Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Vortex2099 11-26-06, 07:54 PM	Okay this is an opinion/conversation piece. I have a dm who weaves amazing stories. This particular dm does not want me to line out my char 1-20 but to go with the flow and line out a vauge direction. Ex. hes a sorc, and i am going to prestige in Archmage, i told the dm i wanted a draconic flavored sorc and he is designing bloodlines and weapons of legacy to flavor up the class. Now IMO D&D has a delicate balance to maintain between story and freedom. I consider myself a balanced player, I like role-playing as much as i like roll-playing and a game that mixes the two effectively is the most fun. Now on one end of the spectrum your DM weaves this amazing story but the effect is your campaign is on rails, the other extreme is utter chaos where the players ignore every hook thrown and the DM simply has no oppurtunity to create a story. but i digress... heres the question, how much control is too much. How much info and freedom do you want out of your dms? So how much control do you want over your characters development, and in what ways should the dm interpose or assist in this? Some of my most fun characters have taken completely different paths than those i started them on but it is also extremely fulfilling when you optimize a guy 1-20 and see your intentions come to fruition. Some peoples opinion is that the story and npcs are dm domain and the pcs are player domain, but others insist that the whole story should be a cooperative effort. What are your preferences and do you like it when your dms play a role in developing an intersting character or would you rather they were hands off? And what should your dm tell you about your campaign to help you with char creation and progression? let me know what you guys think.
Aratex 11-26-06, 08:00 PM	My personal view on this is that the DM should be aware of where your character is going, but not control it. I've made a point of telling my DMs my character's background and the direction I planned to take him. This allows him to fit into the story and have some compelling hooks show up, without me feeling limited or controlled. I believe when everyone's creativity is nurtured, the story will be as enjoyable as it can be.
Onikani 11-26-06, 08:13 PM	i created a background world and gave my players a campaign booklet with some basic info about the countries and my rule changes (Nothing major - just a bonus feat here and a few extra skill points there). Before beginning the campaign i made up some basic calendars and what plot hooks will be available in which towns and the time frames they will be available in. Also i know how each will end if they aren't solved by a certain time, and how that will impact other ones. This info was NOT presented to players. I told the players about this basic setup, picked their starting city and cut them loose. They are free to travel and explore anything. They can take any of the hooks they want and can ignore any that they want. They can even get themselves into encounters way above their EL if they aren't careful. My campaign world is a very alive, vibrant, and dangerous place and if they choose to follow the map to what they know is a Ogre village at level 1, well it's their fate. They are allowed to optimize at will at long as it fits the current storyline, their char personality/concept and comes from these books (they are allowed any class, race, feat, alternate class, whatever): PHB, PHB2, and all the completes. (I don't allow psionics). They love the balance. They know their efforts will somewhow impact the world, but they aren't railraoded into a specific storyline. They love having 7 books to choose ANYTHING from (i haven't banned anything from those books), but they know from the getgo that there are obvious limits to the power level (only 7x 3.5 books are allowed). I get the control i want as a DM, they get the flexability they want as players. They know what to expect about the world and campaign just by reading the book. Everyone is happy. :)
Clockwork_Apparition 11-27-06, 02:02 AM	Player perspective: OK. Just meta-gaming, the player had better bite on some of those hooks, or, alternately, enjoy pulled-out-of-nowhere-type scenerios and roleplaying tavern life, because the game isn't going anywhere good fast if the player's character is a fickle chooser of her/his adventures. DM perspective: If you need the main characters in the game to act in a very specific way, and if they don't your adventure's ruined, you need to begin writing fiction novels, not playing D&D as the DM. And I wouldn't recommend choose-your-own-adventure books for you either (they wouldn't be your style). Your style is the golden middle-way, my friend. The idea is to develop the story together, not to write a novel. Asking your players to play as a specific race, not play a specific race, to develop characters of a certain class, or not to choose a certain class, is OK. Tables turned, if you as the player want a setting featuring certain elements (say the possibility of a draconic heritage for an archmage sorcerer), the DM could find a way to incorporate that into his setting. The focus of the DM should be primarily the setting and NPC's. The focus of the players should primarily be the PC's. The focus for both can be put somewhere else without the earth cracking open. Really, it seems like trouble for the DM and players not to work together at least on some level.
kelvinaw273 11-27-06, 04:41 AM	I like to work with my players on this - I will have a central theme for the campaign, and will talk to the players individually to ascertain where their characters are going and work these - along with background details and similar thoughts - into the framework. If players present me with alternatives I am happy to take them into different areas of the campaign world than I had originally intended.
BW0222 11-27-06, 01:51 PM	Vortex2099, >So how much control do you want over your characters >development, and in what ways should the dm interpose or >assist in this? Honestly, the DMs only control over players is the rules of the campaign -- core, setting, and home. Once established, the DM honestly doesn't have any direct control over any aspect of character levelling. If a player wants to be an arch mage, and the campaign rules allow it, then they are going to be an arch mage or the campaign will be derailed. The player can always say... "I'm sorry the wererats are infesting the village... I head south to the capital and begin petitioning the High Tower of Sorcerory!" If the DM wants control over the rules, she needs to control it with rules. Banning certain materials, imposing training rules -- such as you must find a trainer and spend six months to gain a new class -- etc. all solves the issue and players know about it in advance. However, in the end, if you make it too difficult, PCs will just ignore your finely crafted plots and go off on just gaining their levels. Same with in-game rules on crafting, limits on gaining cohorts, etc. Saying that you can't craft X without finding troll blood because you don't want X in your campaign is just an excuss to derail the campaign for weeks while the players go troll hunting. DMs do well went the review the PCs and ensure that if any has any "special" requirements that the campaign is both suitable for them and that they have an opportuntity to work towards their goal. That said, it is import for players to realize that the DM don't like meta-gaming. Why would a first-level character from some farm know anything about an arch-mage? Why would someone in the middle of a desert be taking swimming feats so they can qualify for dread pirate classes? Players should honestly clear this sort of stuff with the DM and accept that certain characters might now work or might need to wait until certain points before gaining such feats. Creating such specific requirement builds so many levels in advance could be a problem -- not just for the story but the other players also.
sabrewolf 11-27-06, 03:05 PM	My take on the matter right now is better said to be a bit of both: I asked what each player wanted for their characters and devised some plot hooks about that, considering their intended story goals into the campaign. I let them loose to go where they want and do as they please. Yet i have the campaign main plots i weaved, as well as other paths for the characters for them to pick if they want. Also i let them know if their actions are leading them another path, another concept, so they can walk the way back to their original ideas or keep into that "new" path. On games before i tryed a more restricted story - wich was kinda epic-themed and they liked, if only for some flaws. Then i went for an open game, but clearly - as we´ve learned - too few plot hooks can leave a group "lost" on what to do, least they have short term goals to keep them busy. Thus my balance at the current campaign. Control AND freedom together in the world, but with the choice of how much of each chosen by each player - akin to the amount of plot hooks they bite or ignore. This is my choice as DM and player, to be free to build anything and grow to become anything, but should another option apear, to have a choice on whether to use it or not. Now about what to tell the players, I needed tell them nothing since i used Faerum as the world - and they know aboutit somewhat. And would have told of all rumours of the surrouding lands if all of them had not left their homelands for far away adventuring or some personal quest - Yet they got some rumours easilly when they asked about in towns or when events grew big enough.
Chrono Nexus 11-27-06, 03:23 PM	I make a setting. I make a world, and a set of events. How my players react to the events and their additions to the game is up to them. I don't pull them along, only through a proactive and creative approach to my games will they advance the story... if they wanted to, they could go crazy and kill a town. Fine. If they are strong enough to handle the in-game results of their actions, then so be it. "Hands free" dming is sometimes viewed as chaotic and dangerous to dms that like to create interlocking complex stories. They are only as chaotic as the players themselves, and the plot progression will work as well as how good the players really are. This style helps a player get into his character's shoes. Just like in real life, there are risks and threats and reactions. The setting is not a blank space when they look away- in every moment npcs are born and die, and events transpire. It is up to the pcs to desire and seek out adventure- and they will find it if they search.
TarlSS 11-27-06, 04:34 PM	I have the opposite problem. I ask 'hey, what do you think you should do?" and normally they're like, "Iunno." So I need to intervene with case officers/handlers/sages that 'suggest' them to do things. Does it encourage lazy thinking? Yes. Is it all that bad? Not so much. I can create my story and the players are entertained. Sometimes people just don't have that many goals or aspirations. When your players give you a free ticket to throw them into whatever situation you like, do so. Of course, there is the converse. If they're deadset on a path, not much sense in stopping them, just make the journey interesting and full of treasures and interesting folks and you should be alright.
Jutter 11-28-06, 04:40 AM	A few weeks before the start of a new campaign, I ask my players what they would like to see involved. Based on this input I create a concept, and I inform them of the concept. For example, last campaign this concept was 'orcs will be involved as frequently encountered enemies, and one of the plot-arcs might involve a big war'. Mind the use of 'might', as the PC's actions might prevent the war in the first place, or take them somewhere far away from the heat. The input from the players for this campaign was limited: one mentioned war, one mentioned certain 'run or be split-up' type of encounters (which I can add any time I want). Two weeks before the first session, I ask them to come up with three different character concepts (no stats, just ideas about race/class/prestige class). During the first session, they create the party together. Players are asked not to show up with less than three concepts or with very similar concepts (human fighter, dwarven fighter, half-orc barbarian). Then they create characters together. I advise them to create a divers party and to keep an eye on things they easily neglected in the past (my current group tends to forget about healing magic, social skills and knowledge skills). All this is merely an advice: I emphasize they have complete freedom in creating their own characters. I spend most of the first session serving coffee, character sheets, pencil sharpeners and erasers. And answering questions, of course. Then I hand all players a small questionaire about his/her new character. This involves short-term goals, long-term goals, family, religion, the aspired prestige class (if any), etc. They're not obliged to return it, but the more information they provide me with, the more interesting the campaign will be for their characters. I try to postpone creating a setting untill I know what characters they'll be playing, but of course my own creativity wheel has been spinning during those weeks. So I make relevant adjustments to my ideas: important NPC's from their background, the home of their exotic races, the organisations of the aspired prestige classes, etc. I tend to create 'what happens next' on a weekly basis, based on their PC's backgrounds and goals. I'm starting to serve them several plothooks each session, and usually I worked out the one they'll most likely pick (hey, I do have a dayjob).
aotrscommander 11-28-06, 08:47 AM	I have the opposite problem. I ask 'hey, what do you think you should do?" and normally they're like, "Iunno." So I need to intervene with case officers/handlers/sages that 'suggest' them to do things. Does it encourage lazy thinking? Yes. Is it all that bad? Not so much. I can create my story and the players are entertained. Sometimes people just don't have that many goals or aspirations. When your players give you a free ticket to throw them into whatever situation you like, do so. Of course, there is the converse. If they're deadset on a path, not much sense in stopping them, just make the journey interesting and full of treasures and interesting folks and you should be alright. I have pretty much the same situation. Again, this suits me fine, as I'm a very much pre-prepare DM (my games run like modules, rather than week-by-week freeform). I say "I'm going to run this game" and they say "okay, whatever." (Though I've not managed to coerce them into playing a Pokemon game yet, even though I managed to insert a Charmander/Charmeleon as somebody's familiar!) Abou the only thing they ask for are camapigns I won't run; i.e. criminal campaigns (and Wild West, as I'm not a huge fan). So I just tell them I'll play if they run it. (And it encourages them to actually write something and give me a break!) As to character control, it depends entirely on the game in question. For a lot of games, background is not even required; though I often want to know what the party make up is before I right the quest, we sometimes just roll up the characters on the night. Other games, especially heavily story-based, we have backgrounds; in some cases, when using my homebrew worlds, if I require a background, I write half. I.e. the player gives me some notes, and I weave them into the world. Obviosuly, the more extensive the notes, the less I have to do other than put names to the locations (etc). In game, provided that it's in the world (feasibly available to the region the PCs are in), the player can have it. If they can't, it either doesn't exist or is one of the very few things reserved for 'monsters' (Frenzied Berserker for example; the only way I'd let a PC be one is to be Exalted with Righteous Wrath, and there are only a couple of players who could manage Exalted in any case.)
Sereno 11-28-06, 02:03 PM	but i digress... heres the question, how much control is too much. How much info and freedom do you want out of your dms? So how much control do you want over your characters development, and in what ways should the dm interpose or assist in this? I'm both a player and a DM, but I'm going to answer this as a DM (not that my view as a player is much different).... Though the player should have (near) complete control over their PC and its development, I think the DM has every right to ask (or encourage) that you don't plan you're PCs "build" from level 1 to 20 ... I much prefer characters that are organically grown and reflect their experiences. Organic PCs just "feel" more attached to the campaign. I absolutely despise DM vs. Player games. I find DnD to be more rewarding when the players are my partners in the creation of the campaign. I throw out lots of hooks to see what they are interested in and develop adventures/encounters appropriate to their interest. If a player were to tell me that they were hoping/planning to go into a PrC, I'd do what I could to tie their involvement in whatever organization is related to the PrC. But, within reason. If a player was going for a very FR-specific PrC in my Eberron campaign, I believe I have the right to tell them, "Sorry, this is Eberron ... that PrC doesn't exist here." Or, at least, ask, "How do you see that PrC fitting into Eberron?" Letting them do the work of integrating two disparate settings.... :) My "story" is NEVER more important than the PCs ... in fact, I avoid long-term "campaign arcs" in my DMing. Instead I try to develop a dynamic world with lots of things going on for the PCs to pick-and-chose what they'd like to do.
Ryusage 11-28-06, 05:09 PM	I was in one campaign where we were controlled to such an extent that the CG crusaders-against-pirates that we joined effectively made us slaves. We talked about a plan and the DM stopped it in a really obviously meta-gamey way. So we made a new plan and when we initiated it he tried to stop us with gunpowder. He never told us gunpowder was available and suddenly threw it in there! Needless to say I left the group.
Greenstone 12-02-06, 08:11 AM	In our group, near the end of a campaign the DM will let us know that within two or three more sessions we should completeing this story. He then tells us we need to let him know if we will continue with the current chars or if we would want knew ones and to start thinking of the basics (class, race, background, personallity). On the last night of the campaign he asks us what our decision is. If it is continue with current chars, then he develops a higher level campaign. If we decide to start fresh, we usually begin the char creation before we leave that night, at least so he knows the basics. From that he begins to develop his next campaign. He does ask if there is any direction we wish to go. If we have mostly warriors, then it is mostly a warrior based adventure, etc. On our first night with the new chars he ask us to bring a path of the chars first 4-5 levels, so he can see the direction of the development and adjust his story accordingly. Thats not to say he will completely customize it for our parties skills, if we are not diverse enough, it will become aparent down the raod :D
High Octane 12-02-06, 11:03 AM	One of my DMs gives us a dungeon and an objective. He lets us work from there. Another DM sets a course of events and lets us decide how we will react. I try to bait my players with rumors and let them fall into situations when investigating.
Kobold_Avenger 12-02-06, 03:11 PM	I was in one campaign where we were controlled to such an extent that the CG crusaders-against-pirates that we joined effectively made us slaves. We talked about a plan and the DM stopped it in a really obviously meta-gamey way. So we made a new plan and when we initiated it he tried to stop us with gunpowder. He never told us gunpowder was available and suddenly threw it in there! Needless to say I left the group. Your dm should be smacked in the face, with a hammer..