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

[Sadras]

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.

I have both sets of players at our table, those that want me build on their backstory, surprise them and those that could not care less about a backstory or past connections. I've had to learn to cater to both player styles.

 

[Aldarc]

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.

Luke's player never really "lockboxed his parents bring [sic] tatooine farmers." His aunt and uncle certainly were, and they were always referred to by Luke as "Uncle Owen" and "Aunt Beru." His parents were never "lockboxed" into anything except arguably his father being a good pilot. (And this was indeed "lockboxed" in the franchise.) If Luke's player had written "I never knew my father" as an aspect in a game of Fate, then that would tell me that this is something that the player wants to explore in the narrative. He may even tweak it a bit after Kenobi telling him that his father was the best pilot: "I want to be a pilot like my father." Or if we want a tinge of dramatic irony, "I want to live up to my father's legacy as a jedi knight."

Returning, how much would the story had changed if his aunt and uncle lived? In all honesty? Not that much. There was a brief respite of sadness with a John Williams score and then "let's move on and never mention them again in the remaining two films." It's not as if he needed motivation to hate the Empire at this point either. He already had ambitions to join the Rebellion (with Biggs) and was already told by Ben Kenobi that the Empire was responsible for his father's death. It's almost as if his PC wanted them to die so he could leave Tattoine without any guilt or making hard decisions. They are not even portrayed sympathetically. Kenobi speaks of his uncle as an liar and an oaf. Luke views his aunt and uncle as his oppressors that keep him imprisoned on this planet and prohibit his starbound ambitions. So some of the tragedy around their deaths rings a bit hollow. They were essentially family in refrigerators. You almost get the feeling that the death of his adopted family was probably something that the player discussed prior with the GM.

 

[5ekyu]

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.

One of my,players why played for 3 decades would do similar. He built front groubded players and lived where the character went. Contrasted heavy with our frustrated novelist. Both fun.

Gonna miss them both.

 

[5ekyu]

I have both sets of players at our table, those that want me build on their backstory, surprise them and those that could not care less about a backstory or past connections. I've had to learn to cater to both player styles.

Zactly.

 

[iserith]

The way I handle it is that I ask the players to write a background concept that is no longer than a Tweet. Clear and concise in a way that tells everyone who your character is, just enough to know what to expect more or less. I then ask them to establish ties with two other PCs that speak to some adventure they've been on before.

Then, as we play, the players fill in the blanks as they are inspired by the events of the unfolding sessions. The other players and I latch onto those details and run with them - the players perhaps tie their background to the other players while I sometimes introduce situations or NPCs that speak to what was established. As these details build over the course of a 6-month to 1-year campaign, we end up with some characters that are pretty fleshed out and who go through character development as the emergent story unfolds.

And nobody has to read anyone else's boring 5-page character background. It's mostly dealt with during play in little drips over the course of the campaign at moments when it's relevant.

 

[Satyrn]

Heh. Back during my high school and college anime days - in the days before online streaming - I would typically only consider shows that had a max cap of 26 episodes, with a few exceptions. These exceptions rarely, if ever, exceeded 52 episodes. This cap was a decent sign that there was at least some semblance of a narrative structure with an end point. And typically there was a better return on investment when it came to the satisfaction of reaching a resolution point (incidentally, see [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s point earlier on resolution). And this is why I could never get into shows or manga like Dragonball Z, Naruto, One Piece, or Bleach. Incidentally, this is also why I have grown to disfavor mega-spine multivolume fantasy epic novels. I appreciate the art of concise narratives that respect my time.

When it comes to tabletop gaming, we are absolutely saturated with excellent quality games other than D&D. I want to play more than just D&D. But the available time for our late 20s and early 30s group is more limited. So the long sprawling 20 level adventures across a year or more are no longer feasible for us. Some tabletop RPG systems, whether knowingly or not, seem to have seized on this realization. A number of D&D-inspired systems are now only go to ten levels (e.g., SotDL, 13th Age, Black Hack, BtWaOA, DW) or are level-less entirely (ICRPG).

Ooh yeah. I'm regularly telling people I don't care for novels in a series. Like, I'm a big Steven King fan, but I lost interest in the dark tower series after the second book.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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.

In my experience, most bad GMs are honest and well-intentioned, but they missed the memo somewhere that I'm supposed to be playing a character who lives within the world. Instead, they treat PCs like the protagonists of cheap novels, where nobody is allowed to have any character detail without it being relevant to the plot. If you say that your character has a sister, then some GMs feels obligated to make her part of the narrative, whether or not it makes sense. While I agree that it's definitely overboard to have a rule that the GM can't touch something, such a rule could still serve as a reasonable reminder to those certain GMs who would otherwise go out of their way to mess with you.

Although, given the example in question, it sounds like the type of game where the GM is supposed to protagonize the PCs. And if you have a game where the GM is supposed to treat it like a story, then it's not that much more ridiculous to collaborate on what the plot points are supposed to be.

 

[5ekyu]

In my experience, most bad GMs are honest and well-intentioned, but they missed the memo somewhere that I'm supposed to be playing a character who lives within the world. Instead, they treat PCs like the protagonists of cheap novels, where nobody is allowed to have any character detail without it being relevant to the plot. If you say that your character has a sister, then some GMs feels obligated to make her part of the narrative, whether or not it makes sense. While I agree that it's definitely overboard to have a rule that the GM can't touch something, such a rule could still serve as a reasonable reminder to those certain GMs who would otherwise go out of their way to mess with you.

Although, given the example in question, it sounds like the type of game where the GM is supposed to protagonize the PCs. And if you have a game where the GM is supposed to treat it like a story, then it's not that much more ridiculous to collaborate on what the plot points are supposed to be.

Again, if your problem is you and your gm being on different pages as to whether you are a character that lives in the world or a protagonist of whatever style of novel you want (or myth to go closer to the roots for 5e) then you need to have a lot more than lockboxes for a few pcs or favorite sheep to solve that problem.

Then again, since 99.99999% of the folks living in the world likely dont get adventuring as heroes, its likely many,players seek a little bit of GM not treating them that way but treating them as stars at least a tad, smidge or even a full bore scoche.

"Ok the others are back from stopping the gnoll raiders and recovering the children before the buffet. Meanwhile you took seven orders for repairs, a banner day, and had tea with your oddly unaffected by it all cousin."

 

[Hussar]

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.

Whereas for me, I see these players coming in from other campaigns where the DM feels entitled to start playing in the Player's backyard, as it were, and the players just won't have it. The DM has control over the ENTIRE world. Why does he or she need to futz about with my stuff? What is it with DM's that just can't handle the idea that players have their own ideas and their own characters and that should be hands off? You want to play with my stuff? Ask me first. Check to see if I'm groovy with the the idea. And, if I'm not, let it go.

It all comes back to DM's Ego.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Why not? What would have changed about Star Wars if Luke's adoptive parents had lived?

Oh, noes, the DM's carefully crafted plot wagon just lost a wheel? The railroad got derailed?

Because, at the end of the day, that's what you're saying. That your plot is more important than the players. That you want to be able to jump into anyone's character and drive the plot and the players should just have to accept it.

Heck, even if you drop off the Vader is the father, Leia is the sister thing, how would Star Wars actually change? I mean, the story that Star Wars is based off of doesn't have the secret father thing and it's a great movie.