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

[Yunru]

Death. It's such a pesky flaw that most humans seem to suffer from.

 

[Lanefan]

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!

In-fiction obligations limit PC (and by extension player) freedom of choice in what gets done and are therefore, yes, a penalty.

Example: Joe-the-PC is a Cleric to a war deity whose primary goal is the elimination of Orcs and whose Clerics are expected to help with this task whenever possible or else risk repercussions. Party and PC have various options on what to do next, one of which is dealing with some Orcish raiders and another of which looks (for whatever reason) far more interesting in the eyes of both the players and the in-fiction PCs...including Joe, but his obligation to his deity sends him out after the Orcs anyway; and possibly right out of the party for a while unless they go with him.

This isn't the GM bossing the PC around*, it's the player's own intentional choice of class and deity rearing up and saying hello. Player chose that deity because it looked like good old kill-'em-all fun and he liked the idea of the combat advantages and blessings that deity gave when fighting Orcs and their kin.

* - unless you're going to say that because of this Cleric being in the party the DM is banned from having Orcs anywhere within the PCs scope of knowledge, which is right over the top.

Lan-"and this is how players can railroad themselves"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

And fair enough. But, again, at the end of the day, what changed? The animal companion is still hidden and fades into the background (not the mechanical version, just, not in the front of play) and those orc children escaped. And, after the third, fourth, tenth time, most groups are just going to take it as read anyway.

But even then the Wizard still has to chalk off the spell slot used to shrink the anaconda...which if the party is merely travelling through safe lands for a few days is of course a mere triviality, but if the party is in dangerous regions and-or just stopping in this town to stock up before hitting the dungeon itself later today then the lack of that slot might become much more relevant by day's end.

This is the point I keep coming back to. We already Background tons of stuff in play because it's not terribly interesting. Do you seriously destroy a wizard's spell book every time he falls in water? Or gets fireballed or whatnot?

If it fails its save, damn right it gets destroyed*.

* - or some of it, depending how badly the save was failed and-or what's doing the destroying.

Naw, you just take it as read and move on because it's too much of a PITA.

Not here it isn't.

Last session the whole party got hit with a fireball - three characters failed their saves, and we went through their items to see what they'd lost. The party's lead arcane caster - sometimes not the luckiest of sorts, this chap - lost 2/3 of his spells for the second time in three adventures.

Here, we have examples that only really affect one player and the DM. The rest of the group couldn't likely give a toss about it. Do you seriously care how we hide the Druid's animal companion every single time?

Yes, at least to the point that I know the party have a SOP for doing so (and what it is) unless they tell me they're doing something different this time.

As a player, if I had a character that got tired of always having to worry about the Druid's animal I'd suggest the Druid lose said animal before I took it upon myself to see what said animal tasted like when served with herbs and spices...

The funny thing about this conversation is that some posters, like [MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION] are framing it as a powergaming thing. But, look at that warlock's patron. There's two sides to that. Sure, if you have an active patron, then the patron might ask the PC to do something. But, it also works the other way. There's times when the PC can and should be able to call upon his or her patron for help - be it information, or contacting other NPC's or whatnot.

Can't speak so much to warlocks, but for Clerics this is very much a thing - at high level nearly all reliable info-gathering runs through Clerics and their divination spells, and Clerics almost always have a widespread organization of temples etc. to back them up if needed. Hard to background that without gutting the divination side of the Cleric class.

 

[pemerton]

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.

***if this is what you bring to the discussion... that says a lot and informs a lot - so thanks!!!

Some of the parts you cut out show its not about forcing.

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

The word "force" appeared nowhere in my posts. Nor any synonyms.

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.

Obviously it's not in dispute that if you play a cleric then a god is a facet of your character. But from that banal fact we know absolutely nothing about what the role of the GM is going to be in imposing "consequences" (to use your term) on that player for the way s/he plays his/her PC. It is the GMing methods I am talking about, not the fiction of a cleric, warlock etc.

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.

In my experience, in 35 years of RPGing including quite a bit of D&D, the idea that a significant amount of time is spent trying to cut a deal with a patron/god so you can keep your classs powers is not typical at all.

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.

I don't know if I follow all of this but to me it doesn't sound like very engaging RPGing.

And if the player has made it clear that s/he is not interested in patron or god shenanigans - why as a GM is it important to insist on it? What is at stake here?

 

[pemerton]

You get a lot of people talking about "meaningful choices" around here but only seem to want those to matter if the consequences are good

This is what I'm calling out as nonsense - I mean you clearly don't think you're describing your game, and I know you're not describing my game, and I'm going to hazard a guess that you're not describing [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s game either - so whose game do you think you are describing?

Which goes back to my point - is the best the GM can think of to challenge my Hells Angel's PC stealing my motorbike? To me it just seems like incredibly weak GMing.

I know that sort of thing is basically compulsory in high level AD&D if wizard PCs are to be kept within some semblance of balance, but there are almost no RPGs out there as poorly mechanically balanced as high level AD&D. The motorcycle example came from a Vampire game, I think - but it could equally apply to any modern-setting RPG. When the players in my Marvel Heroic game wanted their PCs to get from DC to Tokyo they just narrated it as travelling in a Stark private jet (one of the PCs being War Machine) - it's so far in the "background" it's just taken for granted! There was plenty of action waiting for them in Tokyo without needing to worry about whether or not they suffer a random North Korean missile firing at their jet!

In my Classic Traveller game the PCs' starship can be put into jeopardy by a random encounter roll; or if they choose to stake it (eg by engaging in starship combat, which they did). But if they park it in orbit having succeeded in their check to enter the system without headaches, then it just orbits, and we resolve whatever hijinks are going on down on the surface.

Different RPGs use different methodologies to determine when adversity might occur to the PCs: random checks, as in Traveller and some OSR games; or GM framing choices as in MHRP and many contemporary games. The idea that in the latter sort of approach the GM can't find anything better to fasten on then the gadget or companion that s/he knows the players aren't interested in engaging with just blows my mind!

It's not about hating the game. But it is about making sure the game is also what I as DM want it to be, not just the players. Like I've said many times around here, you can't force a DM to play a game he doesn't want to play any more than you can make players play in it.

So how did I mininterpret your earlier post? You're apparently saying that the GM has to focus on stuff s/he knows the players aren't interested in focusing on because otherwise the game won't be fun for him/her. There are millions of people all over the world whose motorcycle or car has never been stolen - are you really saying you can't enjoy a Vampire game if a player stipulates in advance that his/her PC is, with respect to his/her motorcycle, one of those millions? To me that just sounds like lame GMing.

if we go with the way [MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION] has described his games, if the player doesn't want to deal with the patron, that player should play another character. In which case you aren't going to get to play the patron anyway. If playing the patron doesn't really matter for the DM's enjoyment (since the DM is perfectly fine if the player plays a different character) then what difference does it make at the end of the day?

Exactly this.

It's not that the GM actively needs their to be a warlock hassled by a patron, or a vampire whose bike gets stolen, in order to enjoy the game. Rather, it seems to be that s/he can't handle having a patron or bike in the game without messing with it. Why not? As I said, to me it seems incredibly lame.

(And obviously has nothing to do with "consequences". The consequences of owning a bike are - my PC can get from A to B without walking! If having to walk or buy a subway ticket was going to be the ultimate consequence of a Vampire game, the game was lame from the get-go!)

EDIT: After posting this I've seen with respect to some of it I was ninja-ed by [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION].

 

[Yunru]

Party and PC have various options on what to do next, one of which is dealing with some Orcish raiders and another of which looks (for whatever reason) far more interesting in the eyes of both the players and the in-fiction PCs...including Joe, but his obligation to his deity sends him out after the Orcs anyway; and possibly right out of the party for a while unless they go with him.

Except they don't limit. There's no reason the Cleric has to honour that obligation, especially every time it rears it's head.

 

[pemerton]

Are you deliberately misunderstanding [MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION], or do you genuinely not understand that if the DM wants a game where he controls the NPCs, he's forced to play a game he doesn't want to play if players can force him not to play the patron?

Nobody is saying the DM should not control the NPC's. We're saying that this one specific NPC, that only impacts one PC and no other PC can ever interact with, gets taken off the table. Infinity-1 while smaller than infinity is still pretty damn big. Losing control of one NPC and making a player happy seems a pretty small price. Claims that this is going to ruin the game for the DM seem a bit overblown to me.

I want to go further than [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] - a GM who even regards this as a price is a GM with a flaw that I would not want to play with.

The GM's basic function in a RPG is to provide the players with obstacles and antagonism that they can pit their PCs against. The details can vary dramatically - from mapping and stocking a dungeon, to coming up with a Dragonlance-like series of set piece encounters to be worked through, to "indie"-style scene framing. But that provision of obstacles and antagonism is the basic function. Playing NPCs is a means to that end: they are elements in the obstacles/antagonism (whether as framing or as consequences) or else they are mere colour.

A GM who regards it as a "price" that a player wants to put some limits or offer some direction in respect of those things is (in my view) just about the lamest GM imaginable. This is why, as these arguments are set out, I am actually becoming more sympathetic to [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s description of it as an ego thing: because we seem to be talking about a GM who is more interested in telling his/her pet story (which would not have even been on the table had the player not chosen to play a warlock, or a bikie, in the first place) than in performing hs/her core function of presenting the players with engaging obstacles and antagonism.

when the claims shifted from "my patron is backgrounded yo having a motorcycle that I actually use in play but never have to spend effort or un gsme money to prevent theft and npcs dont make problems for my race all the way to bears and elephants being non-problematic or even always useful - they crossed even a further line.

What line? How is this any different from the urination example already discussed upthread? Or the fact that almost no RPGs scenarios with villages involve funerals of children who died in childbirth or not long after?

I assert: if a Vampire game can't progress without a player worrying about the cost of insurance premiums and petrol for his/her PC's motorbike, then the game sucks!

a while back I mentioned a patron in SKT campaign run who might ask the character to make sure certain folks got out alive when one poster brought up whether play thru that one AP would change.

Well, it should be obvious that character to be kept alive might could be another PC? Heck one of the Patron tasks requests could even be finding this group of pcs and joining them - the patron request establishing a tie with the party for the character.

Maybe some would see that as more involved or enjoyable than the other types of initial party hook ups that have been used as opposed to an indecent act.

Maybe some would think the players can handle this. Some games formalise it (eg Dungeon World, Fate, to a lesser extent Burning Wheel). Others don't. But what is the point of these GM-imposed "side quests", "bonds between PCs", etc. Are the players incapable of coming up with their own PC motivations and inter-relationships?

In-fiction obligations limit PC (and by extension player) freedom of choice in what gets done and are therefore, yes, a penalty.

As I said, this is terrible roleplaying. The penalty for playing a cleric or warlock or whatever is what - I don't get to fully play the game because sometime the GM tells me how I should play my PC?

Joe-the-PC is a Cleric to a war deity whose primary goal is the elimination of Orcs and whose Clerics are expected to help with this task whenever possible or else risk repercussions. Party and PC have various options on what to do next, one of which is dealing with some Orcish raiders and another of which looks (for whatever reason) far more interesting in the eyes of both the players and the in-fiction PCs...including Joe, but his obligation to his deity sends him out after the Orcs anyway; and possibly right out of the party for a while unless they go with him.

Why can't the player handle this decision-making? And furthremore, what is going on that the GM has made the fight with the orcs more boring than something else when s/he knows there's this orc-fighting PC in the game? That's what I call lame GMing.

 

[5ekyu]

I want to go further than [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] - a GM who even regards this as a price is a GM with a flaw that I would not want to play with.

The GM's basic function in a RPG is to provide the players with obstacles and antagonism that they can pit their PCs against. The details can vary dramatically - from mapping and stocking a dungeon, to coming up with a Dragonlance-like series of set piece encounters to be worked through, to "indie"-style scene framing. But that provision of obstacles and antagonism is the basic function. Playing NPCs is a means to that end: they are elements in the obstacles/antagonism (whether as framing or as consequences) or else they are mere colour.

A GM who regards it as a "price" that a player wants to put some limits or offer some direction in respect of those things is (in my view) just about the lamest GM imaginable. This is why, as these arguments are set out, I am actually becoming more sympathetic to [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s description of it as an ego thing: because we seem to be talking about a GM who is more interested in telling his/her pet story (which would not have even been on the table had the player not chosen to play a warlock, or a bikie, in the first place) than in performing hs/her core function of presenting the players with engaging obstacles and antagonism.

What line? How is this any different from the urination example already discussed upthread? Or the fact that almost no RPGs scenarios with villages involve funerals of children who died in childbirth or not long after?

I assert: if a Vampire game can't progress without a player worrying about the cost of insurance premiums and petrol for his/her PC's motorbike, then the game sucks!

Maybe some would think the players can handle this. Some games formalise it (eg Dungeon World, Fate, to a lesser extent Burning Wheel). Others don't. But what is the point of these GM-imposed "side quests", "bonds between PCs", etc. Are the players incapable of coming up with their own PC motivations and inter-relationships?

As I said, this is terrible roleplaying. The penalty for playing a cleric or warlock or whatever is what - I don't get to fully play the game because sometime the GM tells me how I should play my PC?

Why can't the player handle this decision-making? And furthremore, what is going on that the GM has made the fight with the orcs more boring than something else when s/he knows there's this orc-fighting PC in the game? That's what I call lame GMing.

"That's what I call lame GMing."

"... just about the lamest GM imaginable."

As a sum up of your recent posts, let me respond to this as so... Its not my goal to try and convince anyone they should like a GM style or play style they dont like. After all butter pecan is wonderful to me and i dont need to call those who like mint chocolate chip dicks for liking it or question their decency.

Have a great day you.

 

[5ekyu]

I want to go further than [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] - a GM who even regards this as a price is a GM with a flaw that I would not want to play with.

The GM's basic function in a RPG is to provide the players with obstacles and antagonism that they can pit their PCs against. The details can vary dramatically - from mapping and stocking a dungeon, to coming up with a Dragonlance-like series of set piece encounters to be worked through, to "indie"-style scene framing. But that provision of obstacles and antagonism is the basic function. Playing NPCs is a means to that end: they are elements in the obstacles/antagonism (whether as framing or as consequences) or else they are mere colour.

A GM who regards it as a "price" that a player wants to put some limits or offer some direction in respect of those things is (in my view) just about the lamest GM imaginable. This is why, as these arguments are set out, I am actually becoming more sympathetic to [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s description of it as an ego thing: because we seem to be talking about a GM who is more interested in telling his/her pet story (which would not have even been on the table had the player not chosen to play a warlock, or a bikie, in the first place) than in performing hs/her core function of presenting the players with engaging obstacles and antagonism.

What line? How is this any different from the urination example already discussed upthread? Or the fact that almost no RPGs scenarios with villages involve funerals of children who died in childbirth or not long after?

I assert: if a Vampire game can't progress without a player worrying about the cost of insurance premiums and petrol for his/her PC's motorbike, then the game sucks!

Maybe some would think the players can handle this. Some games formalise it (eg Dungeon World, Fate, to a lesser extent Burning Wheel). Others don't. But what is the point of these GM-imposed "side quests", "bonds between PCs", etc. Are the players incapable of coming up with their own PC motivations and inter-relationships?

As I said, this is terrible roleplaying. The penalty for playing a cleric or warlock or whatever is what - I don't get to fully play the game because sometime the GM tells me how I should play my PC?

Why can't the player handle this decision-making? And furthremore, what is going on that the GM has made the fight with the orcs more boring than something else when s/he knows there's this orc-fighting PC in the game? That's what I call lame GMing.

"I assert: if a Vampire game can't progress without a player worrying about the cost of insurance premiums and petrol for his/her PC's motorbike, then the game sucks!"

Iirc the actual original bike reference was about loading it down with anti-theft and making efforts in character to keep it from being stolen, not keeping gas in the tank or insurance. It was also not described as a game stopping vital aspect, in fact the intent seemed to be to,portray it as mostly an extra.

Nor have I or those who seem to share some of me and my players' perspectives linked gas in the tank or insurance as a facet stopping the campaign.

So, you seem to be railing against an extreme position thats only bern trouted out by you (maybe others) and posdibly attributed to others - directly or indirectly.

Its a frequently found technique - find a way to sort of tie some outlandish extreme to a more nominal position and let the extreme be the one you assail.

No matter how obvious it gets, it seems to always work on a few. I could reference some recent real world examples but that likely violates forum policies, so i will just let that go.

I can say that in all my years gming and playing in VtM games, never once did a campaign fail to progress due to issues of not tracking gas in the tanks.

But if a VtM game did have.a scene story or plot where gas in the tank was crotical to,the resolution, i sure wouldnt call that lame without knowing whether the players enjoyed it.

 

[Sadras]

Still very much reading through the multitude of pages, but just wanted to pick up on this as I don't feel my take on it would be too drastic, I consider myself somewhere in the mid/reasonable side of this discussion and DMing practice.

Say you're playing Storm King's Thunder (or any WotC AP). In what way would that game come out any differently if the DM let the warlock's patron fade to the background? Would any of the encounters be different? Would the basic plot or story be any different? Would this somehow change the NPC's?

So I am running a mash-up of STK and ToD, and we have sibling PCs in the services of Bahamut, one being a divine warlock and the other a paladin. I use that background connection (and if their holy symbol are visible) to provide them with bonuses when dealing with metallic dragons, extremely negative reactions from cultists and chromatic dragons and certain level of skepticism from giantkin, depending.

I might provide them with various dreams, visions, possibly an inspiration point for deeds done which promote their patron/deity. It is a way of tying them closer to the setting and storyline.

From an encounter perspective they would be enemy#1 for cultists, evil dragons and generally minions in the service of Tiamat or for giantkin who viewed all dragons and dragon-related beings as a threat to giant society.

EDIT: That is how we generally operate with backgrounds and gods/patrons at our table.