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

[Maxperson]

Your definition seems to include at least one bit of "things I dislike."

Most people dislike DM abuses of power. While abuses of power are disliked, most things that are disliked are not abuses of power. So dislike remains a very poor way to determine if a DM is bad, as it quite literally makes all DMs, bad DMs.

 

[Imaro]

Well, it wouldn't be a single fight would it?

Yes it would.

It would be that fight, plus the next at least one encounter which would deal with the repercussions of that.

I don't understand this... the next encounter would be decided by the actions and luck of the PC's like any other fight... not an automatic "L". On the other hand once something is backgrounded it is a persistent state of off-limits to the DM throughout the entire campaign.

And, again, it's apples and oranges. You're talking about the DM forcing the entire group to do something they probably don't want to do. Which is going to have repercussions that last for at least one more encounter and likely more. I'm talking about putting something in the background that isn't even in play yet because this is done at character generation.

But the justification is the same one you are using... it's only one of many so why is it a big deal... that's kind of my point, mit's not really a good justification.

Would you be okay if the DM didn't use a beholder in the next campaign? Because, frankly, that's the equivalent.

Huh? Beholders are something that, by the default stance of D&D are under the DM's control... him choosing or not choosing to use them isn't something he usually controlled by a player that is now being co-opted by the DM to remove said control from the player. This is apples to oranges.

 

[pemerton]

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

Well, I'm only going on the fact that [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] told [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] that doing something-or-other about dwarf gods and religion would require the permission of two GMs.

Plus this repeated suggestion that the GM won't have fun if s/he isn't allowed to establish that dear dad (or in my game's case) dear mum waiting at home for the PC to return from the quest is really a serial killer or whatever.

If those apparent assertions that the GM gets to control all backstory and NPCs aren't really assertions that the GM gets to control all backstory and NPCs then someone's going to have to translate them for me, because I'm taking them literally. And taken literally that's what they say. Whereas I just gave an actual play example in which the player controlled a whole heap of backstory including a whole heap of NPCs.

 

[Sadras]

If those apparent assertions that the GM gets to control all backstory and NPCs aren't really assertions that the GM gets to control all backstory and NPCs then someone's going to have to translate them for me, because I'm taking them literally. And taken literally that's what they say. Whereas I just gave an actual play example in which the player controlled a whole heap of backstory including a whole heap of NPCs.

The DM is the final arbiter given he is the master of the universe, looking at big picture i.e. story, setting consistency and setting vision.

Does the DM need to involve himself in every detail just because they have that authority. No. If the background provided by the player for his/her character does not affect the story being driven, setting vision or causes any consistency issues, then the DM does not change anything.

DM authority does not automatically result in DM action.

 

[Imaro]

I believe that it completely refutes the claim that has been made or implied by multiple posters in this thread that (i) if the player of a cleric or paladin or similar sort of character is allowed to establish what the demands are that allegiance to god/patron/etc makes on his/her PC, then (ii) those demands will have no consequences in play and will probably not even manifest in play such that other participants in the game can observe and engage with them.

I'm sorry but did the players create all that history, the murals, etc. about the Raven Queen? I got the impression either you created that or it was created independently of both you and the players... if that's the case it's a far cry from the backgrounding (at least as it's been presented in this thread) that I and other posters aren't too keen on.

OK, so you agree that if my character concept includes having a loving family waiting for me when I return from my quest, then that is part of who my character is, and hence the GM changing/overriding that can override/distort my character concept.

I agree if it's brought up in play if not (as the Sam Gamgee example originally presented indicated) then no, it doesn't the DM can do whatever he wants with the NPC father outside of your character's knowledge and it won't have a single effect on that character's concept.

Change it to a noble and loving family, or an honest and loving family, then. As per my post upthread, I had in mind a revelation that a dear dad very similar to Samwise Gamgee's Gaffer was in fact a serial killer - ie something that radically undermines the PC and player conception of the family.

How often and when throughout the story does Sam Gamgee interact with said father? How do his father's actions off scerne in any way affect his actions, thoughts, etc. during the campaign/story.

Is it part of the campaign or not? If the GM just imagines to him-/herself that my PC's father is a serial killer, that is definitely in the "playing with oneself" category. Solitary imagination is not an instance of RPGing.

Exactly and has no effect on the player or how they play their character.

So I'm assuming that this is something that the GM actually reveals in play. At which point it completely changes my character conception - eg instead of doing this stuff so that I can make the world safe for my family and return back to them (again, this is pointing to Samwise Gamgee as the paradigm) I've been completely misguided about what I was doing and achieving. And what affect did it have on my action declarations? It meant that I made them grounded in a false rather than true belief about the nature of my PC's family and my PC's relationship to them and to his/her goals and values. In the realm of fiction, there are many well-known example of this sort of revelation changing the meaning of a character's actions and the relationships those actions are connected to eg Jane Eyre (Mrs Rochester), Howard's End (Jacky). The most devastating I can think of is Graeme Greene's The Human Factor.

You assumed something totally different from the initial situation that was presented. The fact that the father was a serial killer was only revealed at the end of the campaign in the original situation which as you stated above isn't RPGing and thus shouldn't affect the character concept. If anything it's a pointless change that probably annoys the player and serves no real in-game purpose for the DM (who knows maybe he just wants a "shocker" ending). But arguing a change you knew nothing about until the end of the campaign somehow trampled all over your character concept is just silly IMO.

 

[Imaro]

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

Well I'm starting to think it's hard not to do this at least a little bit when the concept of background for some players is used to encompass not only events, people, places and things from their character's past but also includes dictating the state of current and future events, places, people and things.

 

[pemerton]

The DM is the final arbiter given he is the master of the universe, looking at big picture i.e. story, setting consistency and setting vision.

Does the DM need to involve himself in every detail just because they have that authority. No. If the background provided by the player for his/her character does not affect the story being driven, setting vision or causes any consistency issues, then the DM does not change anything.

DM authority does not automatically result in DM action.

The outlook that seems to be implicit in your post is what I was pushing against with my post.

I knew there were going to be dwarves in our gameworld, because (i) there was a map with mountains in it (the interior gatefold cover map of B11 Night's Dark Terror) and (ii) dwarves are quite prominent in the default 4e setting. And obviously dwarves fight with goblins. But it would never have occurred to me to come up with the conception of dwarven culture that this player did.

If, in fact, you're not planning to police or override these player contributions, to what end are you asserting this GM authority? But if you are going to override them - and if what my player described isn't outlandish enough to trigger your threshold for overriding then what would be? - then I am suggesting that you're doing yourself and your game a disservice.

To put it another way - I don't think it is coherent to claim both that a game gets the full payoff of player creativity and conributions and that the GM is the ultimate authority. To get that payoff sometimes the GM has to yield to the player - that's the first step in finding out what the payoff might be!

 

[pemerton]

You assumed something totally different from the initial situation that was presented. The fact that the father was a serial killer was only revealed at the end of the campaign in the original situation which as you stated above isn't RPGing and thus shouldn't affect the character concept.

I don't understand how you are using the notion of "character concept".

I think I made it pretty clear in my post what I mean - that the meaning of the characer's actions can change (quite fundamentally) if it turns out that their relationships differed from what they thought they were. And I pointed to some well-known examples from literature and film. If you don't regard meaning in that sense as a component of RPGing, then your position makes sense, but you're approaching RPGing in a completely different fashion from how I do.

 

[Sadras]

Well I'm starting to think it's hard not to do this at least a little bit when the concept of background for some players is used to encompass not only events, people, places and things from their character's past but also includes dictating the state of current and future events, places, people and things.

So it started out with Alignment and Deities.
Moved over to Patrons.
I asked if entire racial clans could then be off limits. The answer I received was "Why Not"
The movement nabbed a few archbishops.
Motorcycles were also included for good measure.
Past, Present and Future mom & pops.
And then we neatly backgrounded it all under a nice bow.

And even if we don't backgrounded it, it is off limits and player can move the pieces around as they like.

And all this still has nothing to do with Story Now styled games

 

[pemerton]

I believe that it completely refutes the claim that has been made or implied by multiple posters in this thread that (i) if the player of a cleric or paladin or similar sort of character is allowed to establish what the demands are that allegiance to god/patron/etc makes on his/her PC, then (ii) those demands will have no consequences in play and will probably not even manifest in play such that other participants in the game can observe and engage with them.

I'm sorry but did the players create all that history, the murals, etc. about the Raven Queen? I got the impression either you created that or it was created independently of both you and the players

The murals aren't what the demands are that allegiance to god/patron/etc makes on his/her PC. They're colour. Reread the actual play example paying attention to the way in which the players declare actions for their PCs that reflect conceptions of what the demands are that are made by their gods etc. Notice how those demands come from the players, not the GM and yet also that (i) they are clearly manifest in play (including in an extensive debate between the players-as-characters about what they should do, as well as in other actions around the revelation or concealment of the Raven Queen's true name), and (ii) they produce consequences, such as tensions between party members, decisions about whether to allow her name to be discovered, decisions about how to protect the Mausoleum, etc.

These are things which some posters in this thread - including, I believe, you - have asserted won't happen if the player gets to decide what the demands are that an allegiance makes on his/her PC.