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

[S'mon]

@pemerton and @Hussar If a player selects to play an elf or a dwarf, does the player also have narrative control over the thoughts and actions of the entire tribe, clan or race?

Not in my game (as you probably guessed when you deleted my name) - but in practice there is negotiation if the player has their own take to propose.

I remember one time a player played an exiled dwarf prince, during the game the PCs visited the dwarf hold and there was a banquet. The player was aghast at the thought of having to roleplay interacting with his dwarf family, so we skipped the banquet.

 

[Sadras]

I do not think they have claimed that.

No, but it touches on in some way to relationships between warlocks and their patrons, clerics and their deities...similar to dwarves and their clansmen...etc

Not in my game (as you probably guessed when you deleted my name) - but in practice there is negotiation if the player has their own take to propose.

Published or homebrew setting might play a factor in this regard.

I remember one time a player played an exiled dwarf prince, during the game the PCs visited the dwarf hold and there was a banquet. The player was aghast at the thought of having to roleplay interacting with his dwarf family, so we skipped the banquet.

This kind of reaction is foreign to our table. Honestly I, and the rest of the table, would not be prepared for something like that if a player made such a request.

 

[S'mon]

Like the races examples, its insisting that your character be exempt from the setting impacts of choices... which gets a no at my table.

Normally I tend to minimise setting impact on PHB-adherent player choices, like choosing to play a Tiefling (aka Demonbrood IMC). Last session though in my Stonehell game, a PC got eaten by mountain trolls. She was a Yuan-Ti before she got eaten. Player asked for her new PC to be an undead Revenant of the old PC. I agreed, but made pretty clear this gave me carte blanche for Yig, Father of Serpents, to mess with this new undead minion of his... she's a mature player and I expect will very much enjoy the extra attention, whereas some players would hate it.

 

[S'mon]

This kind of reaction is foreign to our table. Honestly I, and the rest of the table, would not be prepared for something like that if a player made such a request.

The player had some personal issues. He was a Sikh convert to Christianity, and it looked like in his head Dwarves = Sikhs, Humans = Christians. He liked playing the dwarf among humans, he very much did not want to play the dwarf among dwarves and have his dwarf mother nagging him! He had done the same in the previous campaign, playing an Elf Wizard, that time with Elves as the Sikh stand ins. At one time his PC courted a female Elf Paladin and he specifically requested that we not play out any of the romance & courtship.

 

[5ekyu]

You really do have a problem distinguishing PC from player in this discussion.

It's less about exemption and more about the player's desired narrative prominence of some aspect of their character. A player may want to play a dragonborn without being constantly harassed about it everywhere they go by the DM imposing their vision of a setting on what may have been an aesthetic or "ruler of cool" choice by the player. I do think there must be something wrong with a DM's basic human decency who fails to sympathize and respect that a player may not want the DM to constantly engage a particular aspect of their character in a manner they don't want as part of their play experience.

This sort of false equivalence and argumentative baiting seems unnecessary. Do you not believe that a player should not have some control over what relationship their character has, if any, with their patron/deity if that is relevant to their backstory? Why then can't the DM not just dictate to the player what that relationship entails (and its backstory) since the patron/deity is the superior party in that relationship and the DM theoretically controls that NPC anyway?

This new talking point seems to be in vogue but... no, I dont have a difficult time distinguishing between player and character. The player is the one I am saying no to if their character is unacceptable. The character is the one that once in the world is treated by the world as a part of that setting, not as a PC.

To me, insisting your PC get exemption from the same in-game outcomes from your choices as a player - playing a tiefling in a setting where there is consequence to being a tiefling, bringing bears into towns, signing on to some God- church etc - is the player deciding to blur and confuse the distinction between the player and the character.

As GM, my answer is to say no and tell them there are lots of character options where they can not have those - so choose one of those.

Why choose to bring a tiefling into a setting where tieflings have PR problems if you want to require the GM to set those aside for your PC?

***

Second graph was not at me and I agree the control their entire race has not been claimed.

But as for GM dictating the relationship to patron and backstory, they never csn... since the player can always say no and not play that character that is tied by obligations to the npcs, just like the gm can say no to characters with unacceptable details.

 

[pemerton]

the player is the one insisting the preferences of the player impact the setting as far as it pertains to how that setting interacts with their character. They are insisting the NPC and very nature of the story not come from "what would be for others inside the gsme" but instead conform to what the player wants - be it racial, obligations, etc.

Well, what would be for others inside the game is always going to conform to what someone wants - because someone has to make it up. (And presumably they won't make something up that they think is bad.)

I'm not seeing any reason why it shouldn't be the player. I'm the one who made up the Order of the Iron Tower, the Lord of Battle, my family estate of Adir, and maybe other stuff I'm forgetting, for my character in BW. It's the character I want to play - I want to find out what happens to my character, not what the GM thinks would be interesting to happen if s/he were playing my character.

@pemerton and @Hussar If a player selects to play an elf or a dwarf, does the player also have narrative control over the thoughts and actions of the entire tribe, clan or race?

I don't know about the entire race. But the details of the dwarf clan in my 4e game were decided by the player of the dwarf, not by me. The player of the drow worshipper of Corellon invented the Order of the Bat, a drow secret society of Corellon worshippers dedicated to overthrowing Lolth and undoing the sundering of the elves. Another player invented the fallen city of Entekash, sacked by humanoids, from which his player was a refugee.

What happens when the player of a warlock/paladin/cleric et al, requests/decides how the relationship works, and then starts playing/acting like an assassin when they are a cleric of Bahamut?
(Basically ignoring any contradictions in the relationship)

What [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] said - if it's a problem, talk about it.

So you're policing out of game?

Why is it ok to police (judge character actions) out of game and not in game?

If everyone enjoys a game with an assassin cleric of Bahamut - maybe it's a low-grade black comedy - then no one has to talk about anything. But if (as seems to be the implication of SkidAce's question) the play of the character is spoiling the game, then that's a social problem, like any other sort of behaviour that spoils a cooperative leisure activity. Why would I try and resolve a social disagreement by making a move in a game? If someone is talking too loud at the chess club, I don't deal with that problem by trying even harder to checkmate him/her!

 

[5ekyu]

So you're policing out of game?

Why is it ok to police (judge character actions) out of game and not in game?

Why is this character not dealt with by the other characters in game based on what happens in game?

I have seen games where the PC stamp on forehead is expected to be treated as special by NPCs. Dont choose to be in them tho. They sometimes have made for funny comics tho.

 

[pemerton]

Published or homebrew setting might play a factor in this regard.

Not for me. Most of my FPRGing happens either in Greyhawk or OA/Kara-Tur. That doesn't mean the players don't make stuff up as part of their PC backgrounds.

The BW character I am playing is in GH. My BW campaign is in GH, and that didn't stop the player of the wizard establishing his family background, the (now ruined) tower where he trained as a neophyte wizard (he had it located in arid hills - I placed it in the Abor-Alz), the sorcerous cabal to which he belongs (I located that in Hardby, with the Gynarch as an affiliate of the cabal).

This whole discussion seems permeated by some sort of fear (or at least concern) that letting players establish fiction - about their PC's backgrounds, or relationships, or loyalties, and the like - will somehow break the game. But how? Surely most GMs have ideas for scenarios for a Devotion Paladin other than having to choose whether to foster or slaughter the orc babies?

 

[Kobold Boots]

Moving the goalposts? I don't even understand how you would think that. I'm not changing some rhetorical line to gain in order to achieve debate goal x. And I'm not trying to win some kind of debate here. I'm just puzzling out the details.

I quite clearly (transparently in my post in fact) (a) throttled the nature of the patron back from supernatural to mundane and (b) removed the misaligned incentive issue (which is regularly decried with respect to players and resources while regularly dismissed when it comes to GMing and authority/prep on these boards) in order to (c) try to tease out the nature of this problem.

- Is it certain kinds of patronage? All kinds?
- If the alleged misaligned incentive issue is addressed is there still a problem?
- Is there another problem?

If you're not interested in having that conversation, that's fine. But perhaps someone who is interested in having that conversation could answer the question?

Hi Manbear -

I appreciate that you're asking a question, but I wasn't aware that my answers to Pem had anything to do with the situation you described so I opted to bow out.

Since you asked directly.

- Patronage in a game is not a problem by itself.
- If the risk to game balance is addressed sufficiently, it's not a problem either.

Thanks,
KB

 

[5ekyu]

Normally I tend to minimise setting impact on PHB-adherent player choices, like choosing to play a Tiefling (aka Demonbrood IMC). Last session though in my Stonehell game, a PC got eaten by mountain trolls. She was a Yuan-Ti before she got eaten. Player asked for her new PC to be an undead Revenant of the old PC. I agreed, but made pretty clear this gave me carte blanche for Yig, Father of Serpents, to mess with this new undead minion of his... she's a mature player and I expect will very much enjoy the extra attention, whereas some players would hate it.

So likely that player wont be upset or fussing about you being a dictator or questioning your own personal "decency" if in game have some folks (pc or npc) react to them being an undead like they would react to a non-pc undead?

Sounds great.

You dont have to tell the other players "hey, your character must accept her as undead regardless of your character's established nature" etc.