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

[Sadras]

So [MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION] it's not ok to boost a dragon's hit points by 50 in the middle of a combat, but the DM has free reign to mess around with pc backstory and push/force his plot.

Still not your thing tho?

 

[S'mon]

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.

Since here "play with my stuff" actually means "use player created backstory elements", I don't like it (GM banned from using the material) because of the metagame implications. I don't actually use PC backstory stuff much, in fact I'm far more likely to get complaints about me failing to incorporate PC backstory into the game. But I do like Develop-in-Play, and that occasionally includes Luke-I-Am-Your-Father stuff. I wouldn't do it if I didn't think the player would enjoy it; this kind of special attention is a pretty rare privilege in my games.


As a practical matter a player can always have their background not enter play by having the PC come from far away. In some cases I TELL a player their background won't enter play, because their PC is from far away. But I wouldn't be comfy with GMing & being told the games rules banned me from using background material in the game.

 

[Unwise]

It all comes back to DM's Ego.

I find that pretty infuriating. Maybe it comes down to the DM wanting to make a fun game for you and the other players, but missing the mark in your opinion? My mind boggles about the sort of games or people I would have had to interact with that would make me assume a plot twist I don't like in a game is the result of narcissism.

Clearly, according to this thread, I am in the vast minority, but just know that there are entire gaming communities where almost every issue addressed in this thread is a non-issue. Many gamers don't see the rules as immutable, but merely a starting point with the DM taking the lead in changing them to fit the desired game. Many players want the DM to buy-in to their backstory. All the players I engage with want the DM to have an old sailing buddy turn up (for the guy with the sailing background) and reminisce about old adventures, making them up with collaborative storytelling. Most players I know are fine with the DM hinting that they might be misremembering or suppressing some memory from their childhood. Players like me want epic and memorable combat, not for the DM to stick to some preconceived numbers and not change them based on how they turn out in practice. Most people I know have no concept of "DM cheating".

My players are highly optimising, highly tactical and wargamey, they love 4e D&D and the "combat as sport" paradigm (I don't), even then they just have a different set of expectations around DMs than I see in this thread. We would be kind of pissed if our DMs did not put a stop to 5e Warlock's darkness + devilsight being used in every combat. They all become the same and it is just plain boring for us. Taking the Goodberry example from earlier, no PC in our groups would even consider that it was OK to quadruple the spells effect and heal 40hp with a first level spell, thanks to finding some 'awesome combo!". We would literally chuckle and assume they were not serious. The DM would likely say they could just summon some more goodberries. Same with summons spells bogging down the game, we would expect our DM to just narrate the effects if somebody wants to add 8 combatants to a fight.

Anyway, enough of my rambling. I just wanted to point out that as anathema as my gaming experience appears to near everybody in this thread, people like me exist. We are not A-holes out to ruin your fun. We just have fundamentally different expectations. I can honestly not get my head around most of the opinions in this thread anymore than people would want to play with my groups. We don't need to resort to assuming that such differences are based on fundamental character flaws.

 

[Oofta]

[MENTION=98008]Unwise[/MENTION] - something to remember that some of these threads seem to amplify a vocal minority. Don't assume it represents the community at large, it's just that after a certain point it's not worth arguing for most people.

 

[Maxperson]

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

Unless you are playing a non-standard method of D&D, picking a class comes with all the fluff and obligations of that class. By the very act of choosing warlock, the player's conception will include being an "apprentice" of the patron and being obligated to doing tasks for that patron. If it doesn't include that, the player has to get the DM's permission to alter the class.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

It depends on what the group enjoys. My players love when I pull something out of their backstory and make it relevant to the current story. It makes them feel like I am paying attention to what they wrote and that it has meaning. Use of backstory like that turns an aspect of backstory into shared table story.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

I've never encountered a DM like that. Some take a few things from the backstories and include them in play, but I've never encountered one that pulls them all out.

 

[cmad1977]

Threads like this are interesting. I think this is the only place I’ve ever seen where both sides of an argument are so terribly wrong. And keep getting wronger.

 

[Campbell]

Here's how I see things: We all have a variety of desires for what we want to experience in a given game, particularly one as ill defined as modern D&D. We also have our own boundaries for what we will not tolerate in the game. The idea that expressing these desires or boundaries should be cause for ridicule does not sit right with me. It can only ever be a good thing to know what everyone is looking to get out of play so we can resolve conflicts and reach whatever compromises work for us. It might even be that there is no middle ground to reach, but knowing that instead of anyone silently suffering while they are not having fun can only ever be a good thing in my book.

As an example: It's more than likely that me and Hussar should not game together. I tend to want to explore relationships and character in great detail, and am always curious to know more about the fiction. I never really got the desire most people seem to have to always get on with the next thing. The idea of 5 combats in one session seems exhausting to me. I would rather have one really good fight that involves an underlying social conflict where we get to engage the mechanisms of the game and the fiction all at once.

Another example: I would be a bad fit as a player for anyone who runs games where they decide the course the players should take ahead of time and shape play to reach a desired outcome. I am also a bad fit as a GM for players that expect me to give them the answer as to which course they should take. I will frame scenes, create situation, and be generous with information. They need to play their characters.

Here's The Thing: When I say I do not like hamburgers I am not claiming you make a bad hamburger or that I do not trust you as a cook. I am saying that hamburgers just are not for me. That does not mean that I need to wait for my taste buds to adjust. I just would prefer some tacos.

 

[Maxperson]

Threads like this are interesting. I think this is the only place I’ve ever seen where both sides of an argument are so terribly wrong. And keep getting wronger.

So what's the one true way?