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

[Aldarc]

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.

Nah.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Now, to be absolutely clear, in case I missed it before - the mechanics don't ban you from using player created backstory elements. What the mechanics do do, though, is allow the player to "fence in" three or four things from their backstory that they don't want the DM to play with. Now, there's no reason that a player has to use any of those. He doesn't have to. It's an option, not a must.

So, if the player wants to have a mistress in every port, as an example off the top of my head, but, doesn't want this to become a "thing" in the game, he just puts that in his Background and that's the end of it. It's just a big old signpost saying, "I, Hussar, the player of this character, do not want this specific element of my background to become the focus of play".

Which, really, to me, isn't that big of a deal. Take the patrons discussion that we're having. Seems the perfect solution to me. If the player doesn't mind if the patron takes a more active role, then don't Background it. OTOH, if the player has no interest in that, then, fine, fence it in and the DM can go play with other stuff.

I'm not really sure where the resistance to this idea comes from. Seems like a perfect solution to me. If I don't want this or that part of my backstory to be the focus of play, shouldn't that be my decision, and not the DM's?

 

[S'mon]

I'm not really sure where the resistance to this idea comes from. Seems like a perfect solution to me. If I don't want this or that part of my backstory to be the focus of play, shouldn't that be my decision, and not the DM's?

For me, it seems a perfectly reasonable request for the player to make, as part of pre-game discussion. If the GM says no then the player can remove that background element. What I don't like is anything that gives players non-negotiated control over the game beyond their PC's own actions. I don't like the idea of shared power - I want all power to flow from the GM. I like my GM to be a benevolent tyrant, creating the world that I explore. I'm actually a very bad/demanding player, but not about this stuff - eg I expect my GM to either know the rules, look them up, or defer to trustworthy players; I also expect a very high degree of player & PC freedom to act in the world, a world that makes sense, and no fudging/illusionism. Ringfenced background elements hardcoded into the rules attacks the exploratory nature of the game that I enjoy.

It's hard to explain, but I think it's about power and trust. Within the scope of the world I want the GM all powerful, trusted and trustworthy. Negotiation & request to GM is fine; rules limiting the GM's control of the world are not fine.

If I play with a GM, and my PC has a fiancee, I want (a) the GM to have the power to do what he/she* wants with that relationship and (b) a GM I can trust not to abuse his or her power to do what he/she wants with that relationship.

*Currently all my GMs are female, but I hear some people play with male GMs.

 

[Aldarc]

I don't like the idea of shared power - I want all power to flow from the GM.

And there is the irreconcilable rub of approaches between at least you and me.

 

[5ekyu]

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.

If you want to see it as Gms ego, thats fine. helps to explain your perspective quite a bit.

But, the NPCs in the campaign are the purview of the GM - not the player - and that is a pretty simple and clear distinction. In some cases, the rules allow for pets and skeletons and other NPCs to be actively controlled by the character and through them the player, but the idea that the player gets to invent NPCs, control them and/or prevent any interaction with them by other NPCs is a bit beyond what I normally see happening in games with Gms and players and group play.

I tend to explain that (as noted before) in my session zero so everybody is clear and i tend to show in game that such aspects of a character can be and usually are more of a positive than a negative (depending on how the player portrays them.) They also tend to grow more than just the ammounts listed in their bit of the PCs backstory - because of course they advance like others do and because (i hope) most of the PC backstory is about the PC and not their relatives/friends etc..

I am sure there muse be systems out there where Players get to lockbox their NPCs with whatever resource pools etc needed to do so so that they are whatever the player wants but in the system i have played its usually pretty clear that there is a big difference in NPCS and for lack of the better term "pets". 5e is one of those systems.

 

[5ekyu]

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?

Changing the dragon HP in the middle of a combat to change the outcome from what it would be based on the actions taken and events transpired to whatever the Gm would rather see happen - IMO bad because it de facto tramples player choices without consent. (Obviously there might be an exception when the Gm tells the players up front " i will choose in the fight when the bad guys drop, not by HP etc since i will be changing them on the fly. Tho thats not the case when you see some GMs saying "nobody the wiser" and other such claims for this.)

DM treating NPCs that were offered up into the campaign by the player like they are NPCs and having them be interacted with and interact with as all NPCs do - IMO fine because we have mutual agreement coming in that NPCs are going to be handled that way and a player can choose to not insert those NPCs or to not choose to run a character with those properties.

Does that answer your question?

 

[5ekyu]

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.

Alternatively, a player can have lockdown elements of their character's backstory by *not submitting them as in-game* elements.

My sorcerer character would tell stories about what she had heard from he cousin, or the bartender in other towns and so on - none of whom were detailed in her backstory and none of whom were given any specifics and details and none of whom were definitely real vs just stuff the character was making up or had convinced herself of.

Alternatively, in her backstory there were a lot of "who she is and why she is like this" type stuff that never made it into the abridged version the Gm got.

its when you submit for approval to the GM an NPC you want added to the game that you are making that an element of the game for the GM to use. Anything you do not want in the game to play a part in the game - thats between you and your own fan fiction pages.

 

[5ekyu]

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.

Well said...

I tend to say quite often that in between the extremes that show up in what seems to be 99% of forum positions there is that 99% of "not that extreme" that makes up the vast majority of games played each and every day.

Like i said earlier, i have had games running for as far as i can remember with players who wrote tons of backstory they wanted engaged with by the Gm and players who wanted none of that backstory crap and i did my best to keep everybody happy and serve all their needs - and it seems to have worked just fine with often over time the backstory changing and evolving and at other times the front loaded guys seeing that the backstory was not a trap and some of them even saw it as an opportunity... but either way and everywhere in between plays out well when players and Gms play the game together.

Literally literally at supper before tonight's game one of my players revealed to the other that he had figured out that the arc they were on now was tied to the "world/race he had created at chargen *and* that he suspected it was likely their others would be involved as well - due to the nature of things. See, before campaign got started i asked each player to submit *if they wanted* a world and/or race for the scifi game i was running and that i would try to work them in. Their submissions, his at least, was a major departure from the actual setting but the Ringworld - ancients evolutionary incubator - angle lets me work it in quite nicely - much to his surprise and smiles. he is very anxious to see what its like after going thru the transition from concept to setting.

But in my experience, the vast majority of games are run between the extremes one sees way too often out here - not at them.

 

[5ekyu]

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.

yup.

i want to play a druid but lets drop all that nature stuff except for the powers... not at my table without a very good discussion and Gm approval.
i want to play a cleric but lets skip all that religion stuff - not at my table without a very good discussion and Gm approval.
i want to play a warlock but lets skip all that patron stuff except for the powers - not at my table without a very good discussion and Gm approval.

There are a gazillion combos of characters you can build without this "stuff" you do not want by taking the other classes. At my table you may end up needing to chose one of those.

 

[5ekyu]

Now, to be absolutely clear, in case I missed it before - the mechanics don't ban you from using player created backstory elements. What the mechanics do do, though, is allow the player to "fence in" three or four things from their backstory that they don't want the DM to play with. Now, there's no reason that a player has to use any of those. He doesn't have to. It's an option, not a must.

So, if the player wants to have a mistress in every port, as an example off the top of my head, but, doesn't want this to become a "thing" in the game, he just puts that in his Background and that's the end of it. It's just a big old signpost saying, "I, Hussar, the player of this character, do not want this specific element of my background to become the focus of play".

Which, really, to me, isn't that big of a deal. Take the patrons discussion that we're having. Seems the perfect solution to me. If the player doesn't mind if the patron takes a more active role, then don't Background it. OTOH, if the player has no interest in that, then, fine, fence it in and the DM can go play with other stuff.

I'm not really sure where the resistance to this idea comes from. Seems like a perfect solution to me. If I don't want this or that part of my backstory to be the focus of play, shouldn't that be my decision, and not the DM's?

To me this is not a solution - since there is not a problem - but it is also far from perfect *especially* when you choose to let it leave backstory and move into class elements.

Once the warlock player gets to demand his patron be "off limits" then why not the paladin deciding his oath thingy is too restrictive so he wants that off-limits, the cleric finds that whole religion things and god stuff to not be "a thing in the game" and hey maybe the whole "i am an elf" or "i am a half-orc" shouldn't be a thing either...

You want a mistress in every port but want them shielded from NPC and other player interactions? You want a lockbox around your character's laisons - do not bring them into the game and keep them as private internal knowledge.

you dont want to play the warlock class with the baggage it brings in terms of obligations and a relationship with an outside entity - there are other classes.

at my tables at least, other tables may be different.