that they influence the world. They believe that the Traveler walks among them. Is this true? Who knows? Do the gods need to be embodied NPCs for people to believe that? I don't believe so.

The Dwarves have no other deities than the one you invented? No Moradin? No Clanggedin? No Berronar? No pantheon at all?
No. As I did not want to spend too much time overthinking names, I just used the names Moradin and Berronar.

The bit I bolded is what I was after - you not only invented the deity (which is kinda cool) but also determined its place in Dwarven society, which by extension largely determines how other Dwarves are going to react to you and-or your deity (which is not cool, as that's taking NPC agency away form the DM).
Perhaps you would feel better about the bold, if you re-read the part that precedes what you emboldened in my post.
I worked in cooperation with the GM. I proposed and discussed with her
I pitched an idea. She was on-board with it and worked with me on it. From my own sense of DM agency, I am hard stretched to see how that cooperation takes away any meaningful agency from the DM.

If we were playing in a pre-made setting, then a player might pick a deity whose cultic practices and social connectivity are already understood. It's along similar lines.

Many years ago I and some other players and my DM were sitting around joking over coffee, and over the course of the conversation invented a rather gonzo Dwarven god of beer and hockey. Within a week or two that god appeared in the Dwarven pantheon in his well-established game. Several months later when I needed a character I banged out this god's first played cleric**, who went on to a grand - if death-filled - career. This god is still part of our Dwarven pantheons today.

** I don't know how to embed links - his character page is here: http://www.friendsofgravity.com/games/commons_room/Hall_of_Heroes/HHGutezapre.html
Neato!

I guess what I'm getting at here is that were I to come into that game and want to play a cleric to that deity I'd in effect have to answer to two DMs instead of just one.
Not sure why that would necessarily be the case.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Sadras

Legend
See to me, those are much the same, in both cases the events provide options and choices and consequences either way - and the latter part doesn't "direct the player on how to play his PC" but rather adds an additional factor to consider.

Exactly. Due to built in fluff the patron-pc relationship may be used as a tool to add additional complexity during the decision making process which some other classes do not inherently have, and may need to build via roleplaying, downtime, providing a background and their personality characteristics. It is one of the reasons Mearls finds the Fighter class bland as it does not have built in fluff like many of the other classes, as he views the Fighter as just a bare set of mechanics.
 

Aldarc

Legend
Yes. Abuses of DM power. Railroading. Killing off PCs when you get irritated. Being an asshat. Those are examples of being a bad DM. Simply doing something someone else dislikes isn't being a bad DM. Going back to the example I gave up thread where I left a game after the first session because they played silly the entire time. That didn't make the DM a bad one, or the players bad players. It simply made their style of play one that I didn't like, so I left.
Your definition seems to include at least one bit of "things I dislike." :p

Doing something someone else doesn't like doesn't necessarily make you a bad DM. That's true. Deliberately doing it to someone when you absolutely know that they don't want you to? That's a lot bigger issue, AFAIC.
This too.
 

Sadras

Legend
@Sadras describes this as "story now" sensibility. My memory for when this happened is a bit hazy, but I want to say some time around 1993 to 1995. ...(snip)... I point that out so as to make the point that objecting to this sort of GMing is not some super-radical new-fangled thing.

Whether or not it is super-radical new-fangled thing is not a concern.
WotC designs adventure modules and APs along traditional methods of play - to which I have aligned my style of play.
 

pemerton

Legend
Dwarves have been mentioned in a few posts.

When I started my 4e game, I told the players that I wanted to play as per the core rules defaults, and that within that constraint anything goes. I also said that each PC had to have (at least) one loyalty, and also a reason to be ready to fight goblins. So one player's PC was a dwarf fighter. He explained that, among the dwarves, one didn't come of age until killing one's first goblin in battle. But his PC, despite serving in the militia for many years, had never achieved this feat and hence never come of age - whenever the goblins attacked he was on kitchen duties, or carrying a message to the back lines, or whatever. The result was that he had become something of a laughing stock, as many younger dwarves had already come of age while he was still a "child". So one day, with his mother's blessing, he set out into the world to find a goblin to kill and thereby prove himself . . .

That PC backstory satisfied all my stipulations - a loyalty (indeed, a whole cultural grounding) and a reason to be ready to fight goblins and it didn't contradict anything in the default setting of the core books.

For much of the campaign the main significance of the details of this backstory (as opposed to the general dwarfiness) was that one of the other warrior PCs (voiced by a teasing player) would refer to the dwarf's lack of genuine fighting skill, penchant for being on latrine duty, etc. When the PC's reached paragon tier, however, and were travelling in the foothills of the mountains where the dwarves live, I decided to bring it into play in a different way. By that time the PC had developed a cleric multi-class, and the player chose a cleric paragon path (Warpriest) for the PC. At some relevant time - probably after an extended rest - I described the appearance of an angel, from Moradin, with a message that a group of dwarves needed aid. The angel led them (or gave directions - memory fails) and the PCs, led by the dwarf, arrived on a scene of carnage - a group of dwarves scouting far to the west of the Dwarfholme had successfully repelled a band of hobgoblin attackers, but many had been killed and many of the survivors badly injured.

Of course (as I narrated) the dwarf PC recognised many of these dwarves from his time in the militia. And they recognised him, and mocked him - What are you doing here? An angel told us that aid would come, so why are we getting the latrine cleaner? There were obviously a variety of possible responses here, but the player chose to demonstrate his prowess and assert his status as no longer a "child" dwarf but the most powerful champion of Moradin in the land (mechanically, in the context of the skill challenge, a skill check - Intimidate? Diplomacy? - modified by the expenditure of an appropriate encounter power exemplary of martial prowess). The check succeeded, and so the PC's standing among his fellow dwarves changed suddenly and dramatically - the rescued dwarves acknowledged him as their leader, and willingly followed him. Sadly many of them died not too much later when the hobgoblins attacked again, with reinforcements, while the party was staying in a hill village, and the hobgoblins' dinosaur knocked over the house where the injured dwarves were sheltering. (But this encounter did result in the only dino-riding ranger I've personally seen in play - the PC elven ranger killed the hobgoblin beast tamer and took control of the behemoth for himself - it was rather Legolas-like!)

One of the surviving dwarves - Gutboy Barrelhouse - who had initially been the most derisive of the PC, appointed himself the PC's herald, and has held that role since.

It is very hard for me to envisage a better series of story developments that would have happened by "policing" or overriding the player's initial presentation of his PC.
 

Sadras

Legend
It is very hard for me to envisage a better series of story developments that would have happened by "policing" or overriding the player's initial presentation of his PC.

Wow, it is almost as if you believe or at minimum suggest that the rest of us pregen/mold every PC's background?
 
Last edited:



Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Doing something someone else doesn't like doesn't necessarily make you a bad DM. That's true. Deliberately doing it to someone when you absolutely know that they don't want you to? That's a lot bigger issue, AFAIC. I mean, I loathe puzzles in RPG's. Don't mind mysteries, but, puzzles of the "Speak friend and enter" kind drive me straight up the wall.

But, I also know that lots of people do like them. So, when they come up in game, I don't complain. I just don't participate very much. No problems. I'll go and get everyone a drink or clean up the pizza boxes or whatever. No harm no foul.

OTOH, a DM who, knowing how much I loathe puzzles, decides that the next campaign is going to be nothing but Mud Sorcerer's Tomb type adventures for 20 levels is not what I consider a good DM.

We agree there. That last example would be a DM falling into the asshat category. The first example is similar to the DM engaging the patron to give the warlock a small task. That's why I am okay with the small task, but not the idea floated around this thread of turning the patron into a villain, which would be an example of the second sort.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
I don't think your "definition" helps. I regard nearly every GM technique you articulate on these boards as a recipe for railroading and abuse of power. You obviously disagree.

I don't disagree. I just don't agree with you that the DM will cook up those things with that recipe. It's certainly possible for some DMs(the bad ones) to cook up railroading and abuse the power with those ingredients, but the vast majority of DMs of my style don't use them to cook up those issues.
 

Remove ads

Top