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

[TwoSix]

A GM adding "Pleasantville - a village the PCs are not allowed to mess up by fiat" would be generally not well lauded, most circles.

So, why is it good for players to be able to do that? Unstealable bikes, uncorruptable relatives, etc?

You're the DM....everything in the setting is automatically protected by fiat as long as you don't bring it up. Maybe in your version of Greyhawk, wizards all belong to a Tower of High Sorcery. But since your players aren't playing a wizard, you simply don't mention it, since its irrelevant to the story.

But as the DM, you have the extra responsibility that anything you frame into the story, even if it's simply by exposition, is something the players can now work with.

 

[5ekyu]

You're the DM....everything in the setting is automatically protected by fiat as long as you don't bring it up. Maybe in your version of Greyhawk, wizards all belong to a Tower of High Sorcery. But since your players aren't playing a wizard, you simply don't mention it, since its irrelevant to the story.

But as the DM, you have the extra responsibility that anything you frame into the story, even if it's simply by exposition, is something the players can now work with.

and if one of my npcs had a motorcycle that they used to get around in the campaign from a to b... it would be my responsibility to treat it as fair game if the players chose to interact with it in a less than honest potentially could be seen as theft-adjacent capacity, right?

But a player having his pc have a motorcycle he uses to get around during the game from a to b... is that responsibility any different from mine as Gm? Does he have no responsibility to let it also be considered "fair game"? or his bear companion be without any serious notice when walking into a town with it - beyond odd stares say?

One of the first things i said when backgrounding your home life and father and mother was basically "if you do not want them used, dont give them to me the Gm and bring them up in any way." i referred to them as your private fanfiction. Sounds a lot like your wizards tower i never mention, doesn't it?

 

[Imaro]

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.

Well when you introduce a concept that posters aren't familiar with and explain it with a broad sentence or two you should expect an ask on clarification/limits/etc. The ballooning mostly happened because every time the limit was pushed and the question of backgrounding was asked, the answer was... Yeah, and if you don't allow them to do it you are a bad DM. So I think people were just trying to get a feel for what the boundaries of this new mechanic were, which seemed to boil down to anything the campaign isn't focused on (of course it also seemed like backgrounding could be used in order to declare something as outside the focus of the campaign before it even started... but honestly I'm a little unclear on that). To be honest the rules you posted later seemed to define what fell into the purview of backgrounding in a more specific way than the impression I was getting from this thread.

 

[5ekyu]

Well when you introduce a concept that posters aren't familiar with and explain it with a broad sentence or two you should expect an ask on clarification/limits/etc. The ballooning mostly happened because every time the limit was pushed and the question of backgrounding was asked, the answer was... Yeah, and if you don't allow them to do it you are a bad DM. So I think people were just trying to get a feel for what the boundaries of this new mechanic were, which seemed to boil down to anything the campaign isn't focused on (of course it also seemed like backgrounding could be used in order to declare something as outside the focus of the campaign before it even started... but honestly I'm a little unclear on that). To be honest the rules you posted later seemed to define what fell into the purview of backgrounding in a more specific way than the impression I was getting from this thread.

honestly, reading the rules finally posted as the core we see it as a broadly encompassing tool.

the lover stuff is one guy saying "hey, i dont want to see the smoochey stuff" as a player and so the smoochey stuff is moved "off-camera" and certainly not like a motorcycle being ridden all over town.

but then you get to the broader one - "dont want the combat stuff cuz my character is so good" which is really again more of a huge campaign "what game are we playing" thing - not "my bear gets ignored when i want it to."

What we have in those other rules are basically what seem to be much more in line of:
1 - What game do we want to play? DnD or Blue Rose or Indie Screetime Ghostbusters etc... in that the role and resolution method of actual combat is being determined.
2 - The pre-game triggers for players list of no-no's that are intended to weed out sensitive subject matter.

translated into D&D here as you observe it has basically been trumped into a much more hands on factor with hardly any limits - even to the divines in the campaign.

and still not a technique i would allow at my table (we do not like meta-game fixes) but one i have no issues with others using by agreement, as long as the scope and impacts are made clearer than it was here.

 

[Imaro]

Depends, are you talking about creating fluff for the class or fluff for the character? I don't really need the class descriptions to give me a bunch of flavor, other than how the mechanics work. For D&D specifically, the history of the game makes the fluff worth keeping, and it also gives me something to work against. You can't invert a paradigm without a paradigm in place.

Take a look at this article from the website, this is an excerpt of the kind of ideas I like to use when making characters.

I'm speaking of fluff for the class... though in choosing that class it in turn becomes fluff for the character... even if it is just to subvert it.

As I stated earlier in this thread my group and I look at the fluff of a class as intrinsically tied to the type of fantasy that D&D gameplay provides us and thus just as important as mechanics (Even moreso when choosing a specific campaign world to play in). Can it be changed and subverted sure... but again it's that initial fluff that gives that subversion or change it's meaning in the fictional world.

EDIT: If Artificer class fiction doesn't establish that they approach magic from a scientific mindset... then you're "Mad Artificer" lacks the juxtaposition that makes it a noteworthy trait. In a sword and sorcery leaning game as opposed to Eberron D&D, a mad artificer would probably just be the norm.

 

[Imaro]

You're the DM....everything in the setting is automatically protected by fiat as long as you don't bring it up. Maybe in your version of Greyhawk, wizards all belong to a Tower of High Sorcery. But since your players aren't playing a wizard, you simply don't mention it, since its irrelevant to the story.

Uhm... there are certainly a few posters in this thread who wouldn't agree with this statement and would say the setting is actually the groups as opposed to the DM's...

But as the DM, you have the extra responsibility that anything you frame into the story, even if it's simply by exposition, is something the players can now work with.

Does this work both ways?

 

[Imaro]

honestly, reading the rules finally posted as the core we see it as a broadly encompassing tool.

the lover stuff is one guy saying "hey, i dont want to see the smoochey stuff" as a player and so the smoochey stuff is moved "off-camera" and certainly not like a motorcycle being ridden all over town.

but then you get to the broader one - "dont want the combat stuff cuz my character is so good" which is really again more of a huge campaign "what game are we playing" thing - not "my bear gets ignored when i want it to."

What we have in those other rules are basically what seem to be much more in line of:
1 - What game do we want to play? DnD or Blue Rose or Indie Screetime Ghostbusters etc... in that the role and resolution method of actual combat is being determined.
2 - The pre-game triggers for players list of no-no's that are intended to weed out sensitive subject matter.

translated into D&D here as you observe it has basically been trumped into a much more hands on factor with hardly any limits - even to the divines in the campaign.

and still not a technique i would allow at my table (we do not like meta-game fixes) but one i have no issues with others using by agreement, as long as the scope and impacts are made clearer than it was here.

Yeah the combat thing threw me for a loop but then when you think of it outside of D&D I can get it there are games that downplay or even penalize for combat (Dr. Who rpg for example) and some games where it just wouldn't be appropriate to describe it graphically or even engage in it for the most part (My Little Pony rpg). But yeah it does seem to have been applied here to D&D in a much more liberal way with limitations, if any, that I am still unclear on.

 

[5ekyu]

Yeah the combat thing threw me for a loop but then when you think of it outside of D&D I can get it there are games that downplay or even penalize for combat (Dr. Who rpg for example) and some games where it just wouldn't be appropriate to describe it graphically or even engage in it for the most part (My Little Pony rpg). But yeah it does seem to have been applied here to D&D in a much more liberal way with limitations, if any, that I am still unclear on.

Having played a number of indie games with all sorts of different scope, scale and resolutions theres a lot of different ways to rpg.

A good deal of those techniques can be adopted to harder games like dnd.

But it does need to be done with care, finesse and an understanding of the differences in the audience expectations to be done well.

Some games allow for resolution of group combats in just a few checks... Not a good match nexessarily for a game system with a lot of combat fiddly bits in the chargen.

Thats one of the mashup mistakes i watch out for - is my new insert at odds with something focused on in chatacter design/development? Will it nullify a "tough choice" or "meaningful choice" the players (or other players
) had to make?

If so, then either the new insertion has to be rethought or that base choice does.

It boils down to at one level why make them do work on stuuf my new insertion mashup makes frivolous?

Use rules that match your style.

In a VtM elders game, i handle motorcycles and gear and stuff with wealth scores and occasional checks if the purchase or on-hand threshold exceeded your score and getting around town isnt a thing - no need for **either** detailed spending on a bike or detailed backgrounding.

Keeps the rules reflecting the game we want without need for meta-eraser work-arounds.

Btw - eveey gm should run at least one diceless game. It makes your diced game GMing better imo.

 

[TwoSix]

Uhm... there are certainly a few posters in this thread who wouldn't agree with this statement and would say the setting is actually the groups as opposed to the DM's...

Well, everything that won't be impacted by the PCs, anyway. Even just framing scenes gives the DM fairly broad latitude over setting details.

And come on, man...let's not pretend like you don't know whose team I'm on.

Does this work both ways?

If I was using the rule set Hussar described, probably not. In general, declaring an aspect of the game world as "out of scope" seems like something I would have no problem with either the DM or player declaring during a session 0.

 

[Satyrn]

And come on, man...let's not pretend like you don't know whose team I'm on.

I don't know. Being in Jersey, you might side with either the Giants or Eagles. Which puts you totally on the wrong side.