Post/Author/DateTime	Post
SOPI 05-09-06, 04:42 PM	I occasionally run games of D&D, rather than play in them, and when I do, I realize that there is a problem. All of my players want to play extremely exotic characters. I could easily tell them that they can't play anything that's not in the core books, but that would be unfair to them. I just want a way to limit them. Examples of the characters they play are tieflings, feral beasts, anthropomorphic cheetahs, and various PCs with the queerest* of class levels. Any words of wisdom? *I mean queerest in the old sense of the word. The sense where it did not deal with homosexuality.
StruckingFuggle 05-09-06, 05:05 PM	Before I, or anyone, can share any wisdom, clarification is needed: why is this a problem?
Vacerious 05-09-06, 05:13 PM	Before I, or anyone, can share any wisdom, clarification is needed: why is this a problem? Agreed. By 'exotic', do you mean wild character concepts/builds that never work, or just simply a few quirks on their character's personality? Keep in mind DM Rule 0. You are allow to restrict material as you see fit, but even with Core only, some pretty wild concepts can still arise. Half-orc Bard anyone?
DM_Greatness 05-09-06, 05:14 PM	Before I, or anyone, can share any wisdom, clarification is needed: why is this a problem? Because players that are like that are totally :censored:. For the original poster, I understand your pain.
Langriman 05-09-06, 05:21 PM	It's a problem if the DM made a world or campaign that didn't have any of those exotic character types. I remember once running a game where the players were supposed to start out as commoners from a small agrarian village in a predominantly human area, and one player who likes dark elves just had to play a dark elf. There's two ways to go on this issue: either the DM gives the players a thorough description of the campaign area before the game begins and specifies which races are or are not available as character races (even the WoTC professionals will tell you that the books they make are suggested improvements and not every rule, spell, race, feat, etc must be in a D&D game), or the DM lets players make their characters first and then tries to build a campaign around those characters (if the player makes a tiefling character then the DM makes a game with a strong evil planar influence). If neither the DM nor players are willing to accept those options, either some compromise will have to be made or the game just won't work.
Tormsskull 05-09-06, 05:34 PM	Some players believe that everyone about their character should be up to them. Class, race, abilties, skills, feats, etc. Some DMs believe that the player's characters have to fit into the campaign world and thus the character's class, race, abilities, skills, feats, etc should reflect the game world. You have to decide which you are, and then rule from there.
DarkRhystar 05-09-06, 05:44 PM	Any words of wisdom? Make your world react accordingly. If your players play tieflings in a normal world, then it should come as no surprise when they meet armed opposition everywhere they go. Devils and the like wandering around the countryside tend to attract unwanted attention. If your players play feral beasts then why not throw them some adversity in the form of hunters looking for magical skins, Wizards want a new pet or seeking to destroy what they perceive as an abomination to nature or magic...etc. Let the players choose their characters, don't take that away from them. Just make sure they understand the consequences of their choice. If they realize that their PC will be hunted by bounty hunters and the like, two things may occur. The player may realize that it might not be as much fun as imagined and switch. However, the player may also rise to the challenge and do a very good job with the character. To me, limiting players is the sign of a poor DM who cannot adequately deal with challenges as they arise. Disallowing content says that you are not equipped to deal with that content. A game with exotic characters shouldn't be a problem for a good DM, it should be an opportunity for fun and exciting gameplay. Remember, D&D is a game and as with all games, the objective is and always has been... to have fun. "An inconvenience is an adventure wrongly considered; an adventure is an inconvenience rightly considered." - Giblert Charleston
The_Levitator 05-09-06, 05:44 PM	The only problem I've had with "exotic" players is that they are rarely good enough RP'ers to keep a 1st level human fighter alive, let alone some multi/multi/multi classed multi/multi/multi race character. It's only dangerous when the person who wants to drive the 800 horsepower Formula 1 car can't keep his 5 horsepower go-kart off the wall. Sometimes what people want to do and what they are capable of doing are different. All first time players in our group have to play single race/single class characters from core. And every new character starts out at 1st level, no exceptions. All of our campaigns start at 1st level. This keeps the multi/multi/multi munchkins at bay. I haven't found too many multi/multi/multi players that want to actually earn all of those multi's, so I am a little biased. I have no problem with a player building a multi/multi/multi character over time the hard way, by actually playing the game and earning it. It's pretty rare in the gaming world to find good multi/multi/multi players. It seems most of them are either wannabes or too lazy to develop characters. Don't get me wrong, good multi/multi/multi players are out there. We have one in our group. I would even class him as a powergamer. He puts as much into his character background and playing in character without metagaming as much as he does powergaming, so we have a blast with him in our group. In a good and balanced setting, players shouldn't have to be feral anthropomorphic cheetahs to have an interesting character. Although, some of those completely off the wall creations can be great for solo campaigns. We just lost a player 2 weeks ago who came in touting how he wanted to run some mutated multi/multi/multi thing ( it was so weird I don't even remember what it was). Anyways, according to our rule, he instead chose a human cleric and got killed 2nd session by his own playing. (A cleric of Lathander weilding a longsword with no healing spells or potions doesn't usually get off on the right foot.) He was trying to do all these weird things with his character to "be different" and didn't even have a grasp on the basics. The players voted him out of the group because of his lack of experience and maturity. Another thing that bugged him is that I don't fudge rolls, so he must just be used to winning all the time and never had to think about consequences before. I guess that's why he chose not to wait for the rogue to check out the underground pass to see how safe it was and pushed him out of the way. He then tried traversing some pretty difficult terrain in full chainmail, slipped and fell off the ledge to his death. The rogue had wanted to rope everyone together and use pitons "just to be on the safe side". He seemed to just want to find the monsters and collect EXP's, almost like a videogame. Those players are fine if everyone in the group is that way. But for a group that likes to actually roleplay and overcome obstacles by working together, he just didn't fit in. And being a multi/multi/multi probably wouldn't have saved his butt anyway.
Hippokrene 05-09-06, 05:50 PM	Tormsskull: "You have to decide which you are, and then rule from there." LG or CE? Never! I tend to compromise with my players as long as they're willing to compromise with me.
Xylem 05-09-06, 06:46 PM	To me, limiting players is the sign of a poor DM who cannot adequately deal with challenges as they arise. Disallowing content says that you are not equipped to deal with that content. A game with exotic characters shouldn't be a problem for a good DM, it should be an opportunity for fun and exciting gameplay. Or it could be a sign of a DM who has created a coherent, self-consistent world where such characters simply couldn't arise. Not everyone uses the default settings after all.
Eltharon 05-09-06, 08:08 PM	Well, it depends what setting you use, first. But even in magical Faerun, a party of Devils and Half Dragons and Leopards and Ogres will have...trouble anywhere but the Moonsea or somewhere like that. In my world, I said "Only humans. And only one magic user" because thats what the world involved. None of the players complained, and the story isnt less rich because they arent multiclassed monsters of doom.
StruckingFuggle 05-09-06, 08:25 PM	Well, it depends what setting you use, first. But even in magical Faerun, a party of Devils and Half Dragons and Leopards and Ogres will have...trouble anywhere but the Moonsea or somewhere like that. In my world, I said "Only humans. And only one magic user" because thats what the world involved. None of the players complained, and the story isnt less rich because they arent multiclassed monsters of doom. And tieflings, anthro cheetahs, half dragons, ogres, etc, aren't necessarily "multiclassed monsters of doom", either.
Bill Bisco: Average Adventurer 05-09-06, 08:40 PM	Yes, this is one of the most debated topics on the boards, Permissive vs. Nonpermissive DMs. As long as my players role-play and like their characters, I see no reason to not let them be exotic things. In fact I think that that is one of the great things about D&D. Other games won't let you be as diversified :) Alright, so a Player wants to be a Anthromorphic Bat and there aren't Anthromorphic Bats in your world. Well, just say that the Lady of Pain/God of Chaos/whatever played a joke on him and now he's on a new alien world. Maybe the God of Nature created this new creature as his/her special servant or whatever, ect. ect. You're a human, you can think up stuff can't you? Or wait, are my suggestions just not good enough for your world :rolleyes:
Dragonsblood 05-09-06, 08:51 PM	There's nothing "unfair" about playing core only :rolleyes:
Tormsskull 05-09-06, 08:52 PM	Let the players choose their characters, don't take that away from them. Just make sure they understand the consequences of their choice. If they realize that their PC will be hunted by bounty hunters and the like, two things may occur. The player may realize that it might not be as much fun as imagined and switch. However, the player may also rise to the challenge and do a very good job with the character. oooooo, I have been waiting a long time for someone to say something like this. So now I propose a question. The point of the game is to have fun, as you have said. Assume a player comes to you with a non-core race that is killable on sight to human lands. The other PCs are humans. Should the other PCs now have to accept this non-human PC into their party? From what you are saying is you wouldn't change the campaign world, you'd have bountry hunters after them so that they "understand the consequences of their choice." What if this makes that PC have less fun? So, in essence, what is more important: The campaign world or a singular player's wishes?
BadCatMan 05-09-06, 09:16 PM	What sort of world / campaign setting do you run? If they are all freaky monster races, then try the heavily mixed races sort of world, such as you see in the tavern section of the first Dungeons & Dragons movie. All manner of creatures, from humans, elves and dwarves to orcs, troglodytes and half-dragons mixing freely and without too much conflict (at least in neutral areas). There, no matter what they are, no one will bat an eyelid at the feral half-fiend anthropomorphic cheetah ninja. Or ignore it. The commoner might see the feral half-fiend anthropomorphic cheetah and think "Sure, he's a big demonic monster, but at the moment, he isn't trying to rip my guts out." and leave them alone. If they stop running exotic characters for not getting any attention, then your job is done. :) (Tieflings are fairly standard in FR btw, and odd class levels might just be an attempt to flesh out fairly unique character concepts that aren't quite possible with the standard classes.)
Bill Bisco: Average Adventurer 05-09-06, 10:01 PM	There's nothing "unfair" about playing core only Enforcing core only is often "unfair" to fun :D Not saying that you can't have fun with core only. You can have fun with a lot of things with a group of people, including trying to find out how many people you can fit into a telephone booth. :D But, games are generally more fun when the DMs don't arbitrarily put up limits. And, this is very true.
DarkRhystar 05-09-06, 10:20 PM	Many replies, I like this one the most though so I'll answer it. So, in essence, what is more important: The campaign world or a singular player's wishes? All else held constant, the single player's wishes matter more by far. The campaign world doesn't even come close. The campaign world won't be sad if it's changed, but the player would be if it's not. I don't care if you have the most stable and carefully planned out campaign world in the history of D&D because if no one is having fun it doesn't mean anything at all. My ideal is for everyone to have fun playing. If changing the campaign world brings the game closer to that then I'm all for it. The minute someone begins to believe the integrity of the game's setting and plot is more important than the fun one has playing the game, the purpose of the game is lost.
loaba 05-09-06, 10:42 PM	The minute someone begins to believe the integrity of the game's setting and plot is more important than the fun one has playing the game, the purpose of the game is lost. Yet so many DMs get bent out of shape over this very thing. :(
Archtyrant Terevoth 05-09-06, 10:50 PM	Any words of wisdom? If you don't like the race in question, just say no. Tell them it won't fit well in your campaign world and to be something more normal. I mean it sounds to me like your PCs are choosing weird ass monster races. And I'd just say,"well unless you want the town guards to kill you on sight, I wouldn't do that." Maybe allow one of the tamer races, like tieflings, but I wouldn't go any farther than that with the anthromorphic garbage. lol. As for class levels, make them justify it with some kind of plausible story. And maybe allow a few if they're not too bad, I mean most core classes can fit fairly well together, and if they're getting too weird, usually the combo will totally suck anyway. If you want a more subtle way to restrict it, just start them at level 1. That means they can't afford the LA for any kind of monster race, and they have to earn all their classes in game.
revnk 05-09-06, 11:18 PM	But, games are generally more fun when the DMs don't arbitrarily put up limits. And, this is very true. (1) Not all limits are arbitrary. Sometimes limits are there because they make for a coherent world. (2) Even an arbitrary limit can be good: contrary to what appears to be commonly believed, limits can foster creativity by engendering necessity--which is the mother of invention, as they say. That is not to say that all limits are good, however unfettered freedom can lead to feckless self-indulgence. Perhaps the best creative efforts, whether in the arts* or in games, come from a compromise between freedom and enforced limits. Just something to consider, 's'all. *Consider, for instance, the classic Steven Spielberg movie Jaws. As is well-known, the mechanical shark which was intended to be featured prominently throughout the film failed to work very well or very often--forcing Spielberg to focus the film on the actors and to suggest the shark without showing it as often as he'd originally meant to: decisions which made for a better and more subtle movie. Or: in the original screenplay for Time Bandits, a major encounter was supposed to involve a giant "spider queen." Terry Gilliam didn't have the money for that kind of thing, so he and co-writer Michael Palin came up with a much lower-budget "invisible barrier" to foil the heroes--a far more entertaining idea and source of a classic fantasy line ("So, that's what an invisible barrier looks like..."). Or: when making the classic TV series, The Prisoner, Patrick McGoohan originally paid for a giant security robot--which ended up looking like a purple wedding cake and couldn't do any of the things it was needed to, like climbing walls or crossing open water (the exhaust also nearly killed a crewmember who tried to drive it). The ultimate, surrealist solution was to use weather balloons, resulting in a classic science-fiction image (and source for numerous Simpsons references), Rover. I'd submit the possibility that requiring or forbidding certain classes, races, skills, feats, spells, etc. might force players to think outside the box mentioned in that cliche. I'd also, at the risk of angering some readers, submit the possibility that many (tho' by no means all) players gravitate towards "exotic" races and classes in order to avoid or circumvent limitations--they have no interest in playing an "interesting" _________, instead they think that the _________'s natural abilities will give them some kind of advantage; on that note, it seems that relatively few players want to take on the weaknesses of a _________, or to play a generally weak class or race. (Even players interested in a blind or deaf or otherwise "handicapped" PC frequently try to haggle for some feat or special ability that not only offsets the disadvantage but in fact offers an edge over their peers--e.g. possession of blindsense that not only removes the disadvantages of blindness but also voids the limits of optical vision such as lighting limits or susceptibility to illusions.) Submitted for your further consideration.
Pandaemoni 05-10-06, 12:51 AM	I agree that the problem is "limits." Some people want to have a coherent game world annd anthropomorphic cheetahs and devils walking bthe streets of major cities just doesn't fit their concept of "coherence". Meanwhile, players and the DM can only take so many conversations like this: Oh my gods!! Oh my *%#$@ gods! This feral badger can TALK!!! WOW!!!! How did it learn to talk!??! OH MY GODS!!! Yet, really, the awakened feral badger should hear that about 10 times per day, in any major population center (not to mention, over and over again, "I can't believe I'm talking to a talking &%#$@ badger!!!" from every NPC who ever travels with the party). Instead, eventually the player and the DM have to assume that people start treating the awakened animal as if it were a "person" and stop foscussing on how unusual it is that a badger can talk...just because it gets boring from a role playing perspective. The more realistic you like your game (especially your NPC interactions) the more disruptive strange player requests seem. If I said "I want to a play a cyborg from the future" many DMs would take issue with that, not because its objectivekly "wrong" but because it violates their expectations about what a character should be. That violation makes it harder to generate the necessary "willing suspension of disbelief" that makes the game fun. (Once upon a time, I thought robot ninja characters were ridiculous, then came the warforged.) Similarly, if the DM tells the players "you have to choose a core race and class", or (for some players) "you have to start as an ECL 1 character," it can violate their expectations if it's not what they are accustomed to...and make it hard to enjoy the game until/unless they can adjust their expectations.
loaba 05-10-06, 01:34 AM	Tired, so I'm only gonna point out one small thing here. *Consider, for instance, the classic Steven Spielberg movie Jaws. As is well-known, the mechanical shark which was intended to be featured prominently throughout the film failed to work very well or very often--forcing Spielberg to focus the film on the actors and to suggest the shark without showing it as often as he'd originally meant to: decisions which made for a better and more subtle movie. And you better believe that if Spielberg is a DM, he waives his magic wand and that shark model performs exactly as he intended. Real-world limitations are not the same as those found in the imaginary world of Dungeons & Dragons. If your player's want to go with something exotic, then shape the world to accomadate them. It's just not that hard to do. Arbitrary DM-imposed limits, despite what you might think, are about control and nothing more.
Pandaemoni 05-10-06, 01:49 AM	Tired, so I'm only gonna point out one small thing here. And you better believe that if Spielberg is a DM, he waives his magic wand and that shark model performs exactly as he intended. Real-world limitations are not the same as those found in the imaginary world of Dungeons & Dragons. If your player's want to go with something exotic, then shape the world to accomadate them. It's just not that hard to do. On the other hand, letting the players dictate everything is like letting Roy Scheider say "My character is no longer 'Sheriff Brody.' I'm playing Ongor the Mighty, an awakened dolphin wizard with a grudge against sharks. Deal with it, Speilberg. Work the script around my character concept." Speilberg might not be interested in making that movie. :D
loaba 05-10-06, 01:55 AM	On the other hand, letting the players dictate everything is like letting Roy Scheider say "My character is no longer 'Sheriff Brody.' I'm playing Ongor the Mighty, an awakened dolphin wizard with a grudge against sharks. Deal with it, Speilberg. Work the script around my character concept." Speilberg might not be interested in making that movie. :D Again, that's the real-world. Last time I checked, there wasn't anyone I know producing a D&D game, and I certainly haven't been paid anytime I've played or DM'd. D&D isn't scripted, nor was it ever intended to be.
Pandaemoni 05-10-06, 02:09 AM	Again, that's the real-world. Last time I checked, there wasn't anyone I know producing a D&D game, and I certainly haven't been paid anytime I've played or DM'd. D&D isn't scripted, nor was it ever intended to be. First, Jaws was not exactly "the real world". That shark was of a size and power well beyond what a real Great White could ever manage. Even for it's size it was impossibly strong...and scuba tanks don't really explode when shot. Even though the game isn't scripted, the world is set up with certain base assumptions at the DMs discretion and the campaign is designed by him or her. The DM is well within his or her rights to set boundaries for what's permitted. All psionics/no magic, no psionics at all, no gnomes, everyone must play a kender. (Surely "everyone must start out at 1st level, LA+0, core books only" is perfectly appropriate.) The DM sets those rules, then the players have the option of not playing. If they players make a counter offer, then the DM has the option of kicking them out of his house. In my opinion, in general it is easier for players to adapt themselves to the restrictions set by the typical "realistic" DM, than for such a DM to adapt to a set of anime-crazed players. The notion that the DM must knuckle under no matter how unfun the game is for him is just as foolish as the opposite position.
Iddig Ap Nil 05-10-06, 02:49 AM	First, Jaws was not exactly "the real world". That shark was of a size and power well beyond what a real Great White could ever manage. Even for it's size it was impossibly strong...and scuba tanks don't really explode when shot. Even though the game isn't scripted, the world is set up with certain base assumptions at the DMs discretion and the campaign is designed by him or her. The DM is well within his or her rights to set boundaries for what's permitted. All psionics/no magic, no psionics at all, no gnomes, everyone must play a kender. (Surely "everyone must start out at 1st level, LA+0, core books only" is perfectly appropriate.) The DM sets those rules, then the players have the option of not playing. If they players make a counter offer, then the DM has the option of kicking them out of his house. In my opinion, in general it is easier for players to adapt themselves to the restrictions set by the typical "realistic" DM, than for such a DM to adapt to a set of anime-crazed players. The notion that the DM must knuckle under no matter how unfun the game is for him is just as foolish as the opposite position.I have to agree with this completely. Why should I, the beleagured DM who's worked for endless hours on a fun campaign setting be forced to change it for my players just because it might not allow all of the choices that they may want for their characters? Sure, the players having fun is something you want to strive for, but so is the DM having fun (have you ever played in a game where the DM isn't enjoying it as well?). I'm of the camp where I set the parameters of character creation as the DM, my players have never complained before that they can't play some hugely monstrous thing.
Duvanok 05-10-06, 03:30 AM	Forgive me, I've not read the entire thread, but something the OP stated seemd strange to me: Limiting the players to the core books is "unfair" to them? I don't see how. I've been playing since '92 and have yet to stray from any race in the PHB and been just great with it. Are your players that burnt out with the standard races that they need to play something as novel as a walking-cheeta thingy? And what happens when the walking-cheeta's novelty wears off? Novelty is never lasting and certainly isn't a requirement for enjoyment of D&D. Keep your adventures fun and interesting and I am sure they will keep coming back, even with their dwarven fighters and elf wizards. To echo what I am sure others have already posted: if you don't want them to do that then just put your foot down.
Just another user 05-10-06, 04:29 AM	Tired, so I'm only gonna point out one small thing here. And you better believe that if Spielberg is a DM, he waives his magic wand and that shark model performs exactly as he intended. And as a result he would have probably made a worse movie. That is what is saying. that sometime limits are good, "necessity is the mother of invention" and all that. Else is like at the start of your next game your GM "wave his magic wand" and "Ok, your PCs find the BBEG, defeat him, foil his plan, gain 20 levels and all the treasure and magic items you can wish, campaign is over. let's play another?"
Rallek 05-10-06, 04:39 AM	I don't mean to offend anyone... but I also realize that odds are that I'm about to. What follows is my opinion, not the word from on-high, so try and keep any flames to a minimum. Disclaimer out of the way, let's get into this. First my response to the OP; Player Characters have to be so "complicated" (to use your word) because they have no real understanding of how to roleplay, or if you don't like that term, they have no idea how to really develop a character or interact with the campaign setting. Because of this they need to trot out the "flavor of the week" everytime new source material is released, or they have to make the greatest "build" or most outrageous character at every opportunity in order to experience the brief "novelty" that takes the place of the genuine "enjoyment" of actually playing the game. ^ that's one of the bits that I'm relatively sure is going to offend someone. Now, on to other things. Quote: Originally Posted by Tormsskull So, in essence, what is more important: The campaign world or a singular player's wishes? All else held constant, the single player's wishes matter more by far. The campaign world doesn't even come close. The campaign world won't be sad if it's changed, but the player would be if it's not. I don't care if you have the most stable and carefully planned out campaign world in the history of D&D because if no one is having fun it doesn't mean anything at all. My ideal is for everyone to have fun playing. If changing the campaign world brings the game closer to that then I'm all for it. The minute someone begins to believe the integrity of the game's setting and plot is more important than the fun one has playing the game, the purpose of the game is lost. Yesterday 09:01 PM DarkRhystar, you are in error. You're in error due largely to the use of the world "single" in the following quote; All else held constant, the single player's wishes matter more by far. The campaign world doesn't even come close. The campaign world won't be sad if it's changed, but the player would be if it's not. Allow me to explain why you're wrong. Assuming that it isn't a single player campaign, there are other players at the table too, and their enjoyment must also be taken into account. So your party is based in the hypothetical city of Arun-khai, and you have just driven back the dark elf scourge, ending 3 years of brutal occupation. The city slowly begins to awaken from its nightmare, and you are greeted as heroes and liberators in every public place. You can't buy a drink, as every tavern owner in the city insists that you drink for free. Life is good. Then player 3 decides that his new character has to be a dark elf, or he can't have fun. Ok, so now we have to allow it, as consistency must take a back seat to any single player's enjoyment. So the townsfolk stone him to death when he leaves the inn room? That doesn't sound like he'd enjoy that, so they must tolerate him, probably because he's with the heroes. Ok, that might work. Uh-oh... being tolerated instead of adored is hurting player 3's enjoyment of the game, and making him sad. So now consistency bends over and takes another one for the team, and player 3's character becomes just as adored as the other characters. "Yeah drow raped my mother, killed my father, ate my brother, and sacrificed my baby to Lolth... but I'll be darned if I don't just love that one drow over there!" Now player 4 decides he can't fully enjoy the game without a laser weapon that he recovered from the ruins of an ancient civilization that he happened to locate 1/4 of a mile away from the city, in a highly traveled area, but that was (despite being in visual range of a major city) undiscovered and unexplored. Well, once again, the setting won't mind if it gets violated, so PRANG! It is so. Around now Player 1 decides that in light of the recent "adjustments" he would much rather play a dinosaur rider from Antarctica, complete with epic level tyrannosaurus familiar/mount, as well as a full set of epic level equipment. Well, ok, saddle up, dino-rider! Player 2 joins the fun as a giant pink death bunny from beyond the stars, player 5 creates a new character, complete with his own special request piece of starting gear, "the orb of absolute and total power". Player 3 decides being a drow alone isn't fun, so presto! the city is now full of drow again, but the players don't mind as player 4 has recently (again by special request) had the setting bent so he can ascend to divinity, and he has turned everything into purple marshmallows. The above is an extreme example, but that's where we end up if we follow your line of thought to the end. The enjoyment of a single player must always be balanced against the enjoyment of the group as a whole. Maintaining internal consistency and the "integrity" of the game allows a framework in which all characters can equally participate, as well as affect the campaign world around them. One character may love to play a slavemaster who owns all of the other characters, but one has to wonder if the other characters would be as enthusiastic about it? Just one DMs opinion. Happy Gaming EDIT: edited for some spelling/grammar errors.
Bulletproof_Condom 05-10-06, 04:55 AM	If the exotic character thing really bothers you, just say no. Try a few 1st-level core only games for a while. State flatly, "all characters' races, classes, and equipment must be drawn entirely from the Player's Handbook. No exceptions," and stick to it. I think every group goes through a phase of half-illithid warlocks and celestial half-dragon wood elf ninjas. Mine did. They grew out of it. I think it's kind of like finding out that those little packets of condiments at the cafeteria are free and then grabbing as many as you can. You don't even really want them and you probably won't enjoy having them, but there's a certain novelty in being allowed to do it. Personally, I always play humans. My most powerful characters have always been human or half human. That bonus feat is huge. If you don't like the weird crap, just say no. If they don't like the restrictions, they don't have to play. But they will anyway.
Warboss Morgrum 05-10-06, 05:42 AM	As a DM and Player, I love weird monster characters. I encourage my players to make strange characters (I was just trying to talk one of my players into making an Abyssal Skulker/Cleric/Fiend of Possession who had his alignment changed to LG because he accidentally possessed a Hat of Opposite Alignment). I purposefully leave most of my game world "blank" then fill in the bits that they need for their characters. "You want to go into Order of the Bow? Pzzot! A shrine of the Order of the Bow is located 4.5 miles south of the Red Mountains" I won't destroy the world for my players (no divinity until Epic) but pretty much anything else is fair game. I'll complain if I think your idea is "lame" or unworkable (Half Fey/Half Red Dragon/Anthropomorphic Squid), and try to steer you toward one that might work with the rest of the party and/or have more personality to it than "weird."
aotrscommander 05-10-06, 08:11 AM	I have to agree with this completely. Why should I, the beleagured DM who's worked for endless hours on a fun campaign setting be forced to change it for my players just because it might not allow all of the choices that they may want for their characters? Sure, the players having fun is something you want to strive for, but so is the DM having fun (have you ever played in a game where the DM isn't enjoying it as well?). I'm of the camp where I set the parameters of character creation as the DM, my players have never complained before that they can't play some hugely monstrous thing. I most whole-heartedly agree. If your DM is the type that improvise on the fly easily, they probably aren't so bothered about the consistency of their worlds (and I say probably, not absolutely). Those of us DMs who have spent months (or even years, in the case of my current world) developing their campaign world unique idiosyncracies, cultures and monsters and just as long an adventures don't want to have to change everything on the fly for one or more player who wants to play something totally bizarre that doesn't fit in the world. I am particularly adamant about races; I am strongly influnced by Tolkien, so my fantasy worlds have human, Elves, Dwarves and Halfings as the major (good) races, with the occasional extra (Sylphs, modifed, became a race in my older world). I think in the distant history of roleplaying, I had a gnome once, and a half-orc once, when I was much younger. That's the only time I think that those two races have showed up in games I've played. The new races introduced in the expansion books to me always feels like they're out of Star Trak, with the rules equivilent of funny foreheads. To me personally, I find them, well, untidy. If I started allowing them in, I'd have to add in cultures for all of them, and ramp up my work enourmously. On my new world, I'm adding monster progressions as playable races, but the exception being that they are (mostly) non-humanoid, which puts a totally different dynamic on them. But even then, I have told my players, that these options won't always be available in all campaigns of the world. My players have very rarely asked for something bizarre; none of them even have templates (mainly as they start out at level 1 in a long campaign and about 3-5 on a one-shot). If they do ask me for something I consider unusual, I just say flat-out no. That said, when we play sci-fi, the board is totally open*. In the two groups I can thin of, there is a Jedi, an X-Men style mutant, a saiyan, a Romulan archmage, a Vulcan who doesn't belive in magic (in the same party) and two characters of races the player made themselves. But the sci-fi camapigns are much broader in scope. Personally, I always play humans. My most powerful characters have always been human or half human. That bonus feat is huge. Oh, I hear you. *Except for Vampires, about which I have a totally irrational and pathological hatred. Liches are fair game though!
Vaelan 05-10-06, 08:38 AM	I would recommend ignoring the majority of the posters here, SOPI. They tend to villanize players as a matter of course. The same thing happens on the Player board, though not to such a degree from what I've seen. Tell them that you don't want to play a game in which every character is some misbegotten freak. According to the common courtesy afforded to all of those one would call "friend", and not some inane notion that the DM is the only one who has any say in how the game is run, they have two options: they can either get someone else to DM their party of misbegotten freaks or they can not play misbegotten freaks. In the unlikely case that they they insist that you DM their party of misbegotten freaks without discerning what you dislike about it and attempting to ameliorate the problem, ditch them. If they are so unconcerned about your enjoyment of the game, they simply aren't worth playing with. In short, your problem stems from a lack of communication. In my opinion, it is entirely your fault because, as a DM, it is your duty to facilitate communication so that you can play the kind of game that everyone will enjoy.
Senevri 05-10-06, 09:21 AM	I'll complain if I think your idea is "lame" or unworkable (Half Fey/Half Red Dragon/Anthropomorphic Squid), and try to steer you toward one that might work with the rest of the party and/or have more personality to it than "weird." Make it half-black/Half-green and, sure... I'll play Cthulhu. ;)
Illion the Red 05-10-06, 09:50 AM	Um...start at first level and insist on 3.5 sources? That would exclude the vast majority of the truly outlandish things as they require LAs. (Maybe I'm just naive, but this has never been a problem for me in 25+ years of Dming).
Millennium 05-10-06, 10:30 AM	I could easily tell them that they can't play anything that's not in the core books, but that would be unfair to them. Why? Plenty of DMs run core-only games.
Turin 05-10-06, 11:09 AM	I'm coming in a bit late on this thread, but I whole-heartedly disagree with DarkRhystar's approach.To me, limiting players is the sign of a poor DM who cannot adequately deal with challenges as they arise. Disallowing content says that you are not equipped to deal with that content. A game with exotic characters shouldn't be a problem for a good DM, it should be an opportunity for fun and exciting gameplay. Remember, D&D is a game and as with all games, the objective is and always has been... to have fun. Others have already chimed in on this but I want to really hammer the point home. Have you ever actually DM'd, DarkRhystar? Because your point sounds like the perspective of a player who rides roughshod over his DM, demanding that he be allowed to do whatever he wants because it's his character. The DM is responsible for 90% of the work done in a campaign, and is generally responsible for making sure the players are all having fun, tasks which together take an enormous amount of time and energy. Being a good DM requires a certain understanding that you can't always give the players what they say they want if you want them to have a good time. At the same time, as others have said, being a good DM also means having a good understanding of what everyone at the table wants out of a game. There's a couple of ways of going about this. In my recently defunct tabletop gaming group, there was always open discussion about who was going to DM next, what kind of game we wanted it to be, and so forth. No one went into a game like that not understanding what the game would be about and where the appropriate limits were. Conversely, in an online game, it's often just better for the DM to post ahead of time that "these are the limits, take 'em or leave 'em," because he doesn't necessarily know the players personally ahead of time. Anyone who signs on to that game knows what they're getting into and have pretty much no right to complain about the limits afterwards because they've entered into that unwritten contract with the group. The key is, obviously, communication. But saying that DMs who aren't willing to deal with a multiheaded half-dragon anthropomorphic cheetah ninjas in their Italian Renaissance simulation campaign is a "poor DM" is completely off the mark.
Tristan 05-10-06, 01:59 PM	well, I have a generalized idea of whats in my world and what fits in. For instance, If a player wanted to be a vampire, i'd say "No" cus that would make him evil(something I wont allow), complicated (the sunshine thing), and he would likely originate from the Island of Death, home of the Undead heirarchy (Since all the PCs in my game are effectively royalty, related to someone important) if he asked about being an elf with the "Dark" template from tome of magic. I'd say "probably, in fact I was interested in incorporating a chapter in the game involving relations between a kingdom on the material plane, and that of the Shadow plane. That would actually give me incentive to work on that and have a way to incorporate you and the rest of the party in it." now, if someone wanted to ge an awakened weasal, i'd so "No". Because thats stupid. possibly also saying to them the "because thats stupid" part as well.
DarkRhystar 05-10-06, 02:13 PM	DarkRhystar, you are in error. You're in error due largely to the use of the world "single" in the following quote; Allow me to explain why you're wrong. <snip> So many words and so much typing to do so little. Let's look at my statement again. :) All else held constant, the single player's wishes matter more by far. The campaign world doesn't even come close. The campaign world won't be sad if it's changed, but the player would be if it's not. Four little words that mean so very much. It's okay little words, I'm sure someone will notice you eventually. Others have already chimed in on this but I want to really hammer the point home. Have you ever actually DM'd, DarkRhystar? Because your point sounds like the perspective of a player who rides roughshod over his DM, demanding that he be allowed to do whatever he wants because it's his character. I have. As to what kind of player I am, I shall paint you a picture. I have played 2 Elves, 1 Gnome, 1 Dwarf and the rest were all Humans. I'm not a fan of monster races or half-orc/half-elf/half-rootabegga races myself, but I don't hold anything against those who like them. I've played many classes both pure and multiclassed 3 times over. My characters are often skill monkeys and "Jack of All Trades" types that let other party members shine at what they're good at, but can substitute their own skills in a pinch. One of my favorite combinations is the Able Learner feat with the Human Paragon class. I look for things our group does not have and attempt to fill them somehow. As a DM, I value my skills by how much fun my players and I have. I believe an interesting storyline that can keep you guessing as to what's going to happen next is essential to a game. I believe in adding a dash of humor to all my games. I'll take a good laugh over a sour dose of realism any day. This has never been a problem as most all of the people I've played with have felt the same way. I've seen some of the best traits I can imagine a DM having in my friends who DM and have tried to incorporate them into my own style. I believe in honesty; if I make a mistake I admit it to my players. If there is a problem, we sit down and discuss it together. I am perfect neither as a Player nor a DM, but at the end of D&D sessions I play in... we can all say we've had fun. As for always giving the players what they want, where did I say that? Let's reread something I did say: My ideal is for everyone to have fun playing. If changing the campaign world brings the game closer to that then I'm all for it. Careful wording needs extra careful reading. For anyone wishing to disagree, I will agree to disagree. My play style is not the absolute (I don't believe there is such a thing), but rather it is the one that works for my friends and myself. Happy gaming. :)
Tormsskull 05-10-06, 02:18 PM	All else held constant, the single player's wishes matter more by far. The campaign world doesn't even come close. The campaign world won't be sad if it's changed, but the player would be if it's not. I don't care if you have the most stable and carefully planned out campaign world in the history of D&D because if no one is having fun it doesn't mean anything at all. My ideal is for everyone to have fun playing. If changing the campaign world brings the game closer to that then I'm all for it. Some others have already commented on this, but I specifically put the word "singular" in my post to see if you would differentiate between the desires of the few versus the desires of the group as a whole. What you are forgetting is that the group of players that are gathered around the table are not one entity. It is not DM and then Players. It is DM and then Player1, Player2, Player3, Player4, etc. Each player has their own view of what is fun. The DM is the person who makes the game fun for everyone as best as he/she can. Some players will only have fun if they are the strongest person in the group, some will only have fun if they don't die, some will only have fun if they get a specific magic item. The DM tries to make the game fun for everyone, by taking in everyone's definition of fun (including his own) and then basing the campaign around those definitions. As for your opinion on campaigns, I disagree with you. The integrity of the campaign must be adhered to, otherwise it becomes shallow and so do the characters inside of it. You as the DM must pick a campaign that is suitable for your players, with their enjoyment in mind. Once you have selected that campaign, changing a major aspect of the campaign to tailor to _one_ player should not be done. If multiple (or all) players need something tailored so that they can have fun, then you are playing the wrong campaign. Edit: DarkRhystar, define "All else held constant."
Turin 05-10-06, 02:29 PM	I was going to attempt to dissect DarkRhystar's snarky response, but I think Tormmskull's response really hits the mark here: What you are forgetting is that the group of players that are gathered around the table are not one entity. It is not DM and then Players. It is DM and then Player1, Player2, Player3, Player4, etc. Each player has their own view of what is fun. The DM is the person who makes the game fun for everyone as best as he/she can.To which I would add that the DM also has to be having fun. Part of the fun of DM'ing is world-building. As long as you're doing it in a way that anticipates the needs of your play group, there's no reason you should suddenly turn around and change your character creation guidelines just because one player says so. This doesn't just go for weird class/race combinations, either. If I've set up a campaign and the entire basis of the campaign is that two nations are going to war, I'm going to have as one of the requisites that all the players create characters that fit somehow within that framework (for example, requiring none of the PCs be on "the other side" without also being double-agents of sort... or something, I'm just working off the top of my head here). If one of the players comes to me after knowing what I've asked of the group with regards to creation guidelines, "I want to make a character who's a loyal officer of the other side," I'm going to categorically disallow it. If I tell a group of players "no evil alignments," and one of them shows up to play with his Lawful Evil necromancer and pulls one of these "well, I think he can still work in the group because he'll only be evil to the bad guys" (or whatever), I'm going to tell him no. This doesn't make me a bad DM... this makes me a DM who understands the concept that limits help focus play in a particular direction... and not just for the sake of my campaign creation, but also for the sake of the other gamers who have agreed that they want a campaign of a particular sort.
Feeb 05-10-06, 03:09 PM	To me, limiting players is the sign of a poor DM who cannot adequately deal with challenges as they arise. Disallowing content says that you are not equipped to deal with that content. A game with exotic characters shouldn't be a problem for a good DM, it should be an opportunity for fun and exciting gameplay. Remember, D&D is a game and as with all games, the objective is and always has been... to have fun. I allow ~3500 pages of published WOTC content in my games, does not allowing more mean that I am a poor DM, does allowing this much speak to my DM'ing abilities? I find this point to be rather facile. In my experience, most of the real challanges posed by the players do not come in the form of new feats or PrC's from the latest WOTC publication or 3rd party splatbook, but rather from the PC's interaction with the game world itself, and adjucating those interactions. The challange does not arise from dealing with new it comes from trying to satiate the imaginations of four or five friends gathered around a table.