Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Qui-Gon Jinn 08-03-04, 10:08 AM	I once tried joining a D&D group, but the DM only allowed the core classes in the Player's Handbook (but not Monks) and no evil alignments. The evil alignment didn't bother me, but the class restriction did. I wanted to be Rogue, but the DM said we already have one and don't need another one. I was thinking to be ranger or fighter, but there already was a ranger and a fighter. I told the DM off for being too restrictive. I should've been able to play a rogue or ranger or fighter, even if the group already had one of each. The DM I used to play under, kept pitting the PCs against each, which caused some nasty arguments and fight amoung the players. The same DM "monopolized" all his campaigns with clerics. If you weren't a cleric, he made the campaign extra hard on you. Because I wasn't a cleric and because none of my characters belived in any of the D&D dieties, he gave me an extremely hard time.
starfire311 08-03-04, 10:16 AM	Originally posted by Qui-Gon Jinn I once tried joining a D&D group, but the DM only allowed the core classes in the Player's Handbook (but not Monks) and no evil alignments. The evil alignment didn't bother me, but the class restriction did. I wanted to be Rogue, but the DM said we already have one and don't need another one. I was thinking to be ranger or fighter, but there already was a ranger and a fighter. I told the DM off for being too restrictive. I should've been able to play a rogue or ranger or fighter, even if the group already had one of each. ofcourse you should be able to play anything you want as long as you get the same options as the rest of the players. It is meta-gaming to make a character base on what is in the group. Just play what you want
Henchcritter 08-03-04, 11:52 AM	Originally posted by Qui-Gon Jinn I once tried joining a D&D group, but the DM only allowed the core classes in the Player's Handbook (but not Monks) and no evil alignments. The evil alignment didn't bother me, but the class restriction did. I wanted to be Rogue, but the DM said we already have one and don't need another one. I was thinking to be ranger or fighter, but there already was a ranger and a fighter. I told the DM off for being too restrictive. I should've been able to play a rogue or ranger or fighter, even if the group already had one of each. Many GMs use the core classes only restriction, I can't see anything bad about that. Although I find the 'only one rouge' restriction a bit overdone, I can understand the reasons behind it. A party which has his members divided among certain roles, which often means classes, means a better party and less internal competition. The DM I used to play under, kept pitting the PCs against each, which caused some nasty arguments and fight among the players. The same DM "monopolized" all his campaigns with clerics. If you weren't a cleric, he made the campaign extra hard on you. Because I wasn't a cleric and because none of my characters belived in any of the D&D dieties, he gave me an extremely hard time. Pitting the PCs against each other is bad, as is giving clerics advantages. But being an atheist is bad in D&D. Thanks to divine spells, there is undeniable proof of the existence of the gods. Even worse, clerics are in D&D what surgeons are in this world, the only source of powerful medicine. If you are hurt, you don't want to anger them. Being an atheist in D&D is unlikely, perhaps with the exceptions of psions and sorcerers who can explain divine spells without gods. Even worse, if you are one, you better make sure the clerics won't find out or no healing for you.
Henchcritter 08-03-04, 12:20 PM	Originally posted by starfire311 ofcourse you should be able to play anything you want as long as you get the same options as the rest of the players. It is meta-gaming to make a character base on what is in the group. Just play what you want Actually it would be far more meta-gaming not to. Suppose you were to form a party to enter the tomb of wights. What kind of party would you design. One: two fighters, a barbarian and a rouge. This party doesn't know a thing about wights and is defenseless against energy drain. Sure this party hacks them to pieces but that is only until the negative levels really kick in. And when confronted with magic, they are also in trouble. Two: a fighter or barb, a rogue, a cleric and a wizard. This party can deal much better with this. So if I build a party, I would only recruit members that fill a hole in my current party. Unless that second rouge can do something my first one can't, he's out. Besides, there is nothing wrong with a bit of meta-gaming and minor railroading (you all get approached by someone who has a job for you, no matter where you are). Otherwise the odds all the PC end up in the same party are very slim.
Blakk_Magemaster 08-03-04, 12:30 PM	Originally posted by Henchcritter Actually it would be far more meta-gaming not to. Suppose you were to form a party to enter the tomb of wights. What kind of party would you design. One: two fighters, a barbarian and a rouge. This party doesn't know a thing about wights and is defenseless against energy drain. Sure this party hacks them to pieces but that is only until the negative levels really kick in. And when confronted with magic, they are also in trouble. Two: a fighter or barb, a rogue, a cleric and a wizard. This party can deal much better with this. So if I build a party, I would only recruit members that fill a hole in my current party. Unless that second rouge can do something my first one can't, he's out. Besides, there is nothing wrong with a bit of meta-gaming and minor railroading (you all get approached by someone who has a job for you, no matter where you are). Otherwise the odds all the PC end up in the same party are very slim. Actually, that's not true. I don't think you should base a party on what's not already in it. Yes. that first party may have troubles with the undead, but that's the way it was made. That's just something they'll have to overcome and wiht a good DM it will be provided one way or another. D&D is meant to be fun and it's no fun when you're playing a character you don't want.
Henchcritter 08-03-04, 01:05 PM	Originally posted by Blakk_Magemaster Actually, that's not true. I don't think you should base a party on what's not already in it. Yes. that first party may have troubles with the undead, but that's the way it was made. That's just something they'll have to overcome and wiht a good DM it will be provided one way or another. D&D is meant to be fun and it's no fun when you're playing a character you don't want.If I would, as an NPC or PC, build a party, I would strive for party number two. Unless I live in a small city, the only reasons I would end up with party number two would be either that they are the only people that respond to my good offer (railroading) or the fact I chose them because I know out of character they are PCs instead of NPCs (meta-gaming). Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mind that in big cities the PCs for some weird reason always end up in the same party and even love it as a GM. I also don’t mind that there are parties comprised that have multiple characters in the same role and may lack another, as a GM that’s my player’s problem. I just can’t explain the fact that all the PCs end up in the same party, without the terms meta-gaming and railroading. Nothing that I can find something bad about this, although meta-gaming and railroading should normally be avoided like the plague, these instances are very rare occasions in which they are benign and even essential.
Arrowhen 08-03-04, 02:08 PM	One: two fighters, a barbarian and a rouge. This party doesn't know a thing about wights and is defenseless against energy drain. Sure this party hacks them to pieces but that is only until the negative levels really kick in. And when confronted with magic, they are also in trouble. That's why if I was a member of a party consisting of two fighters, a barbarian and a rogue and we found ourselves in a tomb full of wights I'd suggest we get the hell out of there. "We have to stay and fight these wights because this is the adventure our DM gave us" is metagaming too. ;) I'm a firm believer in tailoring adventures to fit the party... to a certain extent. I don't mean that every creature in the dungeon has to be the ranger's favored enemy or that the BBEG has to have one useful magic item for each party member, but at the same time I'm going to take the PCs strengths and weaknesses into account as I'm designing an adventure. If I'm planning an adventure for a cleric-less party of piercing weapon users then I know that a group of skeletons presents a much more significant challenge to them than it would to a party comprised entirely of heavy mace wielding clerics of St. Cuthbert. If I throw those skeletons at the piercy party I'm going to either have to provide a stronger motivation for them to stay and fight (i.e. put a pile of loot behind the skeletons) or have a contingency plan ready in case they decide to run away (i.e. there's a cleric in a nearby town who will agree to accompany the party IF they donate a bunch of the treasure they find to the church.)
MrkGrismer 08-03-04, 02:16 PM	Originally posted by Henchcritter Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mind that in big cities the PCs for some weird reason always end up in the same party and even love it as a GM. I also don’t mind that there are parties comprised that have multiple characters in the same role and may lack another, as a GM that’s my player’s problem. I just can’t explain the fact that all the PCs end up in the same party, without the terms meta-gaming and railroading. Nothing that I can find something bad about this, although meta-gaming and railroading should normally be avoided like the plague, these instances are very rare occasions in which they are benign and even essential. As an option, when the players create the characters tell them they need to come up with a 'good reason' why they know each other character in the party. Then you are not railroading, and while it is technically meta-gaming at least it gives an in-game reason, and in-game background to muck around with.
Glak 08-03-04, 02:20 PM	I agree with Arrowhen. Unbalanced parties should simply go on adventures that suit their abilities. They shouldn't go to the wight cave. I strongly prefer a party with a narrower range of abilities. It makes everything so much fun for the players and DM. You can't just pull out stock dungeons and force your players through them, but then again, that is bad DMing anyway.
starfire311 08-03-04, 02:21 PM	Originally posted by Henchcritter If I would, as an NPC or PC, build a party, I would strive for party number two. Unless I live in a small city, the only reasons I would end up with party number two would be either that they are the only people that respond to my good offer (railroading) or the fact I chose them because I know out of character they are PCs instead of NPCs (meta-gaming). Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mind that in big cities the PCs for some weird reason always end up in the same party and even love it as a GM. I also don’t mind that there are parties comprised that have multiple characters in the same role and may lack another, as a GM that’s my player’s problem. I just can’t explain the fact that all the PCs end up in the same party, without the terms meta-gaming and railroading. Nothing that I can find something bad about this, although meta-gaming and railroading should normally be avoided like the plague, these instances are very rare occasions in which they are benign and even essential. Actually I go to great lengths to keep my PCs from having any idea who the other PCs are(unless they ahve a reaon to)... in my current game I did individual sessions with all the PCs to go over character creation... then I ran them through several solo sessions this got everyone at least to level 2.... then as the met each other this took a very longtime I would introduce them to each other... IMO it wouldn't be uncommon, for people in the same line of work(adventuring) that live in the same area and the same time, to meet each other, and if they share interests and like each other then they will stay together. So no one in my game knows any of the abilities of the other players except what they have seen ingame. I wanted everyone to play the character they wanted to. I tried reall hard not to railroad them together I let it flow naturally and I gave a few of them similar "causes" to fight for. But actually right now they are still just a group of travellers that decided to travel together on a long(nearly 3000 mile) trip. The caravan that they are a part of is huge(almost 200 people), many times the players spend more time with NPCs than they do with the other players, this is fine this is how it would be. A couple of the PCs of grown together, but many have gotten into arguments. That just gives an idea as to what craziness I will do to make my palyers happy... this has been an unbelievable amount of work for me, I have had to fully flush out almost 200 NPCs. Because the players interact with them so often. Good luck, and down with meta-gaming.
cwslyclgh 08-03-04, 02:26 PM	That's why if I was a member of a party consisting of two fighters, a barbarian and a rogue Arrowhen... replace the barbarian with a druid that shows up only occasionaly and that is the party you are in... :P
Twisted Puppy 08-03-04, 02:58 PM	Originally posted by Qui-Gon Jinn I once tried joining a D&D group, but the DM only allowed the core classes in the Player's Handbook (but not Monks) and no evil alignments. The evil alignment didn't bother me, but the class restriction did. I wanted to be Rogue, but the DM said we already have one and don't need another one. I was thinking to be ranger or fighter, but there already was a ranger and a fighter. I told the DM off for being too restrictive. I should've been able to play a rogue or ranger or fighter, even if the group already had one of each. A couple of observations - if this was an established group you were trying to join, I think the DM had the right to discourage classes that were already in the party. There are reasons for this: first, the characters had already settled into certain roles. Second, the DM probably wanted a different character class because he felt it would add something to the game. When someone asks to join my game, I tell them what restrictions I have - in fact, I also prohibit evil alignments. It is the DM's prerogative to only allow core classes (although I allow others), as well. If there is a class that the party needs or would add to the game - maybe a bard or a druid - I will encourage that. If they are a new player, a fighter is a good start because they are about as easy as any class to learn basics with. However, I DO get the right of veto of their character. If someone I don't know complains and tells me off, it's really no skin off my back if he doesn't join. To me, the way to handle a situation like this is to go with the flow, take a different character class, and get settled in the group. Once you are all familiar with each other, then approach the DM about changing classes. If nothing else, he should at least explain why he was so restrictive. Since you "told the DM off," my guess is that you've simply eliminated one potential game group that you could have joined.
Astanphaeus 08-03-04, 03:09 PM	Originally posted by Qui-Gon Jinn I once tried joining a D&D group, but the DM only allowed the core classes in the Player's Handbook (but not Monks) and no evil alignments. None of this is a problem. Monks are regional in my campaign, so whether or not they were barred would be circumstantial. I wanted to be Rogue, but the DM said we already have one and don't need another one. I was thinking to be ranger or fighter, but there already was a ranger and a fighter. This is kinda silly. Rogues are particularly well suited for high customization. You can have two rogues in a group with completely different strengths and weaknesses. I would've encouraged you to make a rogue that didn't step too much on the toes of the existing one (unless it was the type of game in which two of the same general type of rogue would be an asset). I certainly wouldn't have barred you from playing one. Also, you can never have too many fighters... and two rangers with different combat focuses and different favored enemies would be a scary-cool duo, I think. I told the DM off for being too restrictive. That was probably a bad idea. ;) ... As for aetheism in D&D: it's pretty much impossible to maintain such a viewpoint in most settings. Certainly, in FR, proof of the existence of gods is all over the place. The question is whether or not they're something deserving of such reverence. It is possible to not place your faith in any of them. I have a character like that. He's fine with the teachings of many gods, but he hasn't taken one as a patron. "Gods... I follow many. I worship none," is something he's been known to say. I'd be a little miffed if he were penalized for that. In FR he pretty much would be (as the campaign world is currently defined), especially if he died. I think that's bogus, so I ignore that little 3.0 setting embellishment. I'd be fine with a DM who restricted alignment, restricted class choices... even told me I couldn't play something that was already represented in the party (I wouldn't agree with it, but I'd go along with it). I wouldn't be okay if I was forced to make a religiously observant character. ~ A.
Arrowhen 08-03-04, 03:44 PM	Arrowhen... replace the barbarian with a druid that shows up only occasionaly and that is the party you are in... Heh. Yup. And thus far we haven't stumbled into too many tombs full of wights. Don't get any ideas.
starfire311 08-03-04, 04:24 PM	Originally posted by Twisted Puppy A couple of observations - if this was an established group you were trying to join, I think the DM had the right to discourage classes that were already in the party. There are reasons for this: first, the characters had already settled into certain roles. Second, the DM probably wanted a different character class because he felt it would add something to the game. When someone asks to join my game, I tell them what restrictions I have - in fact, I also prohibit evil alignments. It is the DM's prerogative to only allow core classes (although I allow others), as well. If there is a class that the party needs or would add to the game - maybe a bard or a druid - I will encourage that. If they are a new player, a fighter is a good start because they are about as easy as any class to learn basics with. However, I DO get the right of veto of their character. If someone I don't know complains and tells me off, it's really no skin off my back if he doesn't join. To me, the way to handle a situation like this is to go with the flow, take a different character class, and get settled in the group. Once you are all familiar with each other, then approach the DM about changing classes. If nothing else, he should at least explain why he was so restrictive. Since you "told the DM off," my guess is that you've simply eliminated one potential game group that you could have joined. I can agree for the most part about most of the restrictions, only core classes, no monk, no evil are pretty standard. But saying that if some one in the party is already playing something then you cant play it is crazy. This guy told by his DM that he can't play a Monk, a Rogue, a Ranger or a Fighter. If I am new to the group I would most likely leave as well.
Darth K'Trava 08-03-04, 06:52 PM	The only restriction we have is: no evil alignments. Which makes sense unless you're playing an evil game. We've got one DM threatening to restrict clerics in one game as we have one full-time cleric and two "part-time" clerics (multiclass characters) He's been itching for someone to play a rogue but noone's bitten yet. He doesn't restrict the number of each class. That group has a monk, ranger/cleric (mine), cleric, cleric/wizard, and 2 fighters. You should be allowed to play whatever character you want to. That DM was being too restrictive in class choices.
cwslyclgh 08-04-04, 01:27 AM	Heh. Yup. And thus far we haven't stumbled into too many tombs full of wights. Don't get any ideas. maybe I will have to let you guys find a back way into the were rat temple... :smirk:
Qui-Gon Jinn 08-04-04, 02:13 AM	I was playing a magic-user (wizard), and when he started to get really powerful, it didn't go over very well with the DM. The DM accused me of trying to take over "his" world. He gave me extra crap for not following any of the D&D dieties. Eventually, I got fed up with his clerics-are-the-best attitude. My magic-user declared that he was going to exterminate ALL clerics. He formed an army of assassins and began assassinating clerics. It turned into a major holy war. It was cool to kill off the clerics. :b:
RogerWilco 08-04-04, 06:53 PM	Originally posted by Qui-Gon Jinn I once tried joining a D&D group, but the DM only allowed the core classes in the Player's Handbook (but not Monks) and no evil alignments. The evil alignment didn't bother me, but the class restriction did. I wanted to be Rogue, but the DM said we already have one and don't need another one. I was thinking to be ranger or fighter, but there already was a ranger and a fighter. I told the DM off for being too restrictive. I should've been able to play a rogue or ranger or fighter, even if the group already had one of each. The DM I used to play under, kept pitting the PCs against each, which caused some nasty arguments and fight amoung the players. The same DM "monopolized" all his campaigns with clerics. If you weren't a cleric, he made the campaign extra hard on you. Because I wasn't a cleric and because none of my characters belived in any of the D&D dieties, he gave me an extremely hard time. I once was in a similar situation, wanting to join a group, but being told, "only if you play a rogue, we do not have one yet". I would never have chosen that. Rogues are fun, but if you get manouverd in to such a role try to avoid getting stuck with it. They now seem to think I'm always going to play the rogue. Somehow nobody else is eager to play one, and my next character is going to be a druid ;-) Playing different classes makes you a better player.
Qui-Gon Jinn 08-05-04, 03:41 AM	None of my characters ever followed a D&D deity, when I played under my last DM. I always played Lawful Good (except once, I played a Lawful Evil magic-user/wizard, but eventually I had him commit suicide). My DM accused of me carring over my real world religious beliefs into the game and that was why I didn't follow any of the D&D deities. If he was a good DM (which he wasn't), he would've left the issue alone.
KevvyD 08-06-04, 01:49 PM	As a DM I like to have the players roll up whatever they want without any thought to the 'party'. My favorite start is to have the players roll up their characters before they come to the first session. That way they don't know what the rest of the group has. (Of course, I have to trust the players not to cheat on their rolls :)) I don't like the metagame thinking that occurs when you 'plan' a party. There are many ways to fix 'holes' in the party later on. I like this for several reasons. First, I like the randomness of the party that results. It seems somehow more realistic or organic to me and it forces the players to work around obstacles a bit more creatively. Second, it lets people play what they want without having to think about 'what the party needs'. Of course, when you're stuck with a party that is somehow skewed, all spellcasters, no spellcasters, no rogue, whatever, it forces the DM down certain paths that he/she might not have been planning on. That's life, as far as I'm concerned. Also, in the 3.0/3.5 world that we game in now, we aren't as limited to a single class as we used to be so any major holes can be filled by some creative multiclassing along the way. For my next campaign I'm considering having everyone sit down with their D6's and rolling a more-or-less straight organic party - 4D6 drop the low and roll 'em in order. That should make for some interesting characters and might force some of the players into classes they're not that familiar with. More fun to come!
SnowbearK 08-06-04, 11:15 PM	Originally posted by Qui-Gon Jinn I once tried joining a D&D group, but the DM only allowed the core classes in the Player's Handbook (but not Monks) and no evil alignments. The evil alignment didn't bother me, but the class restriction did. I wanted to be Rogue, but the DM said we already have one and don't need another one. I was thinking to be ranger or fighter, but there already was a ranger and a fighter. I told the DM off for being too restrictive. I should've been able to play a rogue or ranger or fighter, even if the group already had one of each. The DM I used to play under, kept pitting the PCs against each, which caused some nasty arguments and fight amoung the players. The same DM "monopolized" all his campaigns with clerics. If you weren't a cleric, he made the campaign extra hard on you. Because I wasn't a cleric and because none of my characters belived in any of the D&D dieties, he gave me an extremely hard time. Hate to ask this so far into the thread, but um, what's your point? You don't like the new DM, you didn't like the old DM? Yay... :rolleyes: If you're having trouble finding a group you do like, try the gamer classifieds. Otherwise, how about picking up a DMG and doing things your own way? There are at least three threads on this board alone on which you've basically just whined about how hard it is to find a group you like. It's starting to border on off-topic posting, trolling, and/or conversation for conversation's sake, depending on your PoV.
Aki Warren 08-07-04, 09:14 AM	Oh man, I hate it when that happens. Have you guys ever had a DM with a pet NPC? It's so annoying, especially if you built a pc who does the same thing, but better. The DM seems to really start to hate it when your ninja/assasian type just completly destroys his :D I would have a serious talk with your DM. Convince him that having several people do the same thing is okay. I reccomend pointing out other adventurers where this has happened. I usually point to dragonlance (It's my RP bible for fantasy :D ) but you could print out posts from this very thread! And I love it when I don't know what my other players are going to be. It really lets me chose what I want. And our DM has this new thing where we pick our stats. No point-buy, no rolling, just picking. I really think that's a good system, but it requires a lot of trust in your players. One powergamer will destroy it all.
PepperKids 08-07-04, 11:06 AM	Bah humbug, I can beat all of you on Crappy DM's. I am a female RL finding a game when I was younger was impossible. Try to find a DM who does not treat you like you are subpar in ability to think, does not want to get into your pants, yet does not change normal play because you are a woman and they are embarrassed by some of the content. From the time I was 12 until I was 20, there was a small group of females who always wanted to play. We knew several groups who played, but none of us could find a group who consistently would let us in seperately or together. Too many gender politics. I am 32 now and I play whenever I want, as does my sister. How? We both married men who play, and it was a prerequisite of the marriages. Pretty extreme hehe. You would not believe how awkward and hard it is as a younger female to find a game where you are not the center of all sexual advances (I did not care if they made advances on other characters, my characters were not interested, too awkward and too easy at that age to confuse the game and reality). As a 32 year old female, with a house full of kids, gender politics change. But it is hard for younger females. If a girl comes and asks you if she can join, really consider having her join, and when you do have a female in the group, let her just be one of the guys during the gameplay. It will pay off in the long run. You know I just realized, I am 32 years old and still the DM in the game expects more than a friendship from me! But like I said before... we do seperate the two. ANd that is very important when a female asks to play. Treat her like one of the guys in game play, no matter the relationship outside the game. Whether or not there ever is one.
Qui-Gon Jinn 08-07-04, 12:47 PM	It's tough finding DMs to playe under or players that want me as a DM. Many of the players and DMs in my area, went to the same high school(s). If you weren't part of their cliche back then, they didn't want you in their D&D party. Unfortunately, that attitude carried over after their high school years. You'd think that they would've grown up by now and not be so childish with their cliche attitudes. :(
LostDM 08-07-04, 01:32 PM	The absolutely ridicculus thing is we are talking about rogues. As has been stated, Rogues can have wildly variying talents, but more than that- haveing two clone Rogues can be great advantage. If they are burglar types they can burgle together and have a better chance of surviveal. If they are pickpocket types they can team that way. (Steal the object, pass it off...) Scout in two directions at once. Nothing wrong with two pairs of eyes on a trap either, anyone ever heard of aid another. Plus if one becomes a floor splat someone has to get the party out of there, checking for reset traps or such. Not that it is ever a particularly good idea to tell people not to play something. Anyway, none of this helps you. What does help you is being a Cleric of Olidammara. Like a rogue only shinier!