Can or cannot, a DM choose what creatures he/she will allow to be PC races within his own game?
Cause Im constantly being told by a player that I cant take out a race if I dont want it in my game. This thread is to prove a point more than anything else.
Every game IVE ever been in it was up to the DM to make his own decisions, not the players.
so if a player wants tro be a barbarian shardmind, the dm can say no, my campaign does not allow that race fro whatever reason
On a quasi-related note, your player may be thinking of the Living Forgotten Realms RPGA system, in which DMs must play by the RPGA's rules on all matters.
Like I told him, "The Monster Manual has rules for monster characters in the back of it, doesnt mean Im letting you play an Orge, no matter how you spin it. I have rules in a Dragon magazine in my closet that show you how to run a T-800 (and a T-1000) from Terminator in old AD&D, doesnt mean Im letting them in my game, regardless of how well the background is."
The response was something to the effect of "its NOT the dms job to deny people acess too playable races if the player can give a reason why they are there... Its the DMS JOB to create the world the players are used in"
And he seems to be not getting my point here. Id rather not drop him as a player, mainly cause he's my only one at the moment (like Ive said a few times, its still in brainstorming).
(My reason was I dont think Forgotten Realms has Shardminds in it as is.)
...or am I in the wrong now? Cause thats how Ive always seen the DMs run the games, as though it's their game.
It's not the DM's game, or the player's game. It's everybody's game. A DM with no players is not a DM, and a player without a DM is not a player. The 'I am DM, I am God, I do not have to listen to the concerns of petty players' concept has been dead for a decade and was outdated and archaic even when it was considered acceptable.
Like I said, compromise and communication are key. The best advice the DMG gives is "Say yes whenever possible."
Adding the PH3 races to FR (or any setting) is not particularly difficult. The shardmind, especially, since they're just from the Astral Sea. Even if you don't use the extant fluff, or any variant thereof, it's a piece of cake to simply have the character be a sapient crystalline golem constructed by some wizard or artificer somewhere.
It appears that the games this guy has played either havent been any kind of "serious" or the DM was overly generous in letting anything in. The rule seems to have been "if you can back it up with a story you can get it in" regardless of how he felt about it, so this guy now thinks that if he can come up with a story to why he can be (fill in the blank) that I HAVE to let that into my game.
If you're not playing RPGA, then as the DM you really have final say on what's allowed in your game. That said, if you're not allowing something from a core book (like not allowing an elf or dwarf), you should give players a good reason why. But even then, it's your game and it's up to you as the DM.
Like I told him, "The Monster Manual has rules for monster characters in the back of it, doesnt mean Im letting you play an Orge, no matter how you spin it. I have rules in a Dragon magazine in my closet that show you how to run a T-800 (and a T-1000) from Terminator in old AD&D, doesnt mean Im letting them in my game, regardless of how well the background is."
The response was something to the effect of "its NOT the dms job to deny people acess too playable races if the player can give a reason why they are there... Its the DMS JOB to create the world the players are used in"
Sure, there are all sorts of alternative rules for races and classes that aren't standard, especially for 3E. But the background storyline and major threads of the game have to be decided by you, the DM. If you're running a story that would be really incompatible with a character type they want, you can definitely say no. They don't have to play in your game. For example, if you're going to run a classic heroic adventure and someone wants to play an evil drow (where they really are evil and not like Drizzt) while everyone else chooses good characters, it's probably going to ruin the game for everyone. If you want to run a game in 1357 DR Realms and someone wants to play a metallic construct from Eberron, well... it wouldn't really fit with the story. The bottom line is that if you as the DM don't want to go to tons of extra work and change your story radically, you can say no because it won't fit this particular game. That -is- the job of the DM, to make sure everyone at the table is having fun, not just one person who wants some weird exception.
And he seems to be not getting my point here. Id rather not drop him as a player, mainly cause he's my only one at the moment (like Ive said a few times, its still in brainstorming).
(My reason was I dont think Forgotten Realms has Shardminds in it as is.)
So he wants to play a shardmind? Are you playing 4E or an earlier edition? To do a shardmind, you'd have to come up with something unique as a backstory in order to bring a shardmind to the Realms by portal... or figure out a history to say that it's been there all along, in some very, very isolated part of the Realms. Note that shardminds also have limited emotionality, so they may not have the same motivations to do certain things that a biological human or elf would do, unless you're just going to be fighting incursions of Far Realms aberrations in your game. If you don't personally feel that you can come up with a good story for a shardmind, tell him that. You don't have to come up with exceptions for every weird or bizarre thing players might want.
....because curiosity creates portals to other planes.
And Im NOT taking the "I am GOD" route. Im taking the "I dont think these things belong in this setting" route.
Ive tried suggesting that the shardmind may have been created by the spellplague, and been greeted with "yeah, no thats stupid"
The current idea he has is he just wakes up (is born) and plays. I asked him to come up with a background for the guy, and this was his suggestion. Then I was like "hey whatever, it will be interesting to see you play a newborn" and he decided that isnt the way he wants to come in now and went back to the "he's curious" idea.
I even went with the idea "where IN the Realms is he from? Is he part of a commune of Shardminds? How did he get to Toril or was he born there (IE did he come there somehow or did he wake up there - this is different from the original problem, now, Im just tring to hack out an idea of your background - if you are from a group of shardmind, I have to build a settlement, etc) Was the settlement well known or was it a secret from the people in the area around the settlement? Things like that. Ill fit it in, but you gotta think of this stuff and gimme a answer, so I can figure out where you came from. Maybe you'll run into people from your settlement at a later time in the story, stuff like that I want to try and figure out where that ancient country was that I was talking about earlier. Maybe your settlement was still there, like living subterranian, but above the Underdark, but noone knew it was there (other than like myths and legends about that area), or the ruins of that area are haunted by strange beings so the villagers stay away from it out of fear kind of thing. Im probably NOT gonna be putting them in in such a way that every other person you see is one, so unless you travel to the area around where you are from, you are still going to be a rarity"
...and got shot down as well.
Yeah its 4th ed, but the prologue is in the 3.5 setting. Im gonna run that bit, then through the story, drop them into the 4th ed story and setting.
So here's my advice: don't do more work than your players. If they're not willing to come up with (at minimum) a sensible background, why should you bust your hump on making a rich and detailed storyline for them to play through?
Perhaps his shardmind falls through an ancient and forgotten portal from the PoL setting to the Realms, and it's one way only. But even so, what was his origin on the PoL planet? What motivates him, and what are his goals as a shardmind? What does he want out of "life" and does he want to return to PoL or ? At minimum, I'd say that if you're willing to adapt your Realms to include him, then he needs to come up with something minimally logical in terms of an origin.
If you have a player who loves to roleplay in Inns and is a conoisseur of fine foods, you'd probably put a couple of 4-star Inns and taverns along their way in the game somewhere.
If you have a player who has a burning hatred of orcs, you might develop a storyline where he or she has to work with a powerful orc and reduce some of his bigotry... for character development...
If you have a player who has a paladin that he wants to fall from grace, you'd potentially work with that in your story.
But "he's curious" is a lot like saying "he's an adventurer" without any other exposition. It gives you nothing to work with. So yeah... don't bust your hump working harder than a player who doesn't put in any effort. That's my 2 cents.
I'd honestly sit down and ask him point blank... "what do you want to get out of the game?"
However, if you're doing a cool 3.5 setting to 4e transition game, then I agree that shardminds are inappropriate, and anything they could easily substitute in ("awakened crystal golem") wouldn't make sense in a low level game. Maybe refluff as a shade? That's a stretch though.
Forgotten Realms is supported in 4e, and thus contains shardminds (provided it's the 4e Realms). One of the slightly silly but more playable design features of 4e core settings is that they contain all core material.
Well, not exactly. By 4E Realms lore, there aren't any naturally occurring shardminds in the Realms... at least not yet. Just like there aren't any naturally occurring Warforged or Kalashtar in the 4E Realms. You can shoehorn them in, of course, but there should be a compelling reason to do so.
Having said that, it sounds like you're trying to work with the guy, but its just not working... in which case, I'd say bump him out and keep looking. Some players you just don't need if they aren't willing to work with you at least a little. Obviously circumstances may demand he be kept, but from the sound of it, you're probably better off without him.
FR isn't core. 
One should feel free to discard as many of 4E's retarded 'core' races as one wishes.
If you can't come up with at least a *plausible* reason why your character exists, especially if it's some whacked-out 'we're running out of ideas' PHBx race, then you don't get to play it. Nothing irks me more than characters with no backstory or explanation. And while more common races can get away with it, less common ones... No. And I hate it even in common races. OK, fine, you're Generic Human Fighter #292,375. Why? Where are you from?
Do I expect to be allowed by default to have a Chaotic Neutral/Unaligned male Drow Cleric of Corellon Larethian in a FR game? Not without explaining how the frak it happened first, and not if the DM doesn't want Drow PCs at all. (I have one, by the way. He actually has a reason for it and I wouldn't have even bothered with the idea if he didn't. The same game has a Kalashtar as well. The Kalashtar is a Spellplague-wrought abomination.)
...or am I in the wrong now? Cause thats how Ive always seen the DMs run the games, as though it's their game.
It's not the DM's game, or the player's game. It's everybody's game. A DM with no players is not a DM, and a player without a DM is not a player. The 'I am DM, I am God, I do not have to listen to the concerns of petty players' concept has been dead for a decade and was outdated and archaic even when it was considered acceptable.
This still works fine for me. I routinely place restrictions on races, classes, whatever. This is to make sure all the characters fit within the scope of the campaign. (Or in the case or my Saga campaign to avoid Star Wars aliens that I find annoying.)
When I'm a player I follow the restrictions the GM places on character creation, I've had 2 character concepts shot down this month for an upcoming FR game. I think the DM is avoiding me to stall on shooting down the 3rd.
In my experience you can usually fill a player spot almost instantly. Where I am there is always a large group of people willing to show up to play, but very few that are willing to take the time to design and run a campaign. YMMV
Why? It depends on what fits for the area in which the story is taking place. That isn't a flat out no, but it does mean the player will have to come up with a good excuse. To use the example above, I had Thay in mind.
If we're playing a game of cut-throat Thayan politics it's going to be pretty difficult to justify your Moon Elven Cleric of Rillifane Rallathil.
So in such a circumstance, I'd work with the player to find some middle ground. I'd find out why they wanted to play an elf, why they wanted to play a cleric, and why they wanted to worship Rillifane Rallathil.
I'd make clear that being good aligned really isn't possible since the group is comprised of Thayan loyalists, and furthermore Rillifane Rallathil, being a nature deity, wouldn't really fit well. However, that doesn't mean it's impossible to play an Elf in Thay.
In the end we might come to some type of compromise: A Sun Elf Rogue who worships Shevarash. His hatred of Drow would run so deep that he's willing to make an alliance with the Red Wizards of Thay in an attempt to start a war against the Drow living in the Underdark below Thaymount. He's come to Thay both as an emissary and as a spy. He could either be chaotic neutral or chaotic evil in alignment - either way, he'd have to be pretty amoral to consider aligning with the Red Wizards.
Such a character would add an interesting dynamic since we're playing a game of cut-throat Thayan politics, and as DM I'd have to come up with scenarios that could enable the player to push his agenda.
All that would be left is to find a reason that he's involved with the other members of the group.
However, generally speaking: I think a DM should make clear from the outset, before character generation even starts, what type of character would best fit with the story being told. It is then incumbent upon the player to come up with a valid reason for their strange / odd character being there, and the DM should work to come up with a compromise that works. If no compromise is possible then it is perfectly acceptable to tell them no. (Say, they want to play a Troll or some other monster and you're running a city-based campaign where any monster would be killed on site...)
It seems like Guest1309747454 did everything that was required of him, and it was the player who didn't want to put in the effort. Did he even explain -WHY- he wanted to play this particular race? Without a good reason, I'd just assume he wants it either because he's trying to create some type of optimized power gaming build or because he just thinks its awesome. Neither, IMO, are good enough reasons without justification and explanation as to how it fits within the story and world.
and this IS before character creation lol the STORY isnt even set yet.
Sounds like your player is a whiney brat. That may be overly harsh, but you are the one doing the work to run the game. It is YOUR game that you are running. It is up to everyone to have a good time, but the DM does the brunt of the work. If you don't want a race, don't allow it. If he complains, tell him his complaining is hurting your enjoyment of being the DM and ask him to play something else. You need to enjoy running the game as much as the players enjoy playing in it. If a Shardmind hurts your enjoyment of running the game or writing the story, tell your player.
If he still insists on playing a Shardmind, it may be time to find a new player. No one in this game is entitled to anything.
Say, " 'He's curious,' isn't a backstory. If you can't come up with a better one, we'll go with 'He's a new-born.' "
Then - "Whoops! Your telepathy doesn't seem to work on these creatures. They're so different from yourself and your race that you'll have to learn over time. Maybe if you were closer to the Living Gate..."
"Your appearance is so foreign that Faerunians view you as a monster. Including your potential party members. You start every encounter at hostile. And can't communicate."
"Wanna roll up a new character now?"
as a joke
You can, but it's rarely a good idea. You should, at the very least, give the player the opportunity to pitch his idea and try work with him to make a compromise that will make everybody happy. If you do outright ban a race, it should be for a good reason. "I don't like it" is really not a good reason; if I banned races on that criteria, there'd be about 4 available races in my game.
On a quasi-related note, your player may be thinking of the Living Forgotten Realms RPGA system, in which DMs must play by the RPGA's rules on all matters.
You can & the way 4E keeps on producing some really stinkers as far as playable races goes, its a good idea to ban particular races, if they don't fit your story. *shudder* Shardmind *shudder*
-M
You can & the way 4E keeps on producing some really stinkers as far as playable races goes, its a good idea to ban particular races, if they don't fit your story. *shudder* Shardmind *shudder*
-M
Whats wrong with the Shardmind? Other than their fluff doesnt really fit in the Realms, but asside from that I think theyre ok. Whats kinda funny is awhile back one of the guys a game with started a new campain and told us we could be whatever he wanted, except for immortals, no gods or dragons, but we could be half dragon, or god if we wanted. I was really wracking my brain trying to come up with something different to play, and I finally decided I would be a crystal guy and was approved by the DM. Later on I went down to the gamin shop and got some minatures, I ended up getting the psychic sentinel, a crystal guy, what a coincidence! and then I ended up buying the PHB3 and what do I see in there? Crystal people! Get out of my head WotC!!!!
You can all blame me for the Spellplague as well, that was my idea too. Ofcourse it happend a little differently in my game, Cyric ended up getting a copy of the spell Karsus's Avatar.
Whats wrong with the Shardmind? Other than their fluff doesnt really fit in the Realms...
Well, I'll probably get slammed for this, but here goes...
Shardmind are "kewl" in the sense that they're walking crystal formations. However, they're also very comic-booky and schlocky precisely because they're walking crystal formations.
I have a limit on what my brain accepts as realistic, and until 4E you could usually count on moderate realism in the Realms. The point of the Realms, IMO, was to tell very human stories. Magic, dragons, monsters, all the Renaissance fantasy elements, they were the backdrop for telling stories of political intrigue, for exploration of emotional and physical challenges beyond the usual norm. Liriel Baenre's journey as a dark elf, there were emotional, social, mental, and physical challenges that I could identify with. Though she was a dark elf, those stories allowed me to "adventure" by exploring the human condition... and my own reactions and thoughts. Same with adventuring by playing the game, I'm there to delve into the experience, and I'm human whether I'm playing a dwarf, elf, tiefling, or other similar being.
But a walking crystal formation? Or a warforged construct? Where is the human connection, how do I understand them? They are "kewl" and interesting to a point, but it's crossed the line for me in terms of believability because the fantastic element has now taken precedence over the human story. It's very comic-bookish, because their story isn't about understanding the human condition. It has become about the special effects, the props, the flash and glam. It's about the powers, the abilities, or the "look" of the being, and no longer about exploring one's humanity through that character. Look at Data on the Enterprise in Star Trek. There were only so many stories one could really tell about him, until they finally had to create an emotion "chip" for him.
And I think that's why so many people became upset with the new Realms. They took the focus away from the human story and put the spotlight on the floating earthmotes, aberrations, dragonborn, and flashy walking crystal formations. I can no more identify with a walking crystal formation than I could identify with a living spell or a warforged construct. And that's bad because it significantly lessens my interest in both playing and in reading about the new Realms. The focus is in the wrong place.
But a walking crystal formation? Or a warforged construct? Where is the human connection, how do I understand them? They are "kewl" and interesting to a point, but it's crossed the line for me in terms of believability because the fantastic element has now taken precedence over the human story. It's very comic-bookish, because their story isn't about understanding the human condition. It has become about the special effects, the props, the flash and glam. It's about the powers, the abilities, or the "look" of the being, and no longer about exploring one's humanity through that character. Look at Data on the Enterprise in Star Trek. There were only so many stories one could really tell about him, until they finally had to create an emotion "chip" for him.
And I think that's why so many people became upset with the new Realms. They took the focus away from the human story and put the spotlight on the floating earthmotes, aberrations, dragonborn, and flashy walking crystal formations. I can no more identify with a walking crystal formation than I could identify with a living spell or a warforged construct. And that's bad because it significantly lessens my interest in both playing and in reading about the new Realms. The focus is in the wrong place.
I think you're shortchanging the story opportunities the esoteric/monster races have.
Most of the races are distilations of certain aspects of human nature. Dwarves are stout, stubborn, & loyal, Orcs are violent and cruel, Elves are intune w/ their surroundings, Eladrin are intelligent and aloof, etc. Warforge & Shardmind are blank slates due to their alien nature but their lack of humanity still serves a human story. They provide an external perspective on the Human Condition and can spur introspection in others.
That was the main purpose of Data. Following his quest to become human we learned what it was to be human. The chip was just a physical representation of Data's growth.
As far as the original problem, D&D is just "make believe" w/ a set of rules thats published rather than made up on the spot. When you were a kid, everyone playing agreed/hashed out the rules before starting, that still applies as an adult. If the other players involved aren't keen on the crystal-guy idea throw it out. If they're fine with it, let him have it if he can give a reason/story.
Even 5 year olds know "Just beacause" isn't a good reason
I think you're shortchanging the story opportunities the esoteric/monster races have.
I don't think I'm shortchanging anything.
Most of the races are distilations of certain aspects of human nature. Dwarves are stout, stubborn, & loyal, Orcs are violent and cruel, Elves are intune w/ their surroundings, Eladrin are intelligent and aloof, etc.
Yes, but once you explore that initial story, there are a lot more things you can do with these characters. They are human enough that they make sense, there are many different aspects of their personalities and lives that you can empathize with on some level and really explore. I once ran a kobold as a PC, and I could even empathize with it and there were many angles to explore.
Warforge & Shardmind are blank slates due to their alien nature but their lack of humanity still serves a human story. They provide an external perspective on the Human Condition and can spur introspection in others.
Yet with a blank canvas, there is only one story to really explore: how they are so very different. That's neither interesting nor deep. You can, with a shardmind, do the whole "I am a living crystal, wow!" and show how they have difficulty relating to the living races, but that's it. It's more about their look and their "kewl powerz" than it is about the human condition. And once their kewl powerz are obvious, the only thing that makes them interesting or deep is gone.
That was the main purpose of Data. Following his quest to become human we learned what it was to be human. The chip was just a physical representation of Data's growth.
Let's be honest here, the writers never did make him truly emotionless, because it would have been deadly dull. That said, almost every Data-centric story was almost exactly the same. Emotionless characters are a one-note. After years of Trek NG and the movies, he had almost no character growth. Compare Data to Beverly or Picard, or even to Tuvok on STVoy, and none of their stories are as one-note as Data's stories. I'm not saying Data was uninteresting as a character element, because Spiner is fun to watch... but Data as a PC character wouldn't be that fun to play for a long-term campaign.
Tell him that he MUST write a sidequest for his character and you must apporve it.... once approved he could play his character
I could swear there used to be a shatter spell that did sonic damage to crystal type things...
You need to, point blank, stick to the "no, unless you can give me a good reason/story as to why he's there" and tell him that "he's curious" and "he just woke up" is NOT adequate.
if he "shoots down" your ideas to HELP HIM...and he can't offer anything more then you need to just plain tell him no. End of discussion. If he wants to play he needs to pick a race/class that fits in the world you're running or he just doesn't play.
Yah it sucks to deny someone especially when you really want to get it goin, but this guy is using hair-brained defenses and reasoning....
If I was the DM and he told me it "wasn't my job" I'd laugh...
but then again I don't have much patience for people like that. they infuriate me. reminds me of the guy in "Dorkness Rising" who wanted to play an elf monk.
A DM can rule whatever he/she wants. You're the one running the game. If there is something you don't think will agree with the flavor of your game, then you can rule that it's out.
Rule #1: The DM is always right.A DM can rule whatever he/she wants. You're the one running the game. If there is something you don't think will agree with the flavor of your game, then you can rule that it's out.
I disagree with this sentiment. A DM is not a tyrant. The role of a DM primarily revolves around creating the narrative in which the story is being told, and to resolve all conflict disputes. This is best done cooperatively with players.
To use a sports analogy, the DM is the referee. That gives them tremendous power, but with that power comes responsibility to be fair and just with the players. A referee can still make bad calls and screw up, and so can a DM.
The role of a DM is not adversarial, on the contrary, it is highly cooperative.
In this particular situation, the issue at hand is a narrative dispute. The player wants to create a character that doesn't fit with the story, and has rejected the DM's attempts to help the desired character to fit the narrative. This has resulted in a conflict which the DM must then solve - either by giving approval or rejecting the idea.
That is entirely different from running a totalitarian regime, in which the Dear Leader is always right.
Rule #1: The DM is always right.A DM can rule whatever he/she wants. You're the one running the game. If there is something you don't think will agree with the flavor of your game, then you can rule that it's out.
I disagree with this sentiment. A DM is not a tyrant. The role of a DM primarily revolves around creating the narrative in which the story is being told, and to resolve all conflict disputes. This is best done cooperatively with players.
The role of a DM is not adversarial, on the contrary, it is highly cooperative.
You misunderstand my meaning. I fully agree that the DM's job is to tell a story, resolve disputes, and that it is best done in cooperation with the players. If it isn't, then the players won't want to play, and the DM has no game to run. Also, it should certainly NOT be adversarial.
That being said, the DM is still the one that has the ultimate veto power over any dispute or question. This has always been true. If a DM doesn't want to allow something, he doesn't have to.
If a DM builds a world in which dwarves are at war with the other races, he/she may not want to allow dwarves as a PC race. If a DM feels that a power is particularly game-breaking, he/she does not have to allow a player to use it. It's always best to have a good reason for it, of course.
I don't feel that the DM/Player relationship is adversarial. That's not fun (wel, it could be to some people, but not me). However, when it comes to disagreements about the game, the buck stops with the DM.
Agree. There's additionally no game if the DM doesn't want to run, which means that the players do have some responsibility to go with the DM's wishes for the tone of the campaign. Especially if they agree to it in advance.
Say, for example, I want to run a heroic campaign in a fluffy light world where the biggest threats are political issues. I want more or less standard fantasy races. If everyone shows up with Dark Brooding Shardmind Assassins who don't care at all about the world, I'm going to facepalm and then the game isn't going to last long because at that point *I* don't care. I didn't want to run an angsty morally grey game and I'm probably insulted that people didn't *listen*.
(That is one benefit of PbP games, incidentally, despite the slow pace and occasional awkwardness of battle - You get a bunch of people applying and you get to choose the players whose characters you like best. Probably what I'll do next time I want to run a game since the system I want to try out is a free one and thus not suited to playing at a retail store, which is my only venue here in Louisville for it.)
And no, I'm not just agreeing with you because you're my DM.
Agree. There's additionally no game if the DM doesn't want to run, which means that the players do have some responsibility to go with the DM's wishes for the tone of the campaign. Especially if they agree to it in advance.
Say, for example, I want to run a heroic campaign in a fluffy light world where the biggest threats are political issues. I want more or less standard fantasy races. If everyone shows up with Dark Brooding Shardmind Assassins who don't care at all about the world, I'm going to facepalm and then the game isn't going to last long because at that point *I* don't care. I didn't want to run an angsty morally grey game and I'm probably insulted that people didn't *listen*.
Well, the "no game because I don't want to run" attitude is blackmail. Besides, the DM is hurt if there's no game too, because he spent so much time preparing for it and etc. That helps no one.
I think the best thing to do is to talk to players that you run in "a fluffy light word" and tell them what you don't want, but don't make it a big issue if one person decides to go original.
Just my two cents...
The DM should have a good time as well, and if he doesn't enjoy the game he has every right to say "screw it, I'm not running this anymore."
Well, the "no game because I don't want to run" attitude is blackmail. Besides, the DM is hurt if there's no game too, because he spent so much time preparing for it and etc. That helps no one.
I think the best thing to do is to talk to players that you run in "a fluffy light word" and tell them what you don't want, but don't make it a big issue if one person decides to go original.
Just my two cents...
And the 'put up with whatever I want because I'm the player' attitude isn't?
And no, really, I'm not hurt by it if there's no game if the game was going to not be something I wanted to run. The prep work I did isn't going to suddenly vanish or be made invalid, I can simply set it aside and use it again another time.
Also, lawl, dark antihero who doesn't give a damn as in my example is original now? And I expect everyone to hold to the same standards. If I say "Guys, the brooding antihero type really doesn't fit the scenario, you can have angst if you want but keep it straight heroic, and no evil characters", and even one of the players shows up with an evil character or a brooding antihero, that's insulting. They didn't listen. They agreed to play a certain type of game, but then decided that you know what, screw that, rules are for wimps.
This is of course one of the biggest dividing issues in D&D besides edition wars.
Perhaps the PC's presence presages the later arrival of more of them post-spellplague.
Well, the "no game because I don't want to run" attitude is blackmail.
The "I dont wanna play unless I get what I want" is blackmail too.
I am so glad I homebrew.;)
Damn Mos Eisly Cantina Effect in D&D...
It almost seems to me like he is trying to establish his dominance. That doesn't make for a good group dynamic, not meaning the characters, but your players. If he thinks he can ride roughshod over the DM what would be to stop him from trying this on the rest of the group? And then the campaign implodes.
#1 rule of gaming to me. We're ALL here to have fun.
Good Luck with your situation.