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

[Guest 6801328]

I don't think so. I GMed a session of Chtulhu Dark a few weeks ago now. The PCs were a longshoreman, a legal secretary and an investigative reporter. Given that that' the totality of your PC stats in Cthulhu Dark, there are no "inconvenient bits" except those that emerge out of the actual play of the game.

But it didn't play as a tactical miniatures game (it's impossible to play Cthulhu Dark as a tactical minitiatures game).

I think my general point is that - at least in my experience - it is quite possible to engage players in the fiction of a RPG without pulling on the "inconvenient bits" of their PC builds.

I don't think your comparison with Cthulhu Dark is appropriate. You've got it backwards. It's not like the PCs chose longshoreman, legal secretary, etc. in order to get specific bonuses. That would be an appropriate comparison if the Paladin player had said, "Hey, I love the whole thing about the Oath and stuff, but I don't want all the Paladin powers. Can I just be a 0-level commoner who has this really strict Oath?"

If the player had said, "The whole Oath thing doesn't float my boat, but how about...." and proceeded to offer a totally different story from the one offered in the PHB, that would be ok, too. But the example wasn't given that way. It sounded like the (imaginary) player just wanted to have the cool buttons to mash with no story around it.

And to be clear, I don't think there's a balance issue with that at all. It's not that I think the Paladin is overpowered and needs to be reined in via Oaths and roleplaying. It's just that when I imagine somebody wanting to discard the inconvenient bits, with nothing offered in its place, I assume (perhaps unfairly) that he/she is being a pure powergamer with no interest in storytelling.

 

[Hussar]

As I read your examples, I kind of went back and forth in my head on this one. I both agree there shouldn't be any problem with the player requests, and yet it bugs me. It feels...powergamey. "I really like the powers of Devotion Paladin, but I don't want to roleplay it."

On the other hand....ok, fine. Why force people to roleplay who don't want to?

The only bit I really disagree with is "DM ego thing." I don't think (then again, maybe I wouldn't know) that it's my ego as a DM that would make me want to do the exact opposite of what the player requests. Even if I was a player at the table I would kinda want the DM to do so, although I'll admit it isn't a terribly generous thought. It's more like Shadenfreude than ego. Or, it's like the feeling you get when you're in a slow traffic and somebody is changing lanes aggressively: you kind of want them to get pulled over as punishment for their selfishness.

In fact, now that I've written that, that's exactly it. Your hypothetical devotion paladin, like the aggressive lane changer, is breaking the social contract...the part of the contract that says "don't do anything that doesn't scale to everybody doing it". If EVERYBODY just threw away the inconvenient bits of their character it's no longer a roleplaying game it's a tactical miniatures game.

Note, it's not "I don't want to roleplay a devotion paladin", it's "I don't want the oath part of my character to be a focus of the game". There is an important difference there. And, [MENTION=44640]bill[/MENTION]91 brought up, maybe it is a powergaming thing. But, the thing is, in 5e, character power is no longer tied to role playing limitations the way it was in previous editions. Paladins were flat out more powerful than other characters BECAUSE of the oath they had to follow.

But, in 5e, mechanically, there's nothing about a paladin that makes it more powerful than any other class. Roleplaying balance is no longer a thing in the game.

And, again, it's not "throwing away the inconvenient bits". The character DOES still have an oath. It's just that this won't be brought to the front and center by the DM. So, the player still plays with what he views as justice, compassion, honesty and the rest. But, it just isn't something that's going to be tested by the DM. So, like I said, no orc babies questions or forcing situations on the player to test that oath. It's a very minuscule limitation on what the DM can bring to the table.

 

[5ekyu]

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?

I wouldn't ignore it, as I said. I would just say no and give them the opportunity to propose other PCs, if I were the GM.

Is it hard for some to grasp that won't allow and bait and switch are not the same thing?

 

[Hussar]

That was me.

I'll let [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] deal with that particular conundrum, although to be honest it doesn't seem that hard to resolve (there's a difference between a bit of background colour and a situation that actually requires the players to make choices as to how their PCs resolve it).

In my case, when a player worships a god or serves a patron I expect that relationship to figure prominently in play. But that doesn't mean that I get to tell the player what the god or patron wants of his/her PC. The GM tells the player what his/her PC is required to do by his/her patron and the patron never comes into play are not the only two possibilities.

This is pretty much it. It's not that it's never in the game. Just that it's not a focus of play. Something minor that's handled in the background? Not a problem. Telling the PC that he must now undergo a months long quest at the behest of Correlon? Not groovy.

/snip

And to be clear, I don't think there's a balance issue with that at all. It's not that I think the Paladin is overpowered and needs to be reined in via Oaths and roleplaying. It's just that when I imagine somebody wanting to discard the inconvenient bits, with nothing offered in its place, I assume (perhaps unfairly) that he/she is being a pure powergamer with no interest in storytelling.

It's not about discarding anything though. The Background (to use the mechanical term) stuff STILL exists in the game. It's right there. It's not removed from the game at all. The warlock still has a patron, the paladin still has an oath. It's just that the DM does not do anything with it. The presumption here, is, of course, that you can trust your players not to be asshats.

The paladin example is really a good one. Maybe my concept is "shining knight of virtue". I'm going to play a really stereotypical paladin in the vein of Captain America. He's a really, really good guy. But, I don't want to futz about with the DM dropping Oath based challenges - here, save the little girl or stop the bad guy, what do you do? - here, what do you do about orc babies? - here, how do you judge someone who stole food to feed his sick sister?, on and on. I just want to get on with playing my concept of the character. We take the whole "shining knight" thing as written and move on from there.

This isn't about stripping anything out of the character at all. It's about the player telling the GM, "No, I do not want to deal with X. X only applies to my character and I'm not interested in it. Please do not bring X into the game."

Another really good example might be the "oddball" character. That Tiefling or Dragonborn or druid with a bear companion. That sort of thing. The player might background the race or the companion. So, in play, we don't worry about townsfolk coming after my character with pitchforks or what do we do with this bear while we're in town. It fades into the background - not that it's not there, it is. It's just not a focus of play. So, sure, color NPC's as giving dirty looks or maybe the bear stays outside of town. But, no one tries to murder my character and the bear just hangs out out of town without worrying about random encounters or whatnot.

 

[Hussar]

I wouldn't ignore it, as I said. I would just say no and give them the opportunity to propose other PCs, if I were the GM.

Is it hard for some to grasp that won't allow and bait and switch are not the same thing?

And, that's perfectly fair.

Me, I'd hand you a blank character sheet and ask you to make a character for me.

Naw, that's not true. I would simply find another group because I know I would not be a good fit here.

 

[5ekyu]

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.

I would add "and the NPCs."

If a patron, judge, god, brothel madame or high priest in my games makes a different call as to what they think "the right thing to do" was then the PC did, that's in-game. It's not "the GM deciding, it's the characters. If a player cannot pr will not see the difference between those (or a GM doesnt) that is a much bigger problem than the act itsrlf.

As stated, for the Patron and God for warlocks and clerics et al, the publically known outlooks should be clear not ambiguous before the act so that it is a willful choice.

 

[5ekyu]

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.

If warlocks, paladins and clerics in this world can choose to have any conflict or blow back or de facto obligation from those "agreements" locked away, why do all those who fo have those restrictions accept them? Are the rest of the warlocks, clerics and such in the world just dolts who got suffered in by a flim flam man?

 

[5ekyu]

I can see the suggestion that there's genre/setting fidelity as a motive - particularly now that D&D is, in essence, its own genre in which the terms "alignment" and "paladin" actually have meaning.

But don't be too quick to dismiss the issue of balance, though that usually manifests in ways even more mechanically oriented than warlock/witch patrons and paladin oaths. So bear with me....

From a GM's perspective: Players are notorious for gaming systems as best they can and getting all the benefits they can without suffering consequences. Thankfully someone mentioned Champions upthread because that game system can provide hours of case studies in players eking out the points for their powers, squeezing them into power frameworks, taking advantage of roundups, and picking up the absolutely least restrictive disadvantages they can in order to pay for their abilities, getting the most benefit for the least number of points and the least amount of actual mechanical disadvantage in play. Code Against Killing, anyone - when you know darn well the campaign is going to be a 4-color/silver age style campaign and killing will be extremely low on everybody's priority? Sign me up!

Of course, this comes up plenty often in other games too like D&D and the careful attention people pay to putting their lowest stats where they will harm them the least. How many threads have we seen where a player who wants to swashbuckle lamented not doing as much damage as the hulking barbarian with a much heavier weapon wielded in two-hands? People want their stylistic choices without paying for the choices they make. But that can mess with game balance. Why be a high-strength fighter now if you can invest in a high Dex and not see your damage significantly reduced because you get to add Dex to damage? The balance point between the stats has been thrown off to something else and Dex has become the king stat - that might be OK in Champions where it costs 3x as much as Strength, but in D&D, they cost the same amount.

But some games are actually more interesting if you do have to make reasonable trade-offs, particularly ones that offer some nod to realism - like the much slower reload time of a crossbow, even if they aren't as good for a PC as a longbow. The issues at stake with paladin oaths and warlock patrons may not be as core as the mechanical balance issues, but it still represents a player trying to benefit from their choices while dodging the cost.

A fun bit I saw in champs was getting like 20-25 pts for susceptability to mind control which meant if your character was mind controlled they would very quickly be rendered unconscious - effectively thwarting the mind conttol.
Fun times.

 

[5ekyu]

The framing as loyalty or fidelity to a person or a value as a cost is interesting, especially in the context of a FRPG. It's hypermodernist, even more so than REH - Conan often acts out of a sense of honour or justice or interpersonal obligation without that being presented as a cost.

And of course in the other fantasy genre that heavily informs D&D (especially paladins) - Tolkienseque/Arthurian fantasy - loyalty and fidelity are frequently a source of strength rather than a cost.

That's why when it comes to rules-structure for such things I prefer the double-sided ones where you can tap it for bonuses and also suffer from it in similar vein. It's been around in various incarnations in RPGs for decades st least.

 

[5ekyu]

This is pretty much it. It's not that it's never in the game. Just that it's not a focus of play. Something minor that's handled in the background? Not a problem. Telling the PC that he must now undergo a months long quest at the behest of Correlon? Not groovy.



It's not about discarding anything though. The Background (to use the mechanical term) stuff STILL exists in the game. It's right there. It's not removed from the game at all. The warlock still has a patron, the paladin still has an oath. It's just that the DM does not do anything with it. The presumption here, is, of course, that you can trust your players not to be asshats.

The paladin example is really a good one. Maybe my concept is "shining knight of virtue". I'm going to play a really stereotypical paladin in the vein of Captain America. He's a really, really good guy. But, I don't want to futz about with the DM dropping Oath based challenges - here, save the little girl or stop the bad guy, what do you do? - here, what do you do about orc babies? - here, how do you judge someone who stole food to feed his sick sister?, on and on. I just want to get on with playing my concept of the character. We take the whole "shining knight" thing as written and move on from there.

This isn't about stripping anything out of the character at all. It's about the player telling the GM, "No, I do not want to deal with X. X only applies to my character and I'm not interested in it. Please do not bring X into the game."

Another really good example might be the "oddball" character. That Tiefling or Dragonborn or druid with a bear companion. That sort of thing. The player might background the race or the companion. So, in play, we don't worry about townsfolk coming after my character with pitchforks or what do we do with this bear while we're in town. It fades into the background - not that it's not there, it is. It's just not a focus of play. So, sure, color NPC's as giving dirty looks or maybe the bear stays outside of town. But, no one tries to murder my character and the bear just hangs out out of town without worrying about random encounters or whatnot.

So, every other tiefling in the world or bear wandering thru town can get whatever reactions appropriate for the setting **except yours**.

How about instead of you want to play a race without "too harsh" reactions you choose a race that in the setting doesn't provoke those reactions?

To me this is choosing to say "I want my character my way regardless of the setting".

I could easily see having shared world elements where we as a group construct a setting where tieflings dont get reactions too harsh or where certain orders exist or where certain gods work this way etc... but the desire to insist that the setting can be locked out of this or that for **just my character** and your tiefling is not treated like others is wholly different. It's not engaging with the setting, its breaking the setting for one guy.

A request I would say no yo.