Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Archmage Atrus 08-29-06, 02:31 PM	I bring a philosophical question to hand. I was thinking of writing a Regdar's, and might at that depending how this survey goes, but I decided to open this up to all my homeboys out here for people to opine. Here's the sitch: Assume a Dungeon Master wants to run a game - as DMs are wont to do. He comes up with a setting - fairly stereotypical D&D fare. (Just keeping things as neutral as possible.) He then asks for characters. One player asks him if he is allowing character classes from supplement books. The Complete series, for example. The DM thinks it over, agrees that the classes are not unbalanced, but then decides that the class doesn't fit the "flavor" of the campaign setting. Is this good DMing or bad DMing? I don't wish to be conclusory. But follow me a second. One job of the DM is to arbitrate, be fair, and make sure that everyone at the table has fun. This DM has already analyzed the class from a mechanical standpoint (arbitration) and made a mechanical decision (class isn't broken/won't unbalance things.) Then he makes an entirely arbitrary call - won't fit into the campaign setting. He gives no other reason other than this. Assume for this exercise that the class does not add any mechanical features to the game (like, say, psionics or incarnum.) The DM is making it less fun for the PC. The PC wanted to play a class from a book that the DM has access to. The DM has not given a "crunchy" reason why the class is banned. A clever player can simply take the class, change the fluff (which is more or less easily done, depending on the class) to fit the setting, and the DM would be almost obligated to accept the class. (At least, he would be exposed for what he is.) A better option would be for the DM to find a place in the story for the new class. The question, then, becomes: What is more important, the player or the story? (I'm pretty sure you can all tell I think the player is more important. But I'd like to hear contrary and supporting thoughts.)
Momordi 08-29-06, 02:35 PM	I bring a philosophical question to hand. I was thinking of writing a Regdar's, and might at that depending how this survey goes, but I decided to open this up to all my homeboys out here for people to opine. Here's the sitch: Assume a Dungeon Master wants to run a game - as DMs are wont to do. He comes up with a setting - fairly stereotypical D&D fare. (Just keeping things as neutral as possible.) He then asks for characters. One player asks him if he is allowing character classes from supplement books. The Complete series, for example. The DM thinks it over, agrees that the classes are not unbalanced, but then decides that the class doesn't fit the "flavor" of the campaign setting. Is this good DMing or bad DMing? I don't wish to be conclusory. But follow me a second. One job of the DM is to arbitrate, be fair, and make sure that everyone at the table has fun. This DM has already analyzed the class from a mechanical standpoint (arbitration) and made a mechanical decision (class isn't broken/won't unbalance things.) Then he makes an entirely arbitrary call - won't fit into the campaign setting. He gives no other reason other than this. Assume for this exercise that the class does not add any mechanical features to the game (like, say, psionics or incarnum.) The DM is making it less fun for the PC. The PC wanted to play a class from a book that the DM has access to. The DM has not given a "crunchy" reason why the class is banned. A clever player can simply take the class, change the fluff (which is more or less easily done, depending on the class) to fit the setting, and the DM would be almost obligated to accept the class. (At least, he would be exposed for what he is.) A better option would be for the DM to find a place in the story for the new class. The question, then, becomes: What is more important, the player or the story? (I'm pretty sure you can all tell I think the player is more important. But I'd like to hear contrary and supporting thoughts.) The story is not more important than the player, but the setting is. Dms should never, under any conditions change their setting to satisfy player requests. To do so destroys the illusion of consistency that the DM has created. A setting should only change in response to something theplayer's character does.
Arganis 08-29-06, 02:36 PM	The DM is making it less fun for the PC. The PC wanted to play a class from a book that the DM has access to. The DM has not given a "crunchy" reason why the class is banned. A clever player can simply take the class, change the fluff (which is more or less easily done, depending on the class) to fit the setting, and the DM would be almost obligated to accept the class. (At least, he would be exposed for what he is.) A better option would be for the DM to find a place in the story for the new class. Black and White? No. I'd say that you shouldn't have to change one or the other. A responsible, considerate GM would offer a compromise by which both the campaign world and the class were both altered to fit together.
oxybe 08-29-06, 02:39 PM	player first, then setting, then story -the players ask what they want from the game -then together you create the setting -finally the dm creates the story everyone for the win! not too hard, especially if you create a homebrew world. even in pre-created worlds, like Forgotten Realms or Eberron, you can easily add a class or PrC from book X by looking at the various regions & finding the most appropriate one to place it in. if the players have a say in the setting, then it's no problem at all giving them what they want.
Richmud 08-29-06, 02:41 PM	This particular situation never comes up in my group because we discuss what they want to play before I make the setting. Generally however I think players come before the story.
KnaveofClubs 08-29-06, 02:44 PM	It should not be one way either way. A D&D session should not be a DM's game, nor should it be a player's game. What you need is a willingness to compromise. As a DM you could state that you had found this wonderful campaign that would be great fun if the players participated, only they have to utilize some restrictions. As a player you could try to go for a more accomodating build for the campaign or suggest multiple campaigns in which you can use that build or class. It is all based on communication and compromise.
ornitholestes 08-29-06, 02:50 PM	The players should come before the story, certainly. That said, it is perfectly reasonable to come up with limitations before the game begins on what is and isn't available to play. While the DM technically has final say on it, it should be based on the general preference of the whole group. I think its best to sit down and casually discuss it before the game, the DM can propose "I want to play a game from x campaign setting with y races, and z classes available." If they players want to play like that great, if not, the DM should come up with another idea or play with a different group of players. I think if, after this has been discussed a player finds a class not discussed, its fine to talk to the DM, but if the DM doesn't allow it there are plenty of other options.
Archmage Atrus 08-29-06, 03:19 PM	Some responses: Dms should never, under any conditions change their setting to satisfy player requests. Ah, but the game hasn't even started yet. The DM, at least in this situation, is simply saying "no," for arbitrary reasons. In effect, there is no setting, because there really so far isn't a game. (Not saying I disagree with you - well, I do - but I'm just throwing something out there to think about.) A responsible, considerate GM would offer a compromise by which both the campaign world and the class were both altered to fit together. True. I suppose what I meant to say by "the DM [should] find a place in the story for the new class" was something like what you suggest. I definitely don't subscribe to the camp where the DM must do all of the work. But, do you at least agree that keeping the class out bar-none is, at least, a mark against the DM? if the players have a say in the setting, then it's no problem at all giving them what they want. Again, you are saying that the players should have a say in the setting. While I don't quite see your differentiation between setting and story, you at least also agree that the player should come first. What you need is a willingness to compromise. As a DM you could state that you had found this wonderful campaign that would be great fun if the players participated, only they have to utilize some restrictions. As a player you could try to go for a more accomodating build for the campaign or suggest multiple campaigns in which you can use that build or class. It is all based on communication and compromise. I agree with you in theory, except that the situation you're describing isn't a compromise. It's the DM saying "This is what I want you guys to play" and the PCs then going along with that. What would happen if a PC comes up with a great backstory as to why he wants to play one of the restrictions (and the restriction, again, isn't based off of mechanical reasons.) Where would you fall? That said, it is perfectly reasonable to come up with limitations before the game begins on what is and isn't available to play. I don't disagree. What I am disagreeing with is the reason for the unavailabilities. I think if, after this has been discussed a player finds a class not discussed, its fine to talk to the DM, but if the DM doesn't allow it there are plenty of other options. So that puts you in the story before the players camp? (Not to imply there are camps, just want some clarification.) Your statement suggests that the DM should put his own interests before the PC's. If you wish to clarify, you may.
tsuyoshikentsu 08-29-06, 03:30 PM	I am of the opinion that in a world as large and magical as the ones I make, I find it very hard to believe that any given class hasn't been invented yet. Even organizations are easy to fit in.
Arganis 08-29-06, 03:34 PM	True. I suppose what I meant to say by "the DM [should] find a place in the story for the new class" was something like what you suggest. I definitely don't subscribe to the camp where the DM must do all of the work. But, do you at least agree that keeping the class out bar-none is, at least, a mark against the DM? Your original proposition removes wide-spread campaign features (incarnum, psionics) from the mix. With such things out of the way, it's hard (for me) to imagine any class that could be stricken for non-mechanical reasons. Because of the restrictions on the issue, the question becomes specific enough to be expressed with total generality: Should a GM deny a player's request without just cause? To which I would reply no.
KnaveofClubs 08-29-06, 03:46 PM	I agree with you in theory, except that the situation you're describing isn't a compromise. It's the DM saying "This is what I want you guys to play" and the PCs then going along with that. What would happen if a PC comes up with a great backstory as to why he wants to play one of the restrictions (and the restriction, again, isn't based off of mechanical reasons.) Where would you fall? What you said is a part of a compromise, if the player can talk with the DM and get him to include the class for the purpose of a colorful backstory or easy plot hook, then he worked out with the DM a compromise.
Caliborn 08-29-06, 03:47 PM	Note: I did not read the thread at all. Players first most definitely. Also try to maintain the integrity of your world, or campaign setting, only deny a request if it totally, totally, does not mesh; well, unless it's something stupid like Paladin of Slaughter. Additionally, try and work together with your player to reflavor what they want, if at all possible, so that it will gel with your world. As for story, well I usually don't get into extremely detailed, pre-planned story-arcs so as not to straight jacket myself or the players. I run more of an organic game full of choices and consequences for both actions and the lack there of.
Gorbeck 08-29-06, 03:59 PM	In effect, there is no setting, because there really so far isn't a game... While I don't quite see your differentiation between setting and story, you at least also agree that the player should come first. I think this is the problem right here, you're not seeing a difference between the campaign setting and the story that takes place within the setting. A while back I played in a game where the DM had spent months developing an intricately detailed, living game world with his own continent map, hundreds of cities of varying sizes, and a vast political system. In this game world one of the major political motivators was that the dragons (who had once ruled the world) had suddenly dissapeared, along with every member of the dragon subraces. Had the PHBII been out when we played this game I think it would have been very appropriate for the DM to ban playing Dragon Shamans or picking up the Dragon Disciple prestige class. Of course, we don't have enough details to determine if the DM in this case has spent much time on his world or if he simply threw it together or borrowed it from a published campaign setting. It should also be considered that there's a very valid reason for banning the class that he doesn't want to share with his players because it may give something away that he doesn't want his players to know. Just my thoughts.
a_psh 08-29-06, 04:05 PM	I think it's difficult to judge "fun" on a decision-by-decision basis. There are concerns other than fun that the GM also has to take into account. There are certain cases when you need to do un-fun things in order to preserve the basic framework of the game (so that you can do other, more fun things with that framework later). In terms of presenting the players with a strongly character-driven roleplaying experience, limiting their game-mechanical options isn't a big deal. I think what you're really talking about here is whether PCs should be built for the setting or the setting should be built for the PCs. Usually it's the former because it's much harder to make a world that perfectly integrates half a dozen random characters than it is to make half a dozen characters that really make sense in the world. There should definitely be some compromise here, but I think that a coherent setting should take precedence over a cool class or feat. When I hear "character vs. story," I usually think of a different debate: about whether it's more important to create a cooperative story (and therefore people should bend their characters when they need something dramatic to occur) or whether it's more important to really get into character (and therefore have potential storylines sometimes fizzle because they clash with the personality the player has in mind).
ccerose 08-29-06, 04:06 PM	If the DM feels that a class doesn't fit the setting, that's his/her call to make. Its not about good or bad DMing, it just is. I alternate DM duties with two other people in my gaming group. When I'm running the current campaign I am spending several hours per week working on my adventures away from the table. When I am a player, I know that all I have to do is show up with my character sheet ready. Away from the table, I rarely give the game a second thought. Out of respect for the amount of effort the DMs put in to their adventures, if they have restrictions, I accept them. Even if the answer is, "Because it doesn't fit in the campaign setting." I'd like to add that I disagree with the OP that it is the DM's job to make sure that everyone at the table has fun. That responsibility needs to fall on everyone who is part of the gaming group.
Journeyman Samwise 08-29-06, 04:16 PM	Being a DM doesn't mean catering to every players' want and whim, it means making a cohesive campaign environment where the players can have fun. This means, generally speaking, eliminating any situation where the players go "wait, what?" If banning the Spelljammer series of books means my Dragonlance game runs smoothly, so be it.
Pyke_Moonshadow 08-29-06, 04:16 PM	I personally put the story(setting) before the players. I almost hate to say it but it is true. DMing is fun for me. Since I don't get to "play" when I run a game I want to have fun running it. That aside though I never dismiss stuff outright. If there was a class that the player wanted and I absolutely did not want it in my game for some reason I would definately work with the player to find a happy middleground. Perhaps an existing class or combination of classes would work or even a PRC. If there request was reasonable and unique I might allow the class to be played on a one time basis as long as the players knew that there was a very real chance of me not allowing another character of that class further along. If the other players did not see this as fair for some reason I would have to go back to my original stance and work out a compramise. My game world is my pride and joy and, much like an over protective parent, I like to keep a tight rein on her. Obviously I want my players to have fun, a dm values nothing more than praise from his players for a good game. I tend to try my best to work things in but I do have my limits and I will on occasion draw the line.
EldonG 08-29-06, 04:17 PM	This is an easy one for me, as I have a good double-handful of PrCs I wouldn't allow in my campaign, for flavor reasons. Simply put, I crack down on races, classes, everything. I spend hundreds of hours working out a campaign world, and I know the flavor I want...and if you want to play in it, you accept those limitations. If you don't like the flavor, I may run something else, some other time. Your call. If the game is just that generic, I won't be running it, anyhow.
WingedFairyWolf 08-29-06, 04:19 PM	The story is not more important than the player, but the setting is. Dms should never, under any conditions change their setting to satisfy player requests. To do so destroys the illusion of consistency that the DM has created. A setting should only change in response to something theplayer's character does. Agreed Wholeheartly ;) :)
Arivia 08-29-06, 04:22 PM	I guess I'm story first. Let me explain. My general viewpoint is that roleplaying is a cooperative storytelling experience, and that its major aim is to be enjoyable as an experience for all players. As such, characters have to be appropriate for the narrative that will take place. However, the narrative's creation is a cooperative activity for all to take part in. As such, all players and the DM should be on the same page stylistically, thematically, for any game-based elements that matter for those two, and should also be on the same page when it comes to setting. Ideally, there should be a campaign reference document, standards, or handout to reference. Players should have an idea of the setting when thinking of character concepts; in the case of a first-time game, a DM is negligent if they do not provide information on the setting. In the case of an established group, the campaign settting should be chosen cooperatively. When a player asks for a specific rules option, there are three things that must be accounted for. 1) Game balance. Is the rules option unbalanced for the game in question? Games have different power levels; what is appropriate for one may not be appropriate for another. Additionally, can the DM deal with the possibilities this rules option brings to the table? Additional magic systems are difficult things to keep in check on occasion, for example. Again, this may differ from game to game. 2) Setting viability. Does the rules option fit the campaign setting? Asian classes are unsuitable for campaigns of Arthurian legend; the converse is also true. 3) Narrative viability. Does the rules option fit the narrative style and general concept? Character classes predicated on evil deeds may not be appropriate for a inquisitors of the holy church concept. It is additionally possible that a certain rules option may not be appropriate in the context of the story --- for example, a narrative that takes place in an area where no members of a given group exist may not be able to include characters that come from that group. Additionally, it is possible that a rules option may be added to a setting cohesively, but may require changes outside the scope of what is possible in the narrative --- a tightly-scripted, time-intensive narrative may not be able to include a character's quest to revive one of the Nine Lost Arts of Weaponry. In short, it is the DM's response to provide a scope for the campaign, including narrative outline and setting, based upon player input. It is then the players' responsibility to create characters that make sense within that scope; the DM is being irresponsible if they disallow characters that make sense within that scope, and if they disallow characters that do not make sense within that scope without feedback as to why. Note, however, that in some cases, the DM may not give a reason to avoid tipping their hand; in that case, the DM should inform the player as to the reason why as soon as possible (although a flash of revelation may relieve them of needing to do so.)
Echodork 08-29-06, 04:24 PM	Your choice. You've got two options when creation a campaign: Players first. As others have suggested, you sit down with your players and hash out a game world together. You ask the players what they want to do and how they want to play, and they lay the framework that you build on when creating the adventure. These campaigns are often more open-ended, as the players are given the freedom to pick their course, purposely or arbitrarily. Don't get held up with long plotlines or multi-session adventures... let the players dictate how the adventure progresses. Setting first. You sit down and construct a game world and a plot for the adventurers. You advise the players about the basics of your world, and you ask them to create characters that fit within your framework. These campaigns can be plot-driven, and the players are often the center of an unfolding story. You dictate what's allowed and what's not, based on the flavor and style of your setting. I DM according to the second style. It's my game, it's my setting, and it's my call whether or not to allow a particular prestige class, noncore race, or splatbook feat. I play setting-first, allowing my campaign to dictate an interactive story for the players to participate in. You can play either way, depending on how you're most able to flex your creativity.
stargate525 08-29-06, 04:29 PM	setting, then players, then story. To me, and for the group I dm, having it in any other other order leads far too easily to railroading (story over players), or chaos (players over setting).
AntiDjinn 08-29-06, 04:40 PM	A few years back one of my groups decided to run an oriental adventures game using the Rokugan setting. We had all the races, feats, and classes in that setting available with only maho off limits and all PCs had to be members or affiliates of the crab clan. The problem was one player showed up with a half-elven druid. Neither half-elves nor druids are available in that setting. This particular player basically always plays half-elven druids and they are all pretty much the same character being played again. She said the character was a gaijin shipwrecked in Rokugan. While it may be possible to play a stranger in a strange land, the group voted to nix the character because: a) We were using an alternate setting to try something different and didn't want to see the same tired thing played out again. b) There was enough material to be explored in the OA rules without brining in cross-genre characters, and c) We were all sick of the same cutsie elfquest clone druid running with every party and felt she clashed with the tone of the new game. She wound up playing a spirit folk shugenja and concentrated on the wood element (quite a stretch).
Archmage Atrus 08-29-06, 04:45 PM	Response Round #2 (this is getting interesting): I think this is the problem right here, you're not seeing a difference between the campaign setting and the story that takes place within the setting. A while back I played in a game where the DM had spent months developing an intricately detailed, living game world with his own continent map, hundreds of cities of varying sizes, and a vast political system. In this game world one of the major political motivators was that the dragons (who had once ruled the world) had suddenly dissapeared, along with every member of the dragon subraces. Had the PHBII been out when we played this game I think it would have been very appropriate for the DM to ban playing Dragon Shamans or picking up the Dragon Disciple prestige class. I can see where you're coming from, but I think you're not seeing where I'm coming from. I can understand, from an academic perspective, where setting and story differentiate. But, in the example you've given, the setting is following the story. My counter argument to this would be: What if the PC is a kind of pariah? What if the dragon subraces didn't fully disappear, or are making a come back? What if the PC is the ghost (figuratively speaking, of course,) of the bygone days, with a destiny to bring back/preserve the draconic subspecies? Would you, as a DM, forbid this because of its flavor? Or would you encourage it? Of course, we don't have enough details to determine if the DM in this case has spent much time on his world or if he simply threw it together or borrowed it from a published campaign setting. It should also be considered that there's a very valid reason for banning the class that he doesn't want to share with his players because it may give something away that he doesn't want his players to know. Just my thoughts. Reply With Quote Very true - mea culpa. In this situation, the DM simply threw together a slapstick homebrew. The world isn't particularly well developed - at least the PCs haven't seen any of the depths of this setting. It's all so far on the DM's table, and nothing has been set in stone. I think it's difficult to judge "fun" on a decision-by-decision basis. There are concerns other than fun that the GM also has to take into account. There are certain cases when you need to do un-fun things in order to preserve the basic framework of the game (so that you can do other, more fun things with that framework later). While I don't disagree with you in theory, I don't see where this comes in. A class is a pretty black and white matter. Typically you wish to play a class because its mechanics aren't something available to other classes. I don't see how not letting someone be something they want to be can lead to further fun later on. (Oh, I'm not saying they won't have fun, I'm just saying it won't be as fun as it could have been for them.) When I hear "character vs. story," I usually think of a different debate: about whether it's more important to create a cooperative story (and therefore people should bend their characters when they need something dramatic to occur) or whether it's more important to really get into character (and therefore have potential storylines sometimes fizzle because they clash with the personality the player has in mind). Sure, I can see this debate. But this is a different debate. And I didn't ask "character v. Story", I asked player vs. story. In essence, it's really "What the players want" v. "What the DM wants". Its not about good or bad DMing, it just is While I disagree with you on principle, I also see this is because we disagree on responsibilies: I'd like to add that I disagree with the OP that it is the DM's job to make sure that everyone at the table has fun. I can see your argument. while I agree that people at the table shouldn't be dicks, I think the ultimate sayso lies with the DM in saying what goes and doesn't go. But, we can agree to disagree, I hope. Being a DM doesn't mean catering to every players' want and whim, it means making a cohesive campaign environment where the players can have fun. Sure, but does it mean creating a cohesive campaign environment at the expense of your players' wants? Asian classes are unsuitable for campaigns of Arthurian legend; the converse is also true. Here's my question to you: What makes a class "Asian"? It's the fluff text, right? I presume you would disallow the Monk as well in such a setting. That's cool. (I pick you, because you've come closest to the situation I saw and decided to question.) What if you allow the Monk, but not, say, the Ninja or Wu-Jen? They're all Asian classes. And yet you eliminate the Ninja and Wu-Jen for "flavor" reasons. Is this not a fallacy? A few years back one of my groups decided to an oriental adventures game using the Rokugan setting. We had all the races, feats, and classes in that setting available with only maho off limits and all PCs had to be members or affiliates of the crab clan. The problem was one player showed up with a half-elven druid. Neither half-elves nor druids are available in that setting. This particular player basically always plays half-elven druids and they are all pretty much the same character being played again. She said the character was a gaijin shipwrecked in Rokugan. While it may be possible to play a stranger in a strange land, the group voted to nix the character because: a) We were using an alternate setting to try something different and didn't want to see the same tire thing played out again. b) There was enough material to be explored in the OA rules without brining in cross-genre characters, and c) We were all sick of the same cutsie elfquest clone druid running with every party and felt she clashed with the tone of the new game. She wound up playing a spirit folk shugenja and concentrated on the wood element (quite a stretch). Interesting. Kind of the opposite of this situation, but a kindred opposite. Cool. I can dig a group wanting to do things in tandem. But what of a DM saying "No"? Would everything has been as cool? (I presume that, yes, it would have been. But I need ask the question.) It also kind of goes with the above situation: Inconsistent flavor. You're all playing Asian charaacters, and one non-asian character wants to come in. Except the DM is nixing all non-Asian characters. He's not allowing one or two in. (Like a Monk where a Ninja cannot tread.) The rest of you are making great points, but I can't respond to all of you. (Either because of time constraints, or because I agree with you, or because there's simply nothing there to question.) However, to all of you who say that "It's my setting and nobody's going to do anything but run it the way I want it to," I have a question: Have you ever had a player refuse to play in your game? (This is out of curiosity, not actual debate.)
oxybe 08-29-06, 04:46 PM	setting: the world itself (mostly land/mostly water/ 50-50). the races inhabits the world. low/high magic. where on the alignment spectrum it stands (chaotic world/lawful world/good/evil/neutral). how deities affect the world (distant/movers-shakers). story: how the PC's actions affect the setting. more often then not, in the early levels, their actions will not affect the world as a whole, maybe a village or two. as they grow in levels & power, then they become political & public figures.
cvazi 08-29-06, 04:48 PM	The DM thinks it over, agrees that the classes are not unbalanced, but then decides that the class doesn't fit the "flavor" of the campaign setting. *snip* A clever player can simply take the class, change the fluff (which is more or less easily done, depending on the class) to fit the setting.Woo Hoo! Communication FTW. Seriously, the player is willing to do work to incorporate thier idea/mechanics into your setting. Why not add it in? For example: Is there that much of a fluff difference between a Paladin, Crusader or the Divine Mind? How about Scout and Ranger? Wizard Specialist (Necromancy) and Dread Necromancer? I am willing to compromise some story line and some setting to allow what my players want. I do however expect if they want to bring something very odd to the table, that they make the oddity is ecological to the world.
Archmage Atrus 08-29-06, 04:51 PM	Woo Hoo! Communication FTW. While I agree with you, that didn't happen in this case. The class was simply nexed for "fluff" reasons. My example was simply a way a clever player can get around that - in a way, attempting to show why "fluff" reasons for nexing characters is a fallacious reason.
Sulaco 08-29-06, 04:58 PM	The short answer is: neither. It is game first, everything else follows form there. Part of making a good game is creating a verisimilar setting, whether bespoke or off-the-rack. If a player wants to play a PC what simply does not fit the setting then he can't play that PC. This is common sense IMO, as common sense as someone not being allowed to play the racecar from Monopoly in a game of Risk. This does not, however, mean that the DM should close his mind to all possibilities offered by the players. It is quite possible that they may spark an idea that had nor occured to you before, or that you could find a way to tweak or alter the "fluff" or of a particular class to fit within the world. The fact remains, though, that the players agreed to play in a game that you are DMing and that entails working within any race, class, feat, skill, or equipment restrictions you, as DM, have in place for that game. If a player cnanot or will not abide by that then he may excersie his perogative and not play in that game, it is as simple as that.
The man they call Boxhead 08-29-06, 05:06 PM	My own personal style is that the setting dictates the options open to the players, whose characters drive the story. I have tossed whole adventures out the window because the story didn't fit the players. Arbitrary decisions on what not to allow are a bit silly. In the original example, the DM ruled against a class for colliding with a flavour that didn't exist yet. That's silly. Extrapolating on the Asian argument (I.e., where Monks and Ninjas tread), I think a DM has to go all or nothing. Of course, if the campaign has a remote temple founded by a nation that has long sinced been destroyed, then Monks might be Ok, but Ninjas are a no-no. Of course, IMO, any player that can re-fluff a class is welcome to it. Thus, a "Rogue" using the Ninja rules, but with rogue fluff has been used, as has the unarmed Brawler, using the monk mechanics. I'm a pretty lenient DM.
wrecan 08-29-06, 05:50 PM	setting, then players, then story. To me, and for the group I dm, having it in any other other order leads far too easily to railroading (story over players), or chaos (players over setting). Agree, wholeheartedly.
ornitholestes 08-29-06, 06:06 PM	I don't disagree. What I am disagreeing with is the reason for the unavailabilities. So that puts you in the story before the players camp? (Not to imply there are camps, just want some clarification.) Your statement suggests that the DM should put his own interests before the PC's. If you wish to clarify, you may. Not necesarily, I think the group as a whole should agree upon the game they want to play. That said, the DM is the moderator or interpreter and (as agreed on by the other players, after all if they thought (s)he was unreasonable why are they playing in his game in the first place). I don't think its about "story" so much as the parameters and boundries the group agreed upon. Every character in the party changes the nature (and feeling) of the game for everyone else. If the players and DM collectively decide to play a game with base only classes (this may be story based, rules preference, or just to be different) then I think its reasonable to limit everyone to these options. Heck, the DM may be limiting options to create a specific scenario he wants the players to explore. For example, a game where everyone had to be a bard or rogue would be very different and involve different strategies then a game with a "balalanced" party. I think GMs and play groups certainly have the right to impose these limits on their own game.
Arivia 08-29-06, 06:30 PM	Here's my question to you: What makes a class "Asian"? It's the fluff text, right? I presume you would disallow the Monk as well in such a setting. That's cool. (I pick you, because you've come closest to the situation I saw and decided to question.) What if you allow the Monk, but not, say, the Ninja or Wu-Jen? They're all Asian classes. And yet you eliminate the Ninja and Wu-Jen for "flavor" reasons. Is this not a fallacy? My own perspective, yes, is that the Monk is inconsistent with Western fantasy such as D&D is generally typed after. In a homebrew setting, I would likely remove it, possibly replacing it with a generic unarmed fighter class (as it's a valid niche for a class), and likely using the cloistered cleric option from UA for monks typed after Western monks. However, I'm not running a homebrew. I'm running the Forgotten Realms, which has adapted to the reoccurence of monks in 3e adeptly, and has included them across Western-influenced Faerun. As such, my hands are fairly tied on the issue: Monks are a part of "my" Realms, but I'm not too happy with them being there. I do allow other Asian classes in my Realms campaigns, such as the wu jen or the shugenja, but they have a special restriction, which I will quote from my campaign document: "Again, if you are using an Asian class, you must choose the Shou Expatriate region." That Shou Expatriate region applies to characters who have come from Shou, the Realms equivalent of Asia, and characters who have been born and grown up amongst the Shou expatriate communities of Eastern Faerun, as detailed in Unapproachable East. I include it as these communities are noted for being extremely insular, and are the only places I can see offering training in the techniques the Asian classes depend upon. I'm still working on the classes and material from Tome of Battle; I find the classes themselves a bit too mixed-fantasy for my liking and will likely make them more Asian, then apply the same equivalent to them, but some of the disciplines may appear in other parts of Faerun as the native arts brought together by Reshar, as I don't find them that thematically inconsistent, and they're an excellent technique for representing native techniques. In short, I try to work for the best solution as far as the Realms goes, which generally has defined areas of European and Asian thematics, while including player option. I agree with you that including one Asian class without the others would be fallacious.
DarkRhystar 08-29-06, 06:55 PM	Players come first within reason. There's a big difference between asking to play a Dungeon Delver and a Gargantuan Half-Dragon/Half-Orc/Half-Rutabaga moss-covered 3-handled family credenza. I have yet to comprehend someone who values the consistency of his/her fantasy, fictional, made-up setting so much as to sacrifice the happiness of the player and I find that such DMs wind up with an abundance of settings with a distinct shortage of players.
cvazi 08-29-06, 07:05 PM	While I agree with you, that didn't happen in this case. The class was simply nexed for "fluff" reasons. My example was simply a way a clever player can get around that - in a way, attempting to show why "fluff" reasons for nexing characters is a fallacious reason.:blink: :blink: Am I reading this correctly? A player brings a class to the altar of approval, the DM disapproved it for "fluff" reasons, player refluffed a different class to match the DM campaign to prove that "fluff" was a fallacious reason to get his original class approved? Why didn't the player just re-"fluff" the original class?:confused:
Archmage Atrus 08-29-06, 07:11 PM	I'm with DarkRhystar on this one. I honestly would like to see what the trends of "Controlling DM" vs. "More Player Friendly DM" is. (I don't mean either of these as negatives or pejoratives.) I mean, obviously, that's impossible to actually see. I can understand everyone who says "It's my world and I'll run it like I want it to," but I honestly can't bring myself to agree. Yes, it's my world, but the PCs have to play in it, so they have some rights to claim in it as well. If a guy wants to play a ninja in my Arthurian campaign, I'm going to let him. I'm going to need a hell of an explanation as to why there's a ninja (full Asian flavor and all) running around my dark medieval world, but if he's inventive enough, why not? (Sometimes I can come up with something that I like, too.) It's really not going to ruin the game for me - I'm not that petty. Heck, it might even make things interesting, and add a layer of complexity I could've not come up with. I think that a DM should adapt as much as he can. Darwinism, I Ching, whatever man.
Archmage Atrus 08-29-06, 07:14 PM	Am I reading this correctly? A player brings a class to the altar of approval, the DM disapproved it for "fluff" reasons, player refluffed a different class to match the DM campaign to prove that "fluff" was a fallacious reason to get his original class approved? Why didn't the player just re-"fluff" the original class? No, he refluffed the same class. (Ex: I want to play a Swashbuckler in your game. You say "I don't want to allow the swashbuckler because it doesn't fit the flavor of my campaign." I then go and read everything you've given me for the campaign setting, fit it specifically to that campaign, and bring it back to you.) The DM then said "No non-Core classes in the game because they don't fit the flavor of my campaign." (Other players were asking for non-Core classes, too. And, actually, I'm wrong - he allowed Psionics, and he allowed the Knight. But that's another argument altogether.) I think this is poor DMing. I might be wrong.
Arivia 08-29-06, 07:21 PM	I'm with DarkRhystar on this one. I honestly would like to see what the trends of "Controlling DM" vs. "More Player Friendly DM" is. (I don't mean either of these as negatives or pejoratives.) I mean, obviously, that's impossible to actually see. I can understand everyone who says "It's my world and I'll run it like I want it to," but I honestly can't bring myself to agree. Yes, it's my world, but the PCs have to play in it, so they have some rights to claim in it as well. If a guy wants to play a ninja in my Arthurian campaign, I'm going to let him. I'm going to need a hell of an explanation as to why there's a ninja (full Asian flavor and all) running around my dark medieval world, but if he's inventive enough, why not? (Sometimes I can come up with something that I like, too.) It's really not going to ruin the game for me - I'm not that petty. Heck, it might even make things interesting, and add a layer of complexity I could've not come up with. I think that a DM should adapt as much as he can. Darwinism, I Ching, whatever man. I try to be as player friendly as I can, but as my players and I play roleplaying games as cooperative storytelling efforts first, then I won't jeopardize the narrative in favour of a rules option --- and mood, setting, and plot eliminate a lot of the options towards that. However, this is a universal constant we all agree upon, so I don't feel too controlling about it. *shrugs* Maybe I'm a lot more controlling than I think I am. EDIT: No, he refluffed the same class. (Ex: I want to play a Swashbuckler in your game. You say "I don't want to allow the swashbuckler because it doesn't fit the flavor of my campaign." I then go and read everything you've given me for the campaign setting, fit it specifically to that campaign, and bring it back to you.) The DM then said "No non-Core classes in the game because they don't fit the flavor of my campaign." (Other players were asking for non-Core classes, too. And, actually, I'm wrong - he allowed Psionics, and he allowed the Knight. But that's another argument altogether.) I think this is poor DMing. I might be wrong. It sounds like you need to find a better DM. I agree with you on all of that.
geekling 08-29-06, 07:26 PM	Players (note plural) first - individual player last. Story, setting etc. somewhere in the middle.
cvazi 08-29-06, 07:30 PM	No, he refluffed the same class. (Ex: I want to play a Swashbuckler in your game. You say "I don't want to allow the swashbuckler because it doesn't fit the flavor of my campaign." I then go and read everything you've given me for the campaign setting, fit it specifically to that campaign, and bring it back to you.)I believe the player approached getting his character approved in the correct fashion. IMHO, the DM did a great disservice to the player if they continued to disallow the swashbuckler.The DM then said "No non-Core classes in the game because they don't fit the flavor of my campaign.":headexplo This is my pet peeve. IMHO, this is the sign of an insecure DM. Most classes (with the exception of things like the incarnate, totemist, and binder) can be reflavored to fit in almost any setting that supports magic. This should *never* be a valid excuse to ban a class.I think this is poor DMing. I might be wrong.I agree with you 100%
revnk 08-29-06, 07:42 PM	Yes. :ahem: Sheesh, talk about your false dichotomies. The question was posed as one "to all Reasonable DMs" but it's an unreasonable question. So the DM's communication skills are so incompetent that he doesn't sit down with the players before asking for characters and set out what kind of world it is and what's allowed or not? And the players are so socially clueless that they can't talk to the DM about that and agree or disagree to play in it? And the players are so blinkered they could never, ever be happy unless they played that one character? So everyone, DM and players alike, are five year-olds? This "scenario" is a gamer's version of "When did you stop beating your wife?" It's a loaded, leading question that has no correct answer. It's like asking which of your feet you'd rather have chopped off at the ankle. As Sulaco wrote--and I agree with everything he wrote in his last post, by the way--the correct answer is "neither." "It is game first, everything else follows from there."
Rosisha 08-29-06, 07:51 PM	As a DM who much prefers playing, I can tell you one thing that does bug me: after spending months and months on a world, sending out emails, taking replies back, working with players, etc.. the number one thing that will annoy me is a player showing up on opening night and asking for something that is not in flavor or in story and being shocked when I get irritated by it. However, not everyone puts in effort or asks for player feedback during the creation process. My reaction, to this, still remains kind of iffy. I don't like last minute changes to a game. If this is brought up with time to adapt, then yes. But to do something like this last minute, strikes me as very disrespectful to a person who is putting a lot of work into a game to make sure you have an enjoyable time. The druid thing is a good example of that. I've played in settings I don't like so that the group could try something new (i LOVE horror, but i've played classic D&D, Orientel, Indian, polynesian, all sorts, I despise Orientel but it is the third most common type of game I play). However, this person, for her own selfish reasons, refused to adapt. That is a slap across the face. In a way this is a weighted question (which the OP acknowledged): Is the DMs fun more important then the players? The answer: No. However, the reverse question ALSO needs to be asked: Is the individual players fun more important then the DMs creative efforts for your fun and the fun of the party? If you find you want to do something just so you can get a few kicks and laughs, I would say that would be the wrong reason to do it. Never forget people: DMs do a LOT of work. Please respect us for it. We make the worlds you have fun in, and we want those worlds to be appreciated. We have fun watching you have fun in our worlds (at least I do), so taking that away is, in my mind, more insulting then taking away a last minute change you thought would be cool. Rosisha
Archmage Atrus 08-29-06, 07:53 PM	Wow. Way to go off the deep end. So the DM's communication skills are so incompetent that he doesn't sit down with the players before asking for characters and set out what kind of world it is and what's allowed or not? He gave guidelines, he simply didn't restrict until asked. That's why he was asked before the plunge. And the players are so socially clueless that they can't talk to the DM about that and agree or disagree to play in it? Except the players did talk, and then problems arose. The problems were dealt with. I merely extrapolated the necessary information to fill in the hypothetical. We can discuss what the party eventually ended up being, if you like, but that goes against the spirit of the question: Would a reasonable DM make a mechanical decision based entirely off "fluff". And the players are so blinkered they could never, ever be happy unless they played that one character? Another baseless assumption. The players don't enter into it -and, honestly, shouldn't have to. I even admitted to the fact that fun could be had regardless. Why do you then feel the need to put arguments in my mouth I did not make? This "scenario" is a gamer's version of "When did you stop beating your wife?" It's a loaded, leading question that has no correct answer. It's like asking which of your feet you'd rather have chopped off at the ankle. How so? I am asking fellow DMs whether or not they feel that taking away mechanical options simply because they do not like the fluff is a valid answer. Some have answered that yes, it is, and some that no, it isn't. I asked for reasonable people that they might not make these baseless assumptions. I hope I have provided enough information for you to draw your own conclusions, but please don't insult if you're not going to bring in something constructive. (You may, however, insult all you wish as long as there's something arguable in your criticism.) And Sulaco's answer was taken and respected, so it is not that I do not value opposing opinions.
BlaineTog 08-29-06, 07:54 PM	The players. That said, you have to keep in mind that an inconsistent system doesn't benefit the players any more than an arbitrarily banned class either. First, ask the player if they simply must play that class. If he's got his little hard set on playing, say, a warlock, but the setting doesn't have demons, let him play it if he'll attribute his powers to something else plausible, altering class ability names to fit the new flavor. If the setting is low lagic, however, you obviously can't just reflavor the class, and depending on the system, you may not be able to just cut its power down either. In that case, you need to either rethink running a low-magic campaign (after talking with all the players, of course, although this really shouldn't happen since you should have already discussed this with the players before you built up the setting), simply letting majority rule. Really, though, this is why it's best to keep your campaign setting somewhat loose until your players have their character concepts down.
Archangel62 08-29-06, 07:58 PM	The player has to be first because if you have no players you have no story, no setting, no game. However that doesn't mean that the players get to overpower everything and win all the time. My players have lost battles and been forced to retreat, which an make a later victory against them due to better tactics and training feel all the sweeter. The trick is to make sure that your players have fun and are enjoying themselves.
Razieliffied 08-29-06, 08:07 PM	The players come first, period. i cant actually label whatcomes next, but if the players arn't having fun, then something is very wrong with my game. Players come to your table, usually by invitation, in order to play and have a good time with friends. not to be railroaded into a story their characters would have no relation to, or to spend several hours trying not to step on the NPC's toes for fear of ruining the setting. Some of the best times in my gaming group came about by complete chance as their characters persued their own goals. Then again, I cannot speak for every group in the world. My group [bar one] is a very roleplay heavy group, we like to bicker with the local blacksmith over the pricing of new sword, we like to write a page or two of character background, we like to roleplay and develop the characters even to the point where they get married and raise children [a very fun scenario, though a little awkward as our group is all male and we occasionally play a female]. Simply put, I make my game for my players. If a player wants to do somthing unforseen, then I'll rearange continants to satisfy them, after all, in hte end it's only a game, and if you think a made up world is more important then a few good laughs with your friends, then dont expect to see me at you gaming table anytime soon. -james-
Dolomite 08-29-06, 08:14 PM	I'm with DarkRhystar on this one. I honestly would like to see what the trends of "Controlling DM" vs. "More Player Friendly DM" is. (I don't mean either of these as negatives or pejoratives.) I mean, obviously, that's impossible to actually see. I can understand everyone who says "It's my world and I'll run it like I want it to," but I honestly can't bring myself to agree. Yes, it's my world, but the PCs have to play in it, so they have some rights to claim in it as well. If a guy wants to play a ninja in my Arthurian campaign, I'm going to let him. I'm going to need a hell of an explanation as to why there's a ninja (full Asian flavor and all) running around my dark medieval world, but if he's inventive enough, why not? (Sometimes I can come up with something that I like, too.) It's really not going to ruin the game for me - I'm not that petty. Heck, it might even make things interesting, and add a layer of complexity I could've not come up with. I think that a DM should adapt as much as he can. Darwinism, I Ching, whatever man. I play in a Campaign world that is at this point 18 years old and I have been in it for over 12 years. After being exposed to this and other games Setting really comes first, then Players, the story is really created by the players((Unless you have players who do nothing then you have to drop the hot coal in their laps)). I have stayed in this game because that DM adapts and grows the whole game world, it is consistant and it makes sense. Other good DM try to make certain that the setting gives the illusion of reality so you can believe for a while that this world and your character is a living part of it and can affect and change it. Without a good setting the rest falls apart cause you are sitting there either thinking "Yea right, what a load" or just laughing under your breath at the Dm till you find a better game. The thing that clinched it for me was one time I was asked to join a game by a DM at Neutral Ground. From what he told me and my friend told me I could get into the game((He had played in it for 2 sessions and said it was different but fun)), when I got in it was ok till the DM said this((To put into perspective our characters was on an infinte plain and was stated several times)) "We better prepare for immediate attack, they will send ships down here that orbit the infinte plain to investigate what happened" 3/4 of the table actually froze and got quiet and one of us asked again what he said, he repeated it again. After that we really tried to stay in character but it seemed after that major gaffe he just started to make a ton more and we never played in his game again. Without a credible setting to have the characters grow and develop in, nothing else really follows cause for me if I am sitting there just not even believing the world around me, I am just gonna try to find a new game. No this does not mean every little thing needs to be detailed but there should be an overall consistancy that makes sense to the DM and the Players.
revnk 08-29-06, 08:21 PM	How so? I am asking fellow DMs whether or not they feel that taking away mechanical options simply because they do not like the fluff is a valid answer. Some have answered that yes, it is, and some that no, it isn't. I asked for reasonable people that they might not make these baseless assumptions. I hope I have provided enough information for you to draw your own conclusions, but please don't insult if you're not going to bring in something constructive. (You may, however, insult all you wish as long as there's something arguable in your criticism.) And Sulaco's answer was taken and respected, so it is not that I do not value opposing opinions. Except that you didn't ask "fellow DMs whether or not they feel that taking away mechanical options simply because they do not like the fluff is a valid answer?" at all. You asked: I don't wish to be conclusory. But follow me a second. One job of the DM is to arbitrate, be fair, and make sure that everyone at the table has fun. This DM has already analyzed the class from a mechanical standpoint (arbitration) and made a mechanical decision (class isn't broken/won't unbalance things.) Then he makes an entirely arbitrary call - won't fit into the campaign setting. He gives no other reason other than this. Assume for this exercise that the class does not add any mechanical features to the game (like, say, psionics or incarnum.) The DM is making it less fun for the PC. The PC wanted to play a class from a book that the DM has access to. The DM has not given a "crunchy" reason why the class is banned. A clever player can simply take the class, change the fluff (which is more or less easily done, depending on the class) to fit the setting, and the DM would be almost obligated to accept the class. (At least, he would be exposed for what he is.) A better option would be for the DM to find a place in the story for the new class. The question, then, becomes: What is more important, the player or the story? (Emphasis added.) The conclusory false dichotomy comes in because: (1) You assume that a decision to disallow the class for "flavor" reasons is "entirely arbitrary." Why? (2) You assume that making this "arbitrary" decision "is making it less fun for the PC." Why? (Even if the decision is arbitrary, this conclusion does not follow.) (3) You assume that the player who then takes a different class and "change[s] the fluff" will have "exposed [the DM] for what he is." (An idiot, obviously, if he doesn't sit down with the player and politely suggest that the repurposed class is identical to the character that wasn't allowed, and engages the players in a dialogue about the kind of setting and game that he hopes the group will enjoy, and do the players want to make characters consistent with the setting, play something else--possibly with someone else DMing--or do individuals want to quit the group if only one or two people have "issues"?) (4) You assume that "player or the story" are opposing ends or values. Why? What about setting? What if player and story are equally valuable? What if the real issue concerns what the other people in the group want to do? What about the DM himself? (Or isn't he entitled to some consideration?) By framing the "question" the way that you have, you expect people to choose between two important values without any apparent consideration that they might both be chosen. Or that they both might be rejected out of consideration of other issues. (Suppose, for instance, that there are three other players who would rather there wasn't a monk tripping around their Arthurian paladin heroes--if they aren't allowed to play in a consistent setting, they are being denied their fun. So what is more important then, Bob or Dave, Steve and John?) Now, as to your other question, "whether or not they [DMs] feel that taking away mechanical options simply because they do not like the fluff is a valid answer," my personal answer, for whatever it's worth, is it depends, but yes, taking away mechanical options because of "fluff" can be valid on a case-by-case basis. That (my opinion) and four dollars will buy you a small espresso. Cheers.
Archmage Atrus 08-29-06, 08:21 PM	No this does not mean every little thing needs to be detailed but there should be an overall consistancy that makes sense to the DM and the Players. That's great, but I don't see how it approaches the topic. The question was whether DMs should disallow a class because the fluff doesn't fit his story (which, at an abstract level, becomes "should the DM adapt his setting to fit all classes.")
Archmage Atrus 08-29-06, 08:34 PM	(1) You assume that a decision to disallow the class for "flavor" reasons is "entirely arbitrary." Why? (Definition of arbitrary) depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law Because the DM in the hypothetical agreed that the class was mechanically sound, and would have no problem with the class other than by his own discretion it didn't fit the "flavor" of the setting. (2) You assume that making this "arbitrary" decision "is making it less fun for the PC." Why? (Even if the decision is arbitrary, this conclusion does not follow.) Because the PC wants to play X. He will have fun if he plays X. You say "No, you can't play X." The game is no longer as much fun for him, because he can't play what he wants to play. He needs to adapt to what you want to play. He may and probably will still have fun. But he also may and may well have had more fun had he been allowed to play what he wanted to. Of course, by this same logic, he could not have had fun playing X. (Just like he could not have fun not playing X.) You are correct that the conclusion of 2 does not follow the answer of 1, I just simply assumed we could all agree that this proposition was reasonable. (3) You assume that the player who then takes a different class and "change[s] the fluff" will have "exposed [the DM] for what he is?" That's not an assumption. That's a logical conclusion. If he changes the fluff to fit the campaign setting and the class is still negged, then the original reason ("It doesn't fit the flavor of the campaign setting") was, frankly, ********. (And, thus, bad DMing.) (4) You assume that "player or the story" are opposing ends or values. Why? What about setting? What if player and story are equally valuable? What if the real issue concerns what the other people in the group want to do? What about the DM himself? (Or isn't he entitled to some consideration.) Except I'm not assuming that players or the story are opposing ends. I am saying that in this hypothetical the story that the DM wants to tell and the player's wants are in conflict (at least, according to the DM.) Setting and story go together in this hypothetical, because "flavor" is story placed into setting. (Am I wrong in this? I could be, I'd like to hear other opinions.) Story and setting can be equally valuable, this view is given by numerous people in this thread who say that the player and the DM should compromise. And the very rub of the question is the question of the DM himself. (Personally, I don't see how a player wanting to play a Ninja or a Swashbuckler is going to make it less fun or more of a problem for the DM, but I could be wrong - again, please, illustrate.) By framing the "question" the way that you have, you expect people to choose between two important values without any apparent consideration that they might both be chosen. Except apparently over half a dozen people don't agree with you because they did exactly this: They said both are (either equally expendable or equally important, depending on how cynical you want to be). Good times.
Dolomite 08-29-06, 08:35 PM	That's great, but I don't see how it approaches the topic. The question was whether DMs should disallow a class because the fluff doesn't fit his story (which, at an abstract level, becomes "should the DM adapt his setting to fit all classes.") I was answering the orginal form of the question first, but now you say that here. The truth is that its a balancing act between the player and DM, both sides will try to work a compromise that makes everybody happy. BUT if you are insisting on playing a character that really just does not fit into what he wants AND he has stated this BEFORE hand, then the player has not a leg to stand on. IF your DM ambushes you after you have created the character and hand it to him saying "Nah this just dosen't work" your DM is wrong since its HIS job to tell you what would work in the game. If you are asking to play a Cleric and the DM has stated there are no Clerics in this game, you adapt. Now if there are Clerics, but the one you want is very scarce then the DM can work something out to let you get most of what you want.
revnk 08-29-06, 09:21 PM	Because the DM in the hypothetical agreed that the class was mechanically sound, and would have no problem with the class other than by his own discretion it didn't fit the "flavor" of the setting. The definition used by, and the connotation, for most people would be: Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle. ...on Dictionary.com the specific definition you cite is from Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law (what, not even citing from Black's? for shame!). It is similar to a primary definition from dictionary.com based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, so I can't exactly fault you (as I was wont to) for choosing a secondary definition. But I believe you are perfectly aware that "arbitrary" is usually considered synonymous with "capricious." Still, you are "technically correct, which is the best kind of correct..." (if you're a bureaucrat on Futurama). Because the PC wants to play X. He will have fun if he plays X. You say "No, you can't play X." The game is no longer as much fun for him, because he can't play what he wants to play. He needs to adapt to what you want to play. He may and probably will still have fun. But he also may and may well have had more fun had he been allowed to play what he wanted to. Of course, by this same logic, he could not have had fun playing X. (Just like he could not have fun not playing X.) You are correct that the conclusion of 2 does not follow the answer of 1, I just simply assumed we could all agree that this proposition was reasonable. Apparently we don't all agree it's a reasonable proposition. I think it was skillfully presented in a fashion that most people wouldn't notice whether they disagreed with it or not. The point of my rhetorical "why?" was precisely this: that the assumption isn't warranted. It may be true. It may not be. If it's not necessarily true, the premise of your hypothetical begins unravelling. That's not an assumption. That's a logical conclusion. If he changes the fluff to fit the campaign setting and the class is still negged, then the original reason ("It doesn't fit the flavor of the campaign setting") was, frankly, ********. (And, thus, bad DMing.) No, it's a reflection of the bias that motivated your question. I'm calling shenanigans. What you did, actually, was a bait and switch: the player comes up with a character concept based on a certain class, the DM says that won't work, the player comes up with a second character concept built around the same class, you say, "Aha! The problem was never with the class in the first place! Bad DM!" It might be perfectly fair for a DM to point out that one set of "fluff" doesn't fit in his game but another does. The problem isn't with the class, it's with the character. There is one bad bit of DMing in your scenario: the DM's failure to convey the setting and communicate the reasons the character won't work. But the problem isn't "negging the class," the problem is that the DM failed to communicate with his player about what kinds of characters are found in the world. Class and character being two different things, although one may influence the other to such an extent that a DM feels that no possible character based on a particular class could work in the setting. It should also be pointed out that being logical doesn't necessarily mean you're not engaging in fallacious arguments. Flawed premises will lead to flawed conclusions. Except I'm not assuming that players or the story are opposing ends. I am saying that in this hypothetical the story that the DM wants to tell and the player's wants are in conflict (at least, according to the DM.) Setting and story go together in this hypothetical, because "flavor" is story placed into setting. (Am I wrong in this? I could be, I'd like to hear other opinions.) Story and setting can be equally valuable, this view is given by numerous people in this thread who say that the player and the DM should compromise. And the very rub of the question is the question of the DM himself. (Personally, I don't see how a player wanting to play a Ninja or a Swashbuckler is going to make it less fun or more of a problem for the DM, but I could be wrong - again, please, illustrate.) Alright, in this hypothetical, the DM and the player are in conflict. So? You clearly wanted your hypothetical to lead from a specific situation to general conclusions about DMing. But this hypothetical assumes that the DM and the player are in conflict because of a conflation of "story" and "setting" and a conflation of "class" and "character" combined with a failure of the characters in the hypothetical to communicate--I believe I previously characterized the characters in this hypothetical as acting like five year olds, and your defense of the hypothetical confirms that impression. These characters never talk to each other, never have a meeting of the minds, and it's clearly your view that the DM is at fault. The "question of the DM himself," then, isn't an honest inquiry but a loaded deck that's intended to lead everyone in the game to conclude that players are more "right" than DMs. A more nuanced inquiry might suggest that different people are "more right" at some times than others, that real social interactions between communicating adults requires compromises on many sides. The answer to your "problem" might well be that the DM will not be happy with a swashbuckler in his Arthurian setting, therefore the player will not be happy unless he's accomodated, therefore they should logically go play Ghost Recon for two hours and meet again next week to play a different D&D campaign involving ninjas and absolutely no swashbucklers or Arthurian knights allowed. Or perhaps the DM should allow swashbucklers, or perhaps the player should make an allowable character he's happy with, or perhaps something something something. But saying one side's right and the other is engaging in ******** is, frankly, ********. Except apparently over half a dozen people don't agree with you because they did exactly this: They said both are (either equally expendable or equally important, depending on how cynical you want to be). Good times. Yep. They didn't buy into the initial query, which may be why your question apparently changed between post #1 and post #42. A number of people decided to rewrite the Kobayashi Maru no-win scenario so that "setting" or "the game itself" would win. And props to 'em for doing it. I still would give special props to Sulaco for post #28 (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=9935770&postcount=28), which I think says a great deal quite well.
The_Levitator 08-29-06, 09:43 PM	I read a lot of threads saying that it's all about the player's having fun. I think though that some people forget that the DM is a player too! :D My feeling is that an immersive game requires a LOT of hours of work by the DM. Should I have to labor (for free remember) for dozens of hours creating a world that I won't enjoy creating or managing or DM'ing so that the players can have as much fun as possible with the character they want? Understand, I'm not being adversarial, just pointing out that many times these debates forget that DM's are players too and their work and efforts should be fun, just like the game is. That said, here's how I've designed our last 2 campaigns. 1. had a meeting with the players to see what kind of characters they want to run. 2. had the players discuss how their characters might come together to work as a group (kind of let them develop a group back story). 3. asked the players what kind of BBEG they want to eventually face. Many times that helps flesh the world out almost automatically. 4. created the players and the bad guys (I don't pregenerate the bad guys, but rather describe their organization, aspirations, connections, leaders, etc.). 5. created a world that they can both exist in. 6. started creating storylines that get the party involved with the battle against evil at an introductory level. Both campaigns were very different. The first was a high magic (cleric, sorcerer, druid, rogue) party going after a secret society of wizards that were trying to take over the continent. The second was a band of mercenaries (barbarian, rogue, fighter, monk) in a low magic world trying to overthrow a nation of humanoids (orcs, orogs, and ogres) who overran and took control of the kingdom of man. I think all 3 aspects are important to a fun game for eveyone. I also believe that it helps for a DM to feel as important to the group as the players. We only have 1 person in our group who wasn't already long time friends with someone in the group and he's adapted beautifully. We are a pretty tight group and think very similiar in terms of what makes it all fun.
Archmage Atrus 08-29-06, 09:43 PM	You make excellent points in deconstructing my arguments, and there's no need to go into a semantic argument, so I'll only answer a few points (and you can assume I concede or agree with the others.) What you did, actually, was a bait and switch: the player comes up with a character concept based on a certain class, the DM says that won't work, the player comes up with a second character concept built around the same class, you say, "Aha! The problem was never with the class in the first place! Bad DM!" Except that this is the perfect situation where you bait and switch. That's why the trap works. (Again, I'm not claiming ignorance or innocence, I'm claiming you still haven't answered the underlying issue. I even stated in my initial post I was biased, and have developed as the thread goes on upon that bias.) It might be perfectly fair for a DM to point out that one set of "fluff" doesn't fit in his game but another does. The problem isn't with the class, it's with the character. Assume, then, the opposite. I give the DM a concept based on a Swashbuckler. He then bans the Swashbuckler class, after agreeing that the swashbuckler does not present any kind of mechanical problem. I then give him the exact same character concept using Fighter instead, and he says it's ok. What would you say of the DM then? You clearly wanted your hypothetical to lead from a specific situation to general conclusions about DMing. Yeah, and I still don't see how it can't lead to one. Yeah, every situation is different. Ok, but philosophically we can at least come to some conclusions as to how a DM should or should not act. The "question of the DM himself," then, isn't an honest inquiry but a loaded deck that's intended to lead everyone in the game to conclude that players are more "right" than DMs. And here, I'm calling the kettle black! This isn't as black and white as you state it - at least, I in no way intended it to be. The conclusion isn't really meant to be "the players more right than the DMs" and I don't think I framed it that way. My attempt was to ask the question "Is the DM more important than the players?" You are the one making the black and white assumption that that inevitably - given my bias - means that makes the players more important than the DM. I in fact think they're all equal. But saying one side's right and the other is engaging in ******** is, frankly, ********. I never said one side or the other was right. I gave my opinion - and stated very clearly that I could be wrong. I wanted to know what other people thought. However, in the "bait and switch' situation, is that not a ******** call on the part of the DM? (Again, it could not be. I think it is, and I feel it's pretty logical why it is. And I also fail to see why it would be a flawed premise, as you haven't quite not-indicated it may be.) which may be why your question apparently changed between post #1 and post #42 It really hasn't changed so much as refined. Ultimately, the spirit of the question remains the same.
kelvinaw273 08-29-06, 11:27 PM	Well, what I do is tell the players about the setting before I start. That way they know what fits and what does not fit. It is Setting > Players > Plot for me. Setting > Players Now say I have created a setting based around Mythic Egypt. It's a great setting, but I warn my players before we start that character classes based on far-eastern influence are not available. If a player asks to play a Ninja, monk, samurai, wu gen or shugenja, the answer is "No." The point I am making here is that the setting defines the options players have available. If I can fit something in I will. Maybe a character can play a Ninja if he desperately wants to, but he better have a really, really good reason for being so far from home. I'll bend my Setting as far as I can to give the player what they want - but I will nbot bend it so far that it breaks. Why be so tight on it? Well the setting has to be consistent and I need limits within which I can design adventures. I cannot plan a strange visit to a foreign land if there is nothing foreign about it. I cannot make a plot revolve around a secret society of assassins nobody suspects even exist if half the players take classes that make them members of it. I cannot let a player plan for a PrC that does exist but that his character would not know about and that the trainer he needs to join it will have to secretly test him before he can train him. Most of all, I can't tell the players the reasons I have to say "No" without undermining it all. All I can say is "No, that does not fall within the scope of the setting." On the other hand I might well add new things to my settings (prestige classes, feats etc) that can compensate the players. But at the end of the day, the setting is what it is. Players > Plot Whereas I might have a plkot in mind with a central thread when I prep a game, and I might let the players know so that they can plan their characters appropriately, I will keep the details well hidden. When the players are creating their characters I will look at how they fit into the details. I will look at their bios to see what can be incorporated into the plotlines to make personalised story arcs for those players to enjoy. I have seen some players here say that writing a long bio is just giving your DM ammunition to use on you. If you write a long bio for me, you'll end up being the focus of a lot of attention for everything I can work in. It won't always be good attention, true, but things will be interesting for you! I'll also amend the main plotline based on player choices, too, and keep it dynamic as I go along. Not in the "it does not matter what you do youfight the BBEG here" kind of way, but in the "so you are trying to kill the BBEg's lueitenant now are you ... that means the BBEG will be doing this instead of that ...." If you want an interesting, consistent setting you have to accept limits. If you want a good role-playing game, you have to have a consistent setting.
Greg K 08-30-06, 12:03 AM	setting, then players, then story. To me, and for the group I dm, having it in any other other order leads far too easily to railroading (story over players), or chaos (players over setting). I chose the same order and for the same reason.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-30-06, 12:15 AM	I believe that integrity of the setting is indicative of the consistancy of the theme and tone of the game, but not the actual plot. The players need to respect the proposed theme and tone before agreeing to play. This includes not trying to force in supplements that do not fit in the setting. If you do not want to play in the setting, do not play in the game. Plot, however, should be developed by coopoerative sotrytelling; the DM pushes the world in the direction plot demands and then reacts organically to the actions of the party. What the party does should matter, even if it isn't the single most important thing going on in the world. Chaos Theory dictates that even the smallest pebble creates long reaching ripples and though it doesn't work that way in real life, for narrative purposes, its damn near perfect.
Archtyrant Terevoth 08-30-06, 01:18 AM	The real questions come as to why the player wants to play a certain class. Chances are, if he's doing so strictly for the abilities, you can rework the class with a different explanation. Ninjas don't have to actually be ninjas, they can just be a variant sort of magical rogue. A samurai really could just be another fighter type. Most of the time a guy playing a single class doesn't truly change the world. If on the other hand, the guy actually wants to be flavorwise a role or class that doesn't exist, like a real ninja in a western setting, you're going to have to probably say no. The main conflicts I find come not with classes or feats, but rather with races. Sometimes you may find drow balanced, but you just don't want someone playing one because it becomes a highlight of the game.
Archmage Atrus 08-30-06, 06:53 AM	Allow me another round of responses: Why be so tight on it? Well the setting has to be consistent and I need limits within which I can design adventures. I cannot plan a strange visit to a foreign land if there is nothing foreign about it. Because having one player be from one foreign land automatically makes all other foreign lands unviable? Or perhaps you only have this one land, and this player cannot possibly play ambassador to this strange land? Do you not realize that the "stranger in a strange land" game is exactly the game you would always be playing with this character? This foreigner (should)would be unfamiliar with the geography, the customs, tne very foundations upon which the society he is surrounded by is based. He worships strange gods, eats different food, practices odd rituals. He would be ostracized from the society of the campaign world simply because he was different. Now you wish to plan a visit to his home land: What greater hook do you need? The character then shifts from ambassador to guide, and the roles are reversed. It is the rest of the party now that become the strangers and the foreigner the welcome. And yet, he's not welcomed with open arms, but with the weary resistance that one casts upon a citizen who has traveled long - their old lives are no longer their own, the strange food now tastes different, memories of the customs come a little slowly. His neighbors fear he has "gone native," while the local rulers distrust him for a possible spy. Meanwhile, he is the only link - tenuous though it may be - that the party has to this strange new land. Why is this suddenly a less viable option than not having this character around? I cannot make a plot revolve around a secret society of assassins nobody suspects even exist if half the players take classes that make them members of it. Except, of course, if the plot changes. Why would the characters wish to expose their secret society of assassins if they are members? It would be as exposing themselves. Here you go from a plot where the characters investigate the secret society to one where the PCs are members and agents of it, attempting to halt the investigation of the lawful government and rival guilds' into the inner workings of the shadow world. You have a shadow war on your hands, a power struggle of assassination, black mail, bribery and intimidation. I cannot let a player plan for a PrC that does exist but that his character would not know about and that the trainer he needs to join it will have to secretly test him before he can train him. This one I will take personal affront to. Are you saying you don't allow a player to know the prerequisites to the PrCs he wishes to take? How do you get people to take PrCs then? Do you stick to the "roleplaying requirements" option of Unearthed Arcana? (If so, ok, I actually don't have a problem with you, because the prereqs are no longer "hard" rules to be followed strictly.) Are you against planning out a character in advance? Do you fear it will lead to power gaming? (you actually don't need to answer any of these, I'm just... as I said, took personal affront to :).) The real questions come as to why the player wants to play a certain class. Chances are, if he's doing so strictly for the abilities, you can rework the class with a different explanation. Ninjas don't have to actually be ninjas, they can just be a variant sort of magical rogue. A samurai really could just be another fighter type. Most of the time a guy playing a single class doesn't truly change the world. If on the other hand, the guy actually wants to be flavorwise a role or class that doesn't exist, like a real ninja in a western setting, you're going to have to probably say no. Ah, so here you differentiate the class between a skill-set and its flavor, and I applaud you for doing so. It is much the point I was attempting to make with the (I now honestly forget which class I first made use of but...) Swashbuckler reworking analogy. A more direct, perhaps more important question is: Can a class be truly fully separated from its flavor? If it can, then a Dungeon Master could not use the "flavor" of a class as an excuse to ban the class.
Archmage Atrus 08-30-06, 07:17 AM	Amusingly, I just checked the main site and found today's Tactics and Tips. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/tt/20060829a) It's not entirely on topic, but it's certainly apropriate.
Pyke_Moonshadow 08-30-06, 08:36 AM	Having run my homebrew now for about 10 years, I have found that the best result is when the setting inspires the players to build a character.
Stev Beren 08-30-06, 08:41 AM	Setting, Players, Story. A consistant setting is a must, and with ALL of the options availiable out there, I am quite sure the player can take his current "Cool character concept" that doesn't fit THIS campaign, file it away for a LATER campaign, and pick one of the nearly infinite options that DO exist within the campaign restrictions.
Archmage Atrus 08-30-06, 08:49 AM	A consistant setting is a must, and with ALL of the options availiable out there, I am quite sure the player can take his current "Cool character concept" that doesn't fit THIS campaign, file it away for a LATER campaign, and pick one of the nearly infinite options that DO exist within the campaign restrictions. Except, technically, there are really only 10 mechanical choices. If none of those 10 mechanical choices fit the concept (nor even, for the sake of simplicity, a combination of these choices), but one mechanical choice that already exists fits it perfectly, why should that be denied to the player on a conceptual basis?
Tormsskull 08-30-06, 08:59 AM	All of these debates seem to come down to Player versus DM in the end. Setting has to take priority over character creation. When a player makes a character concept BEFORE knowing about the setting, he should not assume that his concept will fit into the setting. A good player learns about the setting FIRST, and then creates a character that fits into the setting. If the DM says "No Asian-influenced characters/items/classes/magic." Then that's the law. As a player if you just HAVE to play some kind of an Asian-influenced character, you go find a different game to play. To the OP: My recomendation to you and many others is that you should play D&D by consensus. You get together however many of your friends you want to play. Then you start deciding things and writing them down. Here's a short list: What campaign? Ratio of RP to Hack N Slash Allowable material Restricted Classes/races/feats/skills from said allowable material Once you have all of that decided by your little group, then ask for a volunteer to be the DM. If you get one of the people to volunteer to be the DM, BAM, you have a DM that agreed to everything by consensus. There is absolutely no reason that DM should ban anything that the group as a whole agreed on. Me, personally, I spend countless hours developing a campaign before I even know who my players are going to be. If I waited until I got all my players, and then asked them what kind of game they wanted, and THEN built the world around that, there'd have to be a 3 month delay between character creation and the first session.
Stev Beren 08-30-06, 09:00 AM	Except, technically, there are really only 10 mechanical choices. If none of those 10 mechanical choices fit the concept (nor even, for the sake of simplicity, a combination of these choices), but one mechanical choice that already exists fits it perfectly, why should that be denied to the player on a conceptual basis? . ..from whence are you getting "Only ten mechanical choices"? Even IF you only have base classes, the base classes have feats, skill choices. . .a nearly infinite number of "Settings" availiable. I said if your cool charachter _CONCEPT_ doesn't fit the campaign or its restrictions, put that one away and pick another of the nearly infinite choices you have. I have a "Spare charachter concept" file that I keep things that I foudn out woudl not work within a particular game setting. Then when I am tryign to make a character for a new game, that is the first thing I look through. THAT BEING SAID. Just about any concept CAN be represented by the base classes. .just not neccesarily in an "Optimized" way. And perhaps the GM is not allowing the class representign that concept because that concept doesn't fit and you should. .find a different concept.
PoeticJustice 08-30-06, 09:05 AM	when a player agrees to play under a DM, he agrees to adhere to that DM's rulings. If his game is really good, the extra class probably doesn't matter. You'd have fun playing anything. If the DM is bad, then playing whatever you want probably won't save the game. Given that the setting was created to be neutral, I'm guessing you tried an asian class. Sucks to be you, sorry.
oxybe 08-30-06, 09:12 AM	if you look at the classes + PrC's as skillsets and not fluff, then there should be no problem letting any if not all in your setting. most settings are gihumongonormous. yes i had to create my own word. gihumongonormous. there should be someplace to fit in PrC this or Class that, even if you do use the pre-made fluff. some remote location that the pc can come from or eventually go to. i tend to be very liberal with what i allow, and the settings often allow for it. instead of viewing the monk as an asian martial artist, look at it as just a martial artist (which are found in virtually every civilization, not just japan & china). in areas where carrying a bladed or blunt weapon is forbidden, martial arts will eventually arise as means of defending yourself. now, some PrC's and classes already have some "prebuilt RP baggage". some require you to actively seek out a group or complete a task. you can rule that these groups or tasks are impossible (group not existing or killing monster X, which is not in the game), or change the group to a pre-existing group and monster X to monster Y (similar in concept, yet diffrent). or even just plop in the groups. it's not that difficult in practice and some dm's just cannot be bothered to put in that little extra effort. that's why i put player - setting - story in that order of importance. that way the players are happy, they have a setting they want to play in and can create stories based on their characters. just my 2 cp worth
Stev Beren 08-30-06, 09:16 AM	if you look at the classes + PrC's as skillsets and not fluff, then there should be no problem letting any if not all in your setting. most settings are gihumongonormous. yes i had to create my own word. gihumongonormous. there should be someplace to fit in PrC this or Class that, even if you do use the pre-made fluff. some remote location that the pc can come from or eventually go to. i tend to be very liberal with what i allow, and the settings often allow for it. instead of viewing the monk as an asian martial artist, look at it as just a martial artist (which are found in virtually every civilization, not just japan & china). in areas where carrying a bladed or blunt weapon is forbidden, martial arts will eventually arise as means of defending yourself. now, some PrC's and classes already have some "prebuilt RP baggage". some require you to actively seek out a group or complete a task. you can rule that these groups or tasks are impossible (group not existing or killing monster X, which is not in the game), or change the group to a pre-existing group and monster X to monster Y (similar in concept, yet diffrent). or even just plop in the groups. it's not that difficult in practice and some dm's just cannot be bothered to put in that little extra effort. that's why i put player - setting - story in that order of importance. that way the players are happy, they have a setting they want to play in and can create stories based on their characters. just my 2 cp worth But. .again. .with the nearly infinite amount of options availiable within the setting why is it neccesary for som many players to immediately try to jump to somethign OUT of setting? Some people seem to substitute "Breaking the setting" for "Creativity.
Archmage Atrus 08-30-06, 09:27 AM	But. .again. .with the nearly infinite amount of options availiable within the setting why is it neccesary for som many players to immediately try to jump to somethign OUT of setting? Ok, let's try this another way. You say that the options are already "infinite". Thus, you could already build any concept given the base options of the PHB. (Which, I think we can at least all agree that this is possible, if not optimal.) Now you, as a DM, also have access to the non-Core rules. Let's make this concrete. Say I want to play a meleeist who uses brains over brawn, a quick and dashing warrior who lives on his rapier wit and rapier's blade. Yeah, you can make a Fighter with Combat Expertise, Weapon Finesse and Dodge. Alternatively, you can make a Swashbuckler. The DM has access to the Complete Warrior. The PC has access to the Complete Warrior. Neither PC nor DM believes that the Swashbuckler is mechanically broken. What's the difference? Why allow one and not the other? I want some rationale, not a dismissal of the argument.
Stev Beren 08-30-06, 09:32 AM	BEcause the flavour of the swashbuckler doesn't fit? Its a questionj that is ahard to answer without seeing the settings, regardless, I'm talking general principle here. Probably, in my case, I woudl allow specifically the swashbuckler IF it was modified to fit the setting. That woudl still fit under my Setting>Player>plot trio. However, for example, if this world had no dragons and they wanted to play a dragon disciple or Dragon SHaman. .eh. .no. And on further reflection, still no.
oxybe 08-30-06, 09:39 AM	because very few settings tell you what you can/cannot use: -eberron says virtually anything "D&D" can placed in it, so the rules actually support using more then just core. -i have yet to see FR saying "no Cragtop Archers or Ninja's" these are the 2 main settings for D&D that are being published and actively supported. class restrictions are done by the DM either for : A) fluff B) he doesn't like it if you play classes without the fluff, almost any restrictions will come down to the dm being biased, which is never a good thing. if the DM allows you change the fluff to conform with the setting, then it shows he is being biased, again not a good thing. if the DM disallows the class and does not allow flavour modification, the rules currently set in stone and should not be changed for ANY players. breaking the setting & creativity are two wholely diffrent things. how is playing a Ninja, Marshall, Warlock or Swashbuckler "breaking the setting". swashbucklers are common fantasy stereotypes, and a marshall is a natural leader that provides bonuses for the groups. Ninja is just a rogue with a magical twist and the warlock has a handfull of spell-likes he can use at will, but nothing really game breaking (the dispelling one is annoying however). unless you're playing a VERY specific type of game, most concepts can easily be fitted into any setting
terrainmonkey 08-30-06, 09:40 AM	I run a 25+ year old homebrew setting and most classes are fair game because there are 4 continents, including oriental, and a high magic/steampunk setting. There is also a low magic, dark and gritty inquisititorial type dark ages continent there as well. while i agree that the player should come first, the setting should be equal to the players. don't forget, these people are going to be in your world week after week. they want to have fun, just like you. being an adversarial DM only ruins that fun and makes players go away. however, should we cowtow to every player demand? no. with the new base classes out there, from all the splat books, i don't like the warlock and the ninja. all the other ones are okay. the problem comes from races the player wants to do. i hear all the time, "Can i play a drow?" my answer is no. always. there is no bending on that one. there are no drow in my world. i don't like drow, and i don't want to deal with them. the same goes for kobolds. you play the base races in the PHB and a few humanoid races from the monster manual. i'm sure you can find a perfectly good race in there. ninjas and warlocks i ban because i don't like ninjas and people can play a rogue if they want to go that way, or a wizard or sorcerer. both options are perfectly acceptable. i had one guy who wanted to play a warforged fighter when they came out in eberron. okay, let me see the racial rules. it seemed logical he would come from the steampunk setting i had run several years back so i allowed it. i just said he got teleported in the middle of a battle and he popped into the middle of a conflict the players were in. that was a great session for roleplay, doing the fish out of water type of game because they spoke different languages from each other, and the guy playing the warforged was great in the role. fun for all! so should a DM say no to players who ask for the moon and the stars and sun? yes to a point. while the first answer is no, i think DM/player communication is the key for every decision. any DM with enough creative thought can allow anything in his homebrew setting, he just has to have imagination and a willingness to put aside his ego for the good of the player and the group as a whole.
Archmage Atrus 08-30-06, 09:42 AM	However, for example, if this world had no dragons and they wanted to play a dragon disciple or Dragon SHaman. .eh. .no. And on further reflection, still no. What would you say to a player who wanted to play the mechanics of a Dragon Shaman, then? "Sorry, can't do it, play a cleric instead?"
Stev Beren 08-30-06, 09:48 AM	I run a 25+ year old homebrew setting and most classes are fair game because there are 4 continents, including oriental, and a high magic/steampunk setting. There is also a low magic, dark and gritty inquisititorial type dark ages continent there as well. while i agree that the player should come first, the setting should be equal to the players. don't forget, these people are going to be in your world week after week. they want to have fun, just like you. being an adversarial DM only ruins that fun and makes players go away. however, should we cowtow to every player demand? no. with the new base classes out there, from all the splat books, i don't like the warlock and the ninja. all the other ones are okay. the problem comes from races the player wants to do. i hear all the time, "Can i play a drow?" my answer is no. always. there is no bending on that one. there are no drow in my world. i don't like drow, and i don't want to deal with them. the same goes for kobolds. you play the base races in the PHB and a few humanoid races from the monster manual. i'm sure you can find a perfectly good race in there. ninjas and warlocks i ban because i don't like ninjas and people can play a rogue if they want to go that way, or a wizard or sorcerer. both options are perfectly acceptable. i had one guy who wanted to play a warforged fighter when they came out in eberron. okay, let me see the racial rules. it seemed logical he would come from the steampunk setting i had run several years back so i allowed it. i just said he got teleported in the middle of a battle and he popped into the middle of a conflict the players were in. that was a great session for roleplay, doing the fish out of water type of game because they spoke different languages from each other, and the guy playing the warforged was great in the role. fun for all! so should a DM say no to players who ask for the moon and the stars and sun? yes to a point. while the first answer is no, i think DM/player communication is the key for every decision. any DM with enough creative thought can allow anything in his homebrew setting, he just has to have imagination and a willingness to put aside his ego for the good of the player and the group as a whole. However the PLAYER also needs to set aside HIS EGO for the good of the DM and the other players as a whole. . . And to go back up one post: No, not all classes do fit. I gave two examples above: Dragon disciple and Dragon shaman. THey don't fit in my campaign setting. Period. Fluff or no - there are no dragons. Also, as an example, the Wizard _class_ doesn't fit> Sorcerers, yeah. Many other spontaneous or semi spontaneous spellcasters. Just not wizards. On that world, MAgic is somethign you ARE not something you learn. At any rate, what annoys me is seeing the constant responses of "The DM needs to give give give" combined with "And the players always get anything they want." Cooperation is a two way street.
Archmage Atrus 08-30-06, 09:52 AM	the problem comes from races the player wants to do. i hear all the time, "Can i play a drow?" my answer is no. always. there is no bending on that one. there are no drow in my world. i don't like drow, and i don't want to deal with them. the same goes for kobolds. you play the base races in the PHB and a few humanoid races from the monster manual. i'm sure you can find a perfectly good race in there. The problem with races as far as I see it is that races and their "fluff" cannot be, intrinsically, separated. Sure, you can say, "Ok, I don't want to play a drow, I want to play a super elf that has +2 to Dex, +2 to Charisma, Spell Resistance, etc.", but that's just ridiculous. I think races are one of the things a DM can normally restrict, because it is inherently an object of story/setting. (If there are no drow, there are no drow.) This is also a problem with the Dragon Shaman class - if there were never any dragons, there can be no dragon worshippers. (Ergo why I think falling back on the Dragon Shaman class is an "easy out" for you DMs arguing against me - but I'm willing to stand up to that.) I'm also not saying that a DM should. Note that terrainmonkey disallows Drow, not out of some mechanical reason, but because he doesn't like drow. (I don't blame you, by the way, I don't either.) He disallows the Ninja and the Warlock because he doesn't like them. My question is: Why not allow them, despite your dislikes. You're not the one who has to play those classes. If it's a mechanical issue where you don't want to learn a new ruleset - sure, you can disallow the Warlock because that's (barely) a new mechanic. But the Ninja? The ki-abilities can hardly be considered a "new mechanic." The rest of their abilities are just the rogue and monk's love child. If it's a more conceptual issue - as I said, you don't have to play them, NPC them, whatever. You'll have a player who does. (Theoretically, you could have a situation where all of your players want to play a ninja, at which I point I think even I would throw in the generous DM towel. But this is unlikely to happen.) Is the issue one of players not being able to play ninjas?
Sereno 08-30-06, 09:53 AM	unless you're playing a VERY specific type of game, most concepts can easily be fitted into any setting This can be a point of contention if a player is unwilling to make changes in his character for fluff reasons to fit. For example, playing in an Eberron game a player who wants not just a "ninja," but "a Japanese Ninja named Kyoketsuki Nomura who grew up in the service of his Shogun, Amawari Nogata, in the village of Taki on the shoulders of Mount Fujiru...." "Ninja" is simply a type of rogue/stealth-fighter and, as a concept, could easily be fit into Eberron; a goblin assassin, a Phiarlan/Thuranni spy, a gnome infiltrator working for the Trust, etc. However, an obviously Japanese character does NOT fit ... there's no Japan, there's no shogun/feudal society, no framework to support such a character. It CAN work the other way, that the CONCEPT is too narrowly defined. I think with a little work (and compromises on BOTH sides) just about any concept can fit into any campaign.
Archmage Atrus 08-30-06, 09:55 AM	And to go back up one post: No, not all classes do fit. I gave two examples above: Dragon disciple and Dragon shaman. THey don't fit in my campaign setting. Period. Fluff or no - there are no dragons. What if a player came up to you with a class called the Celestial Shaman. It's mechanically identical (ok, a few tweaks here and there) to the Dragon Shaman, except centered towards Good Outsiders. Instead of Draconic Auras you have Celestial Auras which are mechanically identical (or, at least, approximate) to the Draconic Auras? Would you still say no?
terrainmonkey 08-30-06, 09:55 AM	However the PLAYER also needs to set aside HIS EGO for the good of the DM and the other players as a whole. . . ...snip... At any rate, what annoys me is seeing the constant responses of "The DM needs to give give give" combined with "And the players always get anything they want." Cooperation is a two way street. and i agree with you. a DM is well within his rights to deny any request by a player that the DM deems is unreasonable. If you are DMing an oriental world, or a world without dragons and someone wants to play a half dragon paladin, that's not really a request i would allow. as in the case of the half elf druid in an oriental campaign. i would have said no as well. if all the players agree on the terms of the campaign, then there is no reason one person should be allowed something different from the parameters set down by the DM. that player is well within thier rights to also say, "well, i don't want to run in an oriental world so i'll just sit this one out." perfect response. no player is required to play in a campaign that they don't want to.
Stev Beren 08-30-06, 10:03 AM	What if a player came up to you with a class called the Celestial Shaman. It's mechanically identical (ok, a few tweaks here and there) to the Dragon Shaman, except centered towards Good Outsiders. Instead of Draconic Auras you have Celestial Auras which are mechanically identical (or, at least, approximate) to the Draconic Auras? Would you still say no? In the current world I'm running? Yes. That STILL wouldn't fit. In fact, I could think of very few ways to make that class, as an example, fit. Just as wizard doesn't really fit, or at any rate doesn't fit YET. .and if you play the game, you sneaks who shouldn't be looking at the DM's forum, you didn't read that, savvy? At any rate, why can't the person in question just say "Allright, so the Dragon SHaman doesn't work. . I'll figure out something else cool." Part of the problem is, the DM can't always say WHY a particular class or concept won't work without ruining major plot areas, they can just say it doesn't. The player suffers under no such restriction, so sometimes they should just. .you know. .give. If in my game I saay "There are no Paladins here" for example(Actually, there are, but this is a hypothetical) Then they generally say "Allright> Instead I am playign a ighter who lives by a strict moral code and is dedicated to his god" They don't try to search for a loophole to shoehorn it in anyway.
Woas 08-30-06, 10:20 AM	Players first 1,000 out of 1,000 times.
Sulaco 08-30-06, 10:21 AM	Sometimes some classes jsut do not work in some settings. No amount of tweaking will make a Blood Sea Corsair work on a desert world with no large bodies of water. No amount of tweaking wil make a Icerift Mastadon Rider work in the Jungles of Bhutan. No amount of tweaking will make a Julan God-Botherer work in the World of Nogodsia. Yes, some classes can be modded to fit in other settings but not all. Sometimes the fluff is just too intrinsically tied to the crunch.
Tormsskull 08-30-06, 10:29 AM	What if a player came up to you with a class called the Celestial Shaman. It's mechanically identical (ok, a few tweaks here and there) to the Dragon Shaman, except centered towards Good Outsiders. Instead of Draconic Auras you have Celestial Auras which are mechanically identical (or, at least, approximate) to the Draconic Auras? Would you still say no? This wasn't directed at me but I am answering it anyway. I would say no. The reason why is very simple. If I tell a player they cannot play a particular class because of fluff reason X, and then they resdesign the class taking away fluff reason X, it shows to me that all the player is interested in is the mechanics of the class. In my experience mechanics-come-first-minded people don't make good role-players. Typically I explain a setting to the players, explain how the races fit into the world, etc. Then a player might say to me "I really like how this nationality of humans broke away from the normal human nations, founded their own territory in the inhospitable north, and continually fight to survive against the harsh enviroment. I want to be a human from there." This tells me the player is interested in playing a character from that area, likes the fluff, likes what a concept is really supposed to be. If the same player had said to me "I notice Northlander's get free weapon proficiency in this new type of spear I haven't heard of before. Looking on the chart I can see that this spear is a martial weapon, and is equal to a longsword in damage potential. Therefore if I make a cleric from this nation I can get a better weapon than normal without having to waste a feat." Both are acceptable ways of generating characters per the rules. I'd take the first player any day over the second.
Archmage Atrus 08-30-06, 10:34 AM	The problem with your solution, Stev Baran, is that it's not really a solution. You say you're willing to compromise but at the same time aren't willing to budge. Now, I understand that this is intrinsic to the world you're running. And I would think that a player who came to you wanting to play a Wizard or a Dragon Shaman would be acting in bad faith. And if you have a reason to ban the Celestial Shaman version, I presume you are also doing so in good faith for reasons that I hope you will explain to your players beyond "it doesn't fit the flavor of the campaign." And, yeah, some classes are intrinsically linked to the fluff. (I was stretching with the Celestial Shaman there.) I'm not willing to lay down arms completely (I think there could be a way to play an Icerift Mastodon Rider in the jungles of Bhutan, for example - assuming the player is willing to trade the Icerift Mastodon for something like a hyppo,) but I do agree that sometimes the chasm created when you separate crunch from fluff is too great. Should the DM go out of his way to find a place for an odd PC class he didn't plan for? No. But I still think that if a PC can handle all of the fluff work, the DM should weigh his opinion heavily in the players' flavor, regardless of his stance on the original fluff.
oxybe 08-30-06, 10:38 AM	if the DM says no, i would like an answer. a "no means no" answer is hardly fair for the player, especially if he's like me and he wants to know the reason behind the no. if you do decide to introduce those choices at a later date, tell the player they might be available later, just not now. this way he knows there is at least hope for it in the future. maybe even allow some level rehauling later on, letting him trade in a few levels of X for a few levels of Y after some appropriate training. the japanese ninja in eberron: setting: morgrave university, sharn. it happened during a secret cross dimentional experiment to create a permanant gateway between the material plane and Xoriat. as the Portal to the Realm of Madness was being opened, a coterminous Daaniv, the plane of Perfect Order, caused a strange interaction between the gateway and the magics currently at work. as the wind began to pick up, and energy bolts flew across the room, the portal slowly collapsed upon itself, eventually causing a magical energy overload. when the dust settled, a smashed gateway layed strewn across the room and a strangely dressed man stood in it's location. as the morgrave wizards tried to grab him, he vanished for a second, only to reappear at the door and escape the hallowed halls of learning. and that is how an ancient ninja appeared in modern eberron. one could easily make references between ancient japan and the old goblin empire (goblinoid armor seems to look like japanese armor, from what pictures i've seen), making the ninja's "common" to be eberron "goblinoid". it could be interesting to have a human character who's values, morals + customs closer to a non-human race, even more if it's a race he once viewed as an enemy in his world. having the ninja try to find a proper translator could be one adventure, and the rest of his quest could be trying to find a way home or trying to adapt to this alien world. i hate to say it but fluff is fluff. anyone with some creative brain cells can fluff his way into an explanation for anything.
striderII 08-30-06, 10:41 AM	I suppose I'll take up the contrary view here. When I run games - be it D&D, World of Darkness, or....um...okay, so that's pretty much all I play anymore, so nevermind - I run on a very simple premise: "Story first, group second, player third." Now, before anyone gets up in arms about this, let me explain it, then provide an example from a game I'm going to run soon. Okay? Take a deep breath, calm down, and we'll get through this together. "Story first" When I run/play in an RPG with others, we are crafting a cooperative story. Even those folks who like to play "hack-n-slash" or "kick-in-the-door" games are doing this as well. How often do you and someone else in you usual group say "hey, remember that time that we just charged the front gate of the trolls' fortress and still managed to win! That was a dumb tactic, but somehow we made it work - that was cool!"? Well, my friend, you and your group participated in a cooperative story. It may or may not have been as immersive and/or convoluted as the group's down the road (or my group, or a group in Walla-Walla Washington), but it's still a story. The story (or the game, as some people may call it; as I see the "story" evolving naturally from playing the game, I see these as one and the same) is the reason for getting together - it's the reason to play. So I put this at the top. "Group second" Even in games that are inherently PvP (Live Action Vampire comes to mind), there is an OOC responsibility and expectation that the players are not actually attempting to make someone else's gaming experience poor. There should be an OOC comraderie that exists despite any IC actions that characters may take against one another. In D&D, a naturally more "group oriented" or "teamwork" game, it should be expected that the players are interested in seeing everyone's experience be for the better. So the group then comes second (a bit more on this in a second, in a related manner). "Player third" This is last - but by no means are the players unimportant! To be sure, you won't have a game without them. However, individual player's wishes do come after the story and group considerations because, if a player's want is detrimental for the story, or for the group, and is put first, then effectively what the DM has done has set a precedent that a player may act in a selfish fashion, and put their needs and wants (and therefore, fun!) ahead of the group's needs and wants (fun). This, in my opinion, is a rather poor precedent to set in a group that should be focused on the fun of the whole, rather than the fun of the individual. Mind you - the margin of difference (if one could put numbers to this sort of thing) is very small between "Story first" and "player third", but that's the process through which I put any evaluation of an element's inclusion into my games. Here's the example. We are currently in the developmental phase (character creation and preludes) of a campaign set in the Ptolus campaign setting (from Monte Cook - although it's expensive, it's also *awesome* - every time I pick up that book and flip it open, I uncover a new nugget about the setting). For those unaware of it - basically it is supposed to be an example of what the 3.X edition was written for, in a "this is the level of magic, etc, that we expect/write for" kind of way, albeit put through the lens of settings contrivance. Again, kudos to Mr. Cook for a job well done, in my opinion, although I typically like settings with a bit less overt magic. But I digress. I am permitting the following books to be used: the three Core Books, Ptolus, the Complete Series (Adv, Arc, Div, War), and the PHBII. However, this is not a carte blanche permission to use everything in those books. There are a few classes that I'm not allowing - I'll simply address ones I am omitting for flavor reasons, to keep this post on topic: Banned classes: Ninja, Wu Jen, Shugenja, Samurai - I've banned all of these classes because they don't fit the campaign setting as written. The book states that Ptolus looks like a "Germanic medieval setting" in the way the buildings look, and how the city is kind of laid out. Ptolus is written with the core rules in mind - thusly, there are really no Asian-styled elements included, so I simply kept up that flavor as I saw it with my class restrictions. Not a single player has batted an eye about it. Likewise, I've ommitted a number of Prestige Classes - either for the same reasons as above (Ronin), or because they are tied to an organization whose style is already duplicated in a Ptolus-oriented organization (so therefore a Prestige Class is unneccesary). Honestly, there are enough organizations in Ptolus already. :) As I said - none of my players have complained at all. In fact, they've all been happy with what they've been able to pick so far - at 2nd level (when the party will be getting together and the campaign starting in earnest, as I'm using 1st level as a "prelude" for each character), we will have the following classes (I don't remember what all races we'll have off the top of my head): 1. Bard 2. Bard/Fighter 3. Cleric/Mage 4. Warmage (from Com. Arc.) 5. Beguiler (PHBII) 6. Wizard 7. Swashbuckler Sure, at the lower levels they might struggle a bit, but as they get up there in levels, it's likely that I'll be the one struggling to challenge them. Oh well - that's the fun of it, and the result will be a great story that I'm sure we'll be talking about for some time to come. strider
Archmage Atrus 08-30-06, 10:53 AM	Banned classes: Ninja, Wu Jen, Shugenja, Samurai - I've banned all of these classes because they don't fit the campaign setting as written. The book states that Ptolus looks like a "Germanic medieval setting" in the way the buildings look, and how the city is kind of laid out. Ptolus is written with the core rules in mind - thusly, there are really no Asian-styled elements included, so I simply kept up that flavor as I saw it with my class restrictions. Not a single player has batted an eye about it. Likewise, I've ommitted a number of Prestige Classes - either for the same reasons as above (Ronin), or because they are tied to an organization whose style is already duplicated in a Ptolus-oriented organization (so therefore a Prestige Class is unneccesary). Honestly, there are enough organizations in Ptolus already. Yet you allow the Monk? What would be the difference between, say, a Monk who is just an unarmed fighter, and a Ninja who is just a mystically/magically inclined rogue?
Archmage Atrus 08-30-06, 10:54 AM	anyone with some creative brain cells can fluff his way into an explanation for anything. Hm. Now would the Fluff skill be Intelligence or Charisma?
striderII 08-30-06, 11:04 AM	Yet you allow the Monk? What would be the difference between, say, a Monk who is just an unarmed fighter, and a Ninja who is just a mystically/magically inclined rogue? I do, because of three reasons: 1. It's a core class, and I typically try not to ban core classes, unless a particular setting (say, a Low or No Magic setting that would perforce eliminate spellcasters) dictates it. 2. The core Monk's only real "Asian" flavor, in my opinion, is the weapon options allowed in the PHB - which has nothing to do with the class' inherent features, whereas the ninja, samurai, etc, are more culturally tied. Perhaps it's my own inability to seperate the word "samurai", say, from its cultural baggage - but in my opinion, if it *is* seperated from that cultural baggage - then it isn't a samurai anymore. 3. There are already monks in the Ptolus campaign setting - the Sisterhood of Silence, for instance, is an entire organization of monks who aid the City Watch in keeping the peace in the city (officially unsanctioned by the Commissar or the City Watch, but they do unofficially support the Sisterhood). I didn't feel like removing a widespread (and somewhat integral) organization from the setting. Call me lazy if you like, but there it is. strider
oxybe 08-30-06, 11:11 AM	intelligence. the proper skill is Craft(Fluff). it gets a +2 synergy bonus from Bluff(sometimes you are just full of it), diplomacy(for some give & take), sense motive (to better understand what will make the DM accept) and Craft(Marshmellow)... cause marshmellows are 100% fluff, as well as +2 unnamed bonus from any successful Knowledge check made for the setting. problem is, even the best fluff might not be accepted.
Pyke_Moonshadow 08-30-06, 11:36 AM	If a player wanted to play a swashbuckler in my games and couldn't explain to me why the existing classes wouldn't work (I actually don't allow the class in my games) than he can come up with a different character idea. Similarly if a player wanted a dragon shaman and came up with a different fluff I still wouldn't allow it as I really dislike the aura mechanic. Player's have one thing to work on: their character. DMs work on everything else. I do so without complaint but I expect my players to understand that on my home brew certain things don't fly. Now, from time to time I will run shorter campaigns on the greyhawk setting (or whatever the default core setting is called) and in those games I don't restrict anything except race to nothing with more than a +1LA humanoid. Those games are more free and loose and I generally just run published adventures. Those campaigns are for swashbuckling dragon shamans and the like.
Sereno 08-30-06, 11:46 AM	the japanese ninja in eberron: i hate to say it but fluff is fluff. anyone with some creative brain cells can fluff his way into an explanation for anything. Of course, the "fell through a portal linking ancient earth's Japan to Eberron" schtick is a pretty flimsy "explanation" for why one player is playing a character that's completely out of touch with the game setting. If you're going to go that route, why not just "gate" in a Wookie, or an Ewok, or one of Rygel's people from Farscape or just "anything from anywhere, anywhen"? However, my idea of a party of Eberron adventurers includes a warforged, a changeling, a shifter, and a human -- not a wookie, one of the "death dealers" from Underworld, one of the Necromongers from "Chronicles of Riddick" and Blade.... The fact that you CAN do something does not automatically mean that you SHOULD.... :)
Roxlimn 08-30-06, 11:51 AM	I go out of my way to create fluff and crunch to accomodate player interests and to promote their fun. Having done that, I will absolutely not allow any class that can't thus be altered to be played in any particular campaign I'm running. No Blood Sea Corsairs in the Desert of Desolation, please! I usually also go out of my way to make sure that popular concepts are compatible with my campaign parameters. If people like Druids, then give the people what they want. I might make a purposefully strange world through restriction, but I prefer to do it by addition. Bright shiny new classes usually interest players even to the point that they'll temporarily abandon long-played classes. If I want them to do that, I'll try do it with a nice interesting class, not by banning the one they like. Given all that, when I say that the class is not appropriate, it's always been a final decision. No appeal has succeeded as yet. striderII: It's probably cultural bias. A Samurai is nothing more than a mounted armored bowman/cavalryman. All that honor crap isn't even applicable unless you particularly consider several Samurai myths and not others. There's a great deal of similarity between a Samurai, a Mongol heavy cavalry, and a Byzantine Cataphract. Likewise, a Ninja can be made out of several completely core classes, depending on which kind of ninja you're talking about. A tweaked Arcane Trickster works out well for many Ninja concepts. Even a core Rogue is usually more acceptable as a Ninja than many Ninja classes out there. What a ninja is and what a samurai is is closely tied to Japanese culture, but the same can be said of what a Knight is and what Djinn are, and so on. If you're willing to make the knight concept generic, then I don't see why the samurai concept can't also be made generic. The core Monk's only real "Asian" flavor, in my opinion, is the weapon options allowed in the PHB - which has nothing to do with the class' inherent features, whereas the ninja, samurai, etc, are more culturally tied. Perhaps it's my own inability to seperate the word "samurai", say, from its cultural baggage - but in my opinion, if it *is* seperated from that cultural baggage - then it isn't a samurai anymore. The monk is almost completely Shaolin and Kung Fu (the series) by concept. Unarmed strikes used as potent weaponry by unarmored individuals (against armed and armored foes) isn't a very Medieval thing. There's the weapons, of course, but then there's also quivering palm, and slow fall, and dimension door, speed increases - practically the entire setup. If you're willing to go to considerable lengths to genericize all of that, then you might as well also genericize the weapons. A kama is just a sickle. Nunchaku are just light flails. Sais are just main-gauches and so on. I think that the only thing that needs to be removed from the ninja and the samurai is the concept that they're foreign. Once you remove that hang-up it's easier to make these guys generic than druids and bards. A Rogue with an organization who also wields mysterious powers? Why, wherever can we find such a thing? Rokugan? or Amn?
striderII 08-30-06, 12:01 PM	It's probably cultural bias. A Samurai is nothing more than a mounted armored bowman/cavalryman. All that honor crap isn't even applicable unless you particularly consider several Samurai myths and not others. There's a great deal of similarity between a Samurai, a Mongol heavy cavalry, and a Byzantine Cataphract. Likewise, a Ninja can be made out of several completely core classes, depending on which kind of ninja you're talking about. A tweaked Arcane Trickster works out well for many Ninja concepts. Even a core Rogue is usually more acceptable as a Ninja than many Ninja classes out there. What a ninja is and what a samurai is is closely tied to Japanese culture, but the same can be said of what a Knight is and what Djinn are, and so on. If you're willing to make the knight concept generic, then I don't see why the samurai concept can't also be made generic. You're probably right, to a point. I don't see how I'm *biased* for or against the inherent qualities of Asian elements - just that something "Asian-flavored" doesn't seem to fit with the way Ptolus was written. Of course - you may feel free to purchase and read Ptolus yourself and disagree with me (with quotes, please). ;) Also - if a core Rogue or an Arcane Trickster works fine as a Ninja, then I suppose that's a good reason nobody is complaining that I'm not allowing the Ninja class, then, hmm? strider
Tormsskull 08-30-06, 12:14 PM	Of course, the "fell through a portal linking ancient earth's Japan to Eberron" schtick is a pretty flimsy "explanation" for why one player is playing a character that's completely out of touch with the game setting. If you're going to go that route, why not just "gate" in a Wookie, or an Ewok, or one of Rygel's people from Farscape or just "anything from anywhere, anywhen"? However, my idea of a party of Eberron adventurers includes a warforged, a changeling, a shifter, and a human -- not a wookie, one of the "death dealers" from Underworld, one of the Necromongers from "Chronicles of Riddick" and Blade.... The fact that you CAN do something does not automatically mean that you SHOULD.... :) HAHAHA! I was going to say something along these lines, but I wasn't going to be quite as nice about it. I like your explanation better, so I'm QFTing it.
oxybe 08-30-06, 12:25 PM	flimsy, yes, but remember that your generic D&D setting has active gods, flying acid spittin lizards bigger then most houses, wizards, flying eyeballs, magical horses with horns, cow-men, werewolves(and other animals), vampires, zombies, liches, ghosts, 4-legged birds, a patchwork servant made from corpses, King Koopa on freakin steroids, ect... D&D is anything but realistic. why would a wookie, ewok or Rygel's people really be that much out of bound from normal D&D. honestly, no. anyone can fit anything in D&D. just because you can disallow anything doesn't mean you should. look at stuff on a case by case basis. while i agree that the ninja thing is a strech, you can fluff your way into anything with some imagination. it might not be completely logical or realistic, but neither is a kobold or wizard.
razorboy 08-30-06, 12:25 PM	To be perfectly honest, for me it has to be: 1) Story 2) Setting 3) Players As a DM, as someone has wisely pointed out already, I don't get to play anything but my plot and my NPCs, so to have any sort of fun as a DM I should be allowed to play my NPCs and tell my story as best as I can. Does this mean railroading my PCs to accomodate the story? To some extent yes, yes it does. Some things will happen while the PCs are not around, villain plots will be made and unraveled. This is not railroading, so much as letting the players react to the world. Sometimes, certain alignments, certain classes or prestige classes will cause tension to the story, or to the setting, or to the rest of the party. If I ban paladins or monks, it is not because I have an issue with a class, but because the alignment focus of the party and story would prohibit such classes. The setting, whatever it is, is obviously vital to the game. The feel, the texture of the setting constitute the entirety of the world with which the characters interact. In my opinion, maintaining the cohesion, mood, texture of the setting is extremely important. Obviously adventurers are an exceptional breed, but there's only so far one can take it. A setting where dragons have been extinct for thousands of years might not gently accomodate a half-dragon, nor can a medieval European setting accomodate a ninja class easily (rather it can be adopted as a class mechanic, but the player cannot write a feudal Japanese fluff background). The player comes last, but that's not to say that the player's preferences and wishes are the least important concern to me. After all, a DM needs willing and interested players to run a game, but on the other hand the players have to respect that the DM is willing to put aside a lot of time to prepare and run a game, and is under more stress while running the game. I tend to think of DM-player relationship as that of director-actor. A director has a script, he has a vision of a style, of a moral of the story, of a plot. An actor can have his own preferences for an acting style, how to say something, how to walk, etc, but in the end when the actor takes the job he does so knowing that this is going to be an action flick not a horror movie and not a docu-drama. The player likewise should be informed of what kind of campaign/setting it's going to be, so that he can mull over the choice of character and bio and whether he really wants to play in a swashbuckling game set in Eberron, or a grim pseudo-Dark Ages low-magic game. The best thing a DM can do when taking these three factors in consideration is talk to the players and find out if there's some consensus between them on the setting, feel and classes they'd like to play. Then craft a setting (or adopt an existing one) and write a plot. Figure out if the setting or the plot will prohibit or on the other hand open certain options. Inform the players in advance about the setting and limitations on the character creation. Don't drop a bombshell on them, prepare them for what the DM has in mind. In my experience, the players are far less likely to get upset that they can't play a spellthief or samurai or dragon shaman, when they've been forewarned in advance. That way, they can still write a background for a rogue/sorceror, a paladin beholden to his lord to the death, or a grim-sole-survivor-of-his-tribe barbarian/druid/sorceror, and play the characters they want, without giving DM a headache for accomodating new options in his game.
Roxlimn 08-30-06, 12:29 PM	striderII: You're probably right, to a point. I don't see how I'm *biased* for or against the inherent qualities of Asian elements - just that something "Asian-flavored" doesn't seem to fit with the way Ptolus was written. It's easy to answer that, but it's not limited to just you. Many posters behave the same way. Asian elements are inherent in D&D. There are Scimitars, Djinns, Efreets, Flying Carpets, even Sai and Nunchaku. Good Dragons don't come from Western folklore. They don't even come from Middle Eastern folklore. There's a very good reason why the Gold Dragon looks so very much like a Lung Dragon. Mounted Archery is a core feat. Repeating Crossbows are a core weapon. Asian-themed classes appear again and again in accessory after accessory. We even have Asian mythical themes in D&D adventures now. Wandering lightly armored swordmasters seeking truth and perfection? Is that a Germanic myth or a French one? Great Walls defending civilization from marauding hordes? I've seen the transcripts. Ptolus describes itself as "Germanic inspired," but if that were strictly true, then there wouldn't be like, a third of the core material in there, would there? Nagas? The thing is, many posters and players of D&D view "Asian" as "weird and foreign" and treat it accordingly. If it's not weird enough, it's "not Asian enough." An "Asian themed" campaign can't possibly have knights, even though staple "European themed" D&D has Shaolin Monks. Knights are "too normal." They're just not weird enough. That's why things like djinns just slip under the radar. They're Asian, too, but they're not weird, so they're OK for "European themed D&D." Also - if a core Rogue or an Arcane Trickster works fine as a Ninja, then I suppose that's a good reason nobody is complaining that I'm not allowing the Ninja class, then, hmm? A good fraction of the OA crowd would probably applaud you for not allowing the Ninja class in any campaign, period, just on principle. Ninja is a class like Noble is a class - it is but it's not. If you're allowing Rogues and Arcane Tricksters, then you're already allowing Ninjas in the campaign. There's no reason why anyone who knows Ninja myths well will insist on the any particular Ninja class.
Sereno 08-30-06, 12:45 PM	D&D is anything but realistic. why would a wookie, ewok or Rygel's people really be that much out of bound from normal D&D. honestly, no. anyone can fit anything in D&D. just because you can disallow anything doesn't mean you should. look at stuff on a case by case basis. while i agree that the ninja thing is a strech, you can fluff your way into anything with some imagination. it might not be completely logical or realistic, but neither is a kobold or wizard. True, but there is at least a basic level of internal consistency. It might be a "flying acid spittin lizards bigger then most houses," but when you say "green dragon" it suddenly fits ... sometimes it *is* just the semantics and the context. I don't have a problem with a cross-genre concept; a tall, furry, powerful warrior from the deep forest is OK, a "wookie" is just not DnD. Or, at least, it's not what *I* want from DnD. Why is it that some players seem to be unhappy unless they're "breaking" the campaign? Or, at least, coming up with character concepts that are at odds with the environment they will be playing in?
Andron 08-30-06, 12:47 PM	I go players, story, and then setting. Without my players, I'd have no game. So basically I let them create any PC they want. The only real restriction I placed on my players was the fact that they could not play any of the evil alignments and that they had to start at 1st level. (Though alignments could change as game play went along. The PC's don't know this.) After they have given me their character and I have approved of it, I then create a story around the characters that the PC's have just made. It doesn't really matter where the story takes place, but usually it's my own homebrew world, I'll talior make the setting as I go along. I do add elements of Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, and Ravenloft into the setting. (why not, I have all that stuff and I might as well as use it to my own benefit.) We've started out in a typical European flavor style of play and are now moving towards an Asian style of play. (This is based around a quest of a couple of the characters who went with the Oriental Adventures flavor PC.) Currently they are in a Carribeanesque area- where they will most likely be for a while. So, yeah, there's pirates and things like that, but I'm also working in some horror elements - voodoo like stuff, along with the Cthulhu mythos and Ravenloft. It's all supposed to be mysterious and new...yeah, right. But atleast we're all having fun.
Archmage Atrus 08-30-06, 12:52 PM	Why is it that some players seem to be unhappy unless they're "breaking" the campaign? Or, at least, coming up with character concepts that are at odds with the environment they will be playing in? I believe the idea is to make the player's concept fit with the environment that the DM desires. Once this is accomplished, the DM then should respond... how?
razorboy 08-30-06, 12:53 PM	Quick note on Ptolus. Ptolus is not Germanic-inspired. The dominant culture (Prustan) has Prussian-sounding names, but actually looks West African, has a somewhat Roman-style architecture and bureacracy, and Catholic-like church. The city itself has different architectural styles depending on the district. The setting's feel (architecture, social classes, economy, etc) are somewhat based on Medieval Europe, but the setting describes itself as "Third Edition with a volume up". This means that every core class, spell and equipment can be, and is, incorporated into Ptolus. Monte included distant and/or exotic lands to accomodate monks and barbarians as well as non-core races and classes for those who want them, such as: Eastern Barbarians, Sea Kingdoms (good source of swashbucklers), Uraq (for monks, Asian and Arabic material), Kem (also good source of monks and perhaps warlocks) and other even more distant kingdoms which are not described at all - just given names.
oxybe 08-30-06, 01:06 PM	but what if he wants to play something like a wookie? a big hairy guy from the forest? if all you do is change the name from Wookie to Fuzzle (or any other funny sounding name), the look is similar but it's not a wookie anymore. you changed the fluff and then it makes sense. anyways, like all dm's even i disallow things if i know they will cause trouble in the long run. i just don't see a point in banning something for Flavour reasons if you can change the flavour to fit.
Tormsskull 08-30-06, 01:13 PM	but what if he wants to play something like a wookie? a big hairy guy from the forest? if all you do is change the name from Wookie to Fuzzle (or any other funny sounding name), the look is similar but it's not a wookie anymore. you changed the fluff and then it makes sense. anyways, like all dm's even i disallow things if i know they will cause trouble in the long run. i just don't see a point in banning something for Flavour reasons if you can change the flavour to fit. Well, as soon as you start doing that you give the impression that flavor/fluff doesn't matter. The PHB has a section about changing the base classes, I think it gives an example of a fighter from the desert or something. Then they go on to explain how you could drop heavy armor proficiency and exchange it for something else. I'd allow a character to do something like that, but I'd pay close attention and make sure it A.) Fits the setting, and B.) is balanced. Fluff is already so customizeable I don't see why a player needs a reason to be able to write their own. You should give at least the same amount of consideration to changing fluff as you shoud to changing crunch.
oxybe 08-30-06, 01:22 PM	which is why i let my players have a good say in the setting. we never have fights due to inconsistencies because there aren't any. we create the world together so their characters make sense. they are the ones playing in the world, i have fun playing with them & seeing their reaction to what i place before them. if we see something that could be part of the world, it's a group decision if it is allowed. it's not my world, it's our world. player-setting-story.
Tormsskull 08-30-06, 01:27 PM	which is why i let my players have a good say in the setting. we never have fights due to inconsistencies because there aren't any. we create the world together so their characters make sense. they are the ones playing in the world, i have fun playing with them & seeing their reaction to what i place before them. if we see something that could be part of the world, it's a group decision if it is allowed. it's not my world, it's our world. player-setting-story. DM by consensus mode. I'd heard it can work pretty well. Never had a chance to try it out.
Futuredevguy 08-30-06, 01:39 PM	Ok, let's try this another way. You say that the options are already "infinite". Thus, you could already build any concept given the base options of the PHB. (Which, I think we can at least all agree that this is possible, if not optimal.) Now you, as a DM, also have access to the non-Core rules. Let's make this concrete. Say I want to play a meleeist who uses brains over brawn, a quick and dashing warrior who lives on his rapier wit and rapier's blade. Yeah, you can make a Fighter with Combat Expertise, Weapon Finesse and Dodge. Alternatively, you can make a Swashbuckler. The DM has access to the Complete Warrior. The PC has access to the Complete Warrior. Neither PC nor DM believes that the Swashbuckler is mechanically broken. What's the difference? Why allow one and not the other? I want some rationale, not a dismissal of the argument. First off my opinion is Setting, playerS, story/plot. My questions to you as a DM would be: If a Fighter with Combat Expertise, Weapon Finesse and Dodge is the same thing/just as good as a Swashbuckler then why do you want to play a Swashbuckler? What are you looking to get out of the splat book class that you can't get out of the core book class? That really is the core of the question - what does the player perceive as the "GAIN" of choosing the swashbuckler over a fighter. The answer of "more fun" is not an acceptable answer to me because I do not think it is a truthful answer? BTW: PC normally refers to the Player Character and not the player themselves. When you use "PC" in your posts I get a picture in my mind of a character standing in a vast blank space, under a blank sky reading the Complete Warrior book and shouting up at the blank sky asking "WHY NOT" and another shout coming back down "BECAUSE".
Dolomite 08-30-06, 01:42 PM	Well I think this discussion has broken down into two views: 1.) IF you are just running a game and a setting then its easy to let a player concept in and make it work. 2.) If you have a World setting then it requires that the DM and player have to work it out and see if the concept actually fits. But if the concept does not fit, the player will have to work within the system to come up with something that makes them happy.
oxybe 08-30-06, 01:48 PM	i find DM by consensus works great, though we tend to go by majority vote if pressing for time. as long as it makes the game go by faster, we tend to roll with it. as DM i find it's a much more relaxed environment, mostly because instead of having everything rely solely on the dm (who is now more akin to a half-referee who happends to play all NPC's, then a supreme judge, jury, govenor & prison warden all rolled up into one), we just vote on a decision on the spot or default it to "we'll let it go until we get the chance to look into it more later, once the session is over". the few rare times a snap DM-only judgement is called on are for trivial things (cost for lodging, items not in the handbooks but would be nice to have, the few things not currently covered by a ruleset). EDIT: Futuredevguy, if there were no reason other then fluff to play anything, we would all be playing warrior or adept. why play fighter if Warrior works, other then getting that extra feat? who cares if he wants some of the benefits from a class ability? as long as it fits the concept, i find just letting it roll and forgetting about the class fluff (and using a class as a skillset) works great.
Archmage Atrus 08-30-06, 01:52 PM	If a Fighter with Combat Expertise, Weapon Finesse and Dodge is the same thing/just as good as a Swashbuckler then why do you want to play a Swashbuckler? What are you looking to get out of the splat book class that you can't get out of the core book class? That really is the core of the question - what does the player perceive as the "GAIN" of choosing the swashbuckler over a fighter. The answer of "more fun" is not an acceptable answer to me because I do not think it is a truthful answer? I didn't say it was "just as good". Quite the opposite, I said it was mechanically inferior. It just fits the "fluff" equally well.
striderII 08-30-06, 01:57 PM	roxlimn: Well, I suppose I can agree with you in theory - many of the things that are in D&D I just kind of shrug and say "eh, it's D&D" - at least, the things in the core books, anyway. Maybe I just got tired quite some time ago of being annoyed that having all of these different weapons and armours from different areas/time periods all in the same game (when they would have likely never actually gone up against one another in RL), and just decided to shrug, say "It's D&D - there are just some things that aren't important enough to me to work at changing, so I can either just live with it, or ignore it when I make my characters" (which I do). *shrug* As for Ptolus being "Germanic inspired" - I'm not sure what transcripts you've read, but I think perhaps either they were wrong, or perhaps you inferred things incorrectly. As razorboy already stated, Ptolus is *not* "Germanic inspired" - although there are quite a few Germanic influences inherent to the city. For instance: Ptolus looks a little like a Germanic city from the late medieval period. The buildings usually have stone first stories with wooden upper stories. Prustan (Imperial) names sound Germanic, or even Prussian There are more, but the book is 668 pages long (not counting the 96 page Night of Dissolution adventure, and the CD-Rom with another 400+ pages worth of information), so I hope you'll excuse me from combing through it at the moment. ;) That all said - I'd like to clarify that I never said that I *unilaterally* ban things from my games (except things like mercurial weapons and Monkey Grip, because there's only so much ridiculousness that I'm willing to take). I merely put forth my methodology on deciding what can and cannot be allowed into games that I run. The DM is the only one that effectively "knows everything" about the game world, and therefore, is the only one, IMO, that is informed enough to really know if something will work or not within the confines of the setting. Really, it all comes down to trust and playstyle. If you don't trust your DM (or players, conversely) - or there are wildly divergent playstyles in the group...then something needs to change. strider
Tormsskull 08-30-06, 02:11 PM	I didn't say it was "just as good". Quite the opposite, I said it was mechanically inferior. It just fits the "fluff" equally well. In other words, a Fighter with Combat Expertise, Weapon Finesse and Dodge isn't as optimized or powerful as a swashbuckler, and thus the player wants the more powerful choice. I don't see that as a good enough reason to forcefeed the concept into the setting. Again, if the reason a player wants his/her character to be a particular class revolves around an abilitiy or abilities, I'd say that player is already off to a bad start. This, of course, only applies to non-hack N slash campaigns.
Futuredevguy 08-30-06, 02:44 PM	I didn't say it was "just as good". Quite the opposite, I said it was mechanically inferior. It just fits the "fluff" equally well. I have looked back through this thread and I have not seen where you have said that. Here is a list of posts from you where you brooch the subject of classes in general and swashbuckler in specific. On the longer ones I have just sniped the pertinate text (but tryed to keep it's context whole) One player asks him if he is allowing character classes from supplement books. The Complete series, for example. The DM thinks it over, agrees that the classes are not unbalanced, but then decides that the class doesn't fit the "flavor" of the campaign setting. Post 1 While I don't disagree with you in theory, I don't see where this comes in. A class is a pretty black and white matter. Typically you wish to play a class because its mechanics aren't something available to other classes. I don't see how not letting someone be something they want to be can lead to further fun later on. (Oh, I'm not saying they won't have fun, I'm just saying it won't be as fun as it could have been for them.) Post 24 No, he refluffed the same class. (Ex: I want to play a Swashbuckler in your game. You say "I don't want to allow the swashbuckler because it doesn't fit the flavor of my campaign." I then go and read everything you've given me for the campaign setting, fit it specifically to that campaign, and bring it back to you.) The DM then said "No non-Core classes in the game because they don't fit the flavor of my campaign." (Other players were asking for non-Core classes, too. And, actually, I'm wrong - he allowed Psionics, and he allowed the Knight. But that's another argument altogether.) I think this is poor DMing. I might be wrong. Post 36 Assume, then, the opposite. I give the DM a concept based on a Swashbuckler. He then bans the Swashbuckler class, after agreeing that the swashbuckler does not present any kind of mechanical problem. I then give him the exact same character concept using Fighter instead, and he says it's ok. What would you say of the DM then? Post 53 Say I want to play a meleeist who uses brains over brawn, a quick and dashing warrior who lives on his rapier wit and rapier's blade. Yeah, you can make a Fighter with Combat Expertise, Weapon Finesse and Dodge. Alternatively, you can make a Swashbuckler. The DM has access to the Complete Warrior. The PC has access to the Complete Warrior. Neither PC nor DM believes that the Swashbuckler is mechanically broken. Post 68 I didn't say it was "just as good". Quite the opposite, I said it was mechanically inferior. It just fits the "fluff" equally well. Post 108 Looking over the above segment (or find in the thread where you said "was mechanically inferior" prior to POST 108) I do not see an answer to the questions I asked in Post 105 My questions to you as a DM would be: If a Fighter with Combat Expertise, Weapon Finesse and Dodge is the same thing/just as good as a Swashbuckler then why do you want to play a Swashbuckler? What are you looking to get out of the splat book class that you can't get out of the core book class? That really is the core of the question - what does the player perceive as the "GAIN" of choosing the swashbuckler over a fighter. The answer of "more fun" is not an acceptable answer to me because I do not think it is a truthful answer?
Archmage Atrus 08-30-06, 02:55 PM	Sorry, Futuredevguy, you are absolutely correct. I am stating it now: A fighter with Combat Expertise, Dodge and Weapon Finesse for the stereotypical swashbuckler is mechanically inferior to the Swashbuckler. What I meant when I wrote my earlier line was a reference to: You say that the options are already "infinite". Thus, you could already build any concept given the base options of the PHB. (Which, I think we can at least all agree that this is possible, if not optimal.) Emphasis is new.
Richmud 08-30-06, 03:46 PM	Some of you have stated that its an issue if a player cares enough about the mechanics of a PC to change the fluff to fit the campaign theme. I have trouble understanding how this can be an issue, some mechanics will fit a charecter concept better then others, for instance if I want to play a nonspellcasting charecter devoted to a greater power who channels some of that power to adhance himself and his allies the aura abilities and flavor of the dragon shaman most easily fit this. If no dragons exist in the campaign world a dragon shaman modified to be devoted to angels would retain the parts of the flavor I want and still meet the needs of the campaign. Or the other example of a swashbuckler style fighter vs an actual swashbuckler. When I think of a swashbuckler I think of a person who fights with speed and florishes, one who relies on striking intelligently rather then with great strength. The insightful strike of the swashbuckler class captures the flavor of the second point in a way that it is impossible for a fighter to mimic as he must rely on pureply on str for damage
striderII 08-30-06, 03:54 PM	On the whole Swashbuckler thing: The core PHB Fighter is pretty much assumed to be a powerful/tough kind of fighter, *not* an intelligent, dextrous fighter who lives by his skills and wits. The mechanics back this up: -Reliance on heavy armour reduces effectiveness of Dex. -Fortitude is the best save. -Abyssmally low Skill Points Compare to the Swashbuckler, whose mechanics do back up the quick/skill-based fighting archetype. To wit: -No reliance on heavy armour; in fact, quite a few of the Swashbuckler's abilities only function in light or no armour/unencumbered. -Insightful strike (Int bonus applied to damage - rewards smart fighters) -Grace (adds bonus to Reflex saves) Now, the Swashbuckler still has a high Fortitude save, which I disagree with (I would have made it Reflex, myself, and taken out the Grace ability), but I didn't write the book, so...I don't know why that is. I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to think that a player is trying to "break" the system or anything because they want a class that more closely represents (mechanically) their character concept - within the guidelines presented by the DM. If I want to play a Swashbuckler, and the DM doesn't allow the Complete Books, say, then I'll play a Fighter/Rogue with a focus in the rapier. Very simple. However, there *are* those players that want a particular mechanical feature (perhaps, but not limited to, towards the goal of "powergaming" or what-have-you, although this isn't universal) and then invent a background "reason" - i.e. an excuse - to have that class. The trick is figuring out what kind of player you're dealing with - much easier to do when playing with the same group for a while. Just my opinion. strider
Kimokeo 08-30-06, 04:18 PM	Players first? Definitely? Definitely not. I've heard some posters that they have plenty of DM's to go around. In my group, there is two. Me and the other guy. That means we rotate between our two worlds to give the players a chance to try something different. In my world, each player has two characters. Sometimes the entire group is adventuring -right now, they are split in two search parties. If another class is desired and it doesn't fit either of us DM's, then let another player create a world and join the rotation. I've created many adventures, ready-to-go. If I think the class their asking about is going to mess up all the fun I've created, then "no". Sorry, but in 1st edition, I could make easy changes. In 3.5, there's just too many things I have to recalculate. Slight changes is all I'll do-my time is precious. If you have lots of DM's to choose from, the player should try their worlds. If everyone is saying no, there is something up. If my world wasn't so far created and established as to what I've made it, I'd be more flexible. Since I only DM on my rotation, another world creation just isn't possible unless I play on another day of the week. I only can play 6 days a week. That 7th day is so I speak to my wife.
Futuredevguy 08-30-06, 07:08 PM	Sorry, Futuredevguy, you are absolutely correct. I am stating it now: A fighter with Combat Expertise, Dodge and Weapon Finesse for the stereotypical swashbuckler is mechanically inferior to the Swashbuckler. What I meant when I wrote my earlier line was a reference to: Emphasis is new. No Harm No foul, I was just making sure I had a summery of your argument is all. But the clarification does set the whole discussion in the proper light (for me anyway) Your oiginal question was: "One player asks him if he is allowing character classes from supplement books. The Complete series, for example. The DM thinks it over, agrees that the classes are not unbalanced, but then decides that the class doesn't fit the "flavor" of the campaign setting. Is this good DMing or bad DMing?" With your clarification that the MAIN reason that the player wants to play the Swashbuckler is because the it is more optimized / mechanically superior to the core book fighter. Then I would side with the DM in question and say that it is good DMing. Forcing a change on a setting so A player can get a perceived leg up on the other players (yes the DM is a player also) is wrong in my book. So was this an actual hypothetical situation or id this happen to you and you are looking for support of your argument?
Archmage Atrus 08-30-06, 07:18 PM	So was this an actual hypothetical situation or id this happen to you and you are looking for support of your argument? It's based on actual events, with most of the facts altered. I just found it an odd call on the part of the DM, as it had never before been a problem with any of the DMs I've played under/games I've played. And, no, it was not I who was affected.
Chrono Nexus 08-30-06, 07:57 PM	Since players make 90% of the in game decisions that actually advance a (good, active) game of DnD, I am much more interested in the players then the story itself. The players are the main ingredients to a good story... as long as I concentrate on maintaining pc satisfaction, a good story is assured. You can have a good story without players, but you can't have good characters without other people to base them on. The best stories have good characters. Most experienced writers base their stories' characters off of personal acquantences and close friends/family. You can't really pick between one and the other.
Stev Beren 08-30-06, 07:59 PM	if the DM says no, i would like an answer. a "no means no" answer is hardly fair for the player, especially if he's like me and he wants to know the reason behind the no. if you do decide to introduce those choices at a later date, tell the player they might be available later, just not now. this way he knows there is at least hope for it in the future. maybe even allow some level rehauling later on, letting him trade in a few levels of X for a few levels of Y after some appropriate training. the japanese ninja in eberron: setting: morgrave university, sharn. it happened during a secret cross dimentional experiment to create a permanant gateway between the material plane and Xoriat. as the Portal to the Realm of Madness was being opened, a coterminous Daaniv, the plane of Perfect Order, caused a strange interaction between the gateway and the magics currently at work. as the wind began to pick up, and energy bolts flew across the room, the portal slowly collapsed upon itself, eventually causing a magical energy overload. when the dust settled, a smashed gateway layed strewn across the room and a strangely dressed man stood in it's location. as the morgrave wizards tried to grab him, he vanished for a second, only to reappear at the door and escape the hallowed halls of learning. and that is how an ancient ninja appeared in modern eberron. one could easily make references between ancient japan and the old goblin empire (goblinoid armor seems to look like japanese armor, from what pictures i've seen), making the ninja's "common" to be eberron "goblinoid". it could be interesting to have a human character who's values, morals + customs closer to a non-human race, even more if it's a race he once viewed as an enemy in his world. having the ninja try to find a proper translator could be one adventure, and the rest of his quest could be trying to find a way home or trying to adapt to this alien world. i hate to say it but fluff is fluff. anyone with some creative brain cells can fluff his way into an explanation for anything. SO you would rather reveal a ferw of the hidden central plot points and mysteries of the setting ahead of time just so you could have an answer other than 'no'?
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-30-06, 08:30 PM	SO you would rather reveal a ferw of the hidden central plot points and mysteries of the setting ahead of time just so you could have an answer other than 'no'? I don't think you understand -- see the world needs to totally revolve around the players, no matter how gut twistingly stupid thier wishes are. ... why is the 'barf' smilie gone?
Stev Beren 08-30-06, 08:36 PM	I don't think you understand -- see the world needs to totally revolve around the players, no matter how gut twistingly stupid thier wishes are. ... why is the 'barf' smilie gone? Apparently so, it seems. ..
oxybe 08-30-06, 08:37 PM	personally? no, because i don't hide classes away for use later. the group as a whole decides on what material (books, classes, PrC, feats, ect... as well as what is banned) to use until the game ends, then as new material comes out, we decide as a group if it suites the game. in my games, the DM is at best a storyteller and at worse a referee. this also means that the players help with the creation of the setting itself, as well as brainstorming various things they would maybe like to do or happen. then as a DM, i write these down in my notebook as well as a few ideas of my own and then go off and hide myself from society for a week or two, create a few hooks for quests & story arcs that might be interesting, then craft a few NPCs to populate the world. when this is done, we play. Ideas could be as vague as "slaying a great dragon" or more specific "build a castle and colonize a remote location in the world". as i said, i will create my own plot, but i tend to listen to my players wishes a lot. all rule-based decisions that would affect the game world as a whole are made by the group as a whole since it is not only the DM affected by this decision, but the players also. so to answer your question Stev Beren, by default the answer is no i would not reveal those few hidden plot points since the plot points retaining to classes hidden from the PC's do not exist. that and i don't plan the plot too far in advance. the players always seem to either veer off in their own direction, seem uninterested or completely miss the hook if i plan too far ahead. planning is ok, overplanning might lead to railroading. as i said, you could at least tell them the choice might be available later and you need to look it over, or something along those lines, instead of a blunt "no". at least that way the player knows there is some hope of gaining access to it instead of scrapping the idea as a whole. Of course not Vaal! the world must revolve around the wishes of a power-tripping DM who wants to subjugate his "friends" to his fictional dictatorship! just because i give much leeway and power to my players in no way forces you to do the same in your games. I don't know how you run your games, but i prefer having my players get an active role in the creation of the game we play in.
Stev Beren 08-30-06, 08:57 PM	personally? no, because i don't hide classes away for use later. the group as a whole decides on what material (books, classes, PrC, feats, ect... as well as what is banned) to use until the game ends, then as new material comes out, we decide as a group if it suites the game. in my games, the DM is at best a storyteller and at worse a referee. this also means that the players help with the creation of the setting itself, as well as brainstorming various things they would maybe like to do or happen. then as a DM, i write these down in my notebook as well as a few ideas of my own and then go off and hide myself from society for a week or two, create a few hooks for quests & story arcs that might be interesting, then craft a few NPCs to populate the world. when this is done, we play. Ideas could be as vague as "slaying a great dragon" or more specific "build a castle and colonize a remote location in the world". as i said, i will create my own plot, but i tend to listen to my players wishes a lot. all rule-based decisions that would affect the game world as a whole are made by the group as a whole since it is not only the DM affected by this decision, but the players also. so to answer your question Stev Beren, by default the answer is no i would not reveal those few hidden plot points since the plot points retaining to classes hidden from the PC's do not exist. that and i don't plan the plot too far in advance. the players always seem to either veer off in their own direction, seem uninterested or completely miss the hook if i plan too far ahead. planning is ok, overplanning might lead to railroading. as i said, you could at least tell them the choice might be available later and you need to look it over, or something along those lines, instead of a blunt "no". at least that way the player knows there is some hope of gaining access to it instead of scrapping the idea as a whole. Of course not Vaal! the world must revolve around the wishes of a power-tripping DM who wants to subjugate his "friends" to his fictional dictatorship! just because i give much leeway and power to my players in no way forces you to do the same in your games. I don't know how you run your games, but i prefer having my players get an active role in the creation of the game we play in. There is a difference between 'an active role' and 'they know absolutely everything about the setting and the reason why it is the way it is, they in fact know the meaning of life and the answers to all of the ultimate questions." And as a note 'Plot points' means 'potentia;l plot points' as in, things I have set up for players to investigate if that is they way they happen to go that way'
oxybe 08-30-06, 09:07 PM	well duh, answer to The Ultimate Question Of Life, the Universe and Everything is 42. i think you're over exagerrating a wee bit Stev Beren. there is nothing wrong with letting the players have a hand in creating the world they are living in. i stand by my playstyle like a paladin to his cause, but that doesn't mean i force my style on others or berate their own. all i did was state my playstyle, if you or Vaal don't like it, well i feel no compulsion to alter it for 2 people i will never meet in real life. since you stated they were "central plot points" i figured they were things that weren't optional. so i apologise if i didn't understand the way you worded your sentence. for me a "central" thing means that many things revolve around it and are forced to revolve around it
Stev Beren 08-30-06, 09:14 PM	well duh, answer to The Ultimate Question Of Life, the Universe and Everything is 42. i think you're over exagerrating a wee bit Stev Beren. there is nothing wrong with letting the players have a hand in creating the world they are living in. i stand by my playstyle like a paladin to his cause, but that doesn't mean i force my style on others or berate their own. all i did was state my playstyle, if you or Vaal don't like it, well i feel no compulsion to alter it for 2 people i will never meet in real life. since you stated they were "central plot points" i figured they were things that weren't optional. so i apologise if i didn't understand the way you worded your sentence. for me a "central" thing means that many things revolve around it and are forced to revolve around it Well, it IS a central plot point of the world: As in - something whcih effects and penetrates into many many other plots. Its a pervasive plot point. And the players DO have a strong influence on teh setting. . WITHIN the parameters set as requirements. I even invented an entire mountain nation, culture and city state to accomidate a player . . . but it didn't violate the basic tennants and integrity of the setting, so it worked. See? PLayer worked within the setting and got to mostly design an entire culture within.
oxybe 08-30-06, 09:26 PM	and there is nothing wrong with that. really there isn't. i just don't see what you find so aggravating or offensive from me sharing the responcibilities of the setting creation with the players. of course they don't decide 100% of everything, that is just rediculous, what point would there be for a DM if everything is already planned out for them, all i'm saying is that the players get a healthy amount of responsibility for creating the world they play in. in my games. bolded, italic'ed and underlined for importance. this is how we do things. in no way, shape or form am i forcing you to play by our rules. i could honestly care less how you and your players go about creating your game worlds, that is your group's style, not mine. if i ever play in your group, i will respect their wishes and do what is wanted from me and no less. if you play in my group, i expect you to respect our traditions (or whatever you want to call it, i can't think up of a better word at 10:30 PM... ). anyways, it's beddy time for me, i have to be up at 5:30 am for work. one quick refresh at the boards then i'm in bed
twad 08-30-06, 09:32 PM	in my game, i made the plotline after the players gave me their "background" info, and i used it as a source of ideas.. and included they background as much as possible in my story. After a sudden "moment of revelation" while i was readin the BG of one of my players, the plotline was made, the connections finished, and the masterplan was completed. they wont know what hit them. Its gonna be fun.
kelvinaw273 08-30-06, 10:41 PM	Because having one player be from one foreign land automatically makes all other foreign lands unviable? Or perhaps you only have this one land, and this player cannot possibly play ambassador to this strange land Do you not realize that the "stranger in a strange land" game is exactly the game you would always be playing with this character? This foreigner (should)would be unfamiliar with the geography, the customs, tne very foundations upon which the society he is surrounded by is based. He worships strange gods, eats different food, practices odd rituals. He would be ostracized from the society of the campaign world simply because he was different. Now you wish to plan a visit to his home land: What greater hook do you need? I realise that ... and I can incorporate it ... but what if I don't want to be running two games at once - one for one player and one for the rest of them? What if the plot line in the other realm requires no insiders? Except, of course, if the plot changes. Why would the characters wish to expose their secret society of assassins if they are members? It would be as exposing themselves. Here you go from a plot where the characters investigate the secret society to one where the PCs are members and agents of it, attempting to halt the investigation of the lawful government and rival guilds' into the inner workings of the shadow world. You have a shadow war on your hands, a power struggle of assassination, black mail, bribery and intimidation. OK, so I spent six months designing a campaign and now I have to rework it completely on the fly around one single players decision. That is going to detract from the game (because most of my prepared material is now useless) and will delay the start for everyone. Do you have any idea of the amount of work that is? This one I will take personal affront to. Well it wasn't directed at you personally. Are you saying you don't allow a player to know the prerequisites to the PrCs he wishes to take? How do you get people to take PrCs then? Do you stick to the "roleplaying requirements" option of Unearthed Arcana? (If so, ok, I actually don't have a problem with you, because the prereqs are no longer "hard" rules to be followed strictly.) Are you against planning out a character in advance? Do you fear it will lead to power gaming? (you actually don't need to answer any of these, I'm just... as I said, took personal affront to :).) Let me illuminate what I would do: The player can drool over the pre-reqs for the class as much as they like. The character has to progress as if they knew nothing about the class, however, until they do find out. If the player wants to invest feats and skills chasing a class that he has been told may not exist, he is welcome to do so within the boundaries of good RP. If, when I spring my surprise on him, he does not yet qualify, I will either allow him sufficient training to qualify or bend the entry requirements. If the primary requirement for being a Divine Potato Grower of Spud is owning a potato farm and the player suddenly inherrits one and gains a teacher in The Way of Spud, I will not quibble about a rank in Perform (Potato Stamp Printing). As long as the fundamentals of the class are fulfilled, I am not bothered. Now if the player wanted a gish class originally but decided that as he couldn't play a Jade Wand of Nerfing he wouldn't bother and went 100% barbarian instead, that's another matter. Needless to say I would encourage him in the right direction of his character concept, but ultimately it is his choice. Ah, so here you differentiate the class between a skill-set and its flavor, and I applaud you for doing so. It is much the point I was attempting to make with the (I now honestly forget which class I first made use of but...) Swashbuckler reworking analogy. A more direct, perhaps more important question is: Can a class be truly fully separated from its flavor? If it can, then a Dungeon Master could not use the "flavor" of a class as an excuse to ban the class. Ah, now that is the $64000 question isn't it? You see, my return is does the PLAYER differentiate between the class mechanics and the class flavour? For example: Samurai, Ninja, Wu-Jen and Shugenja are linked very tightly to their flavour, a far-eastern setting. In the Eberron Player's Guide it tries to seperate them out of that setting and set them in mainstream Eberron. Samurai become dedicated fighters, Wu-Jen mystics related to druids, Shugenja become dragon-mystics. I am unconvinced myself that this can work - the flavour is half the attraction of the class; in fact it makes up most of the class. You can substitute fighter for samurai, wizard for wu-jen, monk/rogue for ninja and cleric for shugenja without much difficulty. If the player can give me a alternative flavour and rationale for the class mechanics that fits with the setting, I'll let him have it. If he insists that "Ninjas are uber-cool!" then there isn't a lot of point even having the discussion. Many PrCs are like this - like the Jade whatnbots, where there are specifically 12 of them, the flavour counts for a lot, including the attraction to the player of the class.
Elrabin 08-31-06, 02:48 AM	From what I read on these boards I must be unique in this aspect of my DMing situation. While I prefer to be a player, in my current (and coincidentally all my past) gaming group, I am the one with the creative juices when it comes to storylines and plot. The players I play with tend to choose a race/class and then ask me to make something up when it comes to background. My brother draws a nice little anime drawing for his dude, but tells me flat out that he isn't a story writer and has no desire to be one. One of my players gives me a very basic concept (monk trained by an evil master but essentially lawful neutral in alignment) and other than that, he doesn't have much to say. In my situation, I have, in the past, usually given in to player desires when it comes to power levels, addition of new material to the game world and even what level to start the campaign at! It has been my experience that the DM should be a fascist dictator. Not to an absurd degree, but basically, the DM should strictly limit new material, with particular regard to game balance, and should do whatever is necessary to preserve the story without railroading the characters. If the players aren't doing what you need them to do in order to advance the plot, either find some way to finangle the plot into order despite their actions or alter the plot to fit what they did, or simply provide more motivation for them to do what you want them to do. Obviously you should be subtle about it. If they kill the king of the nation that they were supposed to swear to protect, it is stupid to have the local cleric resurrect the king and have someone cast Geis on the PCs to get them to protect the king. But there is no reason why you can't just modify the plot to involve protecting some other figure of importance that they actually like. Regardless, letting players do what they want sounds great in theory, since as many people will say "the game is about the players." What most players want more than anything else is a fun and rewarding storyline where they feel like heroes and feel like they really made a difference in the game world. If you have to stomp on their petty desires to make the story work, they won't remember that they weren't allowed to have a +17 Vorpal Longsword of Smite Anyone, but they will remember that they were betrayed by a henchman who attained demigod status and nearly destroyed the world before he was stopped by the heroic actions of the PCs.
lousywithnames 08-31-06, 03:23 AM	Ah, the DM puts a great deal of careful detailed thought into their game. Months of drawing maps and creating intricate histories for the game world. Then the player comes along and says, "yeah, I watched star wars last night, I want to play a soul-knife jedi type character" and the DM changes the whole game. ... Not saying that the story comes before the players, but man sometimes I hate my players. My game would be so much better without them ;) (This post is tongue-in-cheek)
guru7892 08-31-06, 03:48 AM	The question, then, becomes: What is more important, the player or the story? Thats a trick question, simply because the answer is not stated. The DM should try to make it fun for all players. Most people can agree that a really odd-ball class in a setting is just odd and makes the game feel like a patch-work. This patchwork effect is especialy true if the DM doesn't understand the class. Now, there is another problem, one player has access to classes that other players don't. Even if the book is shared, people will still feel crumy if their charictar is not filling their niche or can't compete with other charictars in their niche or job/spot. This is a double edged sword because now some players feel held back. Simply, either the player that wants to play the class or the rest of the party needs to transend the feelings of squashed hopes. (I'm pretty sure you can all tell I think the player is more important. But I'd like to hear contrary and supporting thoughts.) I say pick your battles, I also like to win. Pick battles that you can win. If you think of other people, you will prbably win your battle. remember the SPQR, senate and people of Rome. DM is the senate, players are the people, you want power.
Voran 08-31-06, 04:58 AM	DMs are under no obligation to make changes for Players. Players are under no obligation to play. Neither are obligated to play with each other. That being said, either side being inflexible results in grumpy play or no play at all. A player who only wants to play his way will pretty much find himself without play opportunities, and a DM who never bends or makes allowances to player desires, may often find himself without a group. Honestly tho, I do think the DM is a little better off. I think it may be a bit easier for DM's to find players than players to find DMs. Particularly if its 'just one difficult player' versus the rest of the group that just wants to play.
Sereno 08-31-06, 08:55 AM	This, the odd-man-out syndrome, is one of the reasons I've very up-front with what my campaign is going to be about. I read about and really liked Eberron. I decided I was going to run an Eberron campaign. I told all of my players that it was going to be an "Eberron campaign" and that I'd be sticking as close to Core and Eberron material as possible. I won't outright ban anything, but I reserve the right to say, "Sorry, I don't think Purple Dragon Knights belong in Eberron." I've got intelligent and reasonable players who were quite happy to embrace the new material, and we are happily exploring all that Eberron has to offer. Once you get "buy in" that a campaign is going to be a certain way, things should go much more smoothly. If, you've got intelligent and reasonable players, of course. :)
Voran 09-02-06, 06:16 AM	Those are some good points. "Buy in" is important. Once you get used to the new flavor of stuff, its easier to do things the new way rather than ...yknow...playing the same character template you've used in all your other games. And up front communication is better than none or murky communication up front. A DM who hasn't been clear on his intent in the beginning, is sorta asking for people to fill in all the grey areas themselves, often contrary to what the DM intended. If they aren't told, they don't know, kinda thinking. Consequently, a player who has been informed of the rules, including the "I reserve the right to say X doesnt belong in my game" doesn't really have a foot to stand on if the DM actually, wonder of wonders, follows through on his statement and doesn't let X in his game.
Horatio Hornblower 09-02-06, 11:27 AM	I believe that integrity of the setting is indicative of the consistancy of the theme and tone of the game, but not the actual plot. The players need to respect the proposed theme and tone before agreeing to play. This includes not trying to force in supplements that do not fit in the setting. If you do not want to play in the setting, do not play in the game. Plot, however, should be developed by coopoerative sotrytelling; the DM pushes the world in the direction plot demands and then reacts organically to the actions of the party. What the party does should matter, even if it isn't the single most important thing going on in the world. Chaos Theory dictates that even the smallest pebble creates long reaching ripples and though it doesn't work that way in real life, for narrative purposes, its damn near perfect. I totally agree. The players need to have character concepts that fit the campaign. Once the campaign starts with the DM's initial plot the DM needs to react to the actions of the players to promote cooperative story telling. It's the DM's campaign setting, but it's everyone's story. When I run a campaign I concentrate on one area of a world I developed a long time ago. I would prefer the players create characters that fit in that part of the world, but if someone really wants to run something different I'll work with them to come up with a compromise that will fit. Using the Asian setting example, there is a lot of trade in my world so if a player wants to run an Oriental Adventures style character in a traditional Western European style area I'll allow it. We'll have to come up with a good reason for the character to be there, but it is possible. Now if the player comes up with something off the wall that doesn't fit at all I'll say no. Then I'll give him or her options for something that's close to the original idea that would fit.
ArcTan 09-02-06, 02:20 PM	There are two ways you can become a DM: 1) You are one of a bunch of people in a preexisting gaming group who always play together. The other players say, "Hey, we need someone to DM for us. Can you come up with something?" You're the one who's best at it, and who has the most books and spare time, so you say, "Sure." 2) You know a bunch of people but there's no particular set of games going on right now. You have a really great idea for a campaign. You send out a bunch of e-mails going, "Hey, I have a really great idea for a campaign. Who wants to join it?" In other words, there's an implicit (or explicit) social contract that goes on when a campaign starts, based on who wanted to have the campaign in the first place. If you're DMing *because* you're going to run a game for a bunch of people who wanted to have a game, doing something that excludes some of those people is not a nice thing to do. If you're DMing because, conversely, *you* want to run a particular kind of campaign and you're inviting people to join it, excluding comers who don't want to be in that kind of campaign is something you pretty much have to do, and they'd be jerks for complaining about it. All that aside, though, Rule Zero always applies, and always for the same reason -- DMing is a long and difficult job, and you don't *have* to DM. No one can say you're obligated to, any more than any player is obligated to keep coming to your campaign. If a bunch of people count on you to DM but you really, really can't stand to DM, say, Psionics, it *would be nice of you* to stretch and make Psionics available, but you don't have to and they're obligated to respect your wishes or try to find another game in town. Just like if I'm the only one in town with a big-screen TV and all my friends come over to watch, I'm perfectly entitled to tell them that no one can ever watch any football games on it because I hate football. I'm kind of a jerk if I say this, and I'm more of a jerk the more douchey I become about it ("No one can turn the volume higher than 10!" "No one can watch any movies longer than an hour!"), but I'm still within my rights, and anyone who doesn't have a TV is within their rights to abide by my rules or go buy their own.
Bill Bisco: Average Adventurer 09-02-06, 02:33 PM	I find it hard to believe that a story could not incorporate a character of a said "different class." I think the "flavor" reasons of a campaign are a rather silly concept. The Player is Infinitely more Important than the Story, because it is the player that has fun, and not the Story. And, not to mention, that a story can accomodate a player, no? I'm amazed that some peoples' thinking is still in the dark ages.
Vaalingrade Ashland 09-02-06, 02:47 PM	The Player is Infinitely more Important than the Story, because it is the player that has fun, and not the Story. And, not to mention, that a story can accomodate a player, no? No. The reason? Someone somewhere has a quote by me about demonic livestock that sums it up perfectly.
Lord_Varos 09-02-06, 03:09 PM	All that aside, though, Rule Zero always applies, and always for the same reason. What is Rule Zero?
Stev Beren 09-02-06, 03:38 PM	I find it hard to believe that a story could not incorporate a character of a said "different class." I think the "flavor" reasons of a campaign are a rather silly concept. The Player is Infinitely more Important than the Story, because it is the player that has fun, and not the Story. And, not to mention, that a story can accomodate a player, no? I'm amazed that some peoples' thinking is still in the dark ages. And said thinking only works if you totally remove the DM's enjoyment from the picture.
ArcTan 09-02-06, 04:52 PM	What is Rule Zero? As long as you're sitting at the gaming table, the DM is God. Or, to put it less strongly, the DM has absolute control over how the mechanics of the game work. Any class that the DM says doesn't exist, doesn't exist. Any rule that the DM changes to work differently, works differently. Anything that seems like it should work within the rules but the DM simply waves his hand and says doesn't work, doesn't work. Of course you can disagree with the DM. You can complain to him, badmouth him, yell at him, and even run a campaign completely different from his. Sure. Just *not at his gaming table*. During the game itself, what the DM says goes, period. It's like the way one treats an umpire or referee in sports. The umpire is in charge of the game. His calls are the truth for the sake of the game, period. Otherwise you can't have a game.
ArcTan 09-02-06, 04:54 PM	And said thinking only works if you totally remove the DM's enjoyment from the picture. And the long-term enjoyment of the players as a whole. Being a DM who casually says Yes to everything a player asks for is easy. Making such a campaign have any long-term interest for all the players as a whole? Very hard. When nothing is a challenge, and when whining and complaining are directly rewarded with more and more power, and when it seems like the world you're playing in is a completely arbitrary construct with no consistency whatsoever... it's hard to keep on caring.
Elrabin 09-02-06, 08:14 PM	Yeah, seriously, if you've ever given into a bunch of whining players over and over again, I'm sure you had the experience that the game became more and more difficult to DM and less and less fun for everyone involved. The truth is that the player only considers the PC, not the balance or consistency of the game. It is part of the DM's job to look at an option and see if it ruins anything. If my player wants to play an alien who's only desire is to probe livestock, then he's never going to go into a dungeon. (Why? There's no cows underground!) Therefore the rest of the players cannot play the game they want to play because the player in question was in a weird mood and decided to do something bizarre. The DM is perfectly within his rights to disallow concepts that don't fit into his campaign. If I am making a story about a bunch of paladin-types running around slaying demons and my player wants to be a demon that eats babies and kills paladins, that is not going to work. To say that the player comes first is absolutley ridiculous. Now if the player *really* wants to be an evil demon that eats babies and kills paladins, you *might* be able to work it in so that he's masquerading as a demon-slaying paladin, but secretly conducting evil rituals at night. However, then you run into the problem of actually playing that aspect of the game with the other players right there in earshot. It would be very hard for them not to metagame at that point and watch the character closely. Then whenever the player did something questionable, they'd slay him. If the character literally never did anything questionable in a way that would let him get caught, then what the heck is the point of making that sort of character in the first place? To me it's just a headache waiting to happen. Much easier is to convince the player that there are a dozen other concepts he could try that fit in with the game you have made. You'll almost never run into a player that is so pig-headed that he absolutely refuses to be anything other than a cow-probing alien. And if he's being that difficult, why should YOU be the one to bend? Particularly when you spend far more time working on the game than anyone else. Since you are the one who is taking the burden of balancing house rules, developing adventures and NPCs and calculating experience and treasure awards, coming up with scenic locations and interesting plots, it seems to me that the players should just find something they like that works with what you have done and be happy they have someone willing to put in all the effort to make a fun game. To share a personal experience. I refused to let my players have a 45 point buy when making their characters. I had done so in the past and it made the characters so overpowered that the CRs were all off and it seemed like monsters were either a joke, or an impossible challenge. I tried to manually adjust the creatures to make them fit the power level of the PCs, but after a few sessions, the amount of work I had to put into it was so much that I didn't look forward to playing anymore and found that I lost all enjoyment of the DMing process. So I refused to let them do it again. I insisted on a 28-point buy. My players *****ed and complained so much that I had to explain my reasons, so my buddy then said "Ok, don't worry about it. I'll DM and I will rebalance the creatures and like it." Everyone was overjoyed, including me because I never get a chance to play. The game started the next week. I was a rogue, my brother was a sorcerer, we had a cleric and a barbarian, and my buddy Chad was the DM. Well we start the game by coming to a temple where we are implored to help a young monk pass his test to become a full-fledged defender of the realm. We agree and are introduced to an NPC named Aiden Dayspring, the monk. (For the record, Chad almost always plays a monk named Aiden Dayspring when he is a player) So we follow this "NPC" to the mountain of trials, which turns out to be a giant dungeon. The dungeon consists of completely blank rooms with no features other than the one monster we are expected to kill. The monster is immune to backstabs (thanks a lot) and has Spell Resistance ("Hey!" says my brother). We roll initiative. Chad makes a few rolls behind the DM screen. Surpise! Aiden goes first. Critical! (we don't see that roll either). Barbarian goes, miss. Monster attacks wizard, one-shots him. Cleric heals wizard back up to functioning. I ask if theres any way to distract the monster or climb on anything, or any cover I can take, (all no's) and eventually fire an arrow, which bounces off the monster. Needless to say, Aiden singlehandedly defeats the monster. Then some mystical being appears, talks to Aiden (ignoring the rest of the party) and gets heavily involved with Aiden's backstory. The game was one giant self-gratification session for our new (hated) DM. We all agreed never to let him DM again. (except him, because he thought it was one of the best gaming sessions we'd ever had) Now I'm back in the DM's chair, because I know how to balance stuff to make it fun for all of the players. Yes, they complain when I won't let them pick an ECL +7 race at level 1, but they get over it quickly and choose something that actually makes sense in the context of the game. They end up enjoying it greatly and none of them would trade their current characters for any half-dragon Vampire Rakasha Sorcerer.
HalasterAteMyHamster 09-02-06, 09:06 PM	I rarely use monsters as NPCs. Why? Because I get a hell of a lot more choice if I make a PHB race character with some multiclassing, then dump and rebuild the flavour from the ground up. Flavour can be changed. Easily. As in, within seconds. I'd call your example bad DMing. I'm sure someone will call that arrogant of me, but I stand by it. As far as I'm concerned, pulling the "Flavour doesn't fit" card is just an excuse to exercise power.
shadowfox628 09-02-06, 09:10 PM	Honestly, I don't care much about their choices. I can always change some things around to provide a challange more fit for the party. I don't make the PCs pick a class based upon the setting of my campaign. They choose what they want to choose, and I work with it. I guess I would have to put it Story, Setting, and then Players. I start with an idea, and then start making a campaign, writing it more as a book than, well... Notes, and such. Then I draw a map, starting with where the campaign starts. I then add places mentioned in the story so far, then add other places that I can use for quests. Then, I see what the players have (I make most of them anyway... I make them like I would make a character for myself). I make suggestions, point things out and such, but they're allowed to choose what they want. Unfortunately, on a couple occasions, this led to a high-magic party (lots of Wizards and Sorcerers), and, later, high Fighter party (3 Fighters to 1 non-Fighter... Out of 12 people). Things work out in the end, though. And, for clarification, the "book" that I write for my campaign is just so that I'll remember what to do. I hate reciting off of a piece of paper, not my style. So, I essentially write a book as far as I can (few quests, just to get the PCs used to the party), and then I leave them with an open-ended campaign. I do care about the PCs. However, in my campaigns, there's really no theme to what I'm doing. It's a hodgepodge of enviorments and encounters... Yeah...
Archtyrant Terevoth 09-02-06, 10:31 PM	I rarely use monsters as NPCs. Why? Because I get a hell of a lot more choice if I make a PHB race character with some multiclassing, then dump and rebuild the flavour from the ground up. I actually like monsters for the opposite reason. They don't require a heck of a lot of choice. Unless you're talking about a major NPC in the campaign, most of the time you just want any old faceless grunt. In which case, I'd prefer to just be able to crack open a book and pull a default character out and run him. Doing that with classed NPCs is incredibly troublesome, as they require magic items, feats, and all sorts of choices to make them not suck, where as any ogre or hill giant is a challenge right out of the box.
Voran 09-03-06, 07:46 AM	<snip> Flavour can be changed. Easily. As in, within seconds. I'd call your example bad DMing. I'm sure someone will call that arrogant of me, but I stand by it. As far as I'm concerned, pulling the "Flavour doesn't fit" card is just an excuse to exercise power. My concern here is that there is a sentiment that whatever the Dm wants to enjoy is completely irrelevant to the situation, and that whatever the Players want, is of primary importance. If it is easy to change the flavor of a game to suit the needs of players, why can't it be equally easy for players to play within the intended flavor? Both sides have choices. DMs can choose to be DMs and run particular games, Players can choose to play or not to play.
Crust 09-03-06, 11:29 AM	I think a good DM can accommodate his/her players by at least considering PC choices. Sure, maybe a half-drow/half-illithid samurai might not work in the DM's more-traditional setting, and that's fine. I think if there's respect between player and DM, there will be an understanding concerning the DM and player's expectations for the campaign, and the PC created will be accepted by player and DM. I think if the story is good, the players will enjoy themselves. Conversely, if the players are good, the story will unfold in directions the DM didn't necessarily expect, and that's what makes the game great. The players and the story encircle each other, one helping to fuel the other. If either breaks down, the campaign might be in peril.
Eela6 09-03-06, 11:48 AM	I'd have to say "Players First." But most importantly, as ArcTan said, "Social Contract" first. The single most important thing you can do when you're going to start DMing is gather your players together and talk to them as reasoned Adults/Teenagers/Children/Ninja Turtles, and discussing what they want from a game, and what *you* want from the game. For example, if I'm a player, I refuse to play in a campaign which is going to dive neck-deep into Vile Deeds or Sexual Situations. I'm okay with evil villians, I'm fine with unconvential situations or the fact that, hey, Rapists exist, and they're really, really horrible people. But I don't want to have it described in front of us. I don't want the players, or their friends, to be exposed to excruciating on-screen torture. I don't want fourty-minute long descriptions of a Succubus's seducation and success. Okay? Also, I can't take a completely serious campaign. To me, a huge part of Dungeons and Dragons is, take it or leave it, "Where's the Cheetos?" "Roll the Dice to See if I'm Getting Drunk!" That doesn't mean I'm a horrible roleplayer, or that I can't play a serious character. But if we get to the point where the dark conspiracy story gets to the point where I get shot evil glances if I crack a single joke, and that it becomes some twisted monster that's more important than fun... I can't do that. Likewise, as the DM, you're entitled to and should set down rules. "Look, I don't want any templates" is fine. Or, "We've decided this is going to be a nautical campaign. No, you're not going to be pirates. You're going to be guards and workers upon... so please make your characters accordingly. Remember, a few ranks in Profession - Sailor may go a long way." Or... "We're not having Teleport in this game, or simliar travel magic. Though we'll Red-Line a lot of the travel, I don't like how Teleport and Scry completely void a lot of it. Is that okay with everyone? No, Player #3? Why?" Five minutes later... "I'm sorry, Player #3. But I still think it's better for the campaign. Can you deal?" Player #3 - "Sure, I can deal." Nu? But if it ever comes down to between the Story and the Players, the Players. Because you can always continue the story - it's called writing. But once a Player is gone, he's awfully hard to get back.
Millennium 09-03-06, 12:06 PM	In most cases, there should be no difference: the story is player-centric enough that to put the players first is to put the story first, and vice versa. What you've found here, though, is something of an edge case. If something doesn't fit, then it doesn't fit. There will be plenty of other adventures and campaigns where the player's desired mechanics may fit better. This is also why I periodically run anything-goes "sandbox" one-shots, so that players can run these characters outside of the current campaign's normal canon. It also provides an excellent opportunity to experiment with new supplements and houserules. If a player really wants to use a specific set of mechanics, he can play with them in the sandbox first, and then we'll reevaluate whether something can be made to fit.
Archangel62 09-03-06, 03:00 PM	Generally speaking, players first. However that means that it has to do with the group as a whole. If someone wants to play an Ogre character and the group doesn't mind and the setting is a decently tolerant one, eberron for example, then so long as he is within the ECL I have no problem whatsoever allowing it. If he wants to do the same and the other players look unhappy about it, then no, because the point in this is PlayerS, ie the group of players not each one individually. I have story plans written up, but as my players have free will I know that they might go in other directions so I have stuff ready for those eventualities.
DIESCUMDIE 09-03-06, 06:39 PM	Story. The players can look after the players but only the dm can really do the story.
LCD2YOU 09-03-06, 08:10 PM	The world goes on, unless somehow the PCs are powerful enough to actually change it. So, in my world, there is no "story". I don't have a grand scheme on how things are supposed to play out. I have several BBEG and BBGG who are constantly jockeying for position and planning things out. If the PCs wish to plan anything, from the assisination of a King, over throw of a demi-gods holding in the material world, an attack on Lloth in her web to just helping the peasants till the field, I'm game. Let's say, that BBEG the Arch-Lich Vaal wants to destroy the world and the PCs find out about it somehow. First, there are most likely 4 other groups doing the same thing. Then there's most likely 2 or 3 BBEGs who don't want the world destroyed. Yeah, they want to dominate it, not destroy it. So the Arch Fiend Sulaco makes a deal with the party or another group of do-gooders led by that Paragon of Paladinhood Tormskull to defeat the Arch Lich. But while the Arch Fiend Sulaco really doesn't want Vaal to succeed, the uber party led by the Grand Wizard wrecan is out to destroy him once and for all. If Sulaco gives to much aid to the PCs or Tormskull's group, then he risks weakening his position and opening up himself to be destroyed by Wrecan. Over in the lands to the south, an ancient machine made by the dead gods to punish their fickle worshippers and starve the new gods has begun stirring. And on. Link brinksmanship in RL, I don't know what's going to happen. I let the situation flow and generally ignore it, ie Vaal still plots, wrecan keeps on probing and Sulaco is trying to play both ends against each other and so on. Each minor victory comes with a minor defeat. There are times though when I do sit down and "play" my "DMPCs" and roll several dice and take the average of who is doing what to whom. Sometimes, it can be quite drastic and can affect the world and the PCs in ways they don't understand. Now, I will say the PCs are the wild cards. They, if they make it to high levels, have the ability to change things, but even then, if they push too hard before they are ready, the Arch-Lich Vaal or someone else, might just squash them even it is out of a reflex action and not a pre-planned. So, the world goes around and the PCs interact with it. Eventually, they may get to drastically affect the whole of the world, but until then, they only affect a small part of it. But that doesn't mean an insignificant find they made at 3rd level means nothing......
Archmage Atrus 09-03-06, 08:17 PM	I don't get a cameo :( It's my post...
Vaalingrade Ashland 09-03-06, 08:23 PM	Personally, I'd Just want to enslave the world... But yeah, that pretty much how things on Ere work: Organization A hates Sect B of God C and plots to destroy them. Sect D of God C wants to detroy both Organization A and Sect B, but can't because they can't move against Sect B without angering thier own god so they allow Organization A to do thier dirty work. Meanwhile, Faction E knows what Sect D is up to and uses it to get thier help against Organization F, who are harming Faction E's Allies, who are the leaders of Place G. Place G just happens to be the home base of Sect B and the PCs just happened upon a plot Sect B from Faction E. Even though all of that crap is going on, the important part of the story, the part the PCs interact with is the B/E conflict. They will likely never deal with the rest, but its there and happening wheter they uncover it or not.
LCD2YOU 09-03-06, 10:27 PM	I don't get a cameo :( It's my post...But Archmage Atrus, although considered by many to be one of the good guys of the land, has been jealous of wrecan, his former apprentice all these years. While he doesn't want to kill or even harm wrecan, watching wrecan fall flat on his face is something else. Unfortunately for the Archmage his most trusted cohort, the famous Investigator Cambric, has been co-opted by the Demon Sereno. Now Sereno does want wrecan to get hurt. But to make matters worse oxybe, the Magistrate of the High Council of the Free peoples of Fredonia, carved out of the Wilderness by none other that the Penultimate Paragon of Paladinhood himself, Lord Ian Stark, is in a three way tryst with a bar wench who is also being courted by laoba. Worse yet she claims she's now pregnant and hints that neither may be the father..... Then the Great Orc Slayer Tyler Do'Urden has his hands full with a daughter who wants to date a prisoner who is also the vile Blackguard, Horatio Hornblower. Yet Feartheinvinciblehamster also wants her hand but Wiz O Cat doesn't like the idea. Worse yet for Tyler Do'Urden his best friend Danielinthewolvesden hs been trapped in the dungeon with no food and a now dead cleric. Oops, food situation ok for 2 days or so.
Archmage Atrus 09-03-06, 10:37 PM	:thumbsup:
LCD2YOU 09-03-06, 10:45 PM	:thumbsup:You're most welcome.
PiedmonSama 09-04-06, 02:51 AM	The player, always. You want to write a novel, go write a novel. D&D is a game. More than that, it's a cooperative game. Skimming this thread, I see a few points being raised time and again. To paraphrase: "It's cruel to a DM to have to accomodate some player's bizarre PC after he put in months and months of work on his setting." "DMs who create a campaign world in complete isolation, and then spring it on their players without asking for their input are just asking to alienate their players." Essentially, both of these are true, and they don't conflict the way people seem to think. The DM needs to create a world his players will enjoy. Once the players have agreed to the parameters of that setting, they should be expected to abide by it. This is as simple as honoring your word and using the Golden Rule, it's something we learn as toddlers. In the campaign I DM right now, I had no idea what the campaign world would be like so I posited a "standard D&D world," and told my players to use whatever they wanted. I got some pretty weird responses.... a Draconic Elf, a Half-Ogre, and a human from a country modeled after Imperial Rome. All three of these would be unusual adventurers in a "typical" D&D setting. So I just changed the setting. It's an ultra-tolerant world where Orcs, Goblinoids and Ogres trade and live closely with humans. The dominant human culture is modeled after classic Rome, while the more typical "medieval" societies are fringe provinces. Now these characters actually make sense, and I've been able to design whole adventures around their personal backgrounds and goals, giving encounters a personal touch. It's great. On the other hand, right now I'm writing up a unique campaign setting, and I've written a few before (although this current one is by far my most ambitious.) Instead of making my own ideal world, I'm picking my friends' brains and using their ideas to make it a world the whole group will enjoy. I'm trying to be as inclusive as possible, so that it feels like a real world with boundless possibilities, not someone's storybook setting. Anytime you boil something down a general statement, you have to acknowledge there will be acceptions. But in general, "inclusiveness = good, exclusiveness = bad." A world that is just knights and wizards and dragons is much more boring to me than a world that has knights, wizards and dragons on one continent, then samurai, animal spirits and magical ogres on another, etcedera. I don't think it makes a world feel artificial at all. In fact, it makes a world feel more real. Because our own world, real-live earth, has Samurai and Knights and Cowboys and Zombies and Punk Rockers and Pirates and Dinosaurs and Superheroes and a million other things. A world with "just knights, wizards and dragons" is a small and sad place, a little fairy tale world that can never support as many stories and possibilities as one that is more like our own wild and crazy earth.
Vaalingrade Ashland 09-04-06, 07:01 AM	I don't think it makes a world feel artificial at all. In fact, it makes a world feel more real. Because our own world, real-live earth, has Samurai and Knights and Cowboys and Zombies and Punk Rockers and Pirates and Dinosaurs and Superheroes and a million other things. Seperated by centuries of time, leagues of space and the curtains of reality -- for good reason.
Drascin 09-04-06, 07:48 AM	For me, players/setting is tied for first place, while story is far off in a distant second place. I consider the believability of my world a very important thing indeed, and I'm not going to shift on major matters. BUT!. I have little to no problem on adjusting things if they are not going to be too disruptive, even if they seem to make no sense with the setting at first sight. You can adapt a LOT of things if you try hard enough. Example: Now I'm DMing my own version of the FR. One player wanted so desperately to play a warforged. I could have just said no, and with good reason, since there are supposedly no warforged there. What did I do? Work with him to find some way to get a warforged in FR. My choice was having warforged be prototypes of sentient construct, created by an Imaskari archmage to gain an upper hand in power struggles. Sadly, the fall of the Imaskar Empire got him too before he could finish them completely, and in the basement of his tower, the 'forgeds remained inactive. A long time afterwards, a sorcerer (the party's sorc) who was looking for imaskari artifacts stumbled upon the sleeping constructs, and managed to accidentally activate one of them. This Warforged thinks he owes the sorcerer his sentience and life, and because of that, he decides to accompany him in his travels. And so, on top of having managed to let a player play what he wanted believably, we have joined two members of the party and given them a bond that should prevent the too-usual-with-these-players backstabbing ;) . The moral of the story? Before knocking players' initiatives, think them up. You might even find a way to make them advantageous :P. Of course, saying no after thinking it out is still not only accepted, but absolutely needed in some cases (such as the legendary insectile half dragon drow paragon with assasin levels). But never say it in the spur of the moment, think about it a bit. Players also appreciate it when you at least reflect over their ideas, instead of dismissing them with a handwave.
TarlSS 09-04-06, 07:57 AM	It really depends on the arrangement of how the game arises. What's your objective here? Is part of the DM's objective to bring about a certain flavor/setting about? If you were using Eberron or Faerun, you'd want to use the particulars of those setting. Eberron in particular makes life a little tougher for Paladins. Oh well. In Dark Sun playing a wizard was usually a bad idea. Playing a Klingon in a Star Wars game probably doesn't go off too well. Or, is the objective solely the entertainment of your players? Then you can choose whatever you like, with no restrictions as to the setting. Even D&D has it's own setting limitations. What if your players wanted to play a blaster slinging spacecowboy? In D&D? Should you accomadate him? Probably not.
wrecan 09-04-06, 08:52 AM	Hey, I'm flattered by the attention! I just want to point out that out of respect for Vaal you should probably make him alignmentless. Then he's just the BB?G. :) And me? I'm a LN obsessive-compulsive lyCANthrope. :rimshot:
LCD2YOU 09-04-06, 09:02 AM	Hey, I'm flattered by the attention! I just want to point out that out of respect for Vaal you should probably make him alignmentless. Then he's just the BB?G. :) Who said that the Arch-Licjh Vaal was evil? Many just assumed that. Perhaps the Arch Lich is one of those "good" Liches and has learned a terrible secret. The secret is that an evil force in the guise of innocence and beauty is either about to be born into the world or has already been born. Now its powers aren't complete but as he is unable to find who it is and destroy it now, the only other way he could think about destroying it to to destroy the world. His logic is that it is better to destroy the world and start it over than an eternity in darkness, ala Sauron.And me? I'm a LN obsessive-compulsive lyCANthrope. :rimshot:Where's my +5 Silvered Can Opener of Uranium/Neutronium/Unobtanium when I need it? ;)
concerro 09-04-06, 09:49 AM	i didnt read through this entire list so my suggestion may have been mentioned, but what my DM does when a character doesn't fit the setting is to tell the player if he can right a decent reason into the character's background story then he will make an exception. an example is one of our players is a chaotic good monk.
PiedmonSama 09-04-06, 10:31 AM	Seperated by centuries of time, leagues of space and the curtains of reality -- for good reason. Not at all. Do you know what I would call dinosaur-riding cowboys led by an atomic-powered superhero battling cyborg zombies and cthonic star spawn for control of mars? I'd call it awesome. Quite frankly, it shouldn't matter what one player is playing. Even if two PCs come from totally different backgrounds, and grew up in completely different societies, two decent roleplayers will find something to make a connection. Maybe the dishonored Ronin sees the Knight as everything he should have been and follows him around to vicariously live the life he wanted. Maybe the Vampire Spawn thinks he can somehow be redeemed if he follows and aids a crusading Paladin, who in turn is interested in facilitating that. Hell, they managed to work a Cowboy into Dracula, (the original novel, mind) and zombies into an episode of Samurai Champloo. It doesn't take anything away from a story to have diversity.
Archmage Atrus 09-04-06, 11:30 AM	Hell, they managed to work a Cowboy into Dracula, (the original novel, mind) Technically, this isn't anachronism. It's a bit more like the asian-flavored character entering the medieval flavored setting. But I agree with your point.
Voran 09-04-06, 06:28 PM	<snip> It doesn't take anything away from a story to have diversity. But it can. What I mean is that theres a degree of suspension of disbelief when you play a game, but its also a shared experience. When the diversity becomes disruptive, you need to be able to impose limits. I can understand the Dm vs PC sense that crops up in the threads of late, but there's a factor we don't seem to address: what about the other players? It often seems that alof of our examples seem to address "I want to do this, but my DM said no!" I'm curious to see what the other players in this situation in the group think. Maybe they're "I want to play X too!" which would make it collectively easier for the DM to make changes and allowances, but if the other players are "WTF is <the player who wants to be 'diverse'> thinking? He's F'ing up our game!" I'd say for the benefit of the group, the guy standing out either has to make adjustments, or go.
Dark Brandon 09-04-06, 08:04 PM	I'm gonna go with Players first. Mainly without players, all a DM has is a lot of useless notes he can convert to maybe a novel...but that's hightly doubtful. The DM isn't doing anyone a favor by DMing, nor are the players doing anyone a favor by playing characters. So it's all about comprimise.
oxybe 09-04-06, 10:28 PM	wow, i go offline for the labour day weekend and this thread is still going strong? *whistles* anyways, i just have to comment LCD2YOU ftw :clap: high magistrate... wow... now i know d&d is fantasy... on a note of diversity within a game, i just joined up a game this sunday where my cleric of pelor met off with a rough start with the current dread necro of nerull (who happened to be the one who accidentally blew off the front end of my temple a few sessions earlier)... a nice little conflict of interest was going to happen eventually, but unfortunately an ogre zombie & a crit later, my 3rd level cleric was turned into paste... litterally :weep: . the dread necro is planning on finding a druid to ressurect me, and we both agreed that my poor LN cleric will be honour bound to the CN Dread Necro. this looks like fun for future sessions. :D
Dunelord 09-05-06, 03:36 PM	Just a thought - sometimes the DM's job is to tell the player no because in the setting/story the PC idea they have won't BE any fun OR a good story.
LCD2YOU 09-06-06, 07:41 AM	Just a thought - sometimes the DM's job is to tell the player no because in the setting/story the PC idea they have won't BE any fun OR a good story.Actually, I prefer the term, "You can always try". Then I'm not saying "No" and I'm not "restricting" the little darlings. Usually, when they see me grin ear to ear, they are disuaded from trying something that may be, er, foolish.
Solik 09-06-06, 11:36 AM	Players first, without question, and I agree 100% with the OP. If my players aren't having fun, then what the hell am I doing wasting my time writing adventures and running them? I could be doing a zillion other things with my time. But I enjoy entertaining people; I have fun DMing a game where my players are having fun. When they get into it, I'm really into it, and we have a blast. When things are ho-hum, I'm not having any fun either. If a player really wants to play something that goes against the setting? I'll do everything in my power to accommodate it, even if the player doesn't change the fluff / concept completely to fit. Even races. The world I'm currently running has no small "good" races (no halflings, no gnomes). So what if I get a request from a player to play one? I'll make it fit. I'll toss in a tiny clan of Dwarf-offshoots that are smaller and slimmer and keep to themselves in a secluded valley in the mountains. There's your halfling. Gnome? A small group of demi-fey in one of the many deep forests scattered around. That said, I won't allow someone to play something that will actively disrupt the game. I disallowed an orcish warlord character because it was a good-aligned campaign with lots of city-visiting. The orc would have been a problem for everyone, including the player, who I'm sure would have gotten fed up with having to avoid towns and getting attacked all the time. (Luckily for me, this player wasn't a roleplayer at all, so it's not like he actually had some rich concept dreamed up that he was attached to; he just wanted to be different [and difficult]. If it was a roleplayer who really had something going on, I would have taken steps to accommodate.) I'm lucky in that I don't group for a bunch of kids, I suppose. I don't have to worry about them whining about stupid things all the time, or wanting to get lots of power so they can walk over all the challenges in god mode, or what have you. I'm comfortable crafting polls for them, asking what sorts of things they want in the games (frequency of combat and variance of difficulty, frequency of puzzles and tricks and similar challenges, RP focus, theme, power level, management / sim, what have you) and then going with it from there. Of course, most of 'em tend to be rather flexible in their opinions, willing to play many various styles (though I know of a few things I need to avoid). I have plenty of breathing room as DM to be creative within the constraints of what the players want.
Dunelord 09-07-06, 01:15 AM	My point is sometimes a player just doesn't know ahead of time what will and won't be fun. If your idea is a cleric in a game that is all about every cleric in the setting having no spells and being blind then you proably don't want to play one.
Solik 09-07-06, 11:18 AM	It shouldn't be too hard to explain such things to the players.
Dunelord 09-08-06, 03:14 AM	depends on the set up you are going for.