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

[pemerton]

So in one of my prior campaigns, there was a PC swordmage whose arcane teacher was an alchemist/potion brewer and a bit of a ladies man. Nothing much else was developed by the player.

It's not clear how what you go on to describe invalidates what the player established. As you are presenting it here, there doesn't seem to be an moral or thematic aspect to the PC-mentor relationship.

 

[Sadras]

It's not clear how what you go on to describe invalidates what the player established. As you are presenting it here, there doesn't seem to be an moral or thematic aspect to the PC-mentor relationship.

Perhaps I wasn't clear or I'm misunderstanding. One of the examples in your post, was the concept of stalwart defender of worthy folk which is essentially most good-doing adventurers. By protecting and hiding the teacher (a criminal and werewolf) from the authorities he becomes the sucker according to your post and the character concept is blown away.

 

[5ekyu]

Perhaps I wasn't clear or I'm misunderstanding. One of the examples in your post, was the concept of stalwart defender of worthy folk which is essentially most good-doing adventurers. By protecting and hiding the teacher (a criminal and werewolf) from the authorities he becomes the sucker according to your post and the character concept is blown away.

Wait... stalwart defender of worthy folk.

When did "character concept " get morphed into never being wrong?

The clash between meta-declaration and character ability to carry it off is one of the things that drives us away from those approaches.

If your concept needs to include "never is fooled into protecting bad guys" then you need to build that capability for your character in the setting and play that thru in game - maybe zone of truth a lot.

If your concept include "my family must stay on the straight and narrow cuz I send them loot" then shouldn't your charscter ne keeping tabs on them, developing abilities to make sure your going to be able to make that happen in character.

My players come to the game with a simple approach and understanding- of its something your character wants to happen, that character should find ways to make it happen.

There is no "can I get a meta-wipe" to avoid them needing to create characters who can actually do those things.

 

[Sadras]

When did "character concept " get morphed into never being wrong?

I'm not arguing for that. If I'm understanding @pemerton correctly he is discussing character concepts such as the one I stated which get blown away by unilateral DM fiat.

 

[Maxperson]

Gorgon-excrement. The only fact is that you have failed in demonstrating that Eberron has changed the cleric class, leaving you only asserting that it did. You made the assertion that it changes the cleric class. It is not my place to disprove anything. Now prove your position that it does change the cleric class.

It changes the god/cleric relationship. In 1e, 2e, and 3e, you were intended to meet and perhaps even fight gods and avatars. Gods also provided spells and could withdraw them if they so chose. In 5e most adventuring clerics go because their god told them to. Now, the class does mentions some non-cleric priests that have no communion with a god, but those aren't true clerics. In 5e you know your god exists, you know his will, and you get direction from that god or else you couldn't go adventuring at his command.

What this says is that the cleric class changed between editions, which is hardly that meaningful or novel of an assertion. But that does not mean that Eberron changed the cleric class. But [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] is welcome to demonstrate where and how Eberron changes the rules of the cleric class.

What is says is that in 1e, 2e, 3e and 5e gods made their wills known directly to their clerics as a matter of course. Eberron changed that by removing gods from direct communication.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, that's not exactly true. Basic/Expert, for example, doesn't even have gods. And clerics are certainly not beholden to anything.

It is true. I specified edition for a reason. The first edition is, well, 1e and the last edition is 5e. Basic isn't an edition. It's a different game of D&D than ran prior to and concurrently with the editions. Even then, it did have gods, but you found out about them later. They were called Immortals and they had names like Zeus, Odin and Frey.

AD&D clerics were not really beholden to anything either. There were no mechanics for taking spells away from clerics who "misbehaved". And, a 1e cleric could serve multiple gods. There was certainly no indication that gods were close or distant. That was left entirely up to the DM. 2e goes even further. You don't even need a god to be a cleric in 2e, same as 3e. You could serve a concept and still get spells and whatnot.

No indication that they were close or distant? They had to personally come deliver high level spells! The Deities an Demigods also let the DM know that in the cases of transgression, the god would deliver anything from a warning, to having to do a quest, to denial of some spells and/or spell levels, to complete loss of spells. So you're wrong that there were no mechanics for taking spells away from misbebaving clerics. In 3e, the gods had avatars for you to meet as you walked around if they wanted to.

So yes, the gods were close in those editions. Only 4e and those few exceptional settings like Eberron changed things.

Kinda sorta. The whole 6th and 7th level thing was added some time later, with the Dieties and Demigods IIRC. It's certainly not in the player's handbook. Heck, clerics in 1e don't even have to be dedicated to a single deity. The description of clerics specifically mentions clerics being able to have deities.

Doesn't need to be in the PHB. It's in the edition as I claimed.

 

[Maxperson]

[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] I was also wondering about your claim about 4e deities being distant.
Do you make this distant claim because many of their stats have not been published, as opposed to the previous editions?

I didn't play 4e, but the PHB seems to imply that they were distant. So I retract that statement and they were close in all editions.

 

[TwoSix]

Perhaps I wasn't clear or I'm misunderstanding. One of the examples in your post, was the concept of stalwart defender of worthy folk which is essentially most good-doing adventurers. By protecting and hiding the teacher (a criminal and werewolf) from the authorities he becomes the sucker according to your post and the character concept is blown away.

I think you're conflating a bunch of things here that aren't related.

1) Stalwart defender of worthy folk is hardly a characterization of most adventurers. And unless the player specifically stated this as a thematic underpinning for his character to explore in play, why would the player care if it somehow becomes not true?

2) You stated that whole story to lead up the point that the players liked the surprise reveal. The fact that many players like to consume the DM's created story is not in dispute. The fact that a DM is not required to script story events in advance to run a good game seems to be the element in dispute.

3) The problematic aspect of the lycanthropic reveal (from my perspective) is that it doesn't seem to be the result of the character's choices. It's just something that happened anyway, that the PC now has to deal with. That may be fun from a sim perspective (because realistically, bad things often happen to people that are random and undeserved) but is unsatisfying from a narrative perspective (in which the events should be about the consequences of choices).

 

[Sadras]

1) Stalwart defender of worthy folk is hardly a characterization of most adventurers. And unless the player specifically stated this as a thematic underpinning for his character to explore in play, why would the player care if it somehow becomes not true?

2) You stated that whole story to lead up the point that the players liked the surprise reveal. The fact that many players like to consume the DM's created story is not in dispute.

I'm with you up until here.

The fact that a DM is not required to script story events in advance to run a good game seems to be the element in dispute.

3) The problematic aspect of the lycanthropic reveal (from my perspective) is that it doesn't seem to be the result of the character's choices. It's just something that happened anyway, that the PC now has to deal with.

I'm drawing a bit of a blank, long week. Can you please give me an example of drawing a background element similar in vain to mine into a non-story now game whereby a bad thing happened due to consequence of choices.

That may be fun from a sim perspective (because realistically, bad things often happen to people that are random and undeserved) but is unsatisfying from a narrative perspective (in which the events should be about the consequences of choices).

What if, along the way while making choices, clues are being offered up to investigate, and the players through their characters do not follow up on them - it seems to me this can be viewed as a consequence of choices (or mistakes).

 

[Aldarc]

It changes the god/cleric relationship. In 1e, 2e, and 3e, you were intended to meet and perhaps even fight gods and avatars. Gods also provided spells and could withdraw them if they so chose. In 5e most adventuring clerics go because their god told them to. Now, the class does mentions some non-cleric priests that have no communion with a god, but those aren't true clerics. In 5e you know your god exists, you know his will, and you get direction from that god or else you couldn't go adventuring at his command.

What is says is that in 1e, 2e, 3e and 5e gods made their wills known directly to their clerics as a matter of course. Eberron changed that by removing gods from direct communication.

I believe you are applying an incredibly restricted view of past editions to win an argument rather than to accurately describe these games. As you are limited to saying that "it changes the god/cleric relationship," which is wholly subjective and requires an exceptionally narrow reading of the texts that ignores where what you say is not true, then it's clear that it Eberron does not actually change the cleric class. It exists within the spectrum of what D&D intends for cleric play. Thank you for proving my point.