Post/Author/DateTime	Post
SuperFrosty 07-17-04, 12:12 PM	Is this fair? I instituted the following rule, and some players complained, I just wanted to know if it was...legal, I guess... The players start out in prison, for various crimes (doesn't affect alignment, some repented, or whatever), and are offered a deal. They can be released from prison if they help the authorities infiltrate a certain clan called the Specters. Here's the rule: Since the clan is an all-human clan, I told my players they have to either be human, or take the feat (don't remember the name) that gives +2 to disguise checks. I'm not even making them roll the checks, but for storyline purposes, they need to either be or look like a human. Is that unfair?
Callista 07-17-04, 12:23 PM	... No. You're a DM; you're allowed to place restrictions on what classes and races your players can be. "Human or human-looking" (unless you've got players who specifically hate playing humans) doesn't seem too much of a restriction to me. And you've got a good reason. If you DO have players who hate humans, though, you could check to see if the human-only aspect of the clan is too important to the plot.
ksbsnowowl 07-17-04, 12:25 PM	I'd say that's fair. I'm in the midst of creating a campaign where PC will have to be human at the start. If characters die and new characters are made, they will have the option of some demi-human races further down the story line, but to start they'll have to be human.
SuperFrosty 07-17-04, 12:26 PM	Thanks for your advice. And it's extremely vital; the Specters, before becoming a clan, were a mercenary group that were directly responsible for the extermination of 98% of all orcs. ...but that's another story.
Glak 07-17-04, 12:51 PM	I applaud your desire to make the game rules correspond with your campaign. Just because it is in a book doesn't mean that it should be available for every campaign. D&D is an RPG, not a wargame.
Arcuna 07-17-04, 01:19 PM	That's completely fair. A race restriction (whether large or small), if put in for a good reason, helps balance the game. It'd be quite screwed up, for instance, if a mind flayer were to reside in a very strict "gnomes only" clan/club/thing. Also, I personally have this thing for elves, and IMO one feat would be a price I'd be quite willing to pay to be one. OTOH, if they want to be something like a gnome or dwarf, it might be a bit harder, due to their size. Likewise, a half orc (or halfbreed of almost any kind) would have a harder time disguising themselves, so you might want to also restrict what this feat lets them be. Just my 2 cp :w:
UMCorian 07-17-04, 02:26 PM	Actually, in one game I played, we were forced to either have Fey blood, Demon blood or be a vampire. The only race was human... it was actually not a bad game. My character had to wear a hidden magical item, lest he be burnt to death by the sun. Memories... I'd say, I agree with one poster - if you have people who really have a good concept and love being non-humans, then I'd probably re-evaluate how needed the 'all human thing' is to your plot.
Kash Darreder 07-17-04, 02:52 PM	Completely fair. Anyone should be able to create an interesting human character. Its your own species afterall,.....I hope:D I wouldnt play in your campaign though. Not because of the human-only clause, but because I cant stand the "you are imprisoned/hunted/whatever and thus forced into the adventure" idea. If it comes from something the party have done it is one thing, but to begin this way robs the players of the choices and quite frankly the heroic idea that the game is based on. In my not to humble opinion. Not because they have been in prison (happens to the best of them) but because they never CHOSE to do the right or wrong thing. In my thinking, goodness and heroism comes from choices, not forced actions. Rather than completing my mission I would probably try to escape somehow or even join with the villains simply because I, as a player, dont like being yanked around on a chain, without having merited it somehow. To stop this would require controling spells or circumstances and if that is needed to get the players involved in the plot, then you are doing something wrong! Well just a little rant. Humans only is fair enough. KD
Crossover-Chronicler 07-17-04, 02:58 PM	I don't know that "fair" and "unfair" really apply. The requirements you are imposing will indeed give the players an advantage in the initial scenario you intend to run. So you're not stacking things against them. But that alone won't answer the question of whether the players will resent it. Personally, I shy away from racial restrictions, and from telling players their characters' backstories. While it's great for "story," it reduces the chances that the player will actually be interested in the character he plays. I know that I wouldn't play a character who has to be a convicted criminal in need of a pardon, unless I could stipulate that my character was wrongly imprisoned and I could eventually come back to wreak my vengeance on those who locked me away. Applying a racial restriction (and implied class restriction, see below) would probably kill my interest in touhing this campaign. But I can only speak for myself. I think the feat thing needs some work. I think you might want to require that non-humans be competent in disguise, but I fail to see why the feat that grants +2 at 0 skill ranks is preferable to a character with 4 ranks but without that feat, or why either is preferable to a character with a higher charisma and a few ranks (likely cross-class) or even a spellcaster with disguise self, alter self or a hat of disguise; or a character with enough ranks in Bluff to gain the Synergy bonus... I think a better restriction would be "the character must have some way to pass as human." What happens when one of the players wants to play a Paladin? Not only would breaking any just law violate the paladin's code, but so would the ongoing deception implied in the infiltration efforts. What about clerics? Again, a follower of many good-aligned deities would have some real trouble breaking the laws of any government they would have no problem working for, or real trouble working for any government whose laws they didn't mind breaking.
General Dorsey 07-17-04, 04:05 PM	I'm going to have to say you are being a bit unfair. I understand that you believe that it is vital to the story that the party is all human or passes for human. That is fine, for the most part. The problem comes in for those who want to play a non-human character and are forced to take their only 1st level feat and apply it to the one you have chosen for them. I think that there may be another solution. You could simply have everyone make appropriate disguise checks. This would make it so that they can choose the skill or feat they want without being forced to. Another option would be to change the story slightly, or at least make it so that the half-elf and half-orc appear more human than elven and orcish. Ask the players what races they wanted to play and see if there are other options that can be written into the story. While I agree that it is your world and story, it is also theirs. If they are not having any fun, then you won't enjoy the game either. Then you have to ask "Why even play?" I suggest working with each player to see what you can all come up with.
Vaelan 07-18-04, 12:44 AM	If you aren't going to bother with the disguise checks, why not give them Disguise Kits instead of making them waste one of their Feats? It sounds like you're just trying to penalize non-Humans. If you don't want them in your game, simply do not allow them.
was_fired 07-18-04, 02:44 AM	It seems fair enough. Just because the rules say it is possible doesn't mean I have to allow a player to be a succubus paladin. If they don't like they don't have to play. Just like if I don't like them or their concept I don't need to DM them.
Mr.Musgrave 07-18-04, 07:22 AM	I have no issue with playing a human but I don't like being told I HAVE to play a human. Why play a creative game if you're basically handed a character concept? Sounds kinda railroady to me. A dm should work WITH his players, not above them.
Henchcritter 07-18-04, 09:50 AM	You have the right to set your campaign theme and they have the right not to join. I have a drow campaign, that means some classes, like pally are not alowed and the only race you can play is drow. And yes, you are all brothers and sisters. I aked my players if they liked this idea and they said yes. Mr.Musgrave: I have no issue with playing a human but I don't like being told I HAVE to play a human. Why play a creative game if you're basically handed a character concept? Sounds kinda railroady to me. A dm should work WITH his players, not above them. You don't have to do anything, you either join or don't Again the "you have to let me play anything or you stifle my creativity" comes up. Well, who is more creative? Someone who needs weird races or classes to brew a character or someone who can make many unique and fun characters based on one race? True creative minds can make make creative characters, even when they are restricted. What is so railroadish you start in a jail. There are many reasons you could be in jail, so to say the GM hands you a character concept is way to much. It may be a bit like that tavern where you always end up hooked with other adventurers. The other idea people are forgetting here is GM creativity. If I want to make a campaign about scheming drow, I must place many restrictions on the players. An elf paladin wouldn't survive the campaign. As a GM you do your best to make the campaign fun. You are not there to play the PCs. Sometimes restrictions are needed for certain campaign. I have the feelings some players go berserk when you restrict them. Instead of trying to see why the restriction was necessary, they only focus on what they perceive as a violation of their freedom. As said, you always have the freedom not to join, no players no campaign. Secondly this is a game, not an exercise in constitutional freedom.
The Master Weaver Is Warped 07-18-04, 10:09 AM	yes, it is fair. I wouldn't make nonhumans take the feat, but I'd make them go in debt to the parol board for the hat of disguise, and accept the related consequences if they fail to use the uncomfortable chin strap. DM:There is a heavy wind. Your hat blows off your head. Player1: Damn, I lost my hat. (runs after it.) Player2: That's what the chin strap is for, you idiot. (runs after P1 to try and catch the hat.) Player3: You don't get that back the spectors are going to kill us. Player 1: and I am gong to owe the parol board 4000g. Player 3: I think your prioities are a bit skewed. (runs after the other 2)
Astanphaeus 07-18-04, 12:31 PM	Originally posted by Mr.Musgrave I have no issue with playing a human but I don't like being told I HAVE to play a human. What if the setting is all human? Why play a creative game if you're basically handed a character concept? "Human" isn't a character concept. Sounds kinda railroady to me. A dm should work WITH his players, not above them. That goes both ways. If a DM wants to run a human-centric campaign (or an anything-centric game, for that matter), there's nothing wrong with that. There are all sorts of campaigns and all sorts of settings, and there are always limitations. Obviously, you can't play a blaster-wielding wookie in Faerun. One of the ways in which a player works WITH the DM (and the other players) is by making a character that's in keeping with the setting, the campaign, and the party. After all, there can always be another game in which a particular player's favored race or class can be brought in. SuperFrosty: Your scenario and your basic restriction is, in my view, entirely appropriate. However... I think Kash makes a good point about the lack of choice. I think it'd be a good idea if, at some point in the story, the PCs actually have a choice to cut and run or stick with the quest/job. Maybe it reaches a point where the mission looks finished from the outside -- the authorities think it's a done deal, the PCs have fulfilled their part of the bargain -- but the PCs know better. They can then either keep their mouthes shut, or come forward with the information that there's some critical loose end... and really finish the job. I'm also not fond of the feat requirement. Better to just keep it simple with the race options, in my opinion. I'd suggest: 1. Human 2. Human w/ Bloodline (from Arcana Unearthed) 3. Half-orc with strong human heritage (looks like an ugly human) 4. Half-elf with strong human heritage (looks like a pretty human) 5. Any other human hybrid that has inherited the bulk of their physical appearance from their human parent. Another suggestion: if there are players who really want to play another race, make a secondary group with a storyline that's indirectly connected to the first group's situation, and do a session with the second group from time to time. ~ A.
Mr.Musgrave 07-18-04, 12:36 PM	Originally posted by Henchcritter You have the right to set your campaign theme and they have the right not to join. I have a drow campaign, that means some classes, like pally are not alowed and the only race you can play is drow. And yes, you are all brothers and sisters. That's also very lame to me and I wouldn't play. If the dm has his story down that pat, he should put down the dice and start writing his novel. I aked my players if they liked this idea and they said yes. You don't have to do anything, you either join or don't I wouldn't. Then again, my group plays an extended campaign so it's never an issue. Again the "you have to let me play anything or you stifle my creativity" comes up. Well, who is more creative? Someone who needs weird races or classes to brew a character or someone who can make many unique and fun characters based on one race? True creative minds can make make creative characters, even when they are restricted. And a truely creative dm can work with whatever a player comes up with instead of saying "no, you can't do that." It works both ways. What is so railroadish you start in a jail. There are many reasons you could be in jail, so to say the GM hands you a character concept is way to much. It may be a bit like that tavern where you always end up hooked with other adventurers. That wasn't even close to what I was talking about. I don't like being forced into playing a certain character or race or whatever just because a DM can't work outside of his linear story. Like I said, drop the dice and write your novel if it's that important things go a certain way. The other idea people are forgetting here is GM creativity. If I want to make a campaign about scheming drow, I must place many restrictions on the players. An elf paladin wouldn't survive the campaign. No, you must not. You SHOULD find a way to make everyone happy. Placing many restrictions is the easy way out. As a GM you do your best to make the campaign fun. You are not there to play the PCs. Sometimes restrictions are needed for certain campaign. I have the feelings some players go berserk when you restrict them. Instead of trying to see why the restriction was necessary, they only focus on what they perceive as a violation of their freedom. As said, you always have the freedom not to join, no players no campaign. Secondly this is a game, not an exercise in constitutional freedom. Well, your games sound stiff and boring so I wouldn't play in them. My dm has let us play whatever we want (within reason) and it has never altered his main plot. He works around our character's stories, inclusing them in with the main plot. I very much prefer this to being forced to play an elf or whatever. I might have a hard time playing a goblin in a heroic campaign but that doens't mean he won't let me try. Role-playing and character devealopment, I think they call it.
Mr.Musgrave 07-18-04, 12:44 PM	Edit: Shoot. I double-posted without thinking. Sorry about that mods and memebers who like to act like mods. Originally posted by Astanphaeus [B] What if the setting is all human? And why does it have to be all human? Why are you playing a fantasy game with only humans? That's not fantasy, it's history. Don't get me wrong, I play the core races more than any other, but I like the option of playing something else if I have a concept in my head. "Human" isn't a character concept. No, but a human criminal in jail who's being forced into serving this clan IS. That goes both ways. If a DM wants to run a human-centric campaign (or an anything-centric game, for that matter), there's nothing wrong with that. There are all sorts of campaigns and all sorts of settings, and there are always limitations. Obviously, you can't play a blaster-wielding wookie in Faerun. One of the ways in which a player works WITH the DM (and the other players) is by making a character that's in keeping with the setting, the campaign, and the party. After all, there can always be another game in which a particular player's favored race or class can be brought in. ^This is why I'm glad my group has always played extended campaigns. I could never play in a game where things were reset every few weeks. It's totally confusing to me. But, whatever floats your boat. Most of the problems I see on this board would be solved if people crafted extended universes. Different styles, I guess.
Nick Soapdish 07-18-04, 12:44 PM	Originally posted by Astanphaeus "Human" isn't a character concept.[/B] Sure it is. Those humans are all alike. ;) I think that the racial restriction is fair, but I'm not sure about the feat exemption. Like somebody said, what's the difference between having 4 ranks, but no feat or having the feat and no ranks, especially if you aren't going to bother rolling the disguise checks? The exemption, if you have one, should be more general such as "being able to adequately disguise themselves" and allow that to be through a really high Charisma, skill points, or feats. Or maybe a disguise kit although that might be already assumed.
Crossover-Chronicler 07-18-04, 12:47 PM	Originally posted by Henchcritter You have the right to set your campaign theme and they have the right not to join. I have a drow campaign, that means some classes, like pally are not alowed and the only race you can play is drow. And yes, you are all brothers and sisters. I aked my players if they liked this idea and they said yes.And there is a telling difference:Originally posted by SuperFrostyI instituted the following rule, and some players complainedYour players agreed to it; these players don't.You don't have to do anything, you either join or don'tThat's an abuse of definition. You basically set quitting in a huff as a more valid response than voicing one's grievances. It's still "you have to obey this restriction if you want to be a part of the game." After all, except when it comes to physics and a few basic aspects of biology, all anyone can do is offer an ultimatum: you don't have to drive the speed limit, obey traffic signs or follow other road safetly rules - if you're willing to accept the consequences of tickets (which again, you don't have to pay...), the potential for injury, and eventually a revoked license (which doesn't mean you have to stop driving...)Again the "you have to let me play anything or you stifle my creativity" comes up. Well, who is more creative? Someone who needs weird races or classes to brew a character or someone who can make many unique and fun characters based on one race? True creative minds can make make creative characters, even when they are restricted.You are misrepresenting Mr.Musgrave's statement. Elves, Dwarves, Halflings and Gnomes are all staples of D&D. Further, as far as I can tell they exist as cultural equals to humans in SuperFrosty's campaign world, and even exist in a mixed and somewhat accepting culture within the society which SuperFrosty has created (otherwise the nation wouldn't necessarily consider the presence of a clan of radical human-centrists to be a problem meriting the early release of prisoners to infiltrate the organization). The other reaces are not so exotic (I have the potential to be sharing a cell with them), nor iss it unbalanced that I play one (ECL 0), nor does it turn the campaign into a bizarrde ferakshow (as they're apparently just as common as on any other campaign world - as NPCs). The sole reason the DM has placed the restriction is to increase the convenience of the initial adventure he's dumping on them. I'd have no problem playing a human. In fact, having been given no restrictions that is still what I'd likely play. However, I would resengt being stuck with a human as my only option (especially since in this setup I can also not do much with Cleric, Druid or Paladin). So, in a world where my character shares living space with elves, dwarves, gnomes and halflings, I am stuck playing a human. Not so great a concern, unti we note that humanity starts out with a bad rap, as the primary antagonists are a human-only "clan" who've already nearly wiped out one race.What is so railroadish you start in a jail. There are many reasons you could be in jail, so to say the GM hands you a character concept is way to much. Because that assumes that your character concept includes being a felon. The sentence has to be severe enough that the offer of freedom looks good to the prisoner. That narrows down the character concept considerably: either the character is a rightfull imprisoned criminal (thus, not very idealisitic) or else the character is wrongfully imprisoned (thus, only idealistic if capable of ignoring reality). Your options narrow down to: "cynical or delusional."It may be a bit like that tavern where you always end up hooked with other adventurers.What tavern? The other idea people are forgetting here is GM creativity. If I want to make a campaign about scheming drow, I must place many restrictions on the players. An elf paladin wouldn't survive the campaign.The Dm starts out with much broader boundaries within which to exercise his own creativity? Why continue to give the DM preference at the expense of the single aspect the players control?As a GM you do your best to make the campaign fun. You are not there to play the PCs. Sometimes restrictions are needed for certain campaign. I have the feelings some players go berserk when you restrict them. Instead of trying to see why the restriction was necessary, they only focus on what they perceive as a violation of their freedom.And why should they see anything else? Beyond the "loss of freedom" aspect, I see it a s a warning sign that the DM doesn't consider the enjoyment of the players to bne a high priority.As said, you always have the freedom not to join, no players no campaign. Secondly this is a game, not an exercise in constitutional freedom.Again, you imply that quitting the game over such a restriction is a more valid response than complaining and seeking to have the DM alter his decision. On what do you base this?
Astanphaeus 07-18-04, 01:03 PM	Originally posted by Mr.Musgrave And why does it have to be all human? Why are you playing a fantasy game with only humans? That's not fantasy, it's history. Quick, someone get George Martin on the phone and tell him he isn't writing fantasy! It's all wrong! Wrong! ... You ever hear of historical fantasy? How about Arthurian legend? Why does it have to be all human? How about this: why not? Why does it have to be X, Y, and Z? Why can't it be A, B, and C? or D, F, X, and A? Why can't it be depth instead of breadth? This is roleplay gaming. Pretty much anything's possible. Exploration of various configurations isnt wrong. Don't get me wrong, I play the core races more than any other, but I like the option of playing something else if I have a concept in my head. Then save it for another game in which such a concept would be appropriate. "Human" isn't a character concept. No, but a human criminal in jail who's being forced into serving this clan IS. I wouldn't say so. That's a hook, at best. This is why I'm glad my group has always played extended campaigns. I could never play in a game where things were reset every few weeks. It's totally confusing to me. But, whatever floats your boat. I think I run what you call "extended campaigns". They go on for years. It's also the type of thing I prefer to play in. Despite that, there's always room for other games, and I find it's good to take a break from the main campaign from time to time. I have a secondary campaign that's very episodic in structure, so it serves well as a "break from the norm" for a few sessions. And yes, it's all about playing styles. When I'm playing, I ask the GM about the setting, the campaign concept, and the rest of the party. I then create a character. I don't go in blind with a concept and expect to play it. But that's me. ~ A.
Henchcritter 07-18-04, 01:51 PM	Originally posted by Mr.Musgrave That's also very lame to me and I wouldn't play. If the dm has his story down that pat, he should put down the dice and start writing his novel. My players strongly disagree. And a truely creative dm can work with whatever a player comes up with instead of saying "no, you can't do that." It works both ways. Try puting an elf paladin lv3 at starting level among first level drow PCs in drow society. Unless you make the pally way too powerful or start railroading, the pally will dy or leave the group in the first few sessions. As a GM, you are not a god. You have to keep your game-world credible. An elf paladin in the sceming drow underdark is way too much. That wasn't even close to what I was talking about. I don't like being forced into playing a certain character or race or whatever just because a DM can't work outside of his linear story. Like I said, drop the dice and write your novel if it's that important things go a certain way.He only puts the players in a starting situation to let them work together. Perhaps a minor part of railroading, but puting a group together without either railroading or meta-gaming is extremely hard. The Dm starts out with much broader boundaries within which to exercise his own creativity? Why continue to give the DM preference at the expense of the single aspect the players control?Frankly why not. As a player, I trust my GM completely. I don't want players that don't trust me. On the same ground I trust any GM I play with. If the GM feels the need to restrict my character, then he probably has a good reason for it and he'll make it fun. D&D is a game about role-playing, not a tug of war about control. And why should they see anything else? Beyond the "loss of freedom" aspect, I see it a s a warning sign that the DM doesn't consider the enjoyment of the players to bne a high priority.Actually the reverse it true. You can play a elf paladin in a drow campaign. Session one, your character is attacked by several powerful drow and tortured to death, that is no fun for the player. So, as a GM you make restrictions to make the game fun for all players. Again, you imply that quitting the game over such a restriction is a more valid response than complaining and seeking to have the DM alter his decision. On what do you base this?You can complain once about it. After that it is joining and accepting or don't do either. There is a thin line between making a complaint and whining. Well, I have a challenge for you: Put this in your campaign without railroading, a barbarian who is CN and wants to stay home and brew beer. He is also a hermit and hates other people, although he doesn’t harm them.
Mr.Musgrave 07-18-04, 02:16 PM	Originally posted by Astanphaeus This is roleplaying gaming. Pretty much anything's possible. Exploration of various configurations isnt wrong. But everything ISN'T possible when restrictions are applied. And I do so love how people on this board ask for opinions on situations and then tell the responders how their opinions are wrong.:rolleyes:
Crossover-Chronicler 07-18-04, 02:32 PM	Originally posted by Henchcritter My players strongly disagree. Try puting an elf paladin lv3 at starting level among first level drow PCs in drow society. Unless you make the pally way too powerful or start railroading, the pally will dy or leave the group in the first few sessions.That's right, he will. Which is why I ask the players if they're in the mood for a Drow game before I begin. As a GM, you are not a god. You have to keep your game-world credible. An elf paladin in the sceming drow underdark is way too much.That's true. Or at the very least, short-lived. But that's really beside the point.He only puts the players in a starting situation to let them work together. Perhaps a minor part of railroading, but puting a group together without either railroading or meta-gaming is extremely hard.And what's wrong with metagaming?Frankly why not.Because it favors the options of a minority of players (one DM) over those of everyone else?As a player, I trust my GM completely. I don't want players that don't trust me. On the same ground I trust any GM I play with.That is your policy and your experience. It is not universally applicable.If the GM feels the need to restrict my character, then he probably has a good reason for it and he'll make it fun.Experience has taught me otherwise.D&D is a game about role-playing, not a tug of war about control.What does that have to do with anything?Actually the reverse it true. You can play a elf paladin in a drow campaign. Session one, your character is attacked by several powerful drow and tortured to death, that is no fun for the player. So, as a GM you make restrictions to make the game fun for all players.No, you tell the player tha a paladin character in a drow game is doomed. If he wants to play a martyr, that's his choice. He just has to make a new chaarcter rather soon.You can complain once about it. After that it is joining and accepting or don't do either. There is a thin line between making a complaint and whining.Why only once? Why not a genuine debate, in which the actual merits of each side are examined?Well, I have a challenge for you: Put this in your campaign without railroading, a barbarian who is CN and wants to stay home and brew beer. He is also a hermit and hates other people, although he doesn’t harm them. That would depend on the campaign, wouldn't it?The followign come to mind: Let him do as he pelases. he has intentionally built a character who has no connection to any part of the rest of the world, and thus should be content to be left alone. I let him make the occasional craft and profession checks and get on with the rest of the party. Some threat related to a primary antagonist disrupts his secluded life in such a way that the (stereotypically) foul-tempred barbarian feels compelled to seek vengeance. If he must sell beer or purchase supplies (grain, for example), he encounters some antaogonist during his brief contact with society. Some other consequence of the main campaign (blight, famine, taxes, prohibition law, religious restriction) disrupts his beer-brewing business, enticing him to either make do with substandard booze or seek out the root of the problem. One of the above threatens the secluded natural environment in which he lives.After he encounters the rest of the party, the player will either have his character develop a more gregarious nature (and hang around) or else go back to beer-brewing (in which case I wish him luck, and will adjust encounters for the rest of the party accordingly). Everyone's happy. Noneo f these is railroading because in each case the character has choices, and negative experiences are not merely prods to get a character going, but clues as to the origin of a problem. Not every adventure begins with someone walking up with a bag of gold (or the key to your cell) and saying "this is what I want you to do..."
NeutralNeutral 07-18-04, 02:49 PM	DM: I have this really neat idea for a campaign. However, it involves restrictions A, B, and C, and all of you will start off in dramatic unpleasant situation X. Interested? Option 1. Players: "Yes please"! -game goes ahead Option 2 Players: "Yes, ok, but.." - Dm and/or players reach a compromise, game goes ahead Option 3 Players: "No way" DM: "Ok, who wants to be Dm then?" - some other campaign starts, or everyone gives up and goes home
RAMAUL 07-18-04, 03:05 PM	What if they accept and run off?
The Master Weaver Is Warped 07-18-04, 05:05 PM	Originally posted by Astanphaeus Quick, someone get George Martin on the phone and tell him he isn't writing fantasy! It's all wrong! Wrong! :rofl: Thanks, I needed that.
Henchcritter 07-18-04, 05:44 PM	Crossover-Chronicler: And what's wrong with metagaming?Depends. Hey this is a troll, I drop my sword and grap some alchemist's fire is wrong for a first level human fighter who has nothing in character that could give him that knowledge. For a dwarven fighter it might be oke, check with your Gm first, because dwarves have special training vs. giants which may or may not include that knowledge. A fighter that seeks a party and recruits the fellow PCs instead of NPC characters that may be in the city, is perfectly ok. If this kind of meta-gaming is bad, how come every PC and up in a party with fellow PCs. The fact that PC are ran by players in clearly player knowledge.No, you tell the player tha a paladin character in a drow game is doomed. If he wants to play a martyr, that's his choice. He just has to make a new chaarcter rather soon.I had such a situation once when I was a young GM. A player wanted to play a character that didn't work in that game system and world. I, and several other players, said it wouldn't and couldn't work, but he wanted it anyhow. Of course, his character didn't work. Then the guy blamed me twice, once that I undermined his character idea and once because his character didn't work. I would have used the "no word". He would have been blamed at the start of the session but that may have allowed him to enjoy the session as the others did. You'll reply that you clearly told the guy what he was into, he didn't listen so he has only himself to blame. The problem is that this approach works on reasonable people. Non reasonable people don't do that, they blame the GM. After he encounters the rest of the party, the player will either have his character develop a more gregarious nature (and hang around) or else go back to beer-brewing (in which case I wish him luck, and will adjust encounters for the rest of the party accordingly). Everyone's happy.Well, if this guy wants to play a hermit, you let him try it a few sessions and then retire him. Then simply say you don't accept hermit like characters saves some time. That is your policy and your experience. It is not universally applicable.Perhaps that is the difference between us. You play with GMs you need to struggle against and every bit of freedom you give them is a bit too much. I can trust that my GMs make the best of their campaign and I can work with them and trust them.
Astanphaeus 07-18-04, 09:59 PM	Originally posted by Mr.Musgrave "This is roleplay gaming. Pretty much anything's possible. Exploration of various configurations isnt wrong." But everything ISN'T possible when restrictions are applied. First of all, I didn't state "everything". I said "anything"... as in any possible configuration. As in: a game focused entirely on Underdark characters and races. Or a campaign focused on a single Underdark race... or focused on "races of stone", or an undersea campaign, or a human-centric setting... or a semi-historical setting, or an entirely cosmic one where you're encouraged to play something off the wall, or a campaign based on an established fantasy setting... or a cinematic campaign, or a horror campaign, or a intrigue-espionage campaign... All of these are interesting situations with all sorts of character and roleplaying possibilities. Secondly, fantasy itself is a restriction... as is claiming that you can't fairly narrow or redefine the breadth of the options. "Stock" fantasy or "standard" D&D fantasy aren't the only game options in town. ~ A.
CJ1720 07-18-04, 10:56 PM	I was once in a savage species game playing a gnome because I didn't have the savage species book and didn't want to learn the rule variations. If the DM had said no, I wouldn't have played. Instead he said yes, and she disguised herself as a goblin and had to continually pass disguise checks. I knew that was the price of playing a gnome in that campaign, so I set her up to be a disguise artist. It worked well. It helped that the DM also fudged a roll now and then, but not at other times. I played in a campaign where we were restricted the shorter races: dwarves, gnomes and halflings. It was fun. We all had a great time. The game shouldn't be a fight for control between the players and the DM. For a well-thought out campaign that has lots of challenges for the players, I would hope that most of us could put aside our egos' demand that we control all things all the time and just go with the flow for the sake of the game. Playing in a group is like being married -- yikes! -- there's always another chance until you sully the relationship(s) so much that it's broken. So you'll play this campaign as a human. There's another campaign later and you can play something else then. How many characters have you played in your DnD career? You can't play a human one time because it "fits" into the campaign? That strikes me as hubris. The name of group interaction is compromise.
Crossover-Chronicler 07-18-04, 11:05 PM	Originally posted by Henchcritter Depends. Hey this is a troll, I drop my sword and grap some alchemist's fire is wrong for a first level human fighter who has nothing in character that could give him that knowledge. For a dwarven fighter it might be oke, check with your Gm first, because dwarves have special training vs. giants which may or may not include that knowledge.That depends on how broadly known trolls' weaknesses are. If the locals at the tavern make crude jokes based on troll physiology (regrowth, flammability, etc.) then it could fall under "common knowledge." And a player might assume that it is common knowledge, given how often the troll's stats are tossed about. Such an assumption is then it's not metagaming at all, just a flawed assumption.A fighter that seeks a party and recruits the fellow PCs instead of NPC characters that may be in the city, is perfectly ok. If this kind of meta-gaming is bad, how come every PC and up in a party with fellow PCs. The fact that PC are ran by players in clearly player knowledge.That's kind of my point. I prefer getting a party together via metagaming (players building backstories that intentionally involve other characters, building characters to suit the overall party, etc) to arranging a party via railroading. I had such a situation once when I was a young GM. A player wanted to play a character that didn't work in that game system and world. I, and several other players, said it wouldn't and couldn't work, but he wanted it anyhow. Of course, his character didn't work. Then the guy blamed me twice, once that I undermined his character idea and once because his character didn't work. I would have used the "no word". He would have been blamed at the start of the session but that may have allowed him to enjoy the session as the others did. You'll reply that you clearly told the guy what he was into, he didn't listen so he has only himself to blame. The problem is that this approach works on reasonable people. Non reasonable people don't do that, they blame the GM.Unreasonable people will blame the DM no matter what. An unreasonable player who wants to play a domed concept will either blame someone else for restricting the character, or blame someone else when the character dies.Well, if this guy wants to play a hermit, you let him try it a few sessions and then retire him. Then simply say you don't accept hermit like characters saves some time.Or I give him the chance. The "reluctant hero" is an archetype in fantasy literature, and I see no reason not to play out the scenario and see if such a character won't develop. Perhaps that is the difference between us. You play with GMs you need to struggle against and every bit of freedom you give them is a bit too much. I can trust that my GMs make the best of their campaign and I can work with them and trust them.I can count the GMs I've played under who I trust to that degree on one finger. Also, I wonder what you mean by "and every bit you give them is too much." As a player, I don't have the option of restricting my DMs' freedoms very much. All I can do in that regard is give them a hard time if they take too many liberties, which is not the same thing. To be honest, I'm mostly a DM. I couldn't blackmail my players into taking the job if I tried. My comments come as much from my experiences as a DM as those as a player. As a DM, I am open to attempts to change my mind so long as they include compelling arguments instead of yelling and name-calling. And I'd much prefer that a player voice his grievances than pack up his toys and go home.
ck2001wendt 07-19-04, 05:46 PM	A few observations: 1. Campaigns for me are a little like contracted entertainment. A DM goes online or posts at a gaming store looking for players. Players respond, and a good DM lets them know in advance what the setting is and what the character creation rules are, and the Players decide to play or they don´t. The DM sacrifices time and energy (It is much, MUCH harder to DM than to play), and gets "psychic benefits" at the end of the day when the players (hopefully) give him props for a well done campaign. 2. It doesn´t sound like this situation is a "contract" situation, but a group of friends who regularly play together. It´s the OP´s turn to come up with a campaign, and he has. But his campaign has a racial restriction. 3. It sounds like your friends are complaining, either because they are generally complainers (we tolerate abuse from our friends that we never would from strangers) or because a couple of them aren´t down with the campaign idea. 4. Normally, I´d say "Play the game or stay home." The DM is the one that does 95% of the hard work in setting up a campaign, and damn it they´re permitted to set up the campaign any way they please. If the players checking out your campaign don´t like it, they are under zero obligation to join. You are under no obligation to change your campaign to benefit the whiners. It might mean you have no players in the end, but still... But that isn´t gonna work in this situation, since these soundl like your friends, or at least your semi-regular group.. 5. The racial restriction is fair, but it´s possible that some minor modifications will resolve the conflict. From your post I take it you´re dealing with a bunch of genocidal cultists. Because you´ve started off the PCs in a prison, the authorities generally get to choose who they want to give the mission. Humans are obviously in. Elves also work...they can wear headbands Spock-style (with appropriate chances of discovery...long hair also works), and the party can play them off as teenagers. Halflings can easily be passed off as children, if they act like children. In my campaign, the party didn´t realize that the "child" messanger between them and the Thieves Guild was a Halfing Rogue...because most people go for the simplest explanation. The same should work for the Cultists. Gnomes and Dwarves are harder, for the obvious physical differences, and because they look like mature adults. Gonna be hard to disguise that perpetual 5 O-clock shadow on the Dwarven "child." Obviously Orcs or Half-Orcs are out...they look too much like a race that just got annihilated. As always, allowing classes with an ECL is DM-optional. You could easily have the authorities set up a scenario where the party pretends to be a "family," probably with one or two NPC females...the men and teenagers could then infiltrate the Spectators while the "children" are used for stealth missions. 6. The feat sounds like a bad idea, for reasons already mentioned. 7. Starting the characters in prison is fair, because going into the campaign they know what´s up. It´s not railroading, it´s "setting the scence." It´s no more railroading than having everyone meet in a bar the first session. There is nothing about the situation that is obviously restrictive. Yes the PCs start off as "felons," but "felon" covers a lot of sins...there´s such a thing as "injustice" or a "wrongful conviction." The nation could be just as bad as the Spectors, but in differnet ways, with the party trapped between the two. Or think about The Count of Monte Cristo...a fundamentally good man is framed and sent to prison...the bureaucracy is sufficiently dense and one official sufficiently corrupt that it doesn´t matter how good he is...he´s still in there for life. You start your players in prison, but I think you´ve done the right thing by letting them choose how they get there. That´s not "writing their background for them," that´s letting them come up with 95% of their life story, then interjecting a single event into their background to "set the stage" for your campaign. Once they are pardoned (assuming they are), it will be up to all of you do decide how prominently you want to play the "ex-felon" angle. Once you are actually on the "mission" part of the adventure, however, you´re going to have to walk the line of keeping the characters interested in the campaign without railroading. At some point, if the story´s not interesting they may decide your adventure is BS and "jump the rails." That will be the time that will truly determine your mettle as a DM.
trapspringer 07-19-04, 06:53 PM	All good. The above poster said all that I would have said, thoug I wouldn't have said everything that he said. I too would be very upset at being forced into prison. Give them some other choice in the matter.