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

[billd91]

It is a sign of dickishness, (not sure where indecency comes in) when you pitch that game 100% knowing that at least one of your players absolutely hates the idea that you are pitching. That's the very important detail you are leaving out here. When knowing that that pitch will cause one player to leave the game is a pretty strong sign of dickishness.

It isn't if you know all of the other players want to play it. Kind of dickish to stand in the way of all of your fellow players fun, isn't it?

 

[billd91]

I don't see any difference that is relevant to gameplay. In any modern-era game that I can imagine, a motorcycle is just colour - a way of filling out the narration "I get from A to B" and of justifying my PC's fondness for leathers - until the player chooses to stake it.

I'm riding my bike across the Arizona desert to try and warn my coven before the evil ghouls find them and eat them! That's putting the bike at stake - make a riding check, on a fail maybe the bike breaks down, or as you're leaving a petrol station you find yourself surrounded by rivals from the Gypsy Jokers or whatever (as seems appropriate in the GM's judgement).

I park my bike outside the pub where I'm meeting my friends for a drink. That's not staking the bike on anything - and I stand by my opinion that a GM who can't think of anything better to do at that point then have the bike be stolen is a lame GM. The idea that we'd actually spend time at the table discussing how the PC is protecting the bike from theft - which is what happened in [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s game - just adds to the lameness.

Depends. Do they take a fight outside? Then the bike and all of the other things standing around as potential collateral have been reintroduced as complications. Or maybe someone at the bar has has their suspicions raised by questions the PCs ask and doesn't want to be followed so they slash a tire, or is invulnerable to that too?

 

[Imaro]

So, just to be clear, the player who turns down the motorcycle has to deal with the consequence of not having a motorcycle, it the guy who asked for the worry-free motorcycle doesn't have to deal with the consequences of taking a motor cycle since its worry free?

That's what I expected, actually.

Thanks.

As long as it's purely transportation fluff... yes.

 

[5ekyu]

As long as it's purely transportation fluff... yes.

Just so you know, I am myself unable to drive due to medical issues and I am required to run a normal non-advrnturing life day to day without the "transportation fluff" and in any sort of modern game short of rich guys with lots minions, I cant see how the worry free ride doesn't play a role that doesn't produce significant differences barring a very specific and cherry picked setup.

But I get it. Not everyone sees the lack of eliable immediate transportation as significant in some urban adventure.

 

[billd91]

For obvious reasons - if I want to play a motorcycle guy, then I want to play a motorcycle guy! Not a guy whose bike got stolen.

Ditto if I want to play a warlock - I want to play my PC the warlock, not the GM's conception of what some Great Old One or whomever it is would want my PC to do.

Wanting to play your character is the core mission of a player. So hardly the sign of a terrible one. Not enjoying the game unless s/he can muck around with the player's core concept, on the other hand, is a typical sign of a terrible GM.

Color me confused but a core concept should be something fairly prominent for the character - not really something to be backgrounded. And that means it should be available for complications. If being the motorcyle guy is your core concept, then it should account for something more than just getting from point A to point B. Captain America is a shield guy, but he doesn't use it just for looking good in publicity photos. Mal Reynolds is the starship guy, so the starship isn't just for getting around from point A to point B. If it's a core concept, it's something you should be challenged on from time to time, sometimes at at your initiation as a player, sometimes on mine as a GM (though, of course, if this were Mutants and Masterminds, there'd be a hero point in it for you because that's how complications work in that game).

If you want to be the dinosaur riding ranger as a core concept, fine. Just recognize that it's not going to give everyone a good impression and it can't go everywhere you might want to go. And it's going to come up in the games I run if you do choose that concept and don't take any effort to reduce those complications. Pick a deity with a particular portfolio and ethos, part of a cleric's core concept, and directly work against that and it'll be an issue. Pick a warlock patron, which determines your core magical powers, and directly work against its interests and, again, complications will ensue.

 

[Keith Gleason]

I make all of my rolls in front of the players and let the dice fall where they may. Good or bad, if you die you die. I never fudge a roll for good or ill, but I started playing WAAYYY back in 1982 and back then we did things a little differently. I do let new players know what the deal is before they play though, I figure that's only fair. But it works both ways, I also don't penalize them if they can figure out a way to get around an encounter easily or just get lucky with their rolls.

 

[Yunru]

So, just to be clear, the player who turns down the motorcycle has to deal with the consequence of not having a motorcycle, it the guy who asked for the worry-free motorcycle doesn't have to deal with the consequences of taking a motor cycle since its worry free?

That's what I expected, actually.

Thanks.

On the contrary, none of them should have to deal with worrying about "how do I get there" unless it suddenly becomes relevant.

 

[Imaro]

I don't think it is necessarily the player saying, "I don't want to explore those specific thematic elements." In the case of the patron/deity, it seems more like a matter of the player signalling to the DM about how much desired authority and narrative prominence the DM can and will exert over this aspect of their character.

I guess that begs the question of whether the patron is an aspect of the character or an aspect of the DM's world? I would say the latter and thus wonder why the player would get to dictate that... don't get me wrong his character can ignore, avoid and foil the demands and plots of said patron whenever and however he wants but this is for all intents and purposes a piece of the world/NPC and the same way I'm not dictating to him how to play his character he shouldn't in turn dictate to me things about the game world or NPC's.

The warlock player may want to explore the pact relationship in a manner that honors and respects their own sense for how that relationship should play out from their character-side perspective.

I'm having a hard time seeing how playing this relationship out from their "character-side perspective" would allow them to...

1.) Designate the patron's actions, influence, etc.
2.) Regulate the DM's ability to play or use the patron in the game.

IMO this isn't wanting to explore the relationship from a character-side perspective but instead, akin to wanting to play out lone theater and/or dictate a story in a cooperative game by ones self..

They may want the pact relationship as a warlock, but not want that as a prominent narrative element, but, rather, one that informs their decision-making for the actual primary issues of the campaign. They may not want, for example, their patron popping out of the narrative bushes and dictating new terms of agreement on them, betraying them, operating in ways that the player believes mischaracterizes the patron or their relationship, etc.

So they want to create and control not only their warlock but also the patron he or she made a deal with. IMO this would be extremely boring for me as a DM and I would imagine likewise for the players who are not privy to a players thoughts and thus would have no idea how the patron was influencing his actions and decision making. Instead like I commented earlier we have one man theater going on that no one else in the game is privy to... From an archetype or thematic perspective you might as well be playing a wizard or a sorcerer or any other spellcaster. It's all personal opinion but I'd rather you play a more generic character if you;re not interested in exploring (cooperatively) the major themes and tropes around a particular type of class. You've created a warlock, a class whose most interesting and defining thematic hook is the pact he or she has made with a patron and we are regulating that to near non-existence or better yet letting it become one man theater in a cooperative game. That just doesn't vibe well with me or my groups play style. Though I can definitely see how it wouldn't matter to others with differing goals and objectives for their game.

I think that a big part of the contention is that the patron/warlock or deity/cleric relationship has a certain intimacy or not too insignificant overlap in regards to the player's sense of their character concept. And the player may not want the DM to tread on that character concept via their use of the patron/deity.

Could you explain how the DM playing an NPC (because that's what a patron or deity is) can tread on the concept of the actual character? And if that is the case why doesn't it apply for any other NPC the player's characters have a connection with?

 

[Imaro]

Just so you know, I am myself unable to drive due to medical issues and I am required to run a normal non-advrnturing life day to day without the "transportation fluff" and in any sort of modern game short of rich guys with lots minions, I cant see how the worry free ride doesn't play a role that doesn't produce significant differences barring a very specific and cherry picked setup.

But I get it. Not everyone sees the lack of eliable immediate transportation as significant in some urban adventure.

Yes but you're glossing over the fact that the player turned it down which I would assume means they want to play out the challenges associated with not having reliable "backgrounded" transportation. Which is fine and will give that player totally different challenges, adventures and perspectives from the one who did take it... Now if that's not the case why would they turn it down?

 

[Yunru]

I guess that begs the question of whether the patron is an aspect of the character or an aspect of the DM's world? I would say the latter and thus wonder why the player would get to dictate that... don't get me wrong his character can ignore, avoid and foil the demands and plots of said patron whenever and however he wants but this is for all intents and purposes a piece of the world/NPC and the same way I'm not dictating to him how to play his character he shouldn't in turn dictate to me things about the game world or NPC's.

How's it any different from them dictating the rest of their character's background?