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

[billd91]

So, if it's not for the player of the character, and the rest of the group likely couldn't give two rat's petoots, all we're left with is the DM. Who, at the end of the day, is just doing it for him or herself. Because the DM certainly isn't doing it for the group.

The DM is not your trained monkey. Are the player there just to entertain the DM and the other players? Nope. They’re there to entertain themselves too. So’s your DM.

 

[5ekyu]

See, at the end of the day, I really have to ask, who is all this for? I mean, the other players probably don't care too much about my character's relationship with his patron. I obviously don't care (as an example. I would actually not background this, but, I'm using myself as an example) because I want to background this element. So, exactly who is this for?

"Mr. DM. I really liked that session, but, you know what would have really put it over the top? Orc babies!" said no player ever.

"Last night was pretty good, but, what would have really made it great was if we spent more time hiding the druid's allosaurus," again, said no player ever.

So, if it's not for the player of the character, and the rest of the group likely couldn't give two rat's petoots, all we're left with is the DM. Who, at the end of the day, is just doing it for him or herself. Because the DM certainly isn't doing it for the group.

thats just a lot of assumptions feeding on themselves. illustrative of the basis of your biases but not representative.

 

[pemerton]

In some D&D settings, such as Eberron, the primary deities are remotely distant and of questionable existence. So why couldn't a PC believe that they have received a vision from their deity during the campaign without any input from the DM?

The PCs can declare they believe anything they want. That declaration does not necessitate the belief reflects reality. Whomsoever is in charge of adjudicating reality can decide to go along with it and make it true, decide that claim is incorrect and make it false, or decide that the claim does not warrant adjudication and leave it open.

Just to be clear, I'm not talking about a PC who believes but doesn't necessarily know that s/he's received a vision from his/her deity.

I'm talking about a player who determines that his/her PC has received a vision from his/her deity.

Here's an example in the neighbourhood: at 2nd level in my 4e game one of the PCs, a devotee of the Raven Queen and Erathis, was killed fighting undead in the vicinity of a Nerathi ruin. I asked the player whether or not he wanted to keep playing the PC - he did. So I asked him why the Raven Queen would send him back into the world. He suggested that it was because there was something in the ruins that Erathis and the Raven Queen wanted him to find, a sceptre of law/civilisation.

So he returned to life with a vision of the location of the artefact in question, hidden in the ruin. (It turned out to be the first fragment of the Rod of Seven Parts.)

As far as game rules are concerned, I treated the reurrection as a treasure parcel of the appropriate gp value.

 

[pemerton]

in almost any situation, RPGs included, if you give people the opportunity to gain an advantage without penalty they're almost always going to take it.

<snip>

if a player can - for example - simply ask for the drawbacks of a class be ignored or backgrounded and expect 'yes' as an answer then boom: advantage without penalty

<snip>

if you're going to play a class that comes with potential baggage then you'd better be ready to deal with that baggage now and then.

The players of clerics, paladins and warlocks (and cavaliers serving a liege, and some other examples) have intentionally chosen to play a character whose freedom may from time to time be restricted by orders from above and-or by their own internal morality or alignment. Having intentionally made that choice, they're in no real position to complain if and when orders from above arrive now and then or if their morality gets in the way while adventuring.

<snip>

Few if any GMs are going to make the whole game revolve around any of this; instead they're going to have it come up every once in a while as one of:
- a secondary plot hook
- a reminder of the character's obligations
- fluff and flavour

You're saying that these classes come with a disadvantage/penalty/baggage - and that that disadvantage/penalty/baggage is having the GM boss your around "every once in a while".

That's a terrible model of RPGing. The first reason it's terrible is that having obligations is framed as a penalty!

All of that was just flavor and fun and except for the SFX of the verbals no Gm involvement at all though he loved it.

When I play a character my focus isn't on "flavour and fun". It's on driving the shared fiction.

And I don't think there's anything at odds with the spirit of D&D (except perhaps 2nd ed AD&D) in taking that approach to RPGing.

 

[5ekyu]

The DM is not your trained monkey. Are the player there just to entertain the DM and the other players? Nope. They’re there to entertain themselves too. So’s your DM.

Over time, i have found in my play and with my group that we all enjoy more a style of game where "meta-gamey" stuff like gimmick points (hero points, drama points, momentum - leading to changed outcomes or scene editing or direct authorship in play) are sub-systems we find less appealing and even distasteful. We don't use inspiration in 5e for instance or based advancement or xp on "outcomes or milestones of story."

Over time, i have found in my play and with my group that we all enjoy a more consistent setting, where the same kind of "drama control" doesn't play a role or become noticeable. That requires that when the tiefling walks into a bar that dislikes tieflings or suspicious of tieflings etc - they tiefling doesn't wave his "get out of chosen complication drama free" card except by the use of things like disguises or change self and so on. bears don't get handwaved inside town, elephants and dinosaurs have different complications than say large dogs - much as they may have very different stats - you don't get your "get of of choice free" card to apply to the SIZE stat and keep the other stuff when you pick your companion.

This is not at all any different from the myriad of other choices the players (out of game) and the character (in game) make that have consequences and trade-offs. Want a great weapon damage and access to the feats/styles for it - then you dont get to use a shield when doing so (unless you can background the two-handed property too.) Want the area killing power of a fireball, great but when there is stuff or people in an amongst the enemies you might want to think about it - especially if the enemies see the fireball and then choose to stay close and divided among things you do not want to blast. (of course, you might choose invoker and get some limited control over this but then you dont get the diviner's portent or the conjurers etc etc etc.)

Net summary is, in our group over time we have found that having choices made by the players matter - both good and bad when appropriate - creates a sense of reality of the setting as well as a sense that our choices matter on multiple levels. We have found we enjoy that more as a group and as individuals when those are the nature of the play and not where we have escape consequence/drama clauses.

I can definitely see that other groups might prefer different and can say so without questioning their decency as human beings or whether or not they are -- insert perjorative -.

But clearly, others can not.

 

[5ekyu]

You're saying that these classes come with a disadvantage/penalty/baggage - and that that disadvantage/penalty/baggage is having the GM boss your around "every once in a while".

That's a terrible model of RPGing. The first reason it's terrible is that having obligations is framed as a penalty!

When I play a character my focus isn't on "flavour and fun". It's on driving the shared fiction.

And I don't think there's anything at odds with the spirit of D&D (except perhaps 2nd ed AD&D) in taking that approach to RPGing.

OK great. When i play D&D i often drink Diet Dr Pepper. That has nothing to do with this topic but i cant see where driving the shared fiction does either so i figured we were tossing in general preferences.

As the he flavor and fun vs driving shared fiction - i have never seen thos as at odds with each other and all are parts of the gaming experience. i have seen some posters who seem to really really highly prioritize how much they get done, how many milestones they get thru during how much time - and maybe in that kind of perspective any time (or too much time) spent on flavor and fun might seem unacceptable or at odds... but i am not sure if thats what you mean by focus on driving...

But i can say nobody at our table was upset when my sorceress started a "post victory celebration stage show" (with donation jar for family of the fallen townie) which the bard joined in and practically every character got involved with in one way or the other. That choice was spawned in no small part by the entertainer background and choices made and reinforced in play - that were in part made to support and enable a possible bard multi-class later on.

so, to us, driving the fiction is not some separate goal from flavor and fun - its all part of the overall objective.

But then, butter pecan is a flavor i like and my players seem to enjoy my butter pecan games and players in game i play in seem to be happy with what i bring to the table, so...

 

[pemerton]

What are we actually talking about here? I mean, how much of an impact would Backgrounding actually have on a campaign?

I've got no objection to what you go on to say about Backgrounding.

The discussion of warlock patrons was initially triggered by me talking about PCs being betrayed by a (non-Warlock, conventional) patron. And I'd instanced that as an example of a GM move that caused me to leave a game (or, to be more precise, to let a game die).

But this discussion of warlock patrons and backgrounding has only reinforced my preference. I have zero interest in RPGing with a GM who sees the point of the game to drive his/her personal plot preferences in disregard of the protagonism of the players.

And the idea that the player of a cleric, warlock etc is getting some "unfair advantage" if the GM doesn't muck them about with demands from god or patron is ridiculous. Why is RPGing better or more fun because the player of the cleric has goals set for her by the GM rather than herself? Which is what [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] and (I think) [MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION] and others are talking about.

EDIT: Here's another example:

I don't think that's really what people are saying - they're saying that you must accept the complication those classes require. They don't typically involve MUST take certain actions by DM force - rarely does a paladin even face that. Rather, that you MUST accept the consequences of the way you play your character, or of the choices you make, when they interact in certain ways with the classes you've chosen or the situation around you. I think your spin on it really is a mischaracterization - and an extremely uncharitable one at that.

How is RPGing better because the GM threatens to stop you playing a paladin, warlock or whatever - "consequences of the way you play your character" - unless you pursue XYZ side quest or barmaid rescue or whatever it is the GM decides would be fun.

To me that just seems like the pits.

Can the GM not think of some way to challenge my PC which speaks to what I envision as my PC's goals, raison d'etre, etc?

Hussar's "force" means that the GM will force a player to do something to maintain his patron relationship and the powers that result from it. Our point of view is that a patron can not like something a character does and pull the power but the player still has free will to do what he or she wants when that situation comes up.

And I make the same point to this: if the GM can't think of anything more interesting than framing a choice as "Do this thing I want your PC to do or else forfeit your PC abilities", how badly must that game suck?

I have been on the receiving end of the "kobolds" babies" situation more than a few times, but only ever once by any single GM. That is because when it was my "paladin" or "lawful good" he was bringing into question - i said in essence "as a devout follower of the teachings and faith my character should know what the most acceptable answer from those teaching to this quandry are - maybe even a few not the best but ten hail marys attonement options as well. So please tell me what my character has learned from the teachings that apply here." If it was a law question then it would be "well what is the common accepted legal solution? is it that we take them to a village and turn them over to someone? What is the lawful code saying about this case?"

That turns the situation back to the Gm to establish for his world and for his campaign what the viable answers are

<snip>

Obviously, it would be not a good idea for say a pick-up random players FLGS meetup game to feature these kinds of challenges right off the bat

I don't see what the challenge is here - the GM frames a situation, and then the GM tells you how your PC should respond to it. Who is actually playing the game? What is the player's role here?

The DM is not your trained monkey. Are the player there just to entertain the DM and the other players? Nope. They’re there to entertain themselves too. So’s your DM.

And is this the answer - that it's all for the entertainment of the GM? Why can't the GM just tell him-/herself a story about a warlock who got bossed around by a patron, a paladin who did XYZ with some orc babies, etc. This sort of response actually makes me more sympathetic to [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s suggestion that we are talking about RPGing driven by the GM's ego.

 

[Morrus]

You do realize that the answer to this question has been posted at least 10 times in the last 10 pages of this thread? There comes a point where continuing the conversation along the same lines is just a simple indication of how stupid some folks are.

..and with this post I remove myself from enworld proper and go lurk at Circus Maximus. There comes a point where the retarded people really start to congregate under the banner of well-meaning forum rule civility. You've passed it.

Farewell
KB

*shrug* You know the rule; the Golden Flounce is a one-way ticket. See ya, I guess.

 

[5ekyu]

wow, you agree with [MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION] in the post before this, but, tell me I'm inventing things.

What exactly, then, do you mean that I must accept the consequences of choosing a class if you aren't going to force anything?

again you choose the posing it as if "I" and forcing something on the player...

The player first chooses to play in my game or not. i am pretty sure nobody gets chained down and held at gunpoint and i make dang sure the style of play is clear at the outset.

The player than chooses class (and race, and background, and gear and maybe companions etc etc etc etc) and with each of them come direct gains, sometimes direct losses and almost always indirect gains and losses. That player then (based on the style and transparency and our pre-game character discussions) expect to see benefits and drawbacks from those choices occur in play as is suitable for the setting and what we agreed to.

if any of those choices involve NPCs, then hey, that is just another part of our discussion pre-game.
if that choice involved patrons, churches, gods, guilds etc... again we reach agreement pre-game and you see it in play.

If we cannot reach agreement pre-game, i am not "forced" to say yes to the character and can say "no" (unless of course the table establishes different rules for character approval and Gm selection - in which case it might be me who steps aside as Gm and others take over.)

So, again, I do not as Gm force anything on the player.

In game, for the patron warlock or divine guy with god etc - if we agreed pre-game that the NPC had certain leverages to use, they can use them within the guidelines we established. if that means the patron can literally COMPEL or DOMINATE the character then sure that is an option - one both sides agreed to.

We could go over the same turf that we have already gone over but it boils down to the same point - as a basic premise we reach agreement or we go another way and really no "force" is applied.

 

[5ekyu]

I've got no objection to what you go on to say about Backgrounding.

The discussion of warlock patrons was initially triggered by me talking about PCs being betrayed by a (non-Warlock, conventional) patron. And I'd instanced that as an example of a GM move that caused me to leave a game (or, to be more precise, to let a game die).

But this discussion of warlock patrons and backgrounding has only reinforced my preference. I have zero interest in RPGing with a GM who sees the point of the game to drive his/her personal plot preferences in disregard of the protagonism of the players.

And the idea that the player of a cleric, warlock etc is getting some "unfair advantage" if the GM doesn't muck them about with demands from god or patron is ridiculous. Why is RPGing better or more fun because the player of the cleric has goals set for her by the GM rather than herself? Which is what @Lanefan and (I think) @5ekyu and others are talking about.

EDIT: Here's another example:

How is RPGing better because the GM threatens to stop you playing a paladin, warlock or whatever - "consequences of the way you play your character" - unless you pursue XYZ side quest or barmaid rescue or whatever it is the GM decides would be fun.

To me that just seems like the pits.

Can the GM not think of some way to challenge my PC which speaks to what I envision as my PC's goals, raison d'etre, etc?

And I make the same point to this: if the GM can't think of anything more interesting than framing a choice as "Do this thing I want your PC to do or else forfeit your PC abilities", how badly must that game suck?

Again the false dichotomy - juxtaposing player choices having consequences with Gms forcing something on someone against their will.

I do not force sworn and beholden patrons on players - i dont force faith and loyatly to gods on players - heck i rarely involved any sort of major direct god-related angles on players at all of any class... i am not all that much into the "pcs go up against gods" and "pcs save gods" type of storytelling. i cannot remember a case of divine intervention in one of my games - but the 80s are fairly blurry.

if a player doesn't want "god" or "church" or "oaths" or "patrons" or sworns or dogma or codes of conduct to be a facet of their characters - do not choose to have them be there by choosing cleric, warlock, Guild artisan, etc etc etc and reach an agreement with me that says they are.

As i said above, to me and my players, we have found the game more enjoyable when choices have consequences and the world is consistent enough that we can see them when appropriate.

As for why is the game better when the PCs interact with NPCs and cut deals that provide opportunities to pursue goals and objectives that maybe were not the ones the characters originally had - well - that sounds like a whole lot of pretty typical RPG play.

is really the case of "well the town has a problem and instead of moving on to the next town we can solve it for some coin and other "rewards"" such a problem to RPG play? i ask because that is essentially what the patron - warlock deal is... if the Gm and player agree to it. "You keep doing me favors and together we..." The player had something like 10 other class options than warlock and cleric - make it 9 if you want to include pally in the list of "complicated NPC relations" and i would wager that a great many RPGs run and get a lot of fun without having 9 story hooks without negotiations/complications and goals of other NPCS involved for every three story hooks that do have negotiations/complications and so on.

But at a very fundamental level - is it necessary to prove that a one way of play is better than another to avoid say tossing questions of basic human decency or insults towards those who do play it?