Post/Author/DateTime	Post
MadMaxim 01-13-04, 11:35 PM	Me and my DM had a heated discussion recently concerning a Greyhawk campaign, I'm going to run soon. This has nothing to do with Greyhawk as such but is more of a general issue. I told him that there would certain restrictions/requirements to the party. These were the ones: - At least one Heironeous supporter. - At least one divine spellcaster. - At least one arcane spellcaster. - At least one tank. - At least one rogue-ish character. There were a couple more, but these are the most important ones. These requirements can be mixed (a paladin of Heironeous could cover requirements 1, 2 and 4). My DM got rather angry with me because of these requirements, but I told him that they were needed to be covered for the sake of the story. I took these steps to ensure a good mix of capabilities and to encourage team-work and organised team tactics. Would you say that there are anything wrong with listing some simple (at least that's what I think) requirements in order to ensure a good campaign?
Josh_Kablack 01-13-04, 11:40 PM	Would you say that there are anything wrong with listing some simple (at least that's what I think) requirements in order to ensure a good campaign? Yup. Put quite simply, the more restrictions you have, the fewer potential players you have. There's nothing directly wrong with listing restrictions, but there is also nothing wrong with players declining to play in a game with restrictions they won't enjoy. And if your list of restrictions is bothersome to the first player you asked, that does not bode well for ever getting your game together.
Drizzt69 01-14-04, 12:02 AM	If everyone agrees to it then sure. If you have an objection it's not worth it.
MadMaxim 01-14-04, 12:02 AM	You're right, Josh, but I still find it hard to believe that these extremely flexible requirements cannot be taken into account when my players are going to make their characters.
thalious 01-14-04, 12:06 AM	Sometimes the fun is taking an odd party through an adventure that should be taken up by a well rounded party.
MadMaxim 01-14-04, 12:12 AM	I agree with that, and it's actually the first item on the list that's the most important one, because that's the one who is going to bite onto the plot hook in this campaign.
Nytmare 01-14-04, 12:14 AM	I don't see anything at all wrong with them. Mine are usually more restrictive, both as a DM and as a player. When we start a new campaign the entire group sits down and we decide what restrictions we want. The trend we've been following since 3.0 came out is pretty much the exact opposite of a 'standard' adventuring party. Instead of ensuring that the party is a well balanced mix of magic/muscle/finesse, we now opt for parties that have a singular focus. A party of characters who focus on a set of skills or feats (ie all skills and feats focussed on mounted combat). Parties of only a single class or race (ie all wizards, a group of gnomish bards). We enjoy the challenge of trying to find different ways of overcoming problems.
Delglath 01-14-04, 12:17 AM	If you're the DM, they can either like it and lump it or leave. I'm surprised that the DM of your current group is the griper. He, of all people, should understand the effort a DM has to put in and should respect your need to have a coherent group. Considering your restrictions are more than fair and are easily fulfilled by any group of four, I don't see what he's whining about. Stupid little baby should just shut-up and be grateful someone is willing to DM for him. I'm so sick of whiny players.
Daikona 01-14-04, 12:17 AM	(deleted, cause I realized I misread something)
Solaris 01-14-04, 12:21 AM	Originally posted by Daikona If you aren't the DM, where do you come off setting *any* requirements for the party? That's DM job, not player job. The world would be a better place if people read the posts they replied to. The poster refers to a game that he will be running. The DM is his usual DM.
Daikona 01-14-04, 12:21 AM	Originally posted by Delglath Considering your restrictions are more than fair and are easily fulfilled by any group of four, I don't see what he's whining about. Stupid little baby should just shut-up and be grateful someone is willing to DM for him. D&D is about fun for the players too, not just "doing what the DM wants". If no one in the party wants to play the things they're required to have, where is that fun for them? It's as much "DM is lucky he has players" as "players are lucky they have a DM". Neither exists without the other. That said, yes, if the players don't like it, leaving is a valid option. And how much you want to bet that if they do, you get a DM whining about how all his players left?
Daikona 01-14-04, 12:26 AM	Originally posted by Solaris The world would be a better place if people read the posts they replied to. The poster refers to a game that he will be running. The DM is his usual DM. Which I noticed 2 seconds too late to hit stop, and deleted the post. I'm not the first person to miss a couple of words skimming something, I'm not the last, and I bet anything you've done it at least once in your life. Yes, I caught more of the emphasis all over on "my DM" and misread it. So did the person who sent me the link, which might account for it. So freaking sue me.
Nytmare 01-14-04, 12:38 AM	What exactly were the other guy's complaints about your list of requirements?
Tanuki, the Bewildered 01-14-04, 12:44 AM	Those aren't, actually, particularly flexible restrictions. And, funnily enough, I'd have less objection to the restrictions if they were more restrictive. Requiring everyone to be followers of the same god, or part of the same order of Monks, or members of the same family (one I intend to use once my current campaign is over) would speak of story reasons, which would be justifiable. [Added on preview - cripes, Solaris, you're being rather hard on Daikona for a simple mistake (which I also made on first reading, FTR), don't you think?]
Tarlac-Redclaw 01-14-04, 12:48 AM	While it is the perogative of the DM to make any restrictions he wants, i think these might be a little too much, even if for the sake of a story line, unless everyone agrees to it. I don't have years of experience behind the screen, but i feel that a DM should be able to change things ingame to make up for the lack of certain classes. (ex.) no rogue=less traps, or ones that can be gotten around by some intelligent thinking. no cleric=better access to potions and healing items, maybe by putting more in loot that is found. But like i said, your the DM, it's your way or the highway.
MadMaxim 01-14-04, 12:51 AM	He had just come up with a concept for a drunken dwarven fighter/cleric of Moradin, when I dropped "the bomb". By the way, I expect it to be 5 players as it is our usual group, I've been gaming with for some years now, so if my players leave, I'm left with no group. That would be somewhat of a setback. The problem for me is that my restrictions seem to interfere with my usual DM's character concepts. I basically just want all bases covered in a way. I'm not saying the divine spellcaster should be a cleric. He could be a druid/fighter, cleric/fighter, paladin, I don't really care. If they can't roleplay under these conditions, I'm starting to wonder whether they are getting too stuck in their "usual" roles. I'm pretty flexible with the requirements, and I don't think it's too much to ask for my players to be a bit flexible as well.
MadMaxim 01-14-04, 12:59 AM	And Tarlac-Redclaw, of course I will adapt the campaign to their playing styles, meaning that if the best "rogue-ish" character is a bard, I will not be as heavy on the traps as I would have been. And if they're left without a cleric or paladin (which they got to have, or my plot pretty much won't catch them at all) then I would give them easier access to potions and the like. It's just that I have a pretty good story, and it will fall apart if requirement number one isn't met. Because I won't force them all into worshipping Heironeous. Then there wouldn't be anything for the players to discuss concerning the legitimacy of their mission, which I will not unfold here, because my usual DM will most likely be watching this space as well. And let's keep a friendly tone in this thread, people, okay? :) Because I love to get other people's opinions on these matters, as you usually have some quite sound advice.
Tevish Szat 01-14-04, 01:46 AM	I have a restriction that i have imposed ever since everyone turned in a character that relyed on 4 sided hit dice to stay alive No more than one Wizard or Sorcerer per 4 characters First come, first serve. Here is my full list of rules/restrictions/Houserules No more than one Wizard or Sorcerer per 4 characters The DM reserves the Right to refuse Characters Clones will first receive a warning, then be treated as though they named Hastur Rule 0 lives. I will listen to well reasoned arguments, but reserve the final say No Monsterous PCs Coming back from the dead requires True ressurection, with extra expenses to boot. I will not fudge rolls. Not for PCs. Not for NPCs and Monsters. No paladins unless you have proven you can do it right. Actions have concequences. The PCs are not the biggest fishes, and often not even big fishes. You cannot act with impunity #1 resulted from a group that died if mele ever occoured. As to #2, notice that i do not refuce evil characters unilaterally. If a character works with a group, evin if the character is evil, they can get in. #3: I despise clones. If someone builds say, a Legolas clone i'll give them a chance to Roleplay the character as something origional (and fully inform them of such). No improvment? 'Accidents' happen. #5 may vanish if i ever get around to getting Savage Species. I hate people treating death like nothing. very few characters, PC or NPC, will ever come back from the dead. #6 was born With #8, i have seen too many insane kill-evil-whatever-the-cost pallys and ones that are off the other end and will interview the Balor before fighting. If you can handel it, i'll let you though. PCs can go power mad. if they do, there are little orginazations called LAW ENFORCEMENT that will scragg and drag such madmen, and probably execute them as well. #9.
Lankin the Mad Mage 01-14-04, 05:55 AM	In my experience, the best games are the ones without super-groups tailored by the DM and then forced upon the players. The players are there to play figures they have made themselves, not what the DM want in his story. If the story is so linear that it cannot function without the PC's you imagine, write a book. Roleplaying is about the choices the players take themselves, not what the DM thinks will make the best story. I learned this the hard way. So far, our best and funnest party to date was: 2 sorceresses 1 wizard 1 cleric No rogue-ish person No tank No limit on spellcasting. They evolved into REAL PEOPLE, not just figures in a game. The only restriction I've ever imposed has never been a restriction, only a request: Please make no evil PC's, because I'm not sure I'm able to make asventures for you. I never demanded this from them: I just confessed my inability to make good adventures for evil people. They unerstood, and made neutral and good ones. Fun gaming has a tendency to die if the DM makes the PC's for the players, instead of letting them play as they want to.
MadMaxim 01-14-04, 06:43 AM	Lankin, if you read my last post, you would see, that the main requirement for me to make a coherent and interesting campaign is that one of them is supporting Heironeous one way or another, because this campaign will be centered around morals and ethics, and the supporter of Heironeous will be the one that this centers around. The other players will of course also come to question their own motives eventually, but to get the ball rolling, I need a paladin, cleric or what not of Heironeous. That is my main requirement. The others are there to suggest that they cover the most bases possible. An all cleric party would be interesting, but that would be a requirement suitable for another adventure or campaign. I want their characters to develop, of course! But if they don't develop beyond level 6, because they got slain by something, they weren't prepared for, it would be somewhat irritating to end the campaign that way.
The Morninglord 01-14-04, 07:21 AM	Rather than restrictions, you could be giving them some good advices, or general statements, like: "This will be a good campaign, so no evil characters, please" "This campaign will center around moral and ethics, and center around a supporter of Heironeous, so I will need at least one character to support him" "This campaign will involve a lot of undead, so a cleric would be very useful" Let the players decide what their characters will be, they will eventually see which classes might be a great benefit. When they lose their fourth character during the campaign to a trap they didn't know was there, at least one of the players should start thinking "hmm, maybe a rogue would be a good idea". You should assume that your players are smart enough to put together a good party themselves (if you let them talk about their choice of class). Also, if they know the name of the adventure, it may give a hint about which classes may be needed. An adventure called "into the black jungles" may tell the players that a druid or ranger may be a good idea to bring along. So, for short, give them advices, but don't force them to make a particular choice.
halo299 01-14-04, 08:19 AM	Some of the DMs where I'm from would make a bunch of characters and when a player joined they had to pick one of the DM's premade charaters. I don't see any proble with setting restrictions on your players. Espesialy (spelling) not if it helps the story. While I've never done that, I have had games where I've told players "look you are going to start out working for x organization, make an appropriate character." Rather then restrict players I just try to reward players that go along with me. I run a homebrew world that it by far mostly human. All players that play human charaters get a 300 xp bonus at 1st level. Thus most players choose to play a human, but they don't have to. :u:
Gothic_Demon 01-14-04, 08:56 AM	I always restrict my players appropriately for the campaign I am creating, and they have never complained. However, I also get the players involved in the creation of the campaign, so if I say to them "I wanna do an ethics/morals story around Heironeous", and they all go "No! We wanna play evil scummy bad guys who wanna kill the world!" sitting down to create characters and forcing one to worship Heironeous is kinda pointless. You need to find out if your players want to play your campaign style, and if so feel free to restrict them. If they don't then it's time to think up something else.
Tzor 01-14-04, 09:15 AM	Originally posted by MadMaxim - At least one Heironeous supporter. - At least one divine spellcaster. - At least one arcane spellcaster. - At least one tank. - At least one rogue-ish character. Personally I don't see anything wrong with this. I've gone many times from the "we need a cleric" method of character design to the creation of characters independant of the campaign and the overall party. The latter tends to be a game of chance. Not having a balanced party isn't just annoying for the players, it makes it harder for the DM as well. Moreover the requirements are vague enough to only have a slight impact on character creation. A paladin (1,2 & 4) and a bard (3 & 5) could meet the requirements and that leaves the other characters for any build that is compatible with a paladin in the party. Personally, I would be overjoyed. Requirements imply that the DM has at least the vague idea of a plot. It might even be an interesting plot. People forget that it is not enough to role play a character, you have to roleplay a group as well. If you think that is easy, consider this fact, even the Beatles eventualy broke up.
kami 01-14-04, 09:47 AM	I hate people treating death like nothing. very few characters, PC or NPC, will ever come back from the dead. #6 was born[/B] If you want resurrection to be scarce, consider picking Revivify from MHB, and make it a 7th level spell. Can you say: Raise (no nifty disintegrate resurrect) character from dead with -1 HP, no level loss. Material component 5000 GP worth of diamond dust. Must be cast no later than one round after the death of the character. It's all about cataching the soul and bringing it back to its comfortable body. How do you handle Clone, BTW?
Nytmare 01-14-04, 10:24 AM	Originally posted by Lankin the Mad Mage The players are there to play figures they have made themselves, not what the DM want in his story. I would heartily disagree with this. The players are there to help build a story with the DM in the lead. The DM is in charge, he's not the hired help. If the DMs story is about a crack team of Thieves Guild members, the players should follow that lead. This is not an excuse for players to fall into the "Well I want to be different, just like everyone else." routine. Make a thieves guild member, not a half umber-hulk monk, not an escaped drow pit fighter, not a fat gnomish twig salesman, not an undercover paladin infiltrating the thieves guild to bring them to justice. This sounds a lot more like a player who is complaining cause he already made a character and he's used to gettting his own way. Why can't the dwarf fall into the 'tank' or 'divine caster' roles?
Lankin the Mad Mage 01-14-04, 10:53 AM	This seems to divide between two ways of doing DM'ing. Personally, when I get a group of people willing to start a new campaign, we sit down. They make characters. Then I choose one of the adventures I've made for 1st lvl characters that isn't too dependant on one specific type of group (or one that fits with the new mix). This is to get a feel for how the players play, since there is so much variation in play style. Then I ask them what they want in a campaing, and about the background of the PC's. Then I go home, write down all the ideas I can get about the new campaing (giving me a rough outline of the next 20 adventures, usually). Then I sit down and make adventures I believe the players will enjoy, based on how they play and what they like (no forcing hack'n'slashers to only roleplay. But no pampering either.) To say it short, I base my campaign on my players and the characters they make. Lots of people here seem to make a campaign first and ask the players to make PC's that will fit in. Both are viable ways to do things, but I simply prefer the first. Nobodys wrong.
PSchirf 01-14-04, 11:07 AM	Originally posted by MadMaxim - At least one Heironeous supporter. - At least one divine spellcaster. - At least one arcane spellcaster. - At least one tank. - At least one rogue-ish character. The "old DM" wants to play a drunken dwarven fighter/cleric of Moradin. His character could fill the divine spellcaster and/or tank role. What's the problem again? I've always worked closely with players when characters are being created. Characters that can fit into the storyline without feeling like they're working against it make for good play sessions. A player can only do so much background work without needing help from the setting itself. Since I, as DM, have worked on the setting I run since 1978 it's likely that I can lend them a hand.
q'afuu 01-14-04, 11:19 AM	Originally posted by MadMaxim - At least one Heironeous supporter. - At least one divine spellcaster. - At least one arcane spellcaster. - At least one tank. - At least one rogue-ish character. These aren't so much restrictions as they are requirements. You used that word in the actual post, so you are apparently aware of this. I have no problems with restrictions (only this list of PrCs, no Natural Spell feat, etc.). Requirements on the other hand are much more frustrating (or at least they can be). You mention that 3 out of those 5 can be met by one player if he wants to play a paladin. That's true, but IMX players either like to play that class very much or not at all. If yours don't like it, it doesn't help that with that class 60% of your reqs could be met. On top of that, if there's no paladin to be the supporter of Heironeous, you'll need a cleric for that requirement (since I assume you'll want this supporter to have class levels that actually have something to do with being devoted to a deity - a wizard with a religious bent won't do the trick). Often an unpopular choice as well and more importantly, this one is severely restricted in his choice of alignment and domains. It looks like you want a more or less iconic party. Consequently, I assume you want the rogue-ish character to be able to deal with traps. If that's the case, you might as well say you want at least one primarily rogue character. A bard or ranger won't be good enough at that specialty. In short, unless good fortune would steer your players towards such a combination of PCs anyway, you're pushing them in certain directions for their characters. If I was one of those players, I'd resent that. I could probably live with it, but it would severly limit my enjoyment (and probably my motivation as well). Again, I don't really mind certain options being restricted. I do mind if I only have a few options left.
Thailfi 01-14-04, 12:01 PM	I am assuming the Heironeous supporter requirement is there for a plot hook. Otherwise, you are just requesting a balanced party. Doesn't seem like too much to ask. Our group never places class requirements on players. Each one of us take turns DMing and it is well understood that the DM has the adventure planned out in advance and will not change it for the party. Don't have a thief? Fine, the DM isn't taking out any traps. Don't have a cleric? Fine, don't expect any additional rest periods or freebie potions. Don't have a fighter? Fine, don't expect any adjustments to encounters. D&D is for the fun of the players and the DM. Players need to recognize the amount of effort that goes into preparing an adventure and be mature enough to balance a party on their own. If I were a DM and told my players that I would be running an urban adventure heavy on intrigue and they told me they were all running druid and barbarian characters they certainly wouldn't be getting any breaks.
Thailfi 01-14-04, 12:08 PM	6. Coming back from the dead requires True ressurection, with extra expenses to boot. 7. I will not fudge rolls. Not for PCs. Not for NPCs and Monsters. These two points seem mutually exclusive unless you break the only absolute rule of our campaign. No one may EVER role up a character that is not 1st level. We firmly believe it takes time and emotional investment in a character to roleplay it properly.
Habronicus 01-14-04, 12:19 PM	In general, I don't like it when GM's make restrictions because that hinders the spontaneous factor you get from the players. However, some restrictions may be called for if they're there to keep the players "under control". In your case, I think those restrictions go beyond this and I'd go as far as to say they sound unreasonable. GM's who make a lot of restrictions usually want to write a specific story and the players end up being "guinea-pigs" in it. Honestly, I find those restrictions to be unreasonable. It is clear that you want to write a specific story and are using your players as guinea-pigs. If you want to write a story, write a book. A good RPG session is a group effort. Offer suggestions, sure, but let the players stray from them if they wish. Adapt your story to your players and their characters. Personally, I think your GM is absolutely right in being angry and I for one would rather *not* play at all under those restrictions. Don't get me wrong, I'm not attacking you or those who agree with insane restrictions. It may just be a lack of experience problem. But it could also be an attitude problem. Either way, I wouldn't play. Better to have no game than a game where I'm not really having as much fun as I could because of a bad GM.
lugnut71 01-14-04, 12:38 PM	Originally posted by Nytmare I would heartily disagree with this. The players are there to help build a story with the DM in the lead. The DM is in charge, he's not the hired help. I disagree with this. It is not the DM's story. It is the players story. The DM is the narrator, the players are characters. Off course all this depends on what you mean since I could be understanding you wrong.
PSchirf 01-14-04, 01:04 PM	I think it's funny that people would be angry at you over the rescrictions. Angry! Tournament modules use pre-made characters and they're fun to play. It comes back to the chaotic vs lawful thing again. Our culture is leaning more and more toward the chaotic side of the scale. We value individual freedoms above all else. Having a rescriction that the group needs to cover a certain set of classes in any way THEY want to cover them doesn't seem like anything I'd get angry over. In fact, I'd take it as a challenge to meet your requirements in a way that best helps the storyline. >Don't get me wrong, I'm not attacking you or those who agree with insane restrictions. It may just be a lack of experience problem. But it could also be an attitude problem. Lack of experience? I started playing D&D in the 70s before the first edition AD&D hardcovers were released. I have gamed with a number of the industry notables. I met my wife when we were both working for the jerk who likes to be called "The Coronel" (do some research on this one). Perhaps it's an attitude problem... but if that's the case it's certainly mutual.
Sulaco 01-14-04, 01:17 PM	There is nothing wrong with setting certain restrictions and guidlines for your game, provided of ourse that you have specific reasons for doing so and that these restrictions will, ultimately, help to make the game better. If you ban sorcerers cos Player X likes to play sorcerers and you're POed at him for eating all the Pop Tarts, then it is a bad thing. If you ban sorcerers cos in your world the study of magic is a long and arduous process which requires decades to master and there are no natural spellcasters, then it is a good thing. In my games I ban gnomes. This is cos I hate them. Thus all my games worlds are gnome-free. If I were to run an out-of-the-box scenario and allowed gnome PCs then I fear that my own personal bias might hinder the run and enjoyment of the game. The simplest thing to do to avoid this is simply to ban gnomes.
Habronicus 01-14-04, 03:59 PM	Originally posted by PSchirf I think it's funny that people would be angry at you over the rescrictions. Angry! I hope this wasn't meant for me but, since the only quote in your post is from me, maybe it is. If so, then maybe I should've filled my post with smilies. I can assure you that I'm not angry, thrilled or have any particular emotion about what other people do with their game. However, the original poster asked for opinions, and I gave mine, which is worth just as much as anyone else's. Clearly, if there's someone here with an attitute problem is the guy who drops down his Curriculum Vitae as a gamer just to prove his point :rolleyes:
Geethree 01-14-04, 04:32 PM	I fully support placing restrictions on what the players can be, even so far as to say "You have to be a cleric of [So and so]." There are several good reasons to do this. -The DM has a particular adventure idea that revolves around the players having certain ethical or moral alignments, or belonging to a group of people, or all being barbarians, etc. -The DM wants to ensure a well-rounded party, or a party that is particularly effective against spellcasters, or whatever. If the DM is planning to use a lot of creatures with spell resistance, he can and probably should tell the players, "Don't have a lot of spellcasters or you WILL NOT get far. Make sure you can win fights without resorting to spells." -The DM is sick of his players being the same damn thing every single game. This results in a kind of "reverse railroading". If the DM leading the players on a certain path is railroading, then the players forcing the DM to always suit the campaign to the exact same set of characters is reverse railroading. Essentially, if every party is full of fighters, there are certain adventures that will not work. The DM has to make every campaign combat intensive or they will be short and not fun. Remember, the DM wants variety, for the most part. If the players can do anything they want, the DM can too. I'm sure most DMs have encountered a player who always plays the exact same character, or thereabouts.
Conaill 01-14-04, 04:40 PM	I'm guessing your players mainly got riled up because you framed these as requirements. As you mentioned later, there's really only one "requirement", and that's that one of the PCs is a follower of Hieroneus. Something like that is much more defendable from a story-hook perspective. The rest I would simply phrase as "I strongly recommend you make a well-balanced party (i.e. a divine and arcana spellcaster, a tank and a rogue)".
q'afuu 01-14-04, 04:58 PM	Originally posted by Geethree -The DM has a particular adventure idea that revolves around the players having certain ethical or moral alignments, or belonging to a group of people, or all being barbarians, etc. Great. Except that at least in theory, characters are supposed to last more than one adventure or even campaign. For one-shots (this includes tournament adventures) I have no problem with being restricted in my character choices. However, if we're starting with a new party and hope to stick with those characters until high level (IOW, for months if not years of games) I'd really don't want to get stuck with something I don't want to play.
Arwyn_The_Assassin 01-14-04, 05:02 PM	I could see limiting certain things like the amount of gold they start with...but that's pretty much over the edge. Why impose restrictions? As it was stated before sometimes the most esentric party (read: monk, expert, commoner) can be more fun. Sure they need to over come things (aka lack of rogue..lack of any real tank...lack of spell casting) but if they all have a common weakness then trying to overcome it will be that much more challenging and satisfing and promote better team work. I see what your trying to do but your trying to lead the group around by the nose...better for the story if there are no restrictions
JoAT 01-14-04, 05:17 PM	Originally posted by MadMaxim - At least one Heironeous supporter. - At least one divine spellcaster. - At least one arcane spellcaster. - At least one tank. - At least one rogue-ish character. Aside from the requirement of a supporter of Heironeous, these don't really seem to be story based restrictions at all, but rather strictly game-play based. Which means that they really shouldn't be presented as restrictions or requirements, but as a bit of friendly advice - "Hey guys, I'm feeling nice today, so I'm gonna give you a little tip. If you can't fill the basic four roles, then you're gonna have more than a few problems in the game, so I suggest that someoen can cover divine, casting, arcane casting, tanking and rogueish stuff." They might not nessicarily come up with what you'd see as the perfect things to fit these roles (a sorcerer or wizard might take the place of the rogue, with a few home-made spells, a swashbuckler might take the place of the tank, ect), but chances are all of the basic requirements will be filled anyways, after a fashion. Also, I agree with some of the others - why can't a dwarven fighter/cleric make a good tank or a good divine caster? Seems he's already filling at least two roles there, and if you had a bard, he'd pretty much take care of the other two.
PSchirf 01-14-04, 05:22 PM	Habronicus wrote > Personally, I think your GM is absolutely right in being angry and I for one would rather *not* play at all under those restrictions. > Don't get me wrong, I'm not attacking you or those who agree with insane restrictions. It may just be a lack of experience problem. But it could also be an attitude problem. You may not be angry, but you said in your post that you felt the players (the old GM) had to right to be. You called the restrictions insane and blamed them on either a lack of experience or an attitude problem. -+- Habronicus wrote: > If so, then maybe I should've filled my post with smilies. I can assure you that I'm not angry, thrilled or have any particular emotion about what other people do with their game. However, the original poster asked for opinions, and I gave mine, which is worth just as much as anyone else's. You may think your opinion is worth just as much as anyone else’s but judging from the way you posted on this thread I'd bet that many people would disagree. > Clearly, if there's someone here with an attitute problem is the guy who drops down his Curriculum Vitae as a gamer just to prove his point :sad: It's logical to counter a "It may just be a lack of experience problem" argument by listing one's experience. Clearly, if there's someone here with an attitude problem is the guy who thinks it's sad when someone makes an attempt to support their argument rather than just hurling insults… > Either way, I wouldn't play. Better to have no game than a game where I'm not really having as much fun as I could because of a bad GM. … such as this one. Yes, I have an attitude problem. People who are rude to others and then hide behind the “I should’ve filled my post with smilies” defense cause it to surface.
WizO_Catoblepas 01-14-04, 05:22 PM	Moved to What's a DM to Do board. (It's asking option/advice with respect to being a DM)
MadMaxim 01-14-04, 08:42 PM	Okay, the headline for this thread should perhaps have included "requirements" and not "restrictions". Aside from that, I have the following comments: I wouldn't have had any problems with the dwarven cleric, but I chose to have people wait with character creation till the first session, so they could sit down and talk about it. Again, I state that the most important requirement is the first. I need a Heironeus supporter (paladin, cleric or combination of the two, cleric/fighter or something) or this campaign falls apart before it has even begun, because there is no way in the Abyss that I will be able to draw them into the main storyline, if there isn't a least one of them, who remotely supports Heironeous. I know, that I'm not the world's most experienced DM, but I'm pretty sure, I know what I'm doing. It's just that I don't have adventure upon adventure lined up in my head all the time (though there are quite a few standing in line). I would have to scrap my current ideas, let the players make characters, and THEN make a campaign fitting their characters? I don't have an attitude problem with anyone or anything, but I think it's funny that the DM is the one, who is making the plot for the players, and then I can't enforce just a small (very flexible) amount of requirements? And I state again, the first is the most important. Treat the other requirements as advice.
PBI 01-14-04, 09:09 PM	Originally posted by MadMaxim Again, I state that the most important requirement is the first. I need a Heironeus supporter (paladin, cleric or combination of the two, cleric/fighter or something) or this campaign falls apart before it has even begun, because there is no way in the Abyss that I will be able to draw them into the main storyline, if there isn't a least one of them, who remotely supports Heironeous. I know, that I'm not the world's most experienced DM, but I'm pretty sure, I know what I'm doing. It's just that I don't have adventure upon adventure lined up in my head all the time (though there are quite a few standing in line). I would have to scrap my current ideas, let the players make characters, and THEN make a campaign fitting their characters? I don't have an attitude problem with anyone or anything, but I think it's funny that the DM is the one, who is making the plot for the players, and then I can't enforce just a small (very flexible) amount of requirements? First, having that many requirements on what types of characters players can choose does border on being too restrictive. As others have stated, it seems as if the players are being railroaded a bit too much. I think part of the problem may be that you've crafted a campaign that is too narrow in focus if a successful resolution depends on a certain type of character. Part of being a DM is to come up with campaigns and adventures that you and the players like. If your storyline is that inflexible, it might be better to tweak it. I never let my players roll up characters before my setting is created, as there are simply too many things specific to my world that will affect choices during chargen. I don't restrict my player's choices overly much (no evil alignments to start is my most common) and I never let the players choice of character drive the goal of my campaign, though I do let it drive, to a certain extent, my adventure design. The party in my current campaign includes 2 bards, 1 fighter, and 1 cleric of a diety of healing (no combat spells). Now, this does make adventures a bit more difficult, both for me to design and for the players to get through, and I have gone what I would consider slightly easy on them at first, though I'm sure they wouldn't think so :) As they progress in levels, my adventures are getting more and more difficult and I'm going to be pulling punches less and less; I figure that if the players didn't pick a balanced party, it's not my problem. They'll simply have to come up with some very interesting methods of problem solving.
Calawyn 01-14-04, 09:36 PM	Originally posted by MadMaxim Me and my DM had a heated discussion recently concerning a Greyhawk campaign, I'm going to run soon. This has nothing to do with Greyhawk as such but is more of a general issue. I told him that there would certain restrictions/requirements to the party. These were the ones: - At least one Heironeous supporter. - At least one divine spellcaster. - At least one arcane spellcaster. - At least one tank. - At least one rogue-ish character. There were a couple more, but these are the most important ones. These requirements can be mixed (a paladin of Heironeous could cover requirements 1, 2 and 4). My DM got rather angry with me because of these requirements, but I told him that they were needed to be covered for the sake of the story. I took these steps to ensure a good mix of capabilities and to encourage team-work and organised team tactics. Would you say that there are anything wrong with listing some simple (at least that's what I think) requirements in order to ensure a good campaign? The best thing I've learned since becoming the designated DM for our group is: Don't write the story around the PCs. Write the story, and plug the PCs in as they fit. And having everything set in stone is kinda boring. I just draw the outline, the PCs colour it in. And on several occasions the PCs have entirely derailed my story and headed off in a new direction pursuing something entirely unexpected, and it's worked out. Really all I can add to the conversation is that as a DM you exist to give the other players a good time and a rich lush world to explore or hack and slash etc... if they don't like those restrictions (which neither would I, I'd probably withdraw from the campaign) then change them or bend them. As a DM you've gotta put your foot down of course but if it ruins the fun for them, then it's all irrelevant.
Tevish Szat 01-14-04, 11:05 PM	Originally posted by kami If you want resurrection to be scarce, consider picking Revivify from MHB, and make it a 7th level spell. Can you say: Raise (no nifty disintegrate resurrect) character from dead with -1 HP, no level loss. Material component 5000 GP worth of diamond dust. Must be cast no later than one round after the death of the character. It's all about cataching the soul and bringing it back to its comfortable body. How do you handle Clone, BTW? I don't have the MHB, but that sounds like exactly waht i'm looking for. As for clone, I mde it highly undesirable for PCs. It now requires a sacrifice of a being of the same race as the being to be cloned.:smirk:
Tardatog 01-15-04, 03:06 AM	I just read about half of the first page of this, so I don't know if this has been said, but I think your players might have been a little more accepting of your regulations if you presented them a little differently. It sounds like you told them they were rules and even if that's what you did intend for them to be, it could have been handled better. I'm one of those players who loves being able to customize everything and I don't especially like restrictions. If (for example) my DM told me that since my last character died and I had to make a new one anyway, my new character had to be a rogue because the party needed one, I would do it, but I would think it was stupid of him to force me. If, on the other hand, he asked me to please make a character that could pick locks and disable traps because it would really be beneficial to the party, I may be a little disappointed that I don't get to play whatever other character I had planned, but I would willingly put that character concept on hold or modify it to be more skillful because the DM was polite and I want to help the party. It's all in how you present it.
MadMaxim 01-15-04, 05:23 AM	Well, seeing as most of you tell me not to set requirements or restrictions for my players, I've chosen to drop my current idea, let the players make their characters and THEN make the campaign to fit with their characters. That way, nobody gets angry with me for restricting them to classes or races, they don't feel like playing. I still have certain restrictions for them, but they're in no way as limiting as the first set I threw at them.
Tanuki, the Bewildered 01-15-04, 06:04 AM	That's good. I think you'll find it's easier for you, as well.
NeutralNeutral 01-15-04, 06:41 AM	What if you gave them an incentive to fill the roles? Eg: the Hieroneous follower gets to start a level higher, or get an extra magic item?
Twisted Puppy 01-15-04, 10:49 AM	An interesting thread, with a lot of valid points made both way. IMC, the only real restriction I have put on characters is that I won't allow an evil aligned PC. I told the players up front that it was a heroic adventure, and they were the good guys. That, and I knew that two of the players who would want to play evil characters would end up stabbing the other characters in the back as soon as they had the chance. Currently I am also discouraging psionic classes, hoping the 3.5 Psionics rules will be out soon. I do think the DM has the right to set restrictions in the game - as long as he can give a good explanation as to why. A good prologue for the campaign setting helps get the players in the proper mind set, and if it is interesting they'll likely go along with "recommendations" for the composition of the party. On the other hand, as a DM be aware that they may not choose exactly what you would expect, and adjust your ideas to accomodate what the players come up with. I was interested in the thread because last night a friend informed me that Monte Cook has said that the Leadership feat could be taken twice. My reply was that I would probably rule 0 that and say, "No." My friend is something of a rules lawyer, and feels that if he can find something in a book that I have no choice but to allow it : which explains why he is no longer in my campaign. Actually, I got curious and checked the Leadership feat description, and it states quite clearly that as DM you can choose not to allow it if you feel it unbalances your game. Does anyone here think that disallowing the Leadership feat would be too drastic a measure - assuming, of course, the DM has a better answer for disallowing it than "I just don't want anyone to have it."
Eagle1993 01-15-04, 06:47 PM	Originally posted by PSchirf Yes, I have an attitude problem. People who are rude to others and then hide behind the “I should’ve filled my post with smilies” defense cause it to surface. I just have to say. PSchirf when your right your RIGHT. I felt the most of that Habronicus posts were non-constructive and attacking. I was thinking, "gee get off his back, you can stat you opinion with out being mean." A smile does NOT make a comment less rude.
ninjaboy007 01-15-04, 07:08 PM	Any players so sad sack as to be unhappy about these PERFECTLY reasonable & in fact, mostly COMMON SENSE requirements...well, let's just say that this is the least of their problems. Get one player who's NOT stupid to be a follower of Heironeous. Then let the other crybaby spoiled brats mewl out whatever cheesy good-drow-with-twin-scimitars crap they want & let them die due to ignoring your advice. After a few idiots PC's die to a trap, we'll see if their NEXT characters show a little more sense on their part.
king_of_evil007 01-15-04, 07:13 PM	Hmm. . . If I was doing this, I would make one requirement: the Heironeous follower. I would also have the players create their characters at the same time, together, and I would strongly advise that they create a balanced party. But, if they create a fighter-only party, then it could be fun to have them attempt to disarm traps, whatever. They might fail, and end up dying, but it's the players choice. That's why PCs are called Player Characters, they are thought of, rolled up, created, and played by the players. Of course, you can place the restrictions. I would recommend that most of them become advice, however. That way, playeris have the freedom to makie the characters they want to so there wiil be less complaining, and the game coulid end up being funner as the PCs thinki of creative ways to solve problems. (trap? no problem, shove stuff into the arrow hole!) Siorry about the i's, miy kieiyboard is worse than normal.
Threeyore 01-16-04, 02:38 AM	If the players don't fit all of the advised roles, you could always make an NPC or two to fit the bill. Now, if the party is made up entirely of fighters, and one of them is the son of a cleric of Heironeous, I wouldn't give them a cleric, wizard, and rogue to hang out with *all* the time. They could be old chums that pop in every once in awhile (and not necessarily when their abilities would be most useful). As long as the advised roles aren't completely necessary plot-wise (as in, you won't have to talk to yourself too often during key moments), there's no shame in using NPCs. The players get the characters they want (c'mon, one of them can surely put up with the idea of supporting Heironeous in some way), and the party can still have agents serving the roles you want.
Tanuki, the Bewildered 01-16-04, 03:02 AM	Originally posted by king_of_evil007 If I was doing this, I would make one requirement: the Heironeous follower. Personally, if I were going to make following Heironeous that important, I'd probably set a rule that everyone had to follow him. It's not improbable that if only one PC/NPC wanted to do the Heironeous-Quest, the rest would outvote him, because...it's not THEIR god. If enough people objected, I'd scrap the idea.
Mr.Musgrave 01-16-04, 03:36 AM	Originally posted by Habronicus I find those restrictions to be unreasonable. It is clear that you want to write a specific story and are using your players as guinea-pigs. If you want to write a story, write a book. A good RPG session is a group effort. Offer suggestions, sure, but let the players stray from them if they wish. Adapt your story to your players and their characters. Personally, I think your GM is absolutely right in being angry and I for one would rather *not* play at all under those restrictions. Don't get me wrong, I'm not attacking you or those who agree with insane restrictions. It may just be a lack of experience problem. But it could also be an attitude problem. Either way, I wouldn't play. Better to have no game than a game where I'm not really having as much fun as I could because of a bad GM. I agree with this guy completely. I'd tell you to take your game and shove it. You don't need a "well balanced" party to survive if you're creative enough. My group hasn't ever had a well balanced party and we do fine. Right now we're a two fighters and a paladin and we have no problem surviving most of the time because we're creative enough to plan ahead around the fact we don't have a wizard or a rogue. Like he said, if you want to write a specific story, then go write it. Leave your gaming group out of it. Oh, and for all the "I've been playing since before the invention of the wheel" gamers in here: Just because you've been doing something for a long time, doesn't mean you're good at it.:rolleyes:
the_heart 01-16-04, 05:57 AM	restrictions of this nature are IMX bad news. if you are setting a story that requires something that specific you are asking, if not begging, for a failed campaign. how many players does you know that can and will do their own thingat the best of times how many players do you know who will deliberately run of the rails at the merest hint of rails. how many groups do you know who will do the unexpected. i point these out, as restrictions such as these seem to be a prelude to a railroading. you have a plot, thats the only way they can go. if the players don't follow it you have no alternatives in place. thats not really optimal campain design. IMHO it is better to find out the type of game the players want first, rather than spend ages on a campaign that is of little or no interest to the players. to me that just seems like common sense. or you build a living campaign, with just a few events going on, and then see what the characters react to. let them hear about the hooks they didn't follow occasionally, but keep the focus on the parts that interest them. but don't lose that hook on morals, you never know one of the players might play a divine caster that with a few changes it could work as effectively as on a worshipper of heironeous. slip the hook in and hope they bite, if they don't then wait til the next campaign and try again. sorry, but thats the down side to DM'ing, and pushing them into it is NEVER good.
Tanuki, the Bewildered 01-16-04, 06:02 AM	Originally posted by the_heart restrictions of this nature are IMX bad news. if you are setting a story that requires something that specific you are asking, if not begging, for a failed campaign. I've managed to keep mine going despite the one PC that was pivotal to things taking an EXTENDED hiatus, but I have to concur that it was a Bad Idea. (This is another reason to make them ALL worship the same god if that god's that important.)
MadMaxim 01-16-04, 02:39 PM	Please guys, I asked you to keep a friendly tone in here. Is that too much of a restriction? Aside from the flaming, I've taken your opinions into account and let the players make characters, and THEN I'll make a plot and campaign to revolve around them. I'm not trying to railroad them, I'm trying to make a decent effort at a bit more complex campaign, than we're used to running, okay? I got ideas for adventures, of course, otherwise I wouldn't want to DM. And go read my previous posts. I've raised the white flag! I'll save my "restriction-campaign" for another time. I'm flexible.
Klajorne 01-16-04, 07:09 PM	I suppose I run in an odd gaming group, because in our gaming group the main goal of the players is to work WITH the GM in order to promote the story. Our games no more center around the players' characters then they do around the GM's story. The game belongs to us mutually. I find the majority of the above posts seem to imply that the players should be allowed to create any characters they want, and then the GM is expected to tailor the campaign story to them. If a player can't play a character concept they have in mind, then that player might as well not bother playing. To me, that sounds a bit selfish. And it puts the poor GM into too much of a subserviant role, constantly trying to adjust to whatever the players throw his way. As such, requirements run rampant in our games. I find the GM telling us that we all have to play gnomish paladins no less reasonable than us telling the GM we want to play a game centered around urban politics. I have never felt as though a GM's restrictions are too harsh for a few simple reasons: A class does not define or determine a character. A race does not define or determine a character. Level and equipment do not define or determine a character. If I was required to create a human paladin, I could still be: The over-the-top do-gooder. The cliche arrogant aristocrat The drunk trying to hold onto his faith. The raw recruit trying to earn his spurs. I don't feel that having a class forced upon a player restricts their character any more than my job defines who I am as a person. I also think that if a person was not willing to work with the GM in order to make a better game, even if that meant they might have to play within specific guidelines, then that person is being unreasonable and selfish and not considering the good of the gaming group.
coofpsychycic 01-16-04, 07:20 PM	The efforts of damsel in distress type problimatic situations for a style of character may be effectually hinted at as the character is made however even then the actuall disturbing thrill of finding out that the offset differences that were planned for a certain type of class etc and what actually went to the playing campaign are fun....in truth setting the allowed fortune or choas takes of a party are a commonly adjusted mediun...forthrightedly declaring no more gold durring a sqaundering of a series of traps that were supposed to adjust that take but the DM lost the series has much to be said for how a campaign will be later adreesed,this case of taking the value of say 1D6 1000 gp from the take and in other cases 1D6 magic items from a cache of +10 strg+10dex+4 attack makes sense,or can be even further more adjusted as a set value before the campaign begins 4 th level 1D6 5th to 8th 2D6 9th or higher 1D10 now obviosely there may not be that many of the neccessitated to be removed items or gold etc but the flow of level and campaign should stay with generally applied rules