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

[Aldarc]

To be fair though, a patron isn't exactly an NPC in the traditional sense. If you're an Old One Patron warlock, I really, really doubt that whatever old one you draw from is even aware of your existence. ((or, perhaps, heaven help you if it does ))

And, the thing is, that sort of thinking tends to make players REALLY gun shy about making any sort of connections to the anyone or anything in the game. Your patron betrays you is almost cliche by now. It's to the point where an NPC that doesn't stab you in the back is a pleasant surprise.

The people behind the Baby Bestiary have recently released a new warlock patron that is a spin on the usual sort. As a caretaker warlock, you are making a pact with an "infant" power, promising to protect it now for some power in exchange for greater future power later. So you are effectively growing in power alongside it. There is probably less likelihood in this patronage for back-stabbing which is nice.

One mechanic that I saw in a game called Chronica Feudalis is something I do love. It's called Background. Not background as in where your character came from, but, background as in something not in the foreground. The player gets to delineate two or three things about his character that are in the Background. They are true for the campaign but, the DM is specifically not supposed to do anything with it. So, if your Background was, say, Extended Family - then maybe you have relatives all over the place and everywhere you go, you meet (or can choose to meet) them. But, the DM is not allowed to center any play around that. So no kidnapping a sister, nobody gets into trouble and needs to be bailed out, that sort of thing.

I tend to treat things like Warlock Patrons the same way. I'd be very, very careful messing with a player's Patron in any way. That's a major part of that character. I would always talk to the player beforehand before making any sort of change in the relationship between the PC and the Patron.

I've found that this approach means that players will stop coming to the table with Man with no Name characters who are orphans who just arrived in town on a ship/caravan from very, very far away.

That's a nice idea. I may also have to steal that myself. I could see that building up a lot of trust narrative-wise between the DM and PC stories.

 

[pemerton]

The original part I wasx esponding yo was your dismissal of 10-20 hours of a quest driven by Patron request macguffin etc where you called it ludicrous and went on about how you did it without screen time.

"The idea that I would play for 10 to 20 hours just so a GM can set up a long-term villain is (in my view) ludicrous in itself.

Setting up a long-term villain in my 4e game took no play time in two..."

Etc

You have chosen yo characterize that screen time quest setup negatively so far, iirc multiple times, and that's fine of course but as I said in my experience such a series of sessions or hours of play derived from and focused around that PC specific relationship is not something I have seen many come away with that view.

Obviously, anything can be just setup off-screen with write-ups - not unlike having critical info for a movie done in opening voice over narration, but it's rare to see someone so heavily against what of effectively the rpg equivalent of the entertainment axiom of "show them, don't tell them."

So just to be clear - you're telling me that you know better than me what the game was like that I left, to what extent it involve the PCs, to what extent it was or wasn't a railroad, and whether or not I would have enjoyed it had I continued?

If you don't know those things, then what are you saying?


EDIT: What is the GM "showing" in spending multiple sessions of play which have no point except to set up this "long term villain" - given that the whole scenario is a fetch-quest established by that NPC in the first place? Obviously the PCs couldn't have refused the fetch-quest, as then the GM would have had no game to run for us. So what is the GM showing? That he can manipulate the story? That we are not going to play games that involve anything meaningful? That we were suckers for taking the fetch-quest in the first place?

 

[5ekyu]

To be fair though, a patron isn't exactly an NPC in the traditional sense. If you're an Old One Patron warlock, I really, really doubt that whatever old one you draw from is even aware of your existence. ((or, perhaps, heaven help you if it does ))

And, the thing is, that sort of thinking tends to make players REALLY gun shy about making any sort of connections to the anyone or anything in the game. Your patron betrays you is almost cliche by now. It's to the point where an NPC that doesn't stab you in the back is a pleasant surprise.

One mechanic that I saw in a game called Chronica Feudalis is something I do love. It's called Background. Not background as in where your character came from, but, background as in something not in the foreground. The player gets to delineate two or three things about his character that are in the Background. They are true for the campaign but, the DM is specifically not supposed to do anything with it. So, if your Background was, say, Extended Family - then maybe you have relatives all over the place and everywhere you go, you meet (or can choose to meet) them. But, the DM is not allowed to center any play around that. So no kidnapping a sister, nobody gets into trouble and needs to be bailed out, that sort of thing.

I tend to treat things like Warlock Patrons the same way. I'd be very, very careful messing with a player's Patron in any way. That's a major part of that character. I would always talk to the player beforehand before making any sort of change in the relationship between the PC and the Patron.

I've found that this approach means that players will stop coming to the table with Man with no Name characters who are orphans who just arrived in town on a ship/caravan from very, very far away.

I am always not in the least surprised how often the one reference of one possibility of one of the patrons gets trotted out as if it gets a free pass from all the rest of the class definition.

Your patron not being aware of your existence does not wipe away any of the rest of the requirements of obligations or ties with NPCs the warlock class brings to the table. It simply requires a different manifestation of them. Maybe the "instructions" or "tasks" or such come from the secret order of those who also "leech off his most foul sleeper who must not wake" or maybe it's more an occasional need to do things to keep that most foul sleeper from waking up or noticing you. As the class specifies these have to be worked out between player and gm.

My discussion with new players to my games who start angling towards ties to npcs that they try to gimmick in a way that only goes one way is "try something else. Play a warlock or play a cleric BECAUSE you want that relationship to be a factor that plays a role in the character life and play, not because you imagine a way to duck out of that part. There are plenty an infinity of other character concepts that dont put relationships directly into their mechanics and concept."

If that "scares them off warlocks and clerics" in my games, great!!!! It's a win win. They select a no strings type and I dont get friction everytime an npc does not do what they want.

Maybe after they see in play how much the players who jump right in and want their npc ties to be a game thing and see both benefits and drawbacks from that relationship and how much it plays out as another fun and challenging part of the characters story and how much more it gave that player to work with than the orphan with no name they will decide to try it one day.

Patron is not spelled with an E in my games.

 

[pemerton]

I think anyone who has read my posts will know that I am not talking about a warlock mechanic. I am using the word patron in a non-technical sense - in this context, a sponsor of an expedition.

But had the scenario involved a warlock's patron or cleric's god playing out the same way, I would have disliked it equally.

 

[5ekyu]

One mechanic that I saw in a game called Chronica Feudalis is something I do love. It's called Background. Not background as in where your character came from, but, background as in something not in the foreground. The player gets to delineate two or three things about his character that are in the Background. They are true for the campaign but, the DM is specifically not supposed to do anything with it. So, if your Background was, say, Extended Family - then maybe you have relatives all over the place and everywhere you go, you meet (or can choose to meet) them. But, the DM is not allowed to center any play around that. So no kidnapping a sister, nobody gets into trouble and needs to be bailed out, that sort of thing.

Re this element in specific - i would not play in or gm a game with that mechanic.

Reason 1 - if you trust your GM you do not need to have GM-hands-off GM-proofing rules. if you do not trust your Gm you have much bigger problems than what happens to your character's sister.

Reason 2 - If you want things to be "not in game play" elements, its easy, do not put them into the game. Write them in your private self-fan-fiction and do NOT hand them to the Gm and require him to read them. Do not tell the Gm under foprce of rule "this is out of bounds for you" when *you* choose to add it in. Dont waste my and everyone else's time with things you want to add in and have some form of plot immunity. "My character is afraid of snakes" should not mean you then get to deny the use of snakes as scenery or adversaries.

2a this is in no way related to player-triggers and group agreements on PLAYER SIDE acceptable/inacceptable tones and themes and events. this involves the player getting carte blanche to decalre things they add into the game as off-limits for inclusion in the plot to the point of somehow other NPCs being forbidden to engage with them in a way the player does not like.

On the subject of good ways to foster more than orhphan no-names, i find its not done by giving them "off limits i will ignore this" stuff that breeds literally no trust and does not show them any of the benefits that can come of it. i find its much better to show through those players who do trust the Gm that these "ties" if allowed to be engaged as part of the plot can serve as good and bad and always interesting additions - things that overall mattered more and did more to move the story and focus the story on that PC than they ever could have in some form of ghost mode solitaire scenery.

Thats how it has worked for me and i have used it many times with players who came in GM-shy for good reasons from other GMs.

 

[Maxperson]

I have to agree with [MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION] on this one. If you are going to pick a class that has obligations(cleric, paladin & warlock), you have to expect that obligations will come knocking at some point. The warlock class even has a section called Sworn and Beholden, which says this gem, "More often, though, the arrangement is similar to that between a master and an apprentice. The warlock learns and grows in power, at the cost of occasional services performed on the patron’s behalf.". If you don't want to be treated like an apprentice and obligated to perform services for you patron, don't pick warlock. If you don't want to be obligated to the church and your god to do things, don't pick paladin or cleric.

 

[Nagol]

Re this element in specific - i would not play in or gm a game with that mechanic.

Reason 1 - if you trust your GM you do not need to have GM-hands-off GM-proofing rules. if you do not trust your Gm you have much bigger problems than what happens to your character's sister.

Reason 2 - If you want things to be "not in game play" elements, its easy, do not put them into the game. Write them in your private self-fan-fiction and do NOT hand them to the Gm and require him to read them. Do not tell the Gm under foprce of rule "this is out of bounds for you" when *you* choose to add it in. Dont waste my and everyone else's time with things you want to add in and have some form of plot immunity. "My character is afraid of snakes" should not mean you then get to deny the use of snakes as scenery or adversaries.

2a this is in no way related to player-triggers and group agreements on PLAYER SIDE acceptable/inacceptable tones and themes and events. this involves the player getting carte blanche to decalre things they add into the game as off-limits for inclusion in the plot to the point of somehow other NPCs being forbidden to engage with them in a way the player does not like.

On the subject of good ways to foster more than orhphan no-names, i find its not done by giving them "off limits i will ignore this" stuff that breeds literally no trust and does not show them any of the benefits that can come of it. i find its much better to show through those players who do trust the Gm that these "ties" if allowed to be engaged as part of the plot can serve as good and bad and always interesting additions - things that overall mattered more and did more to move the story and focus the story on that PC than they ever could have in some form of ghost mode solitaire scenery.

Thats how it has worked for me and i have used it many times with players who came in GM-shy for good reasons from other GMs.

But orphan no-names can come about from attitudes other than distrust of the GM. I can trust the GM completely and still not want to bother with individual attachments to the world. When I play D&D, I want to focus on the shared table story. Backstory for me is what the group has done previously. I don't want to be concerned with a biological family, friends, enemies, rivalries, or anything else established pre-play. The group is family, friends, and potential rivals. Other friends, enemies, and rivals will be established by play choices and evolve with the adventurers.

It's a very different feel than a game of Fantasy Hero or FATE where the game engines provide much stronger expectation of pre-play history and character integration.

 

[Aldarc]

I am always not in the least surprised how often the one reference of one possibility of one of the patrons gets trotted out as if it gets a free pass from all the rest of the class definition.

Sure, but your subtle OneTrueWayism does not seem like an appropriate counter-response to that.

Patron is not spelled with an E in my games.

Are you then suggesting that some guy named 'Pat' or 'Ron' is more important to your conception of the warlock?

 

[5ekyu]

But orphan no-names can come about from attitudes other than distrust of the GM. I can trust the GM completely and still not want to bother with individual attachments to the world. When I play D&D, I want to focus on the shared table story. Backstory for me is what the group has done previously. I don't want to be concerned with a biological family, friends, enemies, rivalries, or anything else established pre-play. The group is family, friends, and potential rivals. Other friends, enemies, and rivals will be established by play choices and evolve with the adventurers.

It's a very different feel than a game of Fantasy Hero or FATE where the game engines provide much stronger expectation of pre-play history and character integration.

Not sure what this has to do with my post but...ok

I call them front grounded charscaters. They are not starting in the middle of their story but at the beginning. Luke Skywslker boring backstory but a lot developed in play from stuff not on the off-limits yo the gm list. (Oh but Star Wars woulda been more fun if Luke's player had just lockboxed his parents bring tatooine farmers and the GM had not been allowed to change that or kill them, right?)

Front grounded characters are fine. I love them.

 

[Nagol]

Not sure what this has to do with my post but...ok

I call them front grounded charscaters. They are not starting in the middle of their story but at the beginning. Luke Skywslker boring backstory but a lot developed in play from stuff not on the off-limits yo the gm list. (Oh but Star Wars woulda been more fun if Luke's player had just lockboxed his parents bring tatooine farmers and the GM had not been allowed to change that or kill them, right?)

Front grounded characters are fine. I love them.

Whereas if I were playing Luke and the GM pulled out my long-lost father/sister, I'd be rolling my eyes and doing my best to ignore the imposed backstory. I'm the sort that would drop "life before joining the party" on the Background. I simply don't care about it nor do I think those additions make for a better play experience. A different experience, perhaps, but not better.