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

[Manbearcat]

Break and Suffer are qualitative. Neither are likely but both are possible regardless of who controls the patron.

If you have a player that controls the patron and doesn't build in suitable restrictions or consequences - then you're playing a mage with a supernatural friend that can be expected to have resources that the player will try to take advantage of - because they already did not build in suitable restrictions or consequences.

If you have a DM that controls the patron and doesn't give the player a clear set of rules to avoid consequences - then you've got a DM who is setting the player up to fail - because he or she has already shown that they're not going to do the work to ensure the character is viable.

Most relationships will end up in between these two extremes but it's always a good idea to separate the duties of player and DM along the expected lines and find the comfortable spot that works for both the DM and the player and not start with player enablement until the two of them feel each other out.

Here is a different kind of a patron (than an otherworldly, divine benefactor) from the Dashing Hero (Errol Flynn/The Princess Bride genre tropes) Dungeon World playbook:

A Lover In Every Port (CHA)
When you enter a town that you’ve been to before (your call), roll +CHA. On a 10+, there’s an old flame of yours who is willing to assist you somehow. On a 7-9, they’re willing to help you, for a price. On a miss, your romantic misadventures make life more complicated for the party.

This move involves the following dynamics:

1) The player choose whether a patron (an old flame) is introduced into the gamestate.

2) The resolution mechanics determines the implications of (1) on the gamestate.

3) The GM engineers the backstory in accordance with (2) (constrained by the GM's agenda/principles and the rest of the fiction).

Let us say the Swashbuckler had some sort of 5e analog to this. Or let us say the Samurai had something like this (but sub ex-lover for ex-nemesis that you spared in a duel). Why would a particular 5e game suffer for its use (if you feel it would) while Dungeon World games are enriched by it?

 

[Kobold Boots]

Here is a different kind of a patron (than an otherworldly, divine benefactor) from the Dashing Hero (Errol Flynn/The Princess Bride genre tropes) Dungeon World playbook:

A Lover In Every Port (CHA)
When you enter a town that you’ve been to before (your call), roll +CHA. On a 10+, there’s an old flame of yours who is willing to assist you somehow. On a 7-9, they’re willing to help you, for a price. On a miss, your romantic misadventures make life more complicated for the party.

This move involves the following dynamics:

1) The player choose whether a patron (an old flame) is introduced into the gamestate.

2) The resolution mechanics determines the implications of (1) on the gamestate.

3) The GM engineers the backstory in accordance with (2) (constrained by the GM's agenda/principles and the rest of the fiction).

Let us say the Swashbuckler had some sort of 5e analog to this. Or let us say the Samurai had something like this (but sub ex-lover for ex-nemesis that you spared in a duel). Why would a particular 5e game suffer for its use (if you feel it would) while Dungeon World games are enriched by it?

I think my answer would be obvious but here goes.

You've engineered a situation that is not at all like the one I'm replying about (supernatural patron, potentially obvious bias without compensating controls) therefore I have nothing to reply to and no interest in moving the conversational goalposts.

Be well
KB

 

[Manbearcat]

I think my answer would be obvious but here goes.

You've engineered a situation that is not at all like the one I'm replying about (supernatural patron, potentially obvious bias without compensating controls) therefore I have nothing to reply to and no interest in moving the conversational goalposts.

Be well
KB

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?

 

[Maxperson]

[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], your Corellon wanting a message delivered was an excellent one for acceptable small obligations. There is a lot of potential flavor there. It's a nice reminder for the player(s) about the patron, and that could lead to a lot of interesting plot hooks. And without knowing more about what [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] describes in this Background system, that may apply as Background.

My impression from what he has been saying is background stays as background and is untouchable.

However, I would say that the underlying problems within this warlock/patron discussion pertain to two interrelated issues: (1) PC-GM Cognitive Dissonance, and (2) Player Micromanagement.

In the case of (1), the player may have come to the table with a particular conception of who their patron is, the nature of their patron/protegé relationship, and what their patron means to them. (And they may be under the impression that the GM understands this as well.) In play, however, the GM may then dictate/impose a completely different understanding of that relationship or patron on the player. It may defy the PC's backstory. It may defy their sense of character. Not in a way, however, that challenges or grows that sense of character but in a way that contradicts or "retcons" it. If the dissonance is too great, the player may abandon their character entirely because "frak this junk; this is not what I came here to play." In a more freeform game like Fate, I could change my character aspects to something more appropriate as a result. But for a class-based game like D&D, pushing a player out of that class that they may otherwise enjoy playing can be ruinous for their experience.*

In my experience, DMs are generally not asshats. The way it works out in play is IF the DM makes a mistake like that, the player says something and they work it out. The DM doesn't destroy the PC for the player unless the DM is a bad one, in which case you should find a new game anyway.

In the case of (2), many players dislike the GM micromanaging player characters through their deities/patrons/alignment/etc. So the desire to lockdown the patron as Background becomes as a means of protecting player character agency from the GM utilizing the warlock's patron as an RP tool against the player.

Micromanagement is also something I have not seen outside of bad DMs in my decades of playing. Same as above. The DM and player work out the issues in a normal game.

* This gets into another topic that has been alluded to and implied but not yet discussed: Classes are imperfect archetypes. Often players view classes not as a set of prescriptive flavor text obligations to "play your character like this" but simply as a "line of best fit" for their character concept. I know people who would love playing clerics - as the mechanics fit their playstyle - but they hate the religious flavor text baggage. This is incidentally why I know that some players I have played with loved the unspeakable warlord. So I think that the practice of looking the other way when it comes to deities, oaths, patrons, and such stems from this problem. (Cue obligatory interjector: "That's not a problem; that's a feature!") I know from my own experience that there are players who like how the warlock comes equipped with a lot of player choice points (patron, pact, invocations, spells, etc.) and how it players but they likewise don't want the patron used against them. I'm okay with treating that "fey warlock" as a "fey sorcerer" or a "fey wizard" if that works better for that player.

This is why I want to see more classes and paths introduced. People fear the optimizers, but that's small potatoes compared to being able to find the class and/or path that is the perfect fit.

 

[Maxperson]

Again, I agree with you, but there's a history of bad DMs taking this too far. There was one small sidebar in Second Edition that talked about a god denying spells to a priest who wasn't acting in good faith, with a suggestion that you might pray for spells and wind up with only Cure spells in every slot, and some DMs took that as a suggestion to second-guess everything the character did.

When you actually are trying to play your character in good faith, and the DM takes away your powers because you make one decision that they disagree with, then the natural player response is to never play a divine spellcaster again. You never have to worry about that sort of thing when you're a wizard, after all. Or maybe you'll just quit playing entirely, if nothing you do matters and the DM is going to fiat take away your powers for no reason.

Why wouldn't it be the natural response to just not play with that DM again? It's pretty clear when someone is being an asshat against the spirit of the game.

 

[pemerton]

Running with [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s example, here's a possibility adapted shamelessly from the Dungeon World druid (but also informed by how Burning Wheel handles failed Faith and Spirit Binding checks):

When you call upon the support of your patron in desparate or dangerous circumstances, roll 2d6+ CHA bonus:

* On 10+, choose two:

• Your supplication is granted.

• You patron demands no payment from you.

• Your patron takes nothing in payment from your friends and allies.​

* On 7+, choose one of the above.

* On 6-, your patron is fed up with the supplications of mortals, and inflicts some disaster upon you and/or your friends and allies. The GM will tell you what bad thing happens.​

If you were adapting it to 5e, the numbers would have to change: it's hard to maintain the exact DW probability spread, but my tentative suggestion would be d20 + CHA bonus, with full success on 16+, partial success on 8 to 15, and faiure on a natural 1 and on any modified result below 8.

A DM should have a clear understanding of the macro level methods and goals of the patron and how they apply to the world around the PC, both seen and unseen. It's very unlikely a player, even one that's highly invested in the fiction, will (or should) have access to those secrets, let alone be determining them, until such time the patron believes any revelations to be in its best interest.

When you say "it's very unlikely", what do you think would make that unlikely thing come to pass?

Going back to the theme of the thread, I would find it fairly unsatisfying to play a cleric or warlock-type character if I knew the GM was deciding secret goals for my patron or god that I didn't know about and didn't have any influence over.

 

[Hussar]

Ok, caught up. Yeesh, lots of posts.

Let's take a fairly clear example - an Oath of Devotion Paladin. Now, what is the actual effect of the player Backgrounding his oath? The player has now clearly told the DM that he does not want his Oath to be a focus of play. But, what does that mean?

Well, IMO, that means that the DM would not bring in elements into play which test that Paladin's Oath. So, no "orc babies", no "your church is actually run by cultists", that sort of thing. The campaign progresses pretty much exactly like it normally would, just that this one specific element - i.e. the Paladin's Oath - is not the focus. So, the paladin gets to be the shining hero, which is likely the concept for an Oath Paladin, and on we go.

What's the problem here?

Or, let's roll back to a Warlock. The Warlock player places his Patron in the Background. So, what changes at the table? Again, the DM is instructed to leave that bit out of the game. So, the Patron might ask for minor stuff that can be handled in the background (someone earlier mentioned passing messages for Correlon (I know, cleric, not warlock but the principle is the same), and you might even have some contact between the Patron and the warlock, but, again, this will never be the focus of play. So, essentially, that "NPC" (I'm not really sure if patrons count as NPC's or not) fades into the background and play continues.

Again, what is the problem here?

The player has clearly, in no uncertain terms, told you his or her preferences. They couldn't be more clear. Wouldn't it be an incredibly dick move to ignore that? Regardless of whether or not this featured in a game, a player that comes to me and says, "I have NO interest in X, I do not want to do X, it is not fun." isn't doing anything wrong. I'd LOVE it if players would be that forthcoming. Hell, usually getting any sort of feedback from players is like pulling teeth.

Honestly, I'm really struggling to see how this isn't just a DM ego thing. I know that's not nice to say, but, I can't see any other interpretation. You have the entire game world to play with. The player has told you that they do not like X and have no interest in X. How arrogant do you have to be to ignore that and go ahead and do X in spite of the player?

 

[pemerton]

With respect to alignment, my experience is that the way to make players care about the implications of what their PCs do, from the perspective of values and morality, is to frame them into situations where they can make choices that express the values and morality of their PCs. In cases where the possible consequences of the choice are not clear, because it's more than just colour, that can be resolved by application of the action-resolution mechanics.

Some examples of the sort of choices I've seen players make:

* To release defeated foes on parole rather than kill them (this is generally just colour, and so requires no action resolution);

* To tame rather thank kill an angry, attacking bear (this is generally going to require action resolution, given that it is an attempt to resolve a conflict/challenge confronting

* To ruthessly kill foes who have already been defeated, as a type of vengeance or punishment (this is generally just colour, but can be shocking to other PCs and their players);

* To choose to kill rather than rescue a less-than-fully trusted NPC companion (this would often not be just colour, and hence require action resolution; as with the previous example, I've seen it be quite shocking to the others at the table);

* To keep a promise made in their name, even though keeping the promise will almost certainly have bad consequences that could have been avoided (this happened to the fighter/cleric PC in my 4e game, when a failed skill challenge resulted in a promise being made in his name to spare a prisoner whom he thought deserved death for her crimes).​

I don't see any need, in these sorts of situations, for the GM to decide what the right thing to do is (either expressly, or by weighting the action resolution possibilities so that one option rather than the other is obviously far easier to achieve). Choosing what is the right thing to do seems to me to be up to the players.

 

[pemerton]

I'm really struggling to see how this isn't just a DM ego thing. I know that's not nice to say, but, I can't see any other interpretation. You have the entire game world to play with. The player has told you that they do not like X and have no interest in X. How arrogant do you have to be to ignore that and go ahead and do X in spite of the player?

As far as I can tell, with these patron cases as well as the alignment ones, it's some sort of idea of setting/genre-fidelity.

There are two ways this can play out, I think. Here's the genre-oriented one: it's not realistic/appropriate for the paladin to never have to struggle with his/her oath, for the warlock never to receive demands from the patron, for someone who is self-professedly good rather than evil to never have to make hard moral choices.

And here's the more setting-related one: it's not realistic for a devotion paladin to do X, or a warlock with such-and-such a patron to do Y, or a good person to do Z, and not be called into line by the relevant supernatural force (where X, Y or Z is something that the GM doesn't think fits with the rulebook's description of that sort of character).

(I bracket whether or not that setting/genre-fidelity issue is a matter of ego. We had another thread about that, earlier this year I think.)

If it's not something of that sort, then all I can think of is balance - somehow the player of a paladin isn't earning the paladin class benefits unless s/he struggles with the oath; likewise for a warlock, or someone who writes LG in the alignment box on his/her sheet.

But that seems quite implausible to me - hence my first guess that it's about setting/genre fidelity, and also my question, not far upthread, about how the game would break or the play experience suffer if the player of the character decided what (if anything) the patron, alignment etc requires of the PC.

 

[SkidAce]

Honestly, I'm really struggling to see how this isn't just a DM ego thing. I know that's not nice to say, but, I can't see any other interpretation. You have the entire game world to play with. The player has told you that they do not like X and have no interest in X. How arrogant do you have to be to ignore that and go ahead and do X in spite of the player?

I agree with your post 100%.

Perhaps the only question I might have, would be "why did the player choose a warlock with a patron if they didn't want that interaction?"

After hearing their answer, "okay its backgrounded" would still be my answer, unless they indicated otherwise after our discussion.


Because its simple, we play to have fun with friends, the DM (or a player) are not foes forcing people with RP sticks into certain styles.

We talk, we discuss, we play.