Am I being too restrictive? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Am I being too restrictive? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
rkr1970
12-05-05, 12:06 PM Setting up a PBeM game the last few days, one that is designed to be RP intensive, and a hair light on combat, I told the players that unless their PC was from the PHB, this includes any templates or bloodlines, they would need a reasonable explaination of why the character was in my human-centric society and what drove them to adventure. This was to stem the tide of half demon vampiric drow with fey bloodlines (Sorry. I'm sick of every other player wanting to be Drizzit or Lestat). I got the expected grumbles, but then I got the unexpected...

A player sent me a background for their Poison Dusk Lizardflok ranger. (This is the short and sweet version.) It was a tale of two human childeren who found a funny-looking leather ball in the forest and brought it home. After a few days, it hatched and out popped a scaled baby with teeth and a tail! The local clerics were called in, and they said that this was an innocent child of an intelligent race, and therefore should be spared, instead being raise in the local orphanage. Years later, it is learned that the reason noone was there to protect the egg is that the tribe of lizardfolk had been wiped out by orcs a few days before the childeren found the egg. This explains a PD lizardfolk in human society, as well as his reasons for adventuring with orcs as his first favored enemy.

I was thrilled to see such a great backstory. I immediately said YES!!! A couple days later, other players started trying to take "off-core" races, but they would either send no backstory, or the stories they did send were so poorly thought out (or written) that I could barely understand them. I have since allowed another player to take a fey-touched PC, mostly because of his backstory again (which I helped on to make it more intelligible), but other players are complaining about the lack of fairness. After helping one player, I offered to help everyone with back stories, but they had to give me something solid to work from. I tried to explain that if you can't get into the mindset of a creature, you shouldn't play it, and that quited a couple of them down, but it got me wondering if I was 1.) being unfair to those who aren't as creative as these two players, and 2.) being a bit restrictive in saying that you should only play creatures whose pathos you understand. So I ask the DM community...

Am I being unreasonable in demanding well thought out backgrounds for "off-core" characters? Is this unfair, or is this encouraging role-playing? Has anyone else run across these problems and solved them to everyone's satisfaction? Please no replies of "It's your game, do what you want", or quoting of Rule 0. I want people's feelings on this. Remember, it's a high RP, low combat game, so a player's favorite power-stat build is not even a consideration.
Lord Lorac Silvanos
12-05-05, 12:21 PM Am I being unreasonable in demanding well thought out backgrounds for "off-core" characters?

Absolutely not. Even core backgrounds should be give a little background thought, unless everyone just wants to play Hack n' Slash.

Is this unfair, or is this encouraging role-playing?

RP encouraging.

Has anyone else run across these problems and solved them to everyone's satisfaction?

We normally play core and the people I play with usally give their background quite a bit of thought. (Even the hard core optimizers)
TheScapegoat
12-05-05, 12:22 PM Personaly i probably wouldn't even let more then 2 off-core races unless the campaign was specificaly ment for them to be an all monster party or something. Then again i never really have this problem, most my people don't want to be ugly monsters or drows.

I think your being fair since you gave them all the option to say why they want to be Drizzit clone 86b558cc4 and it was to screwy for you. Im all for letting people have fun with their characters, but there has to be some line and you as the DM are meant to draw it.
Derrigan
12-05-05, 12:26 PM I can't see that it's terribly unfair to ask for a bit of imagination in a fantasy world. One of my players has played a Fey'ri in my FR world for a while now, I can't remember if he's in his sixth or seventh incarnation ;) . But everytime he gives me a new, imaginitive reason to play one, so I let him.
These two players took the initiative to work up a strong back history for their characters, therefore they are reaping the benifits of their efforts. Ask yourself now if it would be fair to these players to allow the rest of the group to create a wood nymph stone elemental with delusions of grandeur, "just cuz it sounds cool!"
That's my two cents worth. I expect change.
loaba
12-05-05, 12:43 PM Setting up a PBeM game the last few days, one that is designed to be RP intensive, and a hair light on combat, I told the players that unless their PC was from the PHB, this includes any templates or bloodlines, they would need a reasonable explaination of why the character was in my human-centric society and what drove them to adventure. This was to stem the tide of half demon vampiric drow with fey bloodlines (Sorry. I'm sick of every other player wanting to be Drizzit or Lestat). I got the expected grumbles, but then I got the unexpected...
This all sounds very reasonable, certainly virtual-play is a different venue from table-top, where it is far easier to focus on the RP.

A player sent me a background for their Poison Dusk Lizardflok ranger. (This is the short and sweet version.) It was a tale of two human childeren who found a funny-looking leather ball in the forest and brought it home. After a few days, it hatched and out popped a scaled baby with teeth and a tail! The local clerics were called in, and they said that this was an innocent child of an intelligent race, and therefore should be spared, instead being raise in the local orphanage. Years later, it is learned that the reason noone was there to protect the egg is that the tribe of lizardfolk had been wiped out by orcs a few days before the childeren found the egg. This explains a PD lizardfolk in human society, as well as his reasons for adventuring with orcs as his first favored enemy.
This is a great backstory and the player did what you asked when they stepped outside of core by providing such a plausible story.

I was thrilled to see such a great backstory. I immediately said YES!!! A couple days later, other players started trying to take "off-core" races, but they would either send no backstory, or the stories they did send were so poorly thought out (or written) that I could barely understand them.
Did you give those players feedback?

I have since allowed another player to take a fey-touched PC, mostly because of his backstory again (which I helped on to make it more intelligible)
Did you offer that same level of help to all your players?

but other players are complaining about the lack of fairness. After helping one player, I offered to help everyone with back stories, but they had to give me something solid to work from.
Then it sounds like you are trying to be fair.

1. - in a way you are being a bit unfair to those who are less creative, or who have a hard time expressing themselves through the written word.

2. - yes, you might be overly restrictive when tell a player "I think you do not understand what it means to play X race". Who are you to tell a player that? How did you become an expert? This is a fantasy game where we all get to pretend that the fantastic is real.

Am I being unreasonable in demanding well thought out backgrounds for "off-core" characters?
I would say yes. Backstories are fine, but they aren't the end all be all of the game. If backstories are important to you as a DM, then you should work with ALL your players EQUALLY in that regard, irrespective of race/class choice.

Is this unfair, or is this encouraging role-playing?
I think it is unfair to those players who find it hard to express themselves and I think you are biased towards one style of roleplaying.

If you help one player with their backstory, and allow them a non-core option in the process, then you should do that for all your players.
Rab-Ka-La
12-05-05, 12:51 PM I do not think you are being overly restrictive. In the end, it will help weed out the people who are not actually looking for a high role-play game. I have had many players whom, despite being told exactly what the campaign was about and the style of play was like, tried to push the game in a different direction which better suited themselves. I allow just about anything in my games, but also want to know why their feral minotaur monk would be in this area adventuring with highly educated human folk like wizards and clerics. Why is it that their lawful good half drow half black dragon scout not only exists, but feels fine living among the 'normal' folk? How is it that the chaotic neutral insectoid templated kenku bard has managed to live in the confines of a society like this without having been strung up by the local populace? If they can't or don't want to answer these questions, they probably don't belong in this game. Just be sure you are not being overly critical of their writing if they are young, poor students, etc. As long as the basic story is good and sound, you can overlook things like ; the poor writing style, lack of correct grammar, hundreds of spelling errors, and some lack of originality.
rkr1970
12-05-05, 01:50 PM Did you give those players feedback?

Did you offer that same level of help to all your players?Yes to both. The two players with somewhat salvageable ideas are the ones I tried to help. One has yet to get back to me, but that's the nature of PBeM, eh?

As for the other things you mentioned, I want backstories from everyone, but for a human fighter, I would accept "I grew up on a farm. I got bored. I now adventure." It's a bit lousy, but believable. I would encourage some detail, if not more, but at it's core, it explains why he'd visit a human city and why he'd go adventuring. As for how would I know the workings of a non-human creature's mind? Well, I don't. But I expect the player to examine a creature they plan to just enough to offer insights into the way THIS ONE thinks, at least as opposed to a standard human's perspective. Playing a beholder like a human makes no sense, even if it is a PC. There should be SOME level of alien outlook in such a creature. Just like the lizardman has the perspective of orphan, outcast, survivor, predator, and lord knows what else will be thrown into the mix...
*snip* As long as the basic story is good and sound, you can overlook things like ; the poor writing style, lack of correct grammar, hundreds of spelling errors, and some lack of originality.That's the kind of stuff I helped the second player with. I don't want novel quality work, just a plausable reason. I can help with most of the rest.
rumisglass
12-05-05, 04:15 PM Well I believe this statement will give you my 2 cents...

Damn I wish you where my old DM I would have liked being a player then... course... that was 10 years ago :pint: :ghosted: :ghosted: :pint:
Bruunwald
12-05-05, 04:35 PM It's probably going to come off as unfair, no matter what you do, to reward the fact that some people are more creative or simply better roleplayers than others. I might have simply put the kabosh on any and all non-core elements, from the beginning, so as to completely bypass any shouts of no fair! from the gallery.

And that's why I support your decision to put restrictions on what you are allowing in, in general: because I have put the kabosh on those sorts of things.

My upcoming game (beginning in January) is already through the character creation stage. My restrictions were as follows: races from PHB only plus aasimar and tielfling, classes from PHB and the Completes only, no prestige classes to begin with (we're starting at 11th-level), spells only from the mentioned books and from the non-exalted list from BoED.

Most of the players were not surprised and did not balk, mainly because they were tired of all the flubbing and smudging that went on with the Group Munchkin in previous games where the limitations were more lax.

Predictably, the Group Munchkin at first agreed to the terms, but just spent most of last night trying to get me to bend the rules for him, or pretending he didn't remember the restrictions. Fat chance. Get in or get out. I'm sick of the drama.

So I'm mostly on your side, but if you really want to be fair, you ought to throw out all crazy builds, or allow everyone to choose one.
Gailbraithe
12-05-05, 04:52 PM Am I being unreasonable in demanding well thought out backgrounds for "off-core" characters? Is this unfair, or is this encouraging role-playing? Has anyone else run across these problems and solved them to everyone's satisfaction? Please no replies of "It's your game, do what you want", or quoting of Rule 0. I want people's feelings on this. Remember, it's a high RP, low combat game, so a player's favorite power-stat build is not even a consideration.
No, you're being entirely reasonable. You aren't running a RIFTs campaign, it is reasonable to expect players to explain why their very strange character is where he is.

The fact is, a first level Drow character should never be seen outside of an Underdark campaign without a TERRIFIC explanation of WHY that character is on the surface, and not in a Drow city. This explanation should be better than "I walked to the surface." -- I'm well familliar with the random encounters in the Underdark tables, and there is no way a 1st level character walks through the Underdark to the surface by their lonesome. If a player says they could make, then make 'em role-play it out. See how well a 1st level character does versus a "randomly" encountered Mind Flayer.

Exceptional characters require exceptional backstories to be plausible. A player should provide one. If a player can't, then either they should allow the DM to provide one, or they should pick a less exceptional character.

It's also not unfair to require the expendtiture of a feat for an exceptional background. Many game systems do this, and even D&D has some feats similiar to this (Ascetic Rogue, for example).
Rocketboy13
12-05-05, 05:00 PM You are perfectly resonable, I am far more demanding off my players at times, though my demands usually go the other direction, I wish my players would be more outside the box with their characters. :)
Ryven
12-05-05, 05:20 PM No, that's more than reasonable. I do the same thing in my games. If you warned them beforehand that it was going to be a heavy RP game, and a low battle game, then there's no legitimate reason why they should be griping about it. Heavy RP calls for character development and backstories. If they want to play in your campaign, then they should play by the guidelines you provided, because they're not unreasonable.

I have a DM that's running a Horribly-Munchkined-Epic-Game. On purpose. It's just for fun, it's once a month, it's just so everyone can get their munchkin tendancies out of their system. Anyway, he also knew that not everyone was as good as munchkining as everyone else, so in addition to has Ad Hoc ECL system, he said that if we wrote out our backstories, he'd read over them and grant us cool abilities based off of it.

My character's father was blind, so I got blindsight if I concentrate long enough, my fiance's character got Panache points (like Action Points) based off of his charisma. But there was this guy who made a Half Silver Dragon Minotaur Grappler Monk. And he wouldn't give a backstory, because backstories "allow for the DM to do horrible stuff to my character, and I won't have any of that. My character is designed to be invicible."

If those are the kind of players in your group, then you should prolly have a sit down and solve this problem without game mechanics getting in the way.
Rab-Ka-La
12-05-05, 05:47 PM A player should provide one. If a player can't, then either they should allow the DM to provide one
This is a great idea. I have tried this myself. If a player didn't turn in his approved background, I made one for him. After seeing the background I wrote for one of the players, a sexual deviant plane-touched wanted in nearly every kingdom for various crimes, the rest of the group was far more willing to make a better character.
Gailbraithe
12-05-05, 06:02 PM [COLOR=Blue And he wouldn't give a backstory, because backstories "allow for the DM to do horrible stuff to my character, and I won't have any of that. My character is designed to be invicible."[/COLOR]
:rofl:

It's true too.
Gailbraithe
12-05-05, 06:10 PM This is a great idea. I have tried this myself. If a player didn't turn in his approved background, I made one for him. After seeing the background I wrote for one of the players, a sexual deviant plane-touched wanted in nearly every kingdom for various crimes, the rest of the group was far more willing to make a better character.
:lol: I trained my first group of players to name their characters by assigning ridiculous names to unnammed characters. "Yes Jim, your barbarian is fine. I noticed he had no name though, so from now on he's Grogbog Magog Bobog Son of Hogbog Logbog Magog. Have fun with that. What? Why are you looking at me like that?"
chitzk0i
12-05-05, 06:26 PM Grogbog Magog Bobog Son of Hogbog Logbog Magog.

That is priceless.
rkr1970
12-05-05, 08:02 PM Really fun backstory there, Rab-Ka-La! If this were table-top (as opposed to PBeM), I would probably do that. As it is, that's a whole lotta writing to get the point across... ;)

BTW, I just heard back from the other guy I helped with his background. He liked my suggestions, but decided he wanted to use a similar background on a dwarf! :eek: ("I think I can make it sound even cooler that way!") All that complaining, for nothing... If only I could convince the other holdouts to pony up a background (decent or not) or step off the 'monster PC' soapbox... :D

Maybe I aught to invite them to look around this thread, eh? :cool:

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
rkr1970 12-05-05, 12:06 PM	Setting up a PBeM game the last few days, one that is designed to be RP intensive, and a hair light on combat, I told the players that unless their PC was from the PHB, this includes any templates or bloodlines, they would need a reasonable explaination of why the character was in my human-centric society and what drove them to adventure. This was to stem the tide of half demon vampiric drow with fey bloodlines (Sorry. I'm sick of every other player wanting to be Drizzit or Lestat). I got the expected grumbles, but then I got the unexpected... A player sent me a background for their Poison Dusk Lizardflok ranger. (This is the short and sweet version.) It was a tale of two human childeren who found a funny-looking leather ball in the forest and brought it home. After a few days, it hatched and out popped a scaled baby with teeth and a tail! The local clerics were called in, and they said that this was an innocent child of an intelligent race, and therefore should be spared, instead being raise in the local orphanage. Years later, it is learned that the reason noone was there to protect the egg is that the tribe of lizardfolk had been wiped out by orcs a few days before the childeren found the egg. This explains a PD lizardfolk in human society, as well as his reasons for adventuring with orcs as his first favored enemy. I was thrilled to see such a great backstory. I immediately said YES!!! A couple days later, other players started trying to take "off-core" races, but they would either send no backstory, or the stories they did send were so poorly thought out (or written) that I could barely understand them. I have since allowed another player to take a fey-touched PC, mostly because of his backstory again (which I helped on to make it more intelligible), but other players are complaining about the lack of fairness. After helping one player, I offered to help everyone with back stories, but they had to give me something solid to work from. I tried to explain that if you can't get into the mindset of a creature, you shouldn't play it, and that quited a couple of them down, but it got me wondering if I was 1.) being unfair to those who aren't as creative as these two players, and 2.) being a bit restrictive in saying that you should only play creatures whose pathos you understand. So I ask the DM community... Am I being unreasonable in demanding well thought out backgrounds for "off-core" characters? Is this unfair, or is this encouraging role-playing? Has anyone else run across these problems and solved them to everyone's satisfaction? Please no replies of "It's your game, do what you want", or quoting of Rule 0. I want people's feelings on this. Remember, it's a high RP, low combat game, so a player's favorite power-stat build is not even a consideration.
Lord Lorac Silvanos 12-05-05, 12:21 PM	Am I being unreasonable in demanding well thought out backgrounds for "off-core" characters? Absolutely not. Even core backgrounds should be give a little background thought, unless everyone just wants to play Hack n' Slash. Is this unfair, or is this encouraging role-playing? RP encouraging. Has anyone else run across these problems and solved them to everyone's satisfaction? We normally play core and the people I play with usally give their background quite a bit of thought. (Even the hard core optimizers)
TheScapegoat 12-05-05, 12:22 PM	Personaly i probably wouldn't even let more then 2 off-core races unless the campaign was specificaly ment for them to be an all monster party or something. Then again i never really have this problem, most my people don't want to be ugly monsters or drows. I think your being fair since you gave them all the option to say why they want to be Drizzit clone 86b558cc4 and it was to screwy for you. Im all for letting people have fun with their characters, but there has to be some line and you as the DM are meant to draw it.
Derrigan 12-05-05, 12:26 PM	I can't see that it's terribly unfair to ask for a bit of imagination in a fantasy world. One of my players has played a Fey'ri in my FR world for a while now, I can't remember if he's in his sixth or seventh incarnation ;) . But everytime he gives me a new, imaginitive reason to play one, so I let him. These two players took the initiative to work up a strong back history for their characters, therefore they are reaping the benifits of their efforts. Ask yourself now if it would be fair to these players to allow the rest of the group to create a wood nymph stone elemental with delusions of grandeur, "just cuz it sounds cool!" That's my two cents worth. I expect change.
loaba 12-05-05, 12:43 PM	Setting up a PBeM game the last few days, one that is designed to be RP intensive, and a hair light on combat, I told the players that unless their PC was from the PHB, this includes any templates or bloodlines, they would need a reasonable explaination of why the character was in my human-centric society and what drove them to adventure. This was to stem the tide of half demon vampiric drow with fey bloodlines (Sorry. I'm sick of every other player wanting to be Drizzit or Lestat). I got the expected grumbles, but then I got the unexpected... This all sounds very reasonable, certainly virtual-play is a different venue from table-top, where it is far easier to focus on the RP. A player sent me a background for their Poison Dusk Lizardflok ranger. (This is the short and sweet version.) It was a tale of two human childeren who found a funny-looking leather ball in the forest and brought it home. After a few days, it hatched and out popped a scaled baby with teeth and a tail! The local clerics were called in, and they said that this was an innocent child of an intelligent race, and therefore should be spared, instead being raise in the local orphanage. Years later, it is learned that the reason noone was there to protect the egg is that the tribe of lizardfolk had been wiped out by orcs a few days before the childeren found the egg. This explains a PD lizardfolk in human society, as well as his reasons for adventuring with orcs as his first favored enemy. This is a great backstory and the player did what you asked when they stepped outside of core by providing such a plausible story. I was thrilled to see such a great backstory. I immediately said YES!!! A couple days later, other players started trying to take "off-core" races, but they would either send no backstory, or the stories they did send were so poorly thought out (or written) that I could barely understand them. Did you give those players feedback? I have since allowed another player to take a fey-touched PC, mostly because of his backstory again (which I helped on to make it more intelligible) Did you offer that same level of help to all your players? but other players are complaining about the lack of fairness. After helping one player, I offered to help everyone with back stories, but they had to give me something solid to work from. Then it sounds like you are trying to be fair. 1. - in a way you are being a bit unfair to those who are less creative, or who have a hard time expressing themselves through the written word. 2. - yes, you might be overly restrictive when tell a player "I think you do not understand what it means to play X race". Who are you to tell a player that? How did you become an expert? This is a fantasy game where we all get to pretend that the fantastic is real. Am I being unreasonable in demanding well thought out backgrounds for "off-core" characters? I would say yes. Backstories are fine, but they aren't the end all be all of the game. If backstories are important to you as a DM, then you should work with ALL your players EQUALLY in that regard, irrespective of race/class choice. Is this unfair, or is this encouraging role-playing? I think it is unfair to those players who find it hard to express themselves and I think you are biased towards one style of roleplaying. If you help one player with their backstory, and allow them a non-core option in the process, then you should do that for all your players.
Rab-Ka-La 12-05-05, 12:51 PM	I do not think you are being overly restrictive. In the end, it will help weed out the people who are not actually looking for a high role-play game. I have had many players whom, despite being told exactly what the campaign was about and the style of play was like, tried to push the game in a different direction which better suited themselves. I allow just about anything in my games, but also want to know why their feral minotaur monk would be in this area adventuring with highly educated human folk like wizards and clerics. Why is it that their lawful good half drow half black dragon scout not only exists, but feels fine living among the 'normal' folk? How is it that the chaotic neutral insectoid templated kenku bard has managed to live in the confines of a society like this without having been strung up by the local populace? If they can't or don't want to answer these questions, they probably don't belong in this game. Just be sure you are not being overly critical of their writing if they are young, poor students, etc. As long as the basic story is good and sound, you can overlook things like ; the poor writing style, lack of correct grammar, hundreds of spelling errors, and some lack of originality.
rkr1970 12-05-05, 01:50 PM	Did you give those players feedback? Did you offer that same level of help to all your players?Yes to both. The two players with somewhat salvageable ideas are the ones I tried to help. One has yet to get back to me, but that's the nature of PBeM, eh? As for the other things you mentioned, I want backstories from everyone, but for a human fighter, I would accept "I grew up on a farm. I got bored. I now adventure." It's a bit lousy, but believable. I would encourage some detail, if not more, but at it's core, it explains why he'd visit a human city and why he'd go adventuring. As for how would I know the workings of a non-human creature's mind? Well, I don't. But I expect the player to examine a creature they plan to just enough to offer insights into the way THIS ONE thinks, at least as opposed to a standard human's perspective. Playing a beholder like a human makes no sense, even if it is a PC. There should be SOME level of alien outlook in such a creature. Just like the lizardman has the perspective of orphan, outcast, survivor, predator, and lord knows what else will be thrown into the mix... snip As long as the basic story is good and sound, you can overlook things like ; the poor writing style, lack of correct grammar, hundreds of spelling errors, and some lack of originality.That's the kind of stuff I helped the second player with. I don't want novel quality work, just a plausable reason. I can help with most of the rest.
rumisglass 12-05-05, 04:15 PM	Well I believe this statement will give you my 2 cents... Damn I wish you where my old DM I would have liked being a player then... course... that was 10 years ago :pint: :ghosted: :ghosted: :pint:
Bruunwald 12-05-05, 04:35 PM	It's probably going to come off as unfair, no matter what you do, to reward the fact that some people are more creative or simply better roleplayers than others. I might have simply put the kabosh on any and all non-core elements, from the beginning, so as to completely bypass any shouts of no fair! from the gallery. And that's why I support your decision to put restrictions on what you are allowing in, in general: because I have put the kabosh on those sorts of things. My upcoming game (beginning in January) is already through the character creation stage. My restrictions were as follows: races from PHB only plus aasimar and tielfling, classes from PHB and the Completes only, no prestige classes to begin with (we're starting at 11th-level), spells only from the mentioned books and from the non-exalted list from BoED. Most of the players were not surprised and did not balk, mainly because they were tired of all the flubbing and smudging that went on with the Group Munchkin in previous games where the limitations were more lax. Predictably, the Group Munchkin at first agreed to the terms, but just spent most of last night trying to get me to bend the rules for him, or pretending he didn't remember the restrictions. Fat chance. Get in or get out. I'm sick of the drama. So I'm mostly on your side, but if you really want to be fair, you ought to throw out all crazy builds, or allow everyone to choose one.
Gailbraithe 12-05-05, 04:52 PM	Am I being unreasonable in demanding well thought out backgrounds for "off-core" characters? Is this unfair, or is this encouraging role-playing? Has anyone else run across these problems and solved them to everyone's satisfaction? Please no replies of "It's your game, do what you want", or quoting of Rule 0. I want people's feelings on this. Remember, it's a high RP, low combat game, so a player's favorite power-stat build is not even a consideration. No, you're being entirely reasonable. You aren't running a RIFTs campaign, it is reasonable to expect players to explain why their very strange character is where he is. The fact is, a first level Drow character should never be seen outside of an Underdark campaign without a TERRIFIC explanation of WHY that character is on the surface, and not in a Drow city. This explanation should be better than "I walked to the surface." -- I'm well familliar with the random encounters in the Underdark tables, and there is no way a 1st level character walks through the Underdark to the surface by their lonesome. If a player says they could make, then make 'em role-play it out. See how well a 1st level character does versus a "randomly" encountered Mind Flayer. Exceptional characters require exceptional backstories to be plausible. A player should provide one. If a player can't, then either they should allow the DM to provide one, or they should pick a less exceptional character. It's also not unfair to require the expendtiture of a feat for an exceptional background. Many game systems do this, and even D&D has some feats similiar to this (Ascetic Rogue, for example).
Rocketboy13 12-05-05, 05:00 PM	You are perfectly resonable, I am far more demanding off my players at times, though my demands usually go the other direction, I wish my players would be more outside the box with their characters. :)
Ryven 12-05-05, 05:20 PM	No, that's more than reasonable. I do the same thing in my games. If you warned them beforehand that it was going to be a heavy RP game, and a low battle game, then there's no legitimate reason why they should be griping about it. Heavy RP calls for character development and backstories. If they want to play in your campaign, then they should play by the guidelines you provided, because they're not unreasonable. I have a DM that's running a Horribly-Munchkined-Epic-Game. On purpose. It's just for fun, it's once a month, it's just so everyone can get their munchkin tendancies out of their system. Anyway, he also knew that not everyone was as good as munchkining as everyone else, so in addition to has Ad Hoc ECL system, he said that if we wrote out our backstories, he'd read over them and grant us cool abilities based off of it. My character's father was blind, so I got blindsight if I concentrate long enough, my fiance's character got Panache points (like Action Points) based off of his charisma. But there was this guy who made a Half Silver Dragon Minotaur Grappler Monk. And he wouldn't give a backstory, because backstories "allow for the DM to do horrible stuff to my character, and I won't have any of that. My character is designed to be invicible." If those are the kind of players in your group, then you should prolly have a sit down and solve this problem without game mechanics getting in the way.
Rab-Ka-La 12-05-05, 05:47 PM	A player should provide one. If a player can't, then either they should allow the DM to provide one This is a great idea. I have tried this myself. If a player didn't turn in his approved background, I made one for him. After seeing the background I wrote for one of the players, a sexual deviant plane-touched wanted in nearly every kingdom for various crimes, the rest of the group was far more willing to make a better character.
Gailbraithe 12-05-05, 06:02 PM	[COLOR=Blue And he wouldn't give a backstory, because backstories "allow for the DM to do horrible stuff to my character, and I won't have any of that. My character is designed to be invicible."[/COLOR] :rofl: It's true too.
Gailbraithe 12-05-05, 06:10 PM	This is a great idea. I have tried this myself. If a player didn't turn in his approved background, I made one for him. After seeing the background I wrote for one of the players, a sexual deviant plane-touched wanted in nearly every kingdom for various crimes, the rest of the group was far more willing to make a better character. :lol: I trained my first group of players to name their characters by assigning ridiculous names to unnammed characters. "Yes Jim, your barbarian is fine. I noticed he had no name though, so from now on he's Grogbog Magog Bobog Son of Hogbog Logbog Magog. Have fun with that. What? Why are you looking at me like that?"
chitzk0i 12-05-05, 06:26 PM	Grogbog Magog Bobog Son of Hogbog Logbog Magog. That is priceless.
rkr1970 12-05-05, 08:02 PM	Really fun backstory there, Rab-Ka-La! If this were table-top (as opposed to PBeM), I would probably do that. As it is, that's a whole lotta writing to get the point across... ;) BTW, I just heard back from the other guy I helped with his background. He liked my suggestions, but decided he wanted to use a similar background on a dwarf! :eek: ("I think I can make it sound even cooler that way!") All that complaining, for nothing... If only I could convince the other holdouts to pony up a background (decent or not) or step off the 'monster PC' soapbox... :D Maybe I aught to invite them to look around this thread, eh? :cool: