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

[Lanefan]

Either the reveals are part of the campaign, or they're not reveals - just speculations by the GM about how things might have gone.

And if they are reveals, and are part of the campaign, so what?

The reveal of something being significantly not what you thought it was does not in any way invalidate, or give any reason or excuse to retcon, what you (as both player and character) did based on the knowledge you had before the reveal occurred. Remember, player knowledge ideally equals character knowledge; and if you're only just now finding out along with your character that his dear ol' Dad's a mass murderer in his spare time then how does that change anything that went before? You still had the same fond memories etc. of your Gaffer while you were out in the field, and wanted more than anything else to get back to be by his side - that doesn't get retconned. Regretted maybe, but not retconned.

Same things apply when the mission sponsor (different term this time, to avoid warlocky confusion) heel-turns when you bring him the McGuffin. Nothing gets invalidated. Nothing gets retconned. The PCs still all did what they did, and the changes they made to and in the fiction remain in place. You-as-player might very well share your character's annoyance on learning said character has been duped - but remember that it's the character who has been duped, not the player*. Nothing materially changes for the player; session 11 will still sail next week just like session 10 did this week, and the game will pick up then where it leaves off tonight.

* - unless in a most unusual turn of events the DM during session 0 had promised to never dupe or double-cross the PCs, but what DM worth her salt would do that?

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

Not on the surface...but what's that I hear bubbling underneath, perchance?

 

[pemerton]

And if they are reveals, and are part of the campaign, so what?

The reveal of something being significantly not what you thought it was does not in any way invalidate, or give any reason or excuse to retcon, what you (as both player and character) did based on the knowledge you had before the reveal occurred. Remember, player knowledge ideally equals character knowledge; and if you're only just now finding out along with your character that his dear ol' Dad's a mass murderer in his spare time then how does that change anything that went before?

I already gave examples. In Star Wars Luke romances with Leia. Later on he, and we the audience, discover they are siblings. This gives a very different - incestuous - meaning to that romancing.

In JRRT's tale of Turin Turambar, the discovery that a relationship was in fact incestuous is the culmination of the story, and the point at which Turin realises that in many ways his life has been simply a plaything of evil forces.

I gave other literary examples upthread.

If someone plays RPG as tactical and or puzzle-solving exercises, then this notion of meaning will not be relevant to them. But I'm not one of those people.

 

[Shasarak]

See, at the end of the day, I really have to ask, who is all this for? I mean, the other players probably don't care too much about my character's relationship with his patron. I obviously don't care (as an example. I would actually not background this, but, I'm using myself as an example) because I want to background this element. So, exactly who is this for?

"Mr. DM. I really liked that session, but, you know what would have really put it over the top? Orc babies!" said no player ever.

"Last night was pretty good, but, what would have really made it great was if we spent more time hiding the druid's allosaurus," again, said no player ever.

So, if it's not for the player of the character, and the rest of the group likely couldn't give two rat's petoots, all we're left with is the DM. Who, at the end of the day, is just doing it for him or herself. Because the DM certainly isn't doing it for the group.

You know the old saying of 30 minutes of fun packed into 4 hours of play? Well that does not happen by itself, someone has to work hard to pad out the game that much.

 

[Sadras]

But what does this show, other than that some players have bad taste? So do some GMs - there's no reason that I know of to think that GMing selects for better taste than playing.

How does this show that Gm authority is a better principle?

I think [MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION] answered this question pretty well with his filter post.

I will just add, in a DM-driven story, the big picture is known by the DM, so he would be best aware what will and will not work in a given campaign. Can a DM be too stringent? Sure.

Like always, as a player you have to find a DM you believe is fair, respect and trust.

 

[pemerton]

You know the old saying of 30 minutes of fun packed into 4 hours of play? Well that does not happen by itself, someone has to work hard to pad out the game that much.

Some of the suggestions that getting sent on GM-initiated fetch quests or whatever by the patron is part of the "cost" of playing a warlock did make me think of this. It's as if the "cost" is content that (in the posited example) no one at the table (except perhaps the GM) wants.

 

[Shasarak]

Some of the suggestions that getting sent on GM-initiated fetch quests or whatever by the patron is part of the "cost" of playing a warlock did make me think of this. It's as if the "cost" is content that (in the posited example) no one at the table (except perhaps the GM) wants.

In your sleep you are visited by your Gawds Angel. As you prostate yourself before its glory you hear its majestic proclamation.

"You have not been tithing enough to the Church. It is 10% of the Gross not Net, you knew the rules when you signed up. No more spells until you pay."

 

[Hussar]

/snip
A motorcycle worry free in an elders vtM game might be a no problem - when i ran one - money and resources were mostly hand-waved anyway as based off "resource points" iirc.

But when that means my next game pitch for a streett level anarches or caitiff game or even a traveller grim and gritty cannot include "we will track things like vehicles and they are at risk etc" that makes me a dick GM for pitching something you do not like... that makes those kinds of "acceptances" take a]on a much bigger long term impact to what games we are allowed to play.

Obviously. Backgrounding can't be done for major campaign elements. If we're playing a post apocalyptic setting a la Mad Max, then backgrounding a motorcycle couldn't be done. Sorry, I thought we had made this clear earlier.

But then, my games are never pitched as "if you are allowed in this game, you get permanent agreement to stay in all my games going forward." hell, my games come with an explicit statement that "if your character dies, you may not be allowed to "reload" and come back in with a new character immediately if at all."

i guess you could say my game pitches and invites are more like "casual dating" or "going steady" (depends on how long they are) - not "marriage proposals." i can be a lot more open, accepting and willing to try new things for a "one night stand" than i would be for a proposal of marriage. (Sometimes regretting those but not always.)

But, if i agreed to "no beholders in this game" i would honor it. I just have to agree to it first tho.

Wow, that's harsh. O.O

I guess it's because I value my players. It has taken me many years to build a solid group of people that I enjoy playing with week after week. And, as we are all busy adults, not playing in my regular time means I wouldn't be playing at all and same for most of my players. This is our gaming night. Which means that ejecting a player because his character died just wouldn't even be a consideration.

 

[Hussar]

Not sure about Story Now styled games but yep this pretty much sums up the progression in this thread... I mean along with the claims of bad DM'ing if you don't allow all of this in your game. i was originally ok with some minor backgrounding but seeing how far this has ballooned out in just this conversation alone... I'm thinking it would just be a PitA and would probably just avoid it period.

I'd point out that most of the ballooning has been done by those who are trying to "prove" that backgrounding is somehow bad. I mean, we started with a simple bear companion that somehow morphed into a T-Rex.

 

[Hussar]

But the GM wasn't hands off regarding the deity... he created history, setting, icons, etc. about the deity. that's not hands off that's very much hands on. You were hands off about a very specific aspect of the deity but this is more akin to collaboration (which many posters including myself are ok with to an extent) as opposed to the deity being backgrounded by the player so that the DM must be hands off. You can't argue these things are part of a players concept and not be touched when it comes to the father example but then claim they are irrelevant in this one.

It is hands off though in the sense of backgrounding. Note, we have posited that the character's church is backgrounded - it will not be the focus of play. Things like history, setting, icons, are all part of the background. They are not integral to the game and the game isn't about those things.

Note, backgrounding doesn't mean that the DM can't do anything with the backgrounded element. Same as the player. It's just that these things are not going to be the focus of play. So, while having a motorcycle off camera means that my vampire gets to look cool riding around, it's not the focus of play. If I then brought the motorcycle into a fight, then the gloves come off and now it's foregrounded. Blow it up if you like. But, if I leave it outside the bar, then it just doesn't get stolen.

I really get the sense that people are taking this to much further extremes than what is actually meant.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], to save a bit of time with hunting for a needle in a haystack, what was the name again of the RPG you mentioned that had this Background mechanic? It may be helpful to examine how the mechanic or rule is worded. It could help us all re-focus our efforts in this thread.

Oh, man, it's been a while. I'm pretty sure it's Chronica Feudalis. I'd have to do some SERIOUS digging to find it. Hrm, should be on my RPGNOW library though. I'll do some diving.