There's a new player in the group, to fill the old spot. So the person wanted to make a sorcerer, they are fond of magic characters. They wanted to play a diplomatic/bluff type of personality, so good with words and such, and then be a blaster. Perfect for mixing with the cha stat, and with sorcerous vision she also wanted some decent insight and perception rolls. Of the books we had (Arcane Power, PHB2, PHB, etc) a cosmic sorcerer seemed to really fit a Dragonborn. However, in the DM's D&D universe, he doesn't allow Dragonborn.
Before I finish this story, let me hop back in time. A while ago the DM approved a half-orc character (even though the half-orcs aren't allowed in his universe) but pretended the half-orc was "another race" so the player could keep the stats for the character he had built.
For me, the DM actually let me change one of the ability modifiers that my race provided to one that was more suitable to my class, so I wouldn't be hindered.
There's been a house rule that you can totally ignore the armor type/weapon type prereq's for any magic armor or weapons (you can switch out plate for leather if it's going to fit your character more suitably, and the same with weapons).
So, for a while, there's been this ability to switch out stats (the mechanics stay the same to keep balance, it's just in-game you look different) and armor and stuff like that in order to make it fun to play and so on.
Well, when the Dragonborn was presented he said "No, not allowed." We explained our reasoning that this has been allowed before, that she wouldn't /really/ be a Dragonborn. He came up with an alternative solution, she could use the Dragonborn stats except she would be mutated, which goes against her entire idea of wanting to be a diplomatic type of person (to which the DM said "not once she's gained peoples trust somehow"). I have a feeling the person doesn't want to be mutated and weird looking, just me. Finally after some arguments the DM said "Dragonborn just isn't allowed. Do something else."
Also, the DM said "We've never had a house rule of switching out races/items" which is totally against anything that's been done before. I remember it being made official, but apparently he doesn't. So...Yeah.
So now we're coming up with another race, which sadly to achieve what we had before character concept wise means all the non-sorcerer stats are going to go down (it really sucks to drop your stats, even if they are stats you hardly use, you know?). Basically, it's a worse character that accomplishes the same player wishes.
Point is, it makes me sad!
He may have other reasons, but that's the one he gave at the time.
So you can swap out racial stat bonuses, swap out weapon/armor proficiencies, and make your own racial descriptions, but you can't make a "Not-A-Dragonborn" race that is essentially a Dragonborn in every way but appearance? That makes no sense.
Yes.
Apparently it's a case by case basis. And this person got the "not this time" answer.Oh I can't have a Dragonborn? OK, then how about a Drow. So I get +2 Cha, but instead of +2 Dex I want +2 Str, OK? And my Drow wasn't raised by Drow, so she doesn't know her darkness powers and instead learned to create small fireballs (i.e., dragonbreath)...
Then try this:
Oh I can't have a Dragonborn? OK, then how about a Drow. So I get +2 Cha, but instead of +2 Dex I want +2 Str, OK? And my Drow wasn't raised by Drow, so she doesn't know her darkness powers and instead learned to create small fireballs (i.e., dragonbreath)...
That's not a bad idea lol. We even had the dragonbreath explained...A sorcerer randomly has powers, so it's easy.. One of them could be dragonbreath (or, since it's a cosmic sorcerer, sort of like ray of light or moonstream or something like.
)I think if I tried to push forth the character idea, or any modifications, they'd be rejected at this point. So I'm not asserting anything, I'm leaving it to the other players. Politics out of game = annoying.
I'll pass along your idea, though!He gave his reason, actually. I should've mentioned that. He said "To me they are silly and they just don't fit into my world."
He may have other reasons, but that's the one he gave at the time.
Sounds like a decent enough reason to me....
Sounds like a decent enough reason to me....
Given he's the DM, he can technically make whatever decisions he wants. Any reason works.
Doesn't mean it's not frustrating.Sounds like a decent enough reason to me....
"I don't like it, so whether it makes the game more enjoyable for you or not, I'm taking it out."
No. Bad reason. I'm sure there could be a reason for not having a race, but if not because you think it's "silly."
That's a really bad reason. I thought he might have had an okay reason, but no, that's just stupid. Sorry to say this if he's your friend, but that's the first sign of a bad DM. Just because they don't like something, they take it out without considering how it will affect the fun of other players.
Actually that sounds like a pretty decent reason to not allow a race. "I don't like them" is perfectly valid.
Think about it, this is the DM saying "If I were to let you play a dragonborn, NPCS would react hostily to you, there will be no strong dragonborn allies for you, and I will probably have arbitrary limitations put on the race over things like cold blooded, ect. Even if at best all of these things are subconscious. Seriously, please don't play a dragonborn."
Although I agree that the DM should have little to no problem letting them play a sorcerer who can shoot a small burst of flames once a fight. The DM shooting that down makes me think they either dislike the new player, or are trying to cut back on the houserules to the game.
For Example, I don't like gnomes at all, but if I know one of my players just loves gnomes, I will suck it up and make sure gnomes are at least acceptable socially if the player doesn't want to deal with racist bull. If I cant keep my dislike of gnomes from ruining a gnome players experiance, then i'm not mature enough to DM frankly.
If a DM is incapable of not allowing his dislike for a race to bleed over into the game and affect the player's characters the DM has no buisness DMing.
For Example, I don't like gnomes at all, but if I know one of my players just loves gnomes, I will suck it up and make sure gnomes are at least acceptable socially if the player doesn't want to deal with racist bull. If I cant keep my dislike of gnomes from ruining a gnome players experiance, then i'm not mature enough to DM frankly.
Also as we've been trying to find alternatives we've discovered that Tieflings also aren't allowed -- We could work the stats with a Tiefling to make the +cha and +int work into the game, and give the player their decent arcana check and still have a full Cha and Str stat. She doesn't want to play a gnome because she has a Gnome Wizard in a different game (not D&D, Palladium Fantasy) and doesn't want an exact repeat. So the DM has eliminated two key possibilities, and the player would rather not play one of the options, yet may be forced into it or suffer an inferior character due to DM preference opposing the player character type (that's within the legal rules, just not the DM rules).
That's a really bad reason. I thought he might have had an okay reason, but no, that's just stupid.
Not a bad reason, unless it is reserved exclusively to Dragonborn. To some people, D&D is a game with humans, elves & dwarves (and a few others). I'm not personally as extreme as this, but I think the number of playable races is getting to be too much. I don't feel that every combination of two ability score bonuses needs to be represented.
So as I was saying, if the DM also excludes races like Tiefling and Genasi and Deva, etc. then I could see his rationale. But if its only Dragonborn then I would agree with you.
Your DM seems like a house-rule-loving control freak. Ask him to give you a good reason why dragonborn are banned. I'd like to hear one.
I have a good reason for you: Because it's his realm.
He's the GM so what he says goes. I agree that he sounds like "a house-rule-loving control freak" but you as a player have to ether deal with it or leave.
It's true, either deal with it or leave. Doesn't mean that it's okay. o.O
Why don't you get him to clarify which rules in the core books are being altered. A DM ultimately has the authority to change things - as long as the players keep him as DM - but it is your right to know what the altered rules are.
Say these exact words to him, and he'll have no choice but to either allow it, or look like a complete tool, one not worthy of running your game.
That's a really bad reason. I thought he might have had an okay reason, but no, that's just stupid. Sorry to say this if he's your friend, but that's the first sign of a bad DM. Just because they don't like something, they take it out without considering how it will affect the fun of other players.
,
I've met that DM, not personally, but in RL and here on these boards
,
I've met that DM, not personally, but in RL and here on these boards
Yeah, so? Is he a tool?
I'm in the "he's a tool" camp. Or more PC, "He's exhibiting many of the classic signs of being a bad DM."
If a DM is incapable of not allowing his dislike for a race to bleed over into the game and affect the player's characters the DM has no buisness DMing.
Players have the right to vote with their feet. A DM can run any type of game he wants to run, as long as there are players willing to play in his campaign. If he rubs all players in the vicinity the wrong way, he'll soon be a DM without a game. But as long as enough players still enjoy his game, he'll be running it. The best part is: if you don't want to play with this DM, you don't have to. All the nastiness can happen where it won't bother you, as long as you don't join the group.
The DM could have listed the 'banned' material up front. It would have prevented this problem.
You guys still aren't quite getting the problem. The DM actually did have a list at the beginning of the campaign of banned races -- We were aware that Dragonborn's weren't allowed. The confusion came with the exceptions that he's made with several players during character creation and magical items, where he's allowed many exceptions and changes (using the same racial template of a race not allowed, but having them be a different race "in game", switching out a racial stat bonus, switching out gear prereqs on magical items, etc.), and now he won't budge on this one.
That's the problem. Hence the thread name with the word consistency in it.
I have a good reason for you: Because it's his realm.
He's the GM so what he says goes. I agree that he sounds like "a house-rule-loving control freak" but you as a player have to ether deal with it or leave.
Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should. Maybe the stats don't matter, if someone wants to be a certain race, I see no reason at all why they shouldn't be able to. Maybe the idea of dragonborn sounds really cool to a player. It takes almost no part on the DM to let it in, but just because you "think it's silly" is a bad reason.
Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should. Maybe the stats don't matter, if someone wants to be a certain race, I see no reason at all why they shouldn't be able to. Maybe the idea of dragonborn sounds really cool to a player. It takes almost no part on the DM to let it in, but just because you "think it's silly" is a bad reason.
I totally disagree. A GM spends time developing his/her realm and shouldn't have to bow down to player whim simply because something the DM has previously banned is the players "favorite".
For example I don't allow monks (of any kind) and Psionics (of any kind) in my games. This rule was spelt out to everyone at the beginning of the campaign. Should I now all-of-a-sudden allow a new player to play a monk simply because they "want to"?
I totally disagree. A GM spends time developing his/her realm and shouldn't have to bow down to player whim simply because something the DM has previously banned is the players "favorite".
For example I don't allow monks (of any kind) and Psionics (of any kind) in my games. This rule was spelt out to everyone at the beginning of the campaign. Should I now all-of-a-sudden allow a new player to play a monk simply because they "want to"?
I actually agree that "because it's silly" is a bad reason, because that's very much personal preference. However, I also believe it's a good enough reason for a DM to do it, because they're the DM, and you can always not play in the game.
If a DM is incapable of not allowing his dislike for a race to bleed over into the game and affect the player's characters the DM has no buisness DMing.
Key word in my original post was "SUBCONSCIOUSLY" as in. "I will do my best not to screw over a dragonborn player, but I probably will. I am sorry."
A DM that has the respect for their players to let them know ahead of time makes a great DM. VS one where the player has to find out the hard way.
I am sorry not every good DM is 100% impartial, even if they know they should be and make an effort to be.
I would say that a DM that doesn't tell you their likes and dislikes, and what they expect out of the game ahead of time has no buisness DMing.
Key word in my original post was "SUBCONSCIOUSLY" as in. "I will do my best not to screw over a dragonborn player, but I probably will. I am sorry."
A DM that has the respect for their players to let them know ahead of time makes a great DM. VS one where the player has to find out the hard way.
I am sorry not every good DM is 100% impartial, even if they know they should be and make an effort to be.
I would say that a DM that doesn't tell you their likes and dislikes, and what they expect out of the game ahead of time has no buisness DMing.
I love seeing people that I agree with be firm in their opinion.
For instance here... I am a DM, and I am aware of my own personal preferences and that they will come up in any game I run. But I am up front with my players about it all the time, and always consistent about it.
I think that being up front, and being consistent are 2 of the top 5 most important things to be as a DM.
For a personal example: I don't like gnomes (they are growing on me a bit now that they are a bit more gnome and a lot less dwarf-shaped elves that act like halflings with rodent fetishes) and all of my players know it. They can play as many gnome characters as they want and I will do my best not to show a bias against their character directly... but rest assured if you meet a gnome NPC it will probably slip into a bit of a stereo-type, and I probably intend for that NPC to be unlike by your character and you as a player... and that is a pretty big if... I have not had a single gnome NPC in any D&D game not run from a module - ever.
...it's a lot easier to not over-play the races I do like...
Anyway - more on the topic: A DM that says "Nope, doesn't fit my world because I think it's silly" should 1) breathe nice and deep, 2) remember that games are for groups, 3) remember that games are for fun, and 4) compromise - it's the player's world too, or you might as well just go write a book.
I totally disagree. A GM spends time developing his/her realm and shouldn't have to bow down to player whim simply because something the DM has previously banned is the players "favorite".
For example I don't allow monks (of any kind) and Psionics (of any kind) in my games. This rule was spelt out to everyone at the beginning of the campaign. Should I now all-of-a-sudden allow a new player to play a monk simply because they "want to"?
If that were the case, then fine. It sounds to me like the DM is just deciding to ban races he thinks are silly or stupid.
Also, why the ban on monks? Psionics I can understand (different system, requires extra book, blah, blah, blah), but do monks not fit the campaign world (which is a perfectly legit reason), or something else?
Anyway - more on the topic: A DM that says "Nope, doesn't fit my world because I think it's silly" should 1) breathe nice and deep, 2) remember that games are for groups, 3) remember that games are for fun, and 4) compromise - it's the player's world too, or you might as well just go write a book.
That's a good way to put it.
You guys still aren't quite getting the problem. The DM actually did have a list at the beginning of the campaign of banned races -- We were aware that Dragonborn's weren't allowed. The confusion came with the exceptions that he's made with several players during character creation and magical items, where he's allowed many exceptions and changes (using the same racial template of a race not allowed, but having them be a different race "in game", switching out a racial stat bonus, switching out gear prereqs on magical items, etc.), and now he won't budge on this one.
That's the problem. Hence the thread name with the word consistency in it.
In that case, the DM should indeed have been more consistent in the past. Maybe he decided to be more consistent from now on? Or he doesn't want the players to think he's cutting the girl some slack and overcompensates? Anyway, that's all speculation on my side.
The player is even more in the wrong. Joining a new group, seeing the 'banned' list, and insisting to play a banned race anyway is bad form. Or maybe one of the other players said "that's ok, just pretend it's a human, it worked in the past"? Seems to me like the players brought this upon themselves. Something was not allowed. You asked for it anyway. The answer was 'no'. It should have ended then and there.
I also find it strange that the DM can't 'disallow' dragonborn because they don't fit in his world, but the new player won't play two gnome magicians in two different gaming systems because she doesn't want to carbon copy? But playing two wizards in two different systems is fine, as long as they're not the same race? Seems like 'preference' stuff where the player's point of view has exactly the same value as the DM's.
The player is even more in the wrong.
That's bull crap, sorry. :P The player kindly asked to make an exception on the stats so her sorcerer wouldn't be hindered, and the DM rejected that as well now. Even though he's made that exception in the past. He isn't budging on anything, which is making her a weaker sorcerer, and he even said "There's lots of characters whose secondary stat isn't as high as it could be." So, sorry, but the DM is just making her character worse. And who knows her motivation.
Fortunately, we re-worked her stats using the point buy system and actually made her better than she was before, at the sacrifice of one of her other stats. But at least she's got the character she wants now, that's pretty awesome, and can do what she wants to do. We're actually waiting to hear the DM reject her stats, even though they are completely legal with the point buy system, which if he does, is ridiculous.
Also, to suggest the player is in the wrong for having an idea and submitting it, even though it's against the DM's general layout, is silly. They have to accept that the DM has final word, or not play, but to ask generally does no harm -- Unless the DM is being completely inconsistent. Also, asking to use the template of a banned race but be a different race is totally different than asking to be a banned race. As the post earlier suggested to do, saying "I have a character from the northern lands, he's a human through and through. As a sorcerer, one of her powers would be a flame breath as I'm using the Dragonborn template for mechanics and balance, but in the game it'd be a human." If you think that makes a person more in the wrong, you need to learn to DM.
Part of DMing is helping players make characters they WANT to play, that's within in the rules. Forcing them into characters they don't want to play isn't fun for anyone. And here, the DM has eliminated several possibilities for the player to do what she wants, while she'd prefer NOT to do one of the possibilities, and you say she's being unreasonable? You're way off base. Basically, it's like this.
Red, green, blue, orange, purple, black. Pick one color. Oh, except you can't choose red or green. Blue and orange and purple are useless. The player would prefer not to choose black -- so suddenly they are in the wrong? I completely disagree.
That's bull crap, sorry. :P The player kindly asked to make an exception on the stats so her sorcerer wouldn't be hindered, and the DM rejected that as well now. Even though he's made that exception in the past. He isn't budging on anything, which is making her a weaker sorcerer, and he even said "There's lots of characters whose secondary stat isn't as high as it could be." So, sorry, but the DM is just making her character worse. And who knows her motivation.
Fortunately, we re-worked her stats using the point buy system and actually made her better than she was before, at the sacrifice of one of her other stats. But at least she's got the character she wants now, that's pretty awesome, and can do what she wants to do. We're actually waiting to hear the DM reject her stats, even though they are completely legal with the point buy system, which if he does, is ridiculous.
Also, to suggest the player is in the wrong for having an idea and submitting it, even though it's against the DM's general layout, is silly. They have to accept that the DM has final word, or not play, but to ask generally does no harm -- Unless the DM is being completely inconsistent. Also, asking to use the template of a banned race but be a different race is totally different than asking to be a banned race. As the post earlier suggested to do, saying "I have a character from the northern lands, he's a human through and through. As a sorcerer, one of her powers would be a flame breath as I'm using the Dragonborn template for mechanics and balance, but in the game it'd be a human." If you think that makes a person more in the wrong, you need to learn to DM.
Part of DMing is helping players make characters they WANT to play, that's within in the rules. Forcing them into characters they don't want to play isn't fun for anyone. And here, the DM has eliminated several possibilities for the player to do what she wants, while she'd prefer NOT to do one of the possibilities, and you say she's being unreasonable? You're way off base. Basically, it's like this.
Red, green, blue, orange, purple, black. Pick one color. Oh, except you can't choose red or green. Blue and orange and purple are useless. The player would prefer not to choose black -- so suddenly they are in the wrong? I completely disagree.
It's not wrong to ask, but you can't get all worked up if the DM says no. He outlined at the beginning that Dragonborn aren't allowed. Just because he made some exceptions for other players doesn't mean the players have the right to demand exceptions from him.
On the other hand, there's nothing inherently wrong with the stats without the dragonborn fluff. Or perhaps taking a Goliath (+2 Str/Con) and making it from a different tribe (+2 Str/Cha). Perhaps it's a tribe with a marble-esque instead of a granite-esque appearance. So while the DM isn't wrong, he's also being stubborn.
On the other hand, there's nothing inherently wrong with the stats without the dragonborn fluff. Or perhaps taking a Goliath (+2 Str/Con) and making it from a different tribe (+2 Str/Cha). Perhaps it's a tribe with a marble-esque instead of a granite-esque appearance. So while the DM isn't wrong, he's also being stubborn.
He already said no stat changes to the new character, even though he allowed it before.
Sorry, you guys keep giving him excuses, then he breaks those excuses, then you say he's still in the right.
Also, to suggest the player is in the wrong for having an idea and submitting it, even though it's against the DM's general layout, is silly.
Which is why I didn't suggest that. The player has every right to ask for an exception, especially if similar requests were granted in the past. But after the DM denied her that request, the issue should have ended. The player is wrong for dragging it out by (for example) asking for other 'banned' races or getting upset about the results. The DM was wrong for allowing exceptions to his rules in the first place, which left his players in the dark about what is and what isn't possible. If he decides to make changes to the rules, he has to think them through and enforce them or not make them at all. Even you, a player who is not directly involved in this particular issue, are getting a bit worked up about somebody else's +2 racial bonus to an ability.
A lot of people in your gaming group seem to have strong feelings about this issue. This could lead to people leaving the group, and I assume it is your first priority to keep the group together. My advise is to discuss the issue with the group, and end that discussion with a clear list of do's and don'ts. Since several different people with (apparently) different tastes are involved, everybody will probably have to compromise a bit. Life isn't perfect.
Just keep in mind you can probably have it more 'your way' if you know your DMs motivations up front. And if you 'gang up' on the DM and force him into a game he doesn't like enough, he'll stop running it (or run it poorly because he's not motivated). And that is bad for you as a player as well.
That's bull crap, sorry. :P
...
If you think that makes a person more in the wrong, you need to learn to DM.
...
You're way off base.
There is no need to get offensive about it. You're not obliged to end this thread with a general consensus, nor will any forum police force you to apply what I write. You can use whatever advise makes sense to you and ignore the rest. If I just confirmed your own opinions, you certainly wouldn't gain anything because you already had it all ;)
Good luck with working things out.
i think more DMs need to realize that they are only 1/6th of the ppl at the table
I think more DMs, and all of the players, need to realize that they are each individually only 1/6th of the people at the table.
He already said no stat changes to the new character, even though he allowed it before.
Sorry, you guys keep giving him excuses, then he breaks those excuses, then you say he's still in the right.
Look, I'm saying that just because he allowed an exception before, doesn't mean you have the right to demand the exception. Go ahead an ask, but don't freak out if he doesn't allow it.
I also said he's being stubborn. He should allow it, because it's a good idea and makes sense. But if he doesn't, you shouldn't demonize him.
Metaphorically, just because the Baker gave you a free roll yesterday, doesn't mean you have the right to demand one today. If the Baker wants to give you the roll, then he gives it to you, but it's the exception to his business practice, not the norm. Ask the DM for whatever you want, but if it's not within the rules don't act like he's some god-awful ass when he doesn't.
But after the DM denied her that request, the issue should have ended. The player is wrong for dragging it out by (for example) asking for other 'banned' races or getting upset about the results.
The original conversation lasted all of three minutes. And then there was ONE e-mail sent about offering an alternative for an ability bonus to a particular race. So, the player is not wrong, I simply feel the inconsistancy is rather annoying and that he's being strict over something he doesn't need to be.
And as for one other post, I believe that I didn't demonize him. Read my original post where I said that game has been quite fun for over year -- and it's just recently that problems have been creeping up, and there are other problems (leading a player to leave the game) which are also there.
I just disagree with you guys. It's BAD DMing to be so inconsistent. As I said before, the alternatives you offer that you say a DM should be okay with have been done, and he still rejects it. And then you say not to 'demonize' him.
You say the Baker and the rolling of dice incident. That's not a fair incident, because you're not getting a free roll every day. It's once a year maybe (Character creation, if a character dies, etc). It's a completely different scope. It's not like he's had us make normal characters on a daily basis and then there's been 2 exceptions...Of the 7 people who have been in and out of the group, one decided to be less effective intentionally as part of his character, 4 of the others are exceptions. 2 stayed RAW. So now, the Baker has given a free roll to 4/7 customers, three of which didn't want it, and a year later someone else is asking for a roll too.
A DM is right to maintain consistency in his or her world. Normally, I would say 'nuff said' but there's the rest of the group to take into consideration. This is their world too; they've chosen to be a part of it, their characters are what helps bring the world to life. They may have an idea (or two) of their own, so a wise DM is open to suggestions ;). Not everything will be open to debate of course, but most things should.
Without players, a campaign setting is just words on paper (at most). True exploration of a D&D world happens at the table, through play, not solely inside the DM's head.
For instance, in my homebrew setting, there are no eladrin and there are no half-elves. Reason being, millennia ago, tribes of elves traveled from their homeland and arrived on the shores of my world. That's the story but does this mean there are absolutely no eladrin or half-elves in my world? No, of course not.
The elves who remained behind are the eladrin. If they appear at all in the world, they are extremely rare (as in PC only). The elves of my world are 'strangers in a strange land' (very insular), so no half-elves to speak of. Elves and humans can have children but they are either full elf or full human (not a hybrid). So, you can call yourself a half-elf (the story is the same) but the actual game mechanics are 'either/or'.
I think this is a reasonable compromise. It maintains the consitency of my world without completely disallowing the choice of eladrin or half-elf PCs. I'm happy and the players are happy, one person's wants haven't out-weighed the others.
Yes.
The player should be able to ask again, albeit with a penalty to his roll, and the other players should assist him.
Seriously, making him a Human with Dragonborn stats and the Dragonborn encounter power flavored as an innate Sorcererous ability should solve this problem. Since a lot of care went into making all the races balanced, this should not give any advantage over a Human PC, and perhaps more important, reflavoring is something the RAW allows.
Yeah, so? Is he a tool?
I'm in the "he's a tool" camp. Or more PC, "He's exhibiting many of the classic signs of being a bad DM."
I'm not. He's wrong in this case, and that it decreases his players enjoyment of the game is what shows this fact.
I can relate to him though. In a 3.5 game, someone wanted to play an Elf with wings, so I allowed it. I didn't have Races of the Wild or any clue about how to run it, so I made the wings a natural flight ability that was worth 2 feats and required the player to have a flaw to balance it out. The player was happy and that was that.
Her character was a wizard and wanted to summon some creature that on the list was for evil summoners. I said no because I liked the idea of the monster a caster summons to show what alignment the caster was. So my player's nonstandard PC wasn't able to use her spell in a nonstandard way. It frustrated her and in hindsight there are multiple ways I could have given her the summon she wanted and still kept the in-world summon-mirrors-caster that I wanted.
What I'm saying is just because of one bone-head move (or a suite of them, since Dragonborn are not the only race not canon for his world), that doesn't mean the DM's a total bone-head. Just a partial one, like everyone else.
Sounds like a decent enough reason to me....
"I don't like them" is perfectly valid.
I have a good reason for you: Because it's his realm.
I also believe it's a good enough reason for a DM to do it, because they're the DM, and you can always not play in the game.
You people should feel absolutely ashamed or yourselves condoning such childish behavior. The DM's fun is not more important than everybody else's. The DM's friends are trusting him to run a game for everybody to enjoy. If you take that trust and abuse your position to impose your will on all of your players and to making a game that is primarily for your own amusement above everybody else's, completely disregarding that your players trusted you to make a game that is fun for them as well, then you are a bad DM, and you should feel bad.
The DM in question here is doing a bad job, and he should get called out on it.
You people should feel absolutely ashamed or yourselves condoning such childish behavior. The DM's fun is not more important than everybody else's. The DM's friends are trusting him to run a game for everybody to enjoy.
No one is saying that the DM's fun is more important that anyone elses. However, part of a DMs responsibility (and fun) is building the world. By accepting someone as a DM, you have to accept their ability to set up the game world as they see fit. I dont think anyone here would put up with a DM declaring what actions that a PC can take (short of magical compulsion), so I dont see why people would argue that a PC should be allowed to essentially do the same to the DM. DM stands for dungeon master, not Door Mat.
If you want to be the one calling the shots for what exists in the world, then you be the DM. Its as simple as that.
If you dont think the DM is being fair with an exclusion, then bring it up. But be prepared for the DM to say no, and if they do either accept it and choose something else or run a game yourself.
Personally, when I tell my players no to something because it doesnt fit in my world, it is because I truly believe that and they trust that I am doing it to be true to the campaign world I am presenting.
But the DM's must remember that part of that trust is due to the attempt to listen to the players desire, and to try and work with them as much as makes sense for the campaign world.
However, part of a DMs responsibility (and fun) is building the world. By accepting someone as a DM, you have to accept their ability to set up the game world as they see fit.
You have a page referrence on that? I have never seen a world-building chapter in the Dungeon Master's Guide that says anything remotely similar to "as the DM, it is your responsibility to decide what choices are available for races and classes - and should base your decision on your own personal likes and dislikes despite the likes and dislikes of your players."
Building a world is definitely part of a DM's duties - shooting down a player's character concept because you have some fiction-racism going on... yeah... that's not called world building.
A good example of world building - finding a place for everything, even the ones that you don't like as much as the others.
You have a page referrence on that? I have never seen a world-building chapter in the Dungeon Master's Guide that says anything remotely similar to "as the DM, it is your responsibility to decide what choices are available for races and classes - and should base your decision on your own personal likes and dislikes despite the likes and dislikes of your players."
Sure can, DMG p. 142 Under the heading of "Informing Your Players" (bolding mine)
"As you start to develop the ideas for yourcampaign, you'll need to fill in the players on the basics. The easiest way to do this is to complile essential information into a campaign handout. Typical Material to include in the handout includes the following:
1. Any restrictions or new options for character creation such as new or prohibited races."
Seems pretty clear to me that it says that the job of the DM is to decide what is allowed or not as far as character creation is concerned. It just says that if he does so, the DM needs to make these limitations clear to the PCs.
Seems pretty clear to me that it says that the job of the DM is to decide what is allowed or not as far as character creation is concerned. It just says that if he does so, the DM needs to make these limitations clear to the PCs.
I agree, though I do agree with the point also that being so restrictive that a player can't play the type of person they want to play unless they play a mechanically worse character is just unfair. I believe, as has been said before, that a DM can set aside their fiction-racial biases and allow the template for the race to be allowed, but be played in game as another race.
I believe this is especially true when you've banned several races that work for a particular class, to the point that only one race is only half decent to be played as the class, thus nearly completely restricting the players options.
I agree, though I do agree with the point also that being so restrictive that a player can't play the type of person they want to play unless they play a mechanically worse character is just unfair. I believe, as has been said before, that a DM can set aside their fiction-racial biases and allow the template for the race to be allowed, but be played in game as another race.
I believe this is especially true when you've banned several races that work for a particular class, to the point that only one race is only half decent to be played as the class, thus nearly completely restricting the players options.
And if that is how the DM wants to do it, I wouldnt have a problem with it. However I wouldnt do something like this is my game. Refluffing a race so that it fits into your game world is one thing but, personally I think if you are going to start swapping the race mechanics to what ever race you want to, then there is basically no reason to even differentiate between the races at all.
Sure can, DMG p. 142 Under the heading of "Informing Your Players" (bolding mine)
"As you start to develop the ideas for yourcampaign, you'll need to fill in the players on the basics. The easiest way to do this is to complile essential information into a campaign handout. Typical Material to include in the handout includes the following:
1. Any restrictions or new options for character creation such as new or prohibited races."
Seems pretty clear to me that it says that the job of the DM is to decide what is allowed or not as far as character creation is concerned. It just says that if he does so, the DM needs to make these limitations clear to the PCs.
That is actually pretty impressive, I did not know such a reference actually existed...
Interesting it is on the same page as "Character Origin and Background: Once you’ve identified where you want to start your campaign, let the players help tell the story by deciding how their characters got there."
DM: "okay Jim, tell me your background and how you got to [place the story starts]"
Jim: "My character was born in a family of near destitute dragonborn..."
DM: "Woah, reign it in a bit Jim. No dragonborn. Please continue your background."
Jim: "So... I get to make up my background and how my character got there, but only so long as you approve?"
DM: "Yup, but that's okay because there is no way would list something as a possibility without that meaning it's perfectly acceptable no matter the situation."
Letting the player help tell the story is severely hindered by removing things they want to tell/hear stories about - I never thought I would say this: The DMG is in need of errata.
DM: "okay Jim, tell me your background and how you got to [place the story starts]"
Jim: "My character was born in a family of near destitute dragonborn..."
DM: "Woah, reign it in a bit Jim. No dragonborn. Please continue your background."
Jim: "So... I get to make up my background and how my character got there, but only so long as you approve?"
DM: "Yup, but that's okay because there is no way would list something as a possibility without that meaning it's perfectly acceptable no matter the situation."
The main problem with this illustration is that, theroretically, this exchange would happen after the players have been told what is allowable and what is not. If the DM has failed to do that, then the fault is with the DM not giving the Players the proper info about the campaign.
If the DM did give that info, and the player still tries to use things not appropriate to the campaign, then it is just the player causing trouble, and the player needs to either 1) come up with a new idea, 2) not play, or 3) run their own game.
The main problem with this illustration is that, theroretically, this exchange would happen after the players have been told what is allowable and what is not.
...which is why it is strange that, when reading the book as though it were a book (from front cover to back cover, left to right from top of the page to bottom, one line after another, etc.), the part about having the players help tell the story is before the part about putting your setting before the player's fun (which is all that prohibiting a race that a player wants to play ever ends up being).
Also: saying "don't like it, then run your own game." is, some times, saying "Well, you just don't ever get to actually be a player unless you decide that playing the race/class/etc. that you like the most isn't important."
...which is why it is strange that, when reading the book as though it were a book (from front cover to back cover, left to right from top of the page to bottom, one line after another, etc.), the part about having the players help tell the story is before the part about putting your setting before the player's fun (which is all that prohibiting a race that a player wants to play ever ends up being).
Also: saying "don't like it, then run your own game." is, some times, saying "Well, you just don't ever get to actually be a player unless you decide that playing the race/class/etc. that you like the most isn't important."
Of course, even in the section you are talking about it never says to let the players make the decisions as to what is available. However it does say, "You might suggest some alterations to a character's background so it better fits your world, or you might weave the first treads of your campaign story into her history."
Even this part, presupposes that the GM is the one who has to decide what is allowed in the campaign world.
As far as the never getting to play thing goes... yeah, if you are so fixated on a single concept that you cannot play anything else, then you might have a problem with being able to play under this particular DM. My advice... convice one of the other players to DM, or find another game.
This is exactly where the DM responsibility comes in. Frankly, before ever sitting down to play a DM should make it very clear what he is allowing and what he is not, and if you dont like it then you either come up with something else or you play with a different group.
Also: saying "don't like it, then run your own game." is, some times, saying "Well, you just don't ever get to actually be a player unless you decide that playing the race/class/etc. that you like the most isn't important."
Agreed, whole heartedly. It always stinks to have a character concept, that's legal, that you want to play, get rejected.
My favorite person to play with is a guy who I said "Look, I want to play an Inquisitor. I don't know what you have in mind for your campaign, but I really want to do this."
Since I was new, he said "Okay, well it sounds like you want to do a Cleric/Rogue type of mix then. It sounds weird, but let's see what we can do." Course, this was in the 3.5 days. I barely knew the guy back then. We randomly ended up in the same campaign together with a bad DM.
Anyways, we put together a multiclass cleric/rogue and it was what I wanted to play! It was following the rules completely, and I made some tweaks to fit his storyline (my character wasn't working for the church in an 'official' capacity, which wasn't my original plan, but it would only make sense to allow him to adventure), and he added just a couple things to make my character fit into his plotline (the person he's trying to hunt down was intertwined with the plot).
He worked with me to help make the character I wanted, to fit with his campaign, and I negotiated as well...To something I liked and that worked for his world.
In my OP, that's not what happened at all. They basically rejected the idea outright, made a worse character that didn't accomplish what the player wanted, and tried to make the character a reject from society which is completely opposite. We had to work REALLY hard over a couple of days to make the character be the same while staying within the DM restrictions. It was annoying.
In my OP, that's not what happened at all. They basically rejected the idea outright, made a worse character that didn't accomplish what the player wanted, and tried to make the character a reject from society which is completely opposite. We had to work REALLY hard over a couple of days to make the character be the same while staying within the DM restrictions. It was annoying.
Of course, your problem in the OP is not that the DM made restrictions. What the real problem here is that the DM did not make solid rules about what would be allowed.
Instead he allowed weird work-arounds for changing the races, and then changed his mind when this new character was presented.
It is not a problem with his choices, but with his consistancy. Because he allowed something like that in the past, the players expect that to be the case in the future, and rightly so. However if he hadnt allowed the mucking with the races that he had, the limit of the Dragonborn wouldnt be an issue.
A question to the OP, from what it made it sound like the choice of the Dragonborn as the race seemed to be completly motivated by what would be an optimal choice for the class being chosen. In fact it seems like all the changes to the races seemed to be to optimize the stats of the character, as opposed to being an issue of the character backstory (as was presented in the post I quoted). Why would the Sorceror in question not be able to be a human, or another allowed race?
As far as the never getting to play thing goes... yeah, if you are so fixated on a single concept that you cannot play anything else, then you might have a problem with being able to play under this particular DM. My advice... convice one of the other players to DM, or find another game.
I agree - can't get what you want from the game in front of you, find a new one.
You, however, are making it sound easier than it really is. Also - fixation on a single concept has nothing to do with it. You want to play a specific character, it's your first choice - you get told no... so you do not get to play what you want. You get to play your second choice... much less satisfying.
Really though... as someone who has been "blessed" with a long life as a gamer, and many people to game with over the years - I hope that things work better statistically in your area/experience than in mine: I have gamed with well enough over 100 people to have lost count, and can count on a single hand the number of them that were willing to DM even if I include myself and my girlfriend that says she might be interested in trying to DM sometime in the future. So with less than 1 in 10 gamers I have ever personally met actually willing to DM, and me already being a DM... and having a group of 6 players... if I want to play D&D - I'm already s.o.l. without a DM making it harder on me by limiting my choice of race or class.
The DMG is, overall, a well written book - but it should have a lot more emphasis on teaching would-be DMs not to put their own preferences before those of the players.
The game is for a group of equals, as we as people should all hold each other equal - and I don't see anyone advocating the players being able to say "oh, by the way DM - you can't use this list of monsters, plot hooks, and NPC archetypes because we don't like them." while saying it's fine for the DM to limit player options...
A question to the OP, from what it made it sound like the choice of the Dragonborn as the race seemed to be completly motivated by what would be an optimal choice for the class being chosen. In fact it seems like all the changes to the races seemed to be to optimize the stats of the character, as opposed to being an issue of the character backstory (as was presented in the post I quoted). Why would the Sorceror in question not be able to be a human, or another allowed race?
Because the character wanted to be a Sorcereress with good diplomacy, and being able to read people. It was about character flavor as much as stats. So why the Dragonborn stats? Because it keeps her damage high and her ability to hit high, and then her third stat can still be high enough to offer a bonus to intelligence. How does that help her? Because Sorcerous Vision (Use Arcana checks for insight and perception). Her high Cha makes diplomacy easy. Essentially, removing the dragonborn meant finding a race that would allow her to still have a decently high int score and cha, and leaving strength as a good tertiary stat.
We did it, but it wasn't easy, and her other stats are all lower because of it but at least she has essentially the same character she wanted. Also, the DM banned several other races (+Cha, +int) that would've made this easier.
But in the end, as you said, it's the inconsistency that's sucked.
The DMG is, overall, a well written book - but it should have a lot more emphasis on teaching would-be DMs not to put their own preferences before those of the players.
The game is for a group of equals, as we as people should all hold each other equal - and I don't see anyone advocating the players being able to say "oh, by the way DM - you can't use this list of monsters, plot hooks, and NPC archetypes because we don't like them." while saying it's fine for the DM to limit player options...
Realistically though, it is not equal. If it were, there would be a whole lot more people willing to DM. I am not saying that the DM is a better person that someone else, but the two roles are not anything close to being equal.
No more than saying that a doctor and a patient are equal in surgery. Yes, they are both needed, but there is more responsibility on one than the other.
The DM is responsible for planning for and presenting a campaign world, and adventures session after session, as well as controlling every NPC in the game. While the players are only responsible for showing up, and portraying a single character. Obviously a greater responsibility is on the DM.
As such the DM should have the ability to limit what he feels he needs to, so that he can present a world that he can have fun preparing adventures for week after week. In my mind, and in the DMG, this means that sometimes the DM can choose to limit things. It is part of the role of being the DM.
Players do not get to limit what the DM can use, simply because it is not in the role of Players to make that sort of decision. If players want to be the ones that determine what can and cannot be used in the campaign then they need to step up as DMs. Its really just that simple.
And if DMs want to avoid issues like this, they need to be comfortable with making those decisions up front, and being open and consistent with the limitations they choose to make.
1. Any restrictions or new options for character creation such as new or prohibited races."
Just because the DMG says you can do something doesn't mean that you should do it, especially not without first consulting players about your ideas. And by consulting, I don't mean telling them; I mean that if they disagree, you actually have a discussion about it, and you do heavily consider altering your campaign to suit them if possible.
And honestly, the number of times where a DM's decision to ban a class or race option is actually warranted is ridiculously small. The vast majority of the time it happen, the DM is just going off on a power trip about what he does or doesn't like, completely ignoring what the players like or want. This sort of immaturity should never be encouraged.
And speaking of immaturity, let's talk about this:
"If the players don't like it, they don't have to play, and they can decide to DM themselves."
That is a load of ********. Just because players have the option not to play and to even run a game themselves does not give a DM license to behave so childishly with his position. The fact the your players don't have to play in your game and are completely capable of DMing themselves should make you realize that you'd better not go on a total power trip or else you will lose all of your players because they will go of and play other games or DM their own.
And then of course the statement completely ignores that many players really don't have other DM options or really aren't capable of DMing themselves. DMing is a lot more difficult and time-consuming than playing is, and some players are not capable of doing it. And even if your players do have the ability to, that doesn't mean that they want to. Playing and DMing the game are two completely different experiences, and some people who can DM would like a chance to play for once.
Obviously a greater responsibility is on the DM.
And part of the greater responsibility of the DM is being more mature.
I can't believe this thread is still going on. This is absolutely ridiculous. I had no idea there were seriously so many terrible DMs out there that would get behind what happened to the OP here.
Just because the DMG says you can do something doesn't mean that you should do it, especially not without first consulting players about your ideas. And by consulting, I don't mean telling them; I mean that if they disagree, you actually have a discussion about it, and you do heavily consider altering your campaign to suit them if possible.
And honestly, the number of times where a DM's decision to ban a class or race option is actually warranted is ridiculously small. The vast majority of the time it happen, the DM is just going off on a power trip about what he does or doesn't like, completely ignoring what the players like or want. This sort of immaturity should never be encouraged.
And part of the greater responsibility of the DM is being more mature.
The thing that I dont understand is why so many people think that the DM should put in all the work that is required to run a game, and then let the players walk all over them.
I can't understand why people think that if a DM doesnt want certain things in their games, that it makes them a bad DM.
In my mind, it comes down to this: If you are going to put the effort into making the campaign world and running the game, then you get to decide what is available in it. That is the privledge of being the DM. The responsibility of that position is letting your players know the limits that you will set, and to be consistant with them.
It is not immature to what does and does not fit in the world that you are trying to present. It is part of being a DM. And frankly the only reason that the DM needs to have is, simply, it doesnt fit in the world. Now if a player can give ideas as to how the particular class or race does fit into the world, then it behooves the DM to hear the player out, but in the end it is the DM that has final say.
The thing that I dont understand is why so many people think that the DM should put in all the work that is required to run a game, and then let the players walk all over them.
You don't have to be an immature jerk in order not to let your players walk all over you. If you think otherwise, then you are tragically mistaken.
I can't understand why people think that if a DM doesnt want certain things in their games, that it makes them a bad DM.
That right there. It's not just the DM's game. It's the players' game too. It's fine not to want something in your game, but it's not fine to prohibit players from playing things just because you don't like those things. That's just selfish. Not wanting something and actually disallowing it are two different things. There are lots of things I don't like and wish would never come up in my games, but I'm not selfish enough to deny my players those options just because I think they're lame or stupid.
Your players are you friends, and they should be treated as such.
It is not immature to what does and does not fit in the world that you are trying to present.
But it is immature to disallow things just because you don't like them under the guise of their not fitting into the world. Really, do you know how many times the "it doesn't fit into my world" excuse is actually true? Not very often. The vast majority of the time, it's just what bad DMs say when they need an excuse not to allow something they don't like.
I don't like Gnomes. Really, I hate them. But there's no good reason not to allow them in my games. If one of my players wants to play one, it would be selfish of me to stand in their way just because of my personal preferences.
And frankly the only reason that the DM needs to have is, simply, it doesnt fit in the world.
"I don't like it" is not a good enough reason to completely disallow something. It is not the DM's game. It's everyone's game. The DM has been trusted with the responsibility of running a fun game for everybody, and abusing that trust to disallow thing just because one doesn't like them is selfish and immature.
Really, do you know how many times the "it doesn't fit into my world" excuse is actually true? Not very often. The vast majority of the time, it's just what bad DMs say when they need an excuse not to allow something they don't like.
I am going to do my best to ignore the baiting, and insults in your post, and attempt to answer this, by a personal example:
I have a homebrew world that I have been running games on for about 12 years. I have run this world with several different groups, and all the groups have been very happy with my DMing.
My world does not have Orcs. None. So therefore, no Half-Orcs. I am very clear with any players that that is the case, and has been for the 12 years I have used this world. Orcs, and Half-Orcs do not fit in my world. So my players know that Orcs or Half-Orcs are not allowed as player characters.
This doesnt make me a bad DM, nor does it make my game world bad. It does mean that people who absolutely must play half-orcs are better off finding another game.
My decision has nothing to do with immaturity. I, as the creator of the campaign world, have decided what I want in the world. As the DM and the creator of the world, that is my perogative. Part of what makes my world what it is, are these types of choices I have made. And if the DM is not supposed to make these kinds of choices, why dont we all play in the same campaign setting?
My world does not have Orcs. None. So therefore, no Half-Orcs. I am very clear with any players that that is the case, and has been for the 12 years I have used this world. Orcs, and Half-Orcs do not fit in my world. So my players know that Orcs or Half-Orcs are not allowed as player characters.
Why? Completely arbitrarily? Do you have an actual reason?
"Because I said so," is not a good enough reason for anything in the real world, and it's not a good enough reason to do something in D&D either. If you're not using your authority responsibly, then you're not doing a good job with it.
I'm not saying there's aren't completely logical and significant reasons why such a thing can definitely be appropriate. All I'm doing is pointing out that in the vast majority of instances where DMs randomly bans thing, that's not the case. If you, your game, and your campaign world happen not to be one of those cases, then that's nice, but it doesn't really alter my point that the vast majority of the time I hear of a DM banning something like a race or a class, the reason is, "I just don't like them."
Cases of completely arbitrary restrictions based solely on DM personal preference with complete disregard for player desires are selfish and immature. That's not how you should behave when your friends are trusting you to provide a good time.
"I didn't want gnomes in the world," usually placates the players fairly well. Though if pressed, I imagine I would explain that the "mechanical trickster" role that gnomes normally occupy is disappearing, with dwarves taking on the mechanical role, and halflings appropriating the trickster role.
The point is, I'm the DM. I'm spending a lot, lot, lot of effort making sure this world is organic and interesting, and if I don't want gnomes in it, there won't be gnomes in it. Period. The players understand (since they're my friends) that I am doing everything I can to make a world that they can have fun in, and they also understand that CREATING the world is what's fun for me, so they let me.
In response to the OP: the DM is well within his rights to ban Dragonborn. However, my issue would be with the fact that he's allowed other players to tweak their characters ever-so-slightly, but now he's putting the foot down on this guy? What gives. I agree with whoever (sorry, missed the name) mentioned taking the Dragonborn and using it as a "template", essentially just refluffing it. There's no reason this DM shouldn't allow this, given his past record...
I agree with whoever (sorry, missed the name) mentioned taking the Dragonborn and using it as a "template", essentially just refluffing it. There's no reason this DM shouldn't allow this, given his past record...
Which is what we did from the beginning.
We never said "The Sorceress is a Dragonborn", we said "We're using the Dragonborn stats, but she's an Elf."But essentially, your paragraph sums up my entire point we were trying to make. It's just strange that he won't budge in any way all of the sudden.
I'm actually working on a game world right now that doesn't have gnomes. There's a perfectly valid reason for them not to exist in my world, but I never really have to use it.
What is the reason then? Humor me.
Though if pressed, I imagine I would explain that the "mechanical trickster" role that gnomes normally occupy is disappearing, with dwarves taking on the mechanical role, and halflings appropriating the trickster role.
And you can't have more than one race to cover a particular role because...? I really hope this wasn't the supposedly "perfectly valid reason" you referred to before. I'm not saying there can't be a perfectly valid reason, I'm just saying this sure isn't it.
The point is, I'm the DM. I'm spending a lot, lot, lot of effort making sure this world is organic and interesting, and if I don't want gnomes in it, there won't be gnomes in it. Period.
And what's the reason that you can't create that same organic and interesting world without banning gnomes? Really, I completely dislike Gnomes too. I hate them. They're lame and silly. Do I ban them? No, I just don't deal with them. When I created my campaign world, I just ignored them. Sure, they can exist, but I don't care where or when or why, because I don't care about them. I'm not going to make any Gnome cities or Gnome NPCs, and that's the end of it. Thus, I don't have to deal with Gnomes at all, but I also don't have to restrict my players from playing them.
I don't understand why you need to go as far as to say "this doesn't exist" when you only need to go as far as "I don't care about this and am not going to consider it." I don't see how that's not totally selfish.
I don't understand why you need to go as far as to say "this doesn't exist" when you only need to go as far as "I don't care about this and am not going to consider it." I don't see how that's not totally selfish.
This is exactly what I was trying to get at earlier.
Sure, a dm can say "there are no such thing as orcs." But - if a player happens to say "but I really was looking forward to playing this one particular race (orc/half-orc) because of the themes represented by it seeming really interesting to me" then there is a right, and wrong, way to proceed.
Right: find a way, despite your campaign details, to make the player's character work how they wanted.
Wrong: say "nope. My world, my game, my rules. Deal with it."
To the earlier response to my ranting that basically got summed up as "DM's have more responsibility in a game, and so it's okay if they want things to be their way."
No.
A DM is there, elected by the group, to apply the rules of the game in a fair way. Sure, a DM might (probably will, despite not actually having to) come up his own plot lines and NPCs and all of that... but it isn't actually necessary - kind of like a player typing out a 20 page story about their character's life up until the start of the campaign and painting/drawing a portrait of their character.
A DM can be a good DM without ever making a single decision for the group - the players can do by themselves, or help with, so many of the things that you say give the DM entitlement to have everything his way that... well, basically your argument is that whoever appears to expend the most effort is the one who gets to decide what is fun - and that is plain ridiculous.
I have a player that types up character backstories in thousands of words, and actually pays artists to illustrate his characters that he plays - which is a lot more than I do as far as time/effort is concerned for my D&D games in general... that doesn't even remotely mean that a) I am a bad DM (the opposite is true - I have never had a single instance where someone expressed the belief that I was a bad DM, even behind my back) or b) he should have control over what the rest of us at the table are allowed to have fun with.
I don't understand why you need to go as far as to say "this doesn't exist" when you only need to go as far as "I don't care about this and am not going to consider it." I don't see how that's not totally selfish.
This is really getting ridiculous. If the dm decides that something doesn´t fit in what he envisioned in the campaign it is his decision. Yes players may argue their point and try to sway the dm but the final say is with the dm and if the player doesn´t like it there are 2 options for the player:
-leave the game (maybe start his on campaign where all he wants is allowed)
-stay and perhaps have fun even if its not with the dragonborn goblin of doom he envisioned
Btw in my new campaign I banned all races except human elf and dwarf and my players are perfectly fine with the decisions i make for MY campaign
Bottom line is if the dm doesn´t want something in his campaign he can do as he/she likes if the players don´t like it they may leave... no one is forcing anyone to stay
This is exactly what I was trying to get at earlier.
Sure, a dm can say "there are no such thing as orcs." But - if a player happens to say "but I really was looking forward to playing this one particular race (orc/half-orc) because of the themes represented by it seeming really interesting to me" then there is a right, and wrong, way to proceed.
Right: find a way, despite your campaign details, to make the player's character work how they wanted.
Wrong: say "nope. My world, my game, my rules. Deal with it."
Geez. The DM sure can try if he wants to, but in the process of creating this world that's probably been fermenting in the back of his mind for months, the DM probably spent countless nights and weekends making it sensible. Not perfect, and not ripe for a specific story, but at least sensible. Like, Country A over here will be a big farming country, ruled by the sibling of the King of Country B. It'll be mostly half-elves, where they find the farming a haven. Although Country A is at peace with Country B, it's a silent begrudging peace, neither wants anything to do with the other, because their parents paid more attention to Country B's King than Country A's. Though peaceful on a wide scale, Gnolls are a major hindrance; living in the great northern forest and pockets of the southern Yellow Forest. They don't often raid villages, but poach most of the game, and frequently the livestock of nearby communities. And on and on and on, for every country, every place the PCs could visit, every town has it's lay out and rough interconnection with the other towns of its and other nations.
But they player says they really want to play a half-orc. So the DM has to go back and spend another couple nights and weekends, rearranging the whole damn thing to make orcs fit in a good way, not just "Oh, and there are orcs over here. No one really talks about them because they were added at the last minute." Somehow the player shouldn't have to go through this process, because they have an idea! The DM has one, but their's is of secondary importance to the players.
I frequently feel like people think DMs are magical machines, the spit out campaigns and plots and quests with a wave of their hand, rather than weary nights and weekends, hashing out important details that will make the world come alive to the PCs. Even after the switch to 4E, there's a lot of work that goes into a campaign world.
Sure, if it's a published setting, whatever. But the DM built it, there's love there, and probably a unifying theme. Maybe the DM thought, "Hey, let's make a campaign without orcs, goblins, kobolds, or gnolls. I'll challenge the players with a less cookie cutter world, where other humans are the enemies, rather than monstrous races". But no, someone wants to play a half-orc. They can't come up with another interesting idea, because they've fixated on one character. One measly character when the DM has fleshed out twenty or thirty NPCs for the world so that when the players meet one, the DM isn't stuck going "uhh...umm...He's the king". It takes infinitely less effort to come up with another character than it does to rework the campaign world, even for a small thing, let along adding in an entire race that hadn't existed before.
I mean, are all other players like 10 year olds? They fixate on one thing and just want it no matter what? For christ's sake the DM spent at least a full work weeks worth of time building a campaign for the players to play in, even if it's not their exact wish. How much time did the player spend finalizing their character? Two hours, three? Maybe in 3.5 it took a day, but not now. This is part of the reason I haven't DMed in so long (I'm not eager to step into those shoes for what might be a couple of ungrateful players). Players that treat you like a wish machine. Look, I'll look at it and see if I can fit it in, but if it's going to take me more than 3 hours to reset everything so they fit in well, then you're going to have to come up with another character.
I know I always approach a new DM with at least 3 characters in mind. If none of them work, I figure out a 4th that will.
Of course, none of that has to do with the topic. I would allow a player to switch out the states, claim the Dragon Breath was a spell she learned, and she was a student of this or that. I find numbers highly mutable. But when you say "Hey, add this entire race for my character." I've got the urge to tie them down and make them actually build a world. Not some half-assed concoction like "Well, it's a medieval world and all the normal races are there. Northern Kingdom A is made of hardy barbarians constantly threatened by Orcish hordes, there." Oh no no no buddy, tell me about the King and his adviser, and how they might interact with the PCs in different situations. Then give me an average description of most border towns, with more in depth descriptions of the ones you highly suspect the PCs will visit. And who is the leader of those towns the PCs are going to visit, and why? Oh, they need to learn about the hordes? Who are they going to talk to? Oh, why does the wizard know about the hordes? Ok, how is the wizard going to handle some adventurer's asking questions? Oh, so who is going to tell the wizard to expect them? Why would the King do that? So how can the PCs convince the King to help them? Well what if they don't do that, how else could they pull it off? Maybe they don't have a bard, what will they do then?
And on, and on. It's like DM's get no respect sometimes. You try to make an innovative, unusual campaign that will give the players a chance to explore the kind of world they haven't explored before, and someone starts kicking and screaming about how they can't play this half-orc they want to play so badly.
Why? Completely arbitrarily? Do you have an actual reason?
Originally the main reason that I banned orcs is that i dont find them interresting. Because I dont find them interresting, I didnt use them, and as such lead to a different place for the various humanoid in the history of the world.
Now, (12 years later) there are no orcs because they have no place in the established history and lore of the campaign world.
This is a completely valid reason. I, as the creator of the world have decided that there is no place for Orcs. Saying that I am wrong for making that decision, has no real basis in anything. I have a campaign world that myself and my players enjoy, and I dont have to use things I dont care for.
Saying that my decision is wrong is basically saying that the only correct way to play is your way of including everything... and frankly, if you think that your way is the only right way, you're doing it wrong.
Second, about consistency in this regard. According to the OP the DM earlier made exceptions regarding racial choices and that the DM is now being inconsistent because he is NOT allowing the same exception. I think you might want to review the meaning of exception. That is, just because he comprimised on this matter in the past - and certainly each such comprimise applied to a DIFFERENT race - that in order to be consistent he must comprimise in precisely the same way on EVERY future choice of race. That is NOT what it means to make an exception - that's making a RULE.
Now if you do that sort of thing enough then players (like the OP) might well cease to interpret it as an exception and instead as a PRECEDENT. Clearly the DM disagrees. Your solution is to have a conversation with the DM about what he's trying to do or not do with these rulings and explain to HIM what it is you're trying to accomplish or not accomplish with your character creation choices. The problem is that player and DM are NOT on the same page and both sides need an education.
You people should feel absolutely ashamed or yourselves condoning such childish behavior. The DM's fun is not more important than everybody else's. The DM's friends are trusting him to run a game for everybody to enjoy. If you take that trust and abuse your position to impose your will on all of your players and to making a game that is primarily for your own amusement above everybody else's, completely disregarding that your players trusted you to make a game that is fun for them as well, then you are a bad DM, and you should feel bad.
The DM in question here is doing a bad job, and he should get called out on it.
I am totally glad that you read every word I posted before attacking me. It really shows the level of thought put into your response.
My original text for anyone who missed it.
I don't like them" is perfectly valid. In fact this guy is a perfect DM, and his players are terrible. They should know the DM's fun is the only one whose matters. The players should have no say in anything.
Your baiting and opinions stated as facts aside,
The DM is free to do anything he/she wishes in his/her created world for whatever reason he/she wants.
End of story.
There does not have to be a why.
If a particular player doesn't like that world, go play somewhere else, or you DM your own world.
QFT! The only thing that I would add to this, is that it is the responsibility of the DM to make sure the players know of these sort of changes before character creation. And if they make exceptions, that they allow the exceptions to be allowed fairly to everyone.
But they player says they really want to play a half-orc. So the DM has to go back and spend another couple nights and weekends, rearranging the whole damn thing to make orcs fit in a good way, not just "Oh, and there are orcs over here. No one really talks about them because they were added at the last minute." Somehow the player shouldn't have to go through this process, because they have an idea! The DM has one, but their's is of secondary importance to the players.
I actually advise DMs not to even try to come up with a single world spanning campaign continuity scheme before consulting their players.
That way you avoid both the player feeling shot down because the DM, for whatever reason, didn't already make a good place for their favorite race and the DM feeling as though the players are asking a lot of him because they would like to play their favorite race.
Design only what is needed, and only when it is needed - it makes the game a lot less like work.
I frequently feel like people think DMs are magical machines, the spit out campaigns and plots and quests with a wave of their hand, rather than weary nights and weekends, hashing out important details that will make the world come alive to the PCs. Even after the switch to 4E, there's a lot of work that goes into a campaign world.
I am one of these "magical machines" you refer to - I am never at a loss for plot, because I don't turn it into work and spend these "weary" nights and weekends on getting ready to play the game - I spend those nights and weekends at the table with my players having fun.
I don't mean to discount the time that other DMs do spend on their campaigns... but seriously - when you come to the point where you are basically saying that the time you spent on the game is more important than the time the others involved spent on the game, and that means your opinion is in any way more valid: you have stepped beyond the bounds of hobbydom into a form of obsessive behavior.
It takes infinitely less effort to come up with another character than it does to rework the campaign world, even for a small thing, let along adding in an entire race that hadn't existed before.
I so vehemently disagree that the room I am sitting in may have just increased in temperature.
This goes back to my "you can't possibly plan for everything, so don't bother trying it only leads to frustration" stance on things.
If the DM had built the world for the players then there would be no reworking needed - likewise if the DM only planned the necessary things, and not every last detail of the world there would be no reworking needed... only a bit of thought as to adding in the element in question now, and adding more depth to it as the game progresses.
Also - I greatly dislike that so many people seem to assume that thinking up 1 NPC = thinking up 1 PC. It's amazingly wrong - akin to saying that writing the "part" for an extra in a movie is just like writing the lead.
NPCs are expected to range from "guy in bar #17" through "Larisavia, Mistress of the Word, Keeper of Keys, and love interest to PC #2" - with the high end still being less work than a single character... unless of course you accept "Human Fighter" as a fully detailed character concept and description.
I mean, are all other players like 10 year olds? They fixate on one thing and just want it no matter what? For christ's sake the DM spent at least a full work weeks worth of time building a campaign for the players to play in, even if it's not their exact wish. How much time did the player spend finalizing their character?
1. Age has nothing to do with it. At all.
2. The DM spent at least a full week worth of time? Sounds like he fixated.
3. The amount of time spent on a character is irrelevant - so is the time the DM spent "building a campaign."
4. The point of D&D is not to compete with each other to see who spends the most time on it. It is to get together and have fun.
#3 is evident by the fact that not only can campaign planning times vary from campaign to campaign - but in that you measure the time the DM spent thinking up his world in weeks, and I measure it in minutes; yet, somehow, we both end up having fun at the table.
The only difference: My players get what they want.
I actually advise DMs not to even try to come up with a single world spanning campaign continuity scheme before consulting their players.
That way you avoid both the player feeling shot down because the DM, for whatever reason, didn't already make a good place for their favorite race and the DM feeling as though the players are asking a lot of him because they would like to play their favorite race.
Design only what is needed, and only when it is needed - it makes the game a lot less like work.
I think you are missing part of the point. Some of us, myself included, have campaign worlds that we have been using for campaigns for a long time. These worlds tend to already have much of them designed, simply because of all the games that have been played in it.
It is completely unrealistic to expect a DM to change around their campaign world just because one players wants to play one particular class or race and cannot figure how to make the character within the bounds set by the campaign world. Part of what makes these long running campaign worlds work is a sense of consistency, and you lose that if you change around things all the time.
[And as far as the OP goes, it was not a matter of the Player getting to play their favorite race. The player came up with a character idea that could work with practically any race, but chose Dragonborn simply because it was the most optimized choice for game mechanical reasons. I personally think that the DM should try to work with the players as much as possible if they want to play a specific race or class for story or RPing reasons. But doing it when the player wants to ignore the feel and flavor of the class/race, and just get the best mechanical bonuses is a little silly.]
A good murder mystery plot for example takes incredible much time to set up for me I have tio write a credible backstory why and how things are happening have to create up to 20 important npcs have to place clues etc.
And this is just one adventure a campaign needs even more work there needs to be a backstory to all those kingdoms citys etc the imortant characters have to be created for me creating a campaign is more like writing a book with lots of short stories then anything else.
So either your players are fine with a story like there is the dungeon go kill them all!!!(which is perfectly fine if you and your players like it that way) or you are a genius who can come up with incredible storys in a nutshell if so not all of us dms are that gifted
I think you are missing part of the point. Some of us, myself included, have campaign worlds that we have been using for campaigns for a long time. These worlds tend to already have much of them designed, simply because of all the games that have been played in it.
It is completely unrealistic to expect a DM to change around their campaign world just because one players wants to play one particular class or race and cannot figure how to make the character within the bounds set by the campaign world. Part of what makes these long running campaign worlds work is a sense of consistency, and you lose that if you change around things all the time.
You don't sound like the type to claim that changes should not be made to a campaign setting, no matter how long it has been being run - so it simply seems that your idea of what is a valid reason to change the setting differs from mine greatly.
You might, as an example, only make changes to your setting when something new comes out that truly impresses you - and then you might only make the most minor changes possible to incorporate that element.
I, as an example, have (and will again I am sure) entirely rebuilt campaign settings, or switched from my original intended setting to an entirely different one, just to accommodate what the players as a group wanted to do.
To each their own, and if your players are as happy with your world that you so graciously let them play in as mine are with the world we have collectively created - then good job.
I don´t want to be rude but you must either be a genius or your campaigns must be incredible shallow in the story department.
A good murder mystery plot for example takes incredible much time to set up for me I have tio write a credible backstory why and how things are happening have to create up to 20 important npcs have to place clues etc.
And this is just one adventure a campaign needs even more work there needs to be a backstory to all those kingdoms citys etc the imortant characters have to be created for me creating a campaign is more like writing a book with lots of short stories then anything else.
So either your players are fine with a story like there is the dungeon go kill them all!!!(which is perfectly fine if you and your players like it that way) or you are a genius who can come up with incredible storys in a nutshell if so not all of us dms are that gifted
The story is as shallow as the players make it. But yeah, I am some sort of genius (since the other option doesn't fit, I pick that one.)
To elaborate - you can spend 7 years designing the NPCs, clues, plot hooks, and scenery even for an amazing murder mystery... but the story is still shallow if the players aren't digging it.
Which is why I run my games in this way:
Step 1: I have an idea for an overall story theme
Step 2: I ask if the players are interested, and figure out what sort of themes and such that would be most interesting to them within that overall story theme
Step 3: I think up the end goal, why it is the end goal, and how the characters come to having that goal
Step 4: I put some thought into the most major NPCs (but limit myself to 5 different NPCs until the game has actually started)
Step 5: Characters are made and we start play - I introduce the PCs to their goal in the most appropriate way... and then I maintain the game by reacting to the player's actions in ways that seem most interesting at that particular time.
I even have players do a lot of the "work" of designing the campaign by letting the players toss in suggestions during the course of the game - up to and including inserting locations into the campaign that I did not previously make up or plan for in any way: best example of that: The party ended up in a mummy filled tomb because the players thought "hey, this is a great place for their to be some ancient tomb hidden" while I was describing a certain bit of cavern they were exploring.
I am totally glad that you read every word I posted before attacking me. It really shows the level of thought put into your response.
Sarcasm doesn't translate well over the internet, and with the level of absurdity that I was hearing from everybody else, I thought you might have very tragically been serious. Apologies. :P
Seriously though, I'm done with this thread. If people are really this immature and selfish with their DMing positions, nothing I say is going to change their minds, so all I have left to say is that I'm really glad I don't game with any of them...
Second, about consistency in this regard. According to the OP the DM earlier made exceptions regarding racial choices and that the DM is now being inconsistent because he is NOT allowing the same exception. I think you might want to review the meaning of exception. That is, just because he comprimised on this matter in the past - and certainly each such comprimise applied to a DIFFERENT race - that in order to be consistent he must comprimise in precisely the same way on EVERY future choice of race. That is NOT what it means to make an exception - that's making a RULE.
Now if you do that sort of thing enough then players (like the OP) might well cease to interpret it as an exception and instead as a PRECEDENT. Clearly the DM disagrees. Your solution is to have a conversation with the DM about what he's trying to do or not do with these rulings and explain to HIM what it is you're trying to accomplish or not accomplish with your character creation choices. The problem is that player and DM are NOT on the same page and both sides need an education.
You're right, essentially. The point everyone is forgetting is that the DM was inconsistent, AND (this is important, VERY important to this whole conversation) the DM was completely destroying the player's character concept. It wasn't the DM trying to work with the player to accomplish what they wanted, it was the DM trying to assault the character and completely change it into what he wanted it to be. The Player was inable to create the character she wanted without tons of effort, having to re-work stats and use the point system instead of standard array, deal with lower stats on the stats that don't matter (as I've said, a worse character because the DM wouldn't be flexible). The DM wanted to make her a mutant in order to keep the Dragonborn template but be an Elf or Half-elf, which was the opposite of her concept of being a very pretty, noble, and diplomatic elf (The DM himself said if she was mutated people wouldn't trust her, she'd have to spend a lot of time earning their trust but then she could be a diplomat). So he was making everything /hard/ for her character concept.
It's not just about banning races. I've already covered this, I believe a DM has every right to ban a race. But the inconsistency mixed with the DM's inability to allow the player to flesh out their character concept and instead completely hinder it because of DM biases -- That's unfair. And yet, there's people who say it's fine. In the end, the DM is right. But that doesn't mean that it's fair, or fun, or anything good. <-- New signature now.
While there may have been inconsistancies in the DMs rulings, maybe it was because he found a justification for their other characters that there just hasn't been for the Dragonborn. I've DMed the same game world through 4 versions of D&D (and two other sets of game rules). I've found it hard to accept some races in my setting, but have bent over backwards to make it happen. If a player wants to play a Dragonborn I'll have to put a heavy hand into their background to make it fit. Some players will see that as me stepping all over their character concept, but the truth is it IS my game world. I'll bend, but so must the player.
If a player wants to play a Dragonborn I'll have to put a heavy hand into their background to make it fit. Some players will see that as me stepping all over their character concept, but the truth is it IS my game world. I'll bend, but so must the player.
So, you agree with me. o.O
marshzd wrote:
So, you agree with me. o.O
Not exactly. My problem with your situation is that it sounds like the player didn't really care about being Dragonborn, it was the attributes, skills, and some other characteristics that she desired. That being the case, it should have been very easy to create the character as a race that fits the DM's world. What was the problem? Why was a mutant suggested? For the breath attack? If that's the case, I can see the DM saying "I really don't want any character to have a breath attack in my game world, and if you insist on it, you're going to have to play a mutant." It may not be how I'd handle it, but it's not totally unreasonable. I'd suggest to the DM that the attack doesn't have to be a breath attack at all... it could just be magic with the same area of effect.
I don't understand what you mean about having to use the the point buy system vs the standard array options. You said this gave her a weaker character? All of the standard array options were created using the point buy system. Was the DM houseruling this part of character creation, i.e. using a lower point buy? If this is the case, was he doing it for everyone?
I try to work with players to make their characters fit into my world. That said, I can see times when a race or character concept just wouldn't work in the setting; I am rather heavy handed in the way I treat my world. Still, it's got to be a bit of give and take.
Mutual background development (player & DM) is often more creative than a player just coming up with a concept on his/her own. The game can have more of a cohesive feel if the character backgrounds dovetail into the opening plotlines. But was this really the issue, or was it the loss of a breath attack that made the character undesireable?
Not exactly. My problem with your situation is that it sounds like the player didn't really care about being Dragonborn, it was the attributes, skills, and some other characteristics that she desired. That being the case, it should have been very easy to create the character as a race that fits the DM's world. What was the problem? Why was a mutant suggested? For the breath attack? If that's the case, I can see the DM saying "I really don't want any character to have a breath attack in my game world, and if you insist on it, you're going to have to play a mutant." It may not be how I'd handle it, but it's not totally unreasonable. I'd suggest to the DM that the attack doesn't have to be a breath attack at all... it could just be magic with the same area of effect.
Do people no longer read posts anymore...? We offered to the DM that she'd use a different race in place of the Dragonborn and that the dragon breath power would be a magic spell, something like a "ray of light" or "moon beam" since she's a Cosmic Sorcerer, and he absolutely rejected the idea.
I don't know how many times people have said "I don't see why the DM wouldn't agree with (insert reasoning here), you are doing something wrong as a player!" when we did the thing they inserted, and the DM didn't accept it.
He had a problem with her using the Dragonborn stats, playing the Dragonborn race, or even remotely having the stat bonus that was given to Dragonborn's. He utterly refused to let her have a +2 to str and cha, and so to give her the high bonus to both of those stats we had to sacrifice other stats (In a point buy, getting two 16 stats pre-race selection is more costly. If we didn't have to point buy, she wouldn't have had to waist points getting the two stats up to 16 pre-race selection, while also maintaining a decent int score because she wanted to have good insight and perception based on her arcana skill with sorcerous vision...yeah, it's complicated, but that's what it took to make it happen after his restrictions).
As everyone has said, it's both sides. Instead, this was simply the DM going "No, no, no, no, no, no, no...Wait, no. Okay, you can have the +2str and +2cha, but you'll be mutated."
He offered the mutation if the player wanted to keep the +2 str and +2 cha mod.
And you can't have more than one race to cover a particular role because...? I really hope this wasn't the supposedly "perfectly valid reason" you referred to before. I'm not saying there can't be a perfectly valid reason, I'm just saying this sure isn't it.
And what's the reason that you can't create that same organic and interesting world without banning gnomes? Really, I completely dislike Gnomes too. I hate them. They're lame and silly. Do I ban them? No, I just don't deal with them. When I created my campaign world, I just ignored them. Sure, they can exist, but I don't care where or when or why, because I don't care about them. I'm not going to make any Gnome cities or Gnome NPCs, and that's the end of it. Thus, I don't have to deal with Gnomes at all, but I also don't have to restrict my players from playing them.
I don't understand why you need to go as far as to say "this doesn't exist" when you only need to go as far as "I don't care about this and am not going to consider it." I don't see how that's not totally selfish.
First of all, it's certainly not your place to tell me what is or isn't a valid reason for not putting something into MY campaign world. The reason I don't want gnomes in the game (first and foremost, as far as I'm concerned) is because I simply don't like them. Because of this, I chose to take the niche that they normally cover, and spread it to two other races.
Frankly, the fact that you think you have any right to tell anyone else that they're "doing it wrong" seems to be the issue here. Everyone plays D&D differently, and not every table composition is the same. Some people treat the world as the DM's baby (as in mine, as I've spent a hell of a lot of effort getting this the way I want it, and I frankly don't care if you dislike my reasons for banning gnomes), and some people treat the world as equal investment from the DM and the players.
Additionally, I have no problem with someone saying "Look, I'd like to play XXX class, and I think the gnome race goes well with it. Would you mind me playing a "halfling", but using the gnome stats?" I'd actually probably allow that, no further questions asked. I also don't mind someone writing down "Tree Limb" in their weapon slot and using the stats for a greatclub. Flavor is flavor, and I have no problem with people reskinning things that are already mechanically balanced, but I do not want gnomes in my world, and frankly, I don't care if you think that's wrong. But I think you're crossing a line when you think you can tell someone else how to play a game as open ended as D&D.
Edit: Sure, it may be selfish for me to be that way, but is it not selfish for a player to refuse to respect my vision for the world when making a character? Someone has to bend, and given the amount of effort I'm putting into the world versus the amount of effort they put into a single character, they can kiss my rear if they think it's going to be me.
Mind you, I don't speak this way to my players, but that's the bottom line. They can fall in line, or they can find another game. My guys don't seem to have a problem respecting what I'm doing with my world, so it's not an issue. It's all about communication and understanding.
The players are actors within said movie, with possible contributing writing credits.
A movie does not need 6 directors.
Imagine watching a movie where every person in the audience could determine what happened. 99% of their movies would be terrible. Snakes in a Plane, anyone?
Ultimately D&D is a storytelling game, and you need one storyteller, not 6.
A DM is the screenwriter, director, producer of a movie.
The players are actors within said movie, with possible contributing writing credits.
A movie does not need 6 directors.
Imagine watching a movie where every person in the audience could determine what happened. 99% of their movies would be terrible. Snakes in a Plane, anyone?
Ultimately D&D is a storytelling game, and you need one storyteller, not 6.
No - D&D, if like a movie - is much more like a movie in which the actors are probably also the writers, and are at least given liberty to ad-lib their parts instead of following the script.
Otherwise what your analogy says is this: the DM is the writer/director, so the players have to do everything he says - and don't even get to make up their own lines.
So basicially: analogy fail.
D&D is an RPG - and an RPG is not a movie, book, or anything which typically would fail if it had 6 writers.
So the person wanted to make a sorcerer, they are fond of magic characters. They wanted to play a diplomatic/bluff type of personality, so good with words and such, and then be a blaster. Perfect for mixing with the cha stat, and with sorcerous vision she also wanted some decent insight and perception rolls.
Diplomacy: Cha
Bluff: Cha
Insight: Wis
Perception: Wis
Half-elf, with +2 Cha, +2 Con, +2 Diplomacy, +2 Insight has great synergy with the stated goal. I'm really trying to figure out how the +Str from Dragonborn is helping the "character concept". Yes, you can build strength based Sorcs, but you don't need to have perfect +2 Str, +2 Cha to make them work. And if that IS the primary concern, a +2 Dex, +2 Cha on halfling makes a great Storm Sorc synergy.
I did read your posts. Maybe it's me who isn't being clear about my point of view. Demanding a race with a +2 str and +2 cha ability score adjustment has nothing to do with a character concept. Yes, you made points on consistency since he allowed synergy of other player stat options, but the argument boils down to dragon breath and a single +1 ability mod (Strength). What is the point again? I'm lost, because if Dragon Breath wasn't the lynch pin on concept a half-elf's ability to pick up an attack from another class certainly has the "feel" of what she wanted.
First of all, it's certainly not your place to tell me what is or isn't a valid reason for not putting something into MY campaign world. The reason I don't want gnomes in the game (first and foremost, as far as I'm concerned) is because I simply don't like them. Because of this, I chose to take the niche that they normally cover, and spread it to two other races.
Frankly, the fact that you think you have any right to tell anyone else that they're "doing it wrong" seems to be the issue here. Everyone plays D&D differently, and not every table composition is the same. Some people treat the world as the DM's baby (as in mine, as I've spent a hell of a lot of effort getting this the way I want it, and I frankly don't care if you dislike my reasons for banning gnomes), and some people treat the world as equal investment from the DM and the players.
This. People can argue all they want about how "in their game" the players have just as much responsibility, and therefore creative control over the world as the DM does. But I have been playing D&D for 18 years, and it has never been my experience that this is so.
For that matter, in all that time the DMG's of the various editions have never even made that claim. But regardless of that, it simply shows that each person's experience is different, and no one has the right to tell another DM what they must include in the world that they are creating. For some groups, it is ok for the players to be able to add whatever they want to the campaign just because they want it, but in others it is not.
However, If someone is going to say that the DM needs a better reason than "I dont want it in my world" to exclude something, I think that the players should be held to the same standard. They should need a better reason than "I wanna play it" to have to DM include something that doesnt fit into their campaign world. And if the DM agrees that they have a good enough reason, and maybe even suggestions as to how the particular thing would fit in the campaign world, then wonderful. But it is the responsibilty of the DM to be the one that makes those kinds of calls.
Now, to get back to something that we have steared away from: the OP. Despite what I have been saying, I do think that the OP's DM was wrong. Not because he limited what was available, but the fact that he was not consistent in his rulings, and gave no reason for that.
It would be one thing if the DM had decided that allowing for the substitution of stats while keeping the appearance of a different race was a problem for him, and then explained that to his players, but he didn't. He did a complete 180 on a previous call with the only explaination being "I said so." This comes down to the DM needing to be clear with his players about the calls he makes. The players in this game expected him to make the same calls he had made earlier, and they were rightly upset when he changed that for no discernable reason.
It's not just about banning races. I've already covered this, I believe a DM has every right to ban a race. But the inconsistency mixed with the DM's inability to allow the player to flesh out their character concept and instead completely hinder it because of DM biases -- That's unfair. And yet, there's people who say it's fine. In the end, the DM is right. But that doesn't mean that it's fair, or fun, or anything good.
Remember also, however, that NOT all character concepts are equally valid. I'm not suggesting that the concept that had been proposed was problematic or inferior, but... if it doesn't work within the bounds of the campaign (which, of course, the DM SHOULD have already set) then it is NOT an unforgiveable imposition upon a player to FIND ANOTHER CONCEPT.
Again, just because a player thinks it up does not mean that the DM MUST bend over backwards to make it work. Now, if it's true that the DM is actively working against the players concept to ensure that it doesn't work (and in so doing is spontaneously announcing new limitations and bans) then yes, the DM is being rather a jerk. Even so, how important is it then for EITHER DM or player to get their way? This is something that just cannot be worked out by invocation of 3rd party opinon drawn from an internet discussion.
COMMUNICATION is the source of the vast bulk of difficulties that arise in a game of D&D. The DM and players need to voice to each other just what it is that they're trying to do and/or what they object to about the others choices. The DM should have set clearer boundries regarding character creation. Players should not be expecting the DM to make exceptions to those boundries. Even if the DM does make exceptions then the players should not be attempting to use exceptions as a precedent against the DM to get their way when the DM clearly objects. If the DM is actively fighting against a player as they flesh out a character concept then FIND OUT WHY FROM THE DM. If a player is persisting in pursuing a character concept that just isn't going to work in a DM's campaign then the DM needs TO BE TOLD WHY the player is so fixated on it so that they can better communicate why the character is a problem. Personally, as soon as the DM said to me, "I think dragonborn are silly and I don't want them in my campaign," I'd have shelved the concept entirely (to be used at some future date) and come up with something different, rather than continued to push against the DM's opinion to force or trick him into accept a disguised version of something he just said is silly.
Diplomacy: Cha
Bluff: Cha
Insight: Wis
Perception: Wis
Half-elf, with +2 Cha, +2 Con, +2 Diplomacy, +2 Insight has great synergy with the stated goal. I'm really trying to figure out how the +Str from Dragonborn is helping the "character concept". Yes, you can build strength based Sorcs, but you don't need to have perfect +2 Str, +2 Cha to make them work. And if that IS the primary concern, a +2 Dex, +2 Cha on halfling makes a great Storm Sorc synergy.
I did read your posts. Maybe it's me who isn't being clear about my point of view. Demanding a race with a +2 str and +2 cha ability score adjustment has nothing to do with a character concept. Yes, you made points on consistency since he allowed synergy of other player stat options, but the argument boils down to dragon breath and a single +1 ability mod (Strength). What is the point again? I'm lost, because if Dragon Breath wasn't the lynch pin on concept a half-elf's ability to pick up an attack from another class certainly has the "feel" of what she wanted.
Because you're missing one essential that I didn't mention, due to the fact that I assumed a sorcerer would also want a decent arcana check (which I realize is not necessarily the case). In order to have a decent arcana check, you need a decent int. You can't have a high cha, str, wis, and int -- so we went with the higher int over the higher wis because you can take the sorcerous vision feat.
+1 additional str mod IS HUGE for a cosmic sorcerer, which she wanted to be...A +1 to Athletics, which she has as a skill, a +1 to AC, and a +1 to str (damage on every attack, additional benefits for powers that cause additional strength damage either on the next turn of the creature or some other benefit), which is going to be increasing over time to be even higher...The DM even argued about the +1 saying it's useless and that she can deal with a lower tertiary stat, but when it affects several aspects of your character, that's not true, a +1 modifier is a big deal. +1 damage adds up over time, quite well. +1 AC, that's big. There's arguments over the worth of AC vs. Hitpoints. And I can't count the number of times that someone in our party has barely been hit by an attack, a +1 AC can make a lot of difference.
So here's my point, you are RIGHT. You don't NEED a +2 str, +2cha. If you're doing what we're trying to do, a +2 cha/+2 int character would work JUST AS WELL. However, he banned tieflings, all the classes from PHB2 are in question and not many of them would work anyways, and the player would rather not play a gnome (Wow, I've said this like 12 times I think).
Also, if you read my posts, you could also argue YOU ARE RIGHT about the +1. She's losing a +1 mod. Which fits my whole point when I said -- SHE HAS A WORSE CHARACTER FOR ESSENTIALLY NO GOOD REASON. She could make the same character, BETTER, but because of restrictions her stats are all lower (which is true no matter the case at this point. Yes, we worked it out so it's the stats that she uses the least, but still, she's a worse character for no good reason). So she has her character now, worse than it could be.
"Now, to get back to something that we have steared away from: the OP. Despite what I have been saying, I do think that the OP's DM was wrong. Not because he limited what was available, but the fact that he was not consistent in his rulings, and gave no reason for that. " - gmhack
Thanks GM. That's really the whole point.
Again, just because a player thinks it up does not mean that the DM MUST bend over backwards to make it work.
I've never said that. Why is everyone jumping to these ridiculous conclusions? I agree with what most people are saying, but it's simply not the case. And people keep arguing, yet they say "I believe your DM was wrong in your case" and then argue with me. I'm flabbergasted. The internet has become this argumentative source of irony and hypocrisy.
The whole argument boils down to a DM saying to one specific player "you can't have a few races which make you a tiny bit better than a human character would be" while allowing other players to have that little extra bonus. I too said I'd do it different, but it sounds like your group wants characters to be more optimized than a human character could ever be given their single +2 ability score mod. When players are so concerned about synergy of ability scores it may make more sense for the DM to make humans a little more appealing.
I think building with that microscope cheapens the race selection process down to number crunching. The good news is, D&D isn't a head-to-head battle of player vs. player.
marshzd,
The whole argument boils down to a DM saying to one specific player "you can't have a few races which make you a tiny bit better than a human character would be" while allowing other players to have that little extra bonus. I too said I'd do it different, but it sounds like your group wants characters to be more optimized than a human character could ever be given their single +2 ability score mod. When players are so concerned about synergy of ability scores it may make more sense for the DM to make humans a little more appealing.
I think building with that microscope cheapens the race selection process down to number crunching. The good news is, D&D isn't a head-to-head battle of player vs. player.
A tiny bit better is an understatement, but also opinion.
Actually, the group isn't all about optimization, but what's wrong with wanting your character to be the best it can be within the rules? You see, this isn't really a problem of "I WANT TO BE OPTIMIZED!" -- It's a problem of, "Wow, I made a really cool character, completely legal, that fits the concept I wanted, and the DM just rejected it and made it a worse character." It wasn't originally about optimization -- I've never said that in the forum at any point whatsoever. I've said, many times, the DM is forcing a worse character just because, and in spite of the MANY exceptions in the past.
Actually, the group isn't all about optimization, but what's wrong with wanting your character to be the best it can be within the rules?
I think what my be giving that impression is that your characters are not within the rules persay. The DM allowed you guys to alter the races to better optimize your characters. I think that is what some of the people are latching onto, causing them to think of this as solely an issue of optimization.
Really, the issue of the optimization would not have even come up if the DM had been willing to allow that same optimization to everyone. But he didn't and that is really the issue, PSchirf, not the optimization but the lack of consistency in the DM's call.
I think what my be giving that impression is that your characters are not within the rules persay. The DM allowed you guys to alter the races to better optimize your characters. I think that is what some of the people are latching onto, causing them to think of this as solely an issue of optimization.
Really, the issue of the optimization would not have even come up if the DM had been willing to allow that same optimization to everyone. But he didn't and that is really the issue, PSchirf, not the optimization but the lack of consistency in the DM's call.
Well, my character had a stat change. The other characters were, at least mechanically, perfectly within the rules.
But yeah, you're right.
I actually advise DMs not to even try to come up with a single world spanning campaign continuity scheme before consulting their players.
That way you avoid both the player feeling shot down because the DM, for whatever reason, didn't already make a good place for their favorite race and the DM feeling as though the players are asking a lot of him because they would like to play their favorite race.
Design only what is needed, and only when it is needed - it makes the game a lot less like work.
That doesn't work for me. When I was DMing, if I didn't have a huge amount of pre-planned material to draw from, I would easily end up talking myself in circles. The group I DMed for made a habit out of going with really off-the-cuff strategies and solutions. It was great, but I had to lay some ground work to keep myself from getting lost and sitting there (with a dumb look on my face) going "ummmmm".
I am one of these "magical machines" you refer to - I am never at a loss for plot, because I don't turn it into work and spend these "weary" nights and weekends on getting ready to play the game - I spend those nights and weekends at the table with my players having fun.
I don't mean to discount the time that other DMs do spend on their campaigns... but seriously - when you come to the point where you are basically saying that the time you spent on the game is more important than the time the others involved spent on the game, and that means your opinion is in any way more valid: you have stepped beyond the bounds of hobbydom into a form of obsessive behavior.
That's not what I'm saying. My assertation was that it takes me measureably more time, not better time. If our time is equally valuable, then I should have to spend 2 hours redoing something so the player can save 30 minutes building a different PC. It's not my opinion, it's my time. This is a quantity arguement, not a quality arguement.
This goes back to my "you can't possibly plan for everything, so don't bother trying it only leads to frustration" stance on things.
If the DM had built the world for the players then there would be no reworking needed - likewise if the DM only planned the necessary things, and not every last detail of the world there would be no reworking needed... only a bit of thought as to adding in the element in question now, and adding more depth to it as the game progresses.
I don't work this way. Moreover, I can't work this way. I just don't ad-lib well, at least not without a lot of material to draw on. I get into details, I enjoy details, and I think my details help make the game come alive. I don't plan every square inch, every individual NPC, but it appears I have to plan a lot more of them than you or it just doesn't flow.
Also - I greatly dislike that so many people seem to assume that thinking up 1 NPC = thinking up 1 PC. It's amazingly wrong - akin to saying that writing the "part" for an extra in a movie is just like writing the lead.
NPCs are expected to range from "guy in bar #17" through "Larisavia, Mistress of the Word, Keeper of Keys, and love interest to PC #2" - with the high end still being less work than a single character... unless of course you accept "Human Fighter" as a fully detailed character concept and description.
Although I don't plan along an NPC=PC mindset, I plan on what I can expect for the various outcomes. My NPCs need a physical , motivation, personality, and a resources description (the important ones). That way when the PCs interact with them, I know what the NPC wants and what they can afford to get it. If I don't do that, then I get confused and mixed up and the character comes out bland.
3. The amount of time spent on a character is irrelevant - so is the time the DM spent "building a campaign."
That's a pretty ridiculous assertation. All time spent on anything matters.
#3 is evident by the fact that not only can campaign planning times vary from campaign to campaign - but in that you measure the time the DM spent thinking up his world in weeks, and I measure it in minutes; yet, somehow, we both end up having fun at the table.
Planning varies from DM to DM. You don't need to plan, I have a very strong need to plan. (I used to think I didn't, until I found out my 'winging' it was pretty awful).
The only difference: My players get what they want.
I actually beat my players about the head and neck with a cat-o-nine-tails, so I can see how yours would have had more fun.
Seriously though. My players had fun, they just didn't get "what they wanted", they got something they hadn't considered at the outset and enjoyed it all the same.
I'm one of the DM toools that don't allow Dragonborn, or Tieflings.
Meh. Good luck.
simple deal is just walk, if you don't like the Campaign setup.
I'm one of the DM toools that don't allow Dragonborn, or Tieflings.
Meh. Good luck.
...
Wow. I am not going to explain again. This just makes me sad.
That doesn't work for me. When I was DMing, if I didn't have a huge amount of pre-planned material to draw from, I would easily end up talking myself in circles. The group I DMed for made a habit out of going with really off-the-cuff strategies and solutions. It was great, but I had to lay some ground work to keep myself from getting lost and sitting there (with a dumb look on my face) going "ummmmm".
Reading over my other posts, I see that I did slip into language that made it seem as though I was saying that no one should have to plan anything - That was stupid of me.
I get that there are different strategies to being a DM, and as my signature is supposed to suggest (and hopefully color my words, even when poorly chosen) that there is no one "right" way to do things.
My point sort of faded into obscurity in my words and didn't get made all that clearly.
That's not what I'm saying. My assertation was that it takes me measureably more time, not better time. If our time is equally valuable, then I should have to spend 2 hours redoing something so the player can save 30 minutes building a different PC. It's not my opinion, it's my time. This is a quantity arguement, not a quality arguement.
It is good to see you were asserting that it was quantity that should decide things when it comes to the thought put into the game and not quality - quantity is much easier to measure.
My argument though, is that it is an unfair metric to measure. I may spend 5 minutes thinking and have an entire 6 hour session at my mental finger tips, you may need 5 hours to say the same, and one of my players may need 5 days just to decide between Dwarf Fighter or Dwarf Cleric.
That is why I measure things by result - everyone thought up a character (how long it took each of them, or how much extra detail is irrelevant because it is unfair to measure) and I thought up an adventure (and it took me less time than it did for the quickest character creator to finish... making it unfair to measure and therefore irrelvant). We all put in effort, we all have equal share in things.
Basically - If I were to go by what appears to be your standard (that you get more of a say in things because you have expended more effort toward there being any things to begin with) in my group: I would end up with the absolute least say even though I am the DM, and our most indecisive group member would be the one making the decisions (you know him, he is that guy I mentioned taking 5 days to decide between two classes.)
Hopefully that will shed a better light on what it is that I am trying to get at here : that it is making the claim of "I get more say-so because I put in more effort" that I find to be nonsense, as it is impossible to measure this so called "effort" in any way except for saying "made an effort" or "isn't playing" in my strange little mind.
Planning varies from DM to DM. You don't need to plan, I have a very strong need to plan. (I used to think I didn't, until I found out my 'winging' it was pretty awful).
I did used to have more of a need for pre-planning time... but as I continued in the hobby my brain started to form "short-cuts" - basically all of the campaigns I have ever run (pre-gen on self written) are floating around in my head as component parts, archetypes, and fragments - so I could almost say that what I have done is pre-planned to the point of over-preparedness... it just feels more accurate to say that I am winging it though, since all I do is grab some of those component parts, bolt them together, and knock the rust off.
Having had many different groups over my years as a DM is a major benefit there - I can basically get away with using things I have already done (in whole or in part) with a different group. I guess that means I am really being a bit un-original (but seriously, ripping myself off when it is new to the players? who counts that?) and "cheating" at the whole planning deal.
Seriously though. My players had fun, they just didn't get "what they wanted", they got something they hadn't considered at the outset and enjoyed it all the same.
It kind of seems like you took my comment that the difference was that my players get what they want as having a veiled meaning. It didn't.
That is literally the only difference between my games and most other DM's games.
There are some DMs out there that can't run a fun game at all in my opinion - the ones that run the same mad lib plot every time "Characters are all [social grouping/profession] and are out [innocuous activity] when they are set upon suddenly by [monster type too challenging for party] and imprisoned in [monster lair] and must [plot hidden behind "you guys tried to do it the wrong way, and that's why everyone's character is dead" style excuses and DM refusal to explain what would have been a better choice for character action]" that always end with a dead party and confused players - but, I have seen no one that I think qualifies as such here on these forums.
I am thankful for that.
Anyways, one last clarifying thing: I'm not saying that a player can't enjoy their second (or third, fourth, etc.) choice - I'm just saying I find more likely they will enjoy their first.
Hopefully that will shed a better light on what it is that I am trying to get at here : that it is making the claim of "I get more say-so because I put in more effort" that I find to be nonsense, as it is impossible to measure this so called "effort" in any way except for saying "made an effort" or "isn't playing" in my strange little mind.
It is not the effort that give the DM the greater say so, it is the difference in the responsiblities of the two roles. The responsibility of the player is to make their character and roleplay it.
The responsibility of the DM is to create the world, and that includes (at least according to every DMG that has been written) deciding what sort of things are to be included in the campaign world, and which ones arent.
Now, if it your choice to share that responsibility with the players, then that is your choice. But it is not fair to declare the way any other DM chooses to set up their world as "nonsense". Doing so, only makes you come across as incredibly arrogant, and in basic violation of your own signature.
In the end, you can share as much of the work of being the DM with the players as you want. In many ways that may make the game richer, at least by the recogning of the only people that matter, the people who are playing it. But it is still the work of the DM that you are sharing, and it still has to be the DM who has the final call; simply because the DM is the one running the game. If each player's decisions are considered equal, then you are playing without a DM. But if that works for you, awesome.
But you also have to realize that many of us recognize the responsibility of the DM to make these sorts of calls, as stated in the DMG. This in no way makes our games "nonsense" or worse than your own experience. To argue so, takes away from the actual point of the OP (which was confirmed by him) that the real problem is when the DM makes these sorts of calls with no concern to consistancy, therefore violating the primary responsiblity of the DM, that of being fair and treating his players equally.
It is not the effort that give the DM the greater say so, it is the difference in the responsiblities of the two roles. The responsibility of the player is to make their character and roleplay it.
The responsibility of the DM is to create the world, and that includes (at least according to every DMG that has been written) deciding what sort of things are to be included in the campaign world, and which ones arent.
Now, if it your choice to share that responsibility with the players, then that is your choice. But it is not fair to declare the way any other DM chooses to set up their world as "nonsense". Doing so, only makes you come across as incredibly arrogant, and in basic violation of your own signature.
In the end, you can share as much of the work of being the DM with the players as you want. In many ways that may make the game richer, at least by the recogning of the only people that matter, the people who are playing it. But it is still the work of the DM that you are sharing, and it still has to be the DM who has the final call; simply because the DM is the one running the game. If each player's decisions are considered equal, then you are playing without a DM. But if that works for you, awesome.
But you also have to realize that many of us recognize the responsibility of the DM to make these sorts of calls, as stated in the DMG. This in no way makes our games "nonsense" or worse than your own experience. To argue so, takes away from the actual point of the OP (which was confirmed by him) that the real problem is when the DM makes these sorts of calls with no concern to consistancy, therefore violating the primary responsiblity of the DM, that of being fair and treating his players equally.
You seem to have taken my comment about nonsense out of context a bit - I did not actually state that anyone's game (anyone being talked to at least, as I did give an example of some serious nonsense earlier) was nonsense.
What I said boils down to this very simple phrase: I don't get it.
That basically all I am saying - I don't get how your guys' method actually works.
Kind of like the old phrase "that's Greek to me." I am not in any way trying to insult anything, simply stating that my (strange little) mind has never been able to wrap around that particular concept of taking things out of the game without first making sure that isn't taking something fun away from a player.
In the beginning there was nothing (omg now I´m sounding like some evangelist
) now you put races kingdoms tribes cities etc into your campaign.If some player now wants to be race x which you haven´t even considered being in your campaign(and you just can´t integrate ALL races into your campaign its just to much work with those 100 or more playable races d&d offers especially in this case because the world wasn´t written for those players) you have lots of new work to integrate this race give them a backstory give them cities or somethin where they live you have to rewrite history of some or all kingdoms because there suddenly is a new race of course you could just say oh yeah there are dragonborn in this world btw... my players wouldn´t be happy with such a solution and I wouldn´t be either ;)
What I said boils down to this very simple phrase: I don't get it.
That basically all I am saying - I don't get how your guys' method actually works.
Thank you for the clarification but, there is a big difference between saying that you dont get something and saying "that it is making the claim of "I get more say-so because I put in more effort" that I find to be nonsense"
But, to try to explain a bit, I made my campaign world 12 years ago and have played with many different groups in it, running a weekly game during that entire time. As such the choices I have made were to preserve the consistancy of the world, so that when new players joined they could see the world as being internally consistent, which has be a source of a great deal of fun for the players over the years.
My players know they are part of what amounts to a living, breathing, internally consistant world. To them it gives the chance to delve into the world, and find its secrets. But it also allows them to know what to expect, which has led to better immersion for the players.
Now is this possible or even the best for everyone? No, but for my players and myself, we recognize the importance of maintaining the world's consistancy. Not because of any power trip on my part, but because presenting a well concieved, consistant world is what my players expect from me. To do this, my players expect that if I do allow something new from a recent book that I have figured out a way to fit them into the world that seems organic, and if there is not a good way to do that then I will be excluding it.
I am sure that I am not the only DM that does things like that. And I can imagine they would be as insulted as I am to have my way of doing things being implied to be nonsense.
I am sure that I am not the only DM that does things like that. And I can imagine they would be as insulted as I am to have my way of doing things being implied to be nonsense.
Quite insulted. I don't want anyone to misunderstand where I'm coming from here; when we're playing, the characters are number one. I'm not so wrapped up in my concept of the world that they're unable to affect anything. With sufficient power, brains, and support, my characters should be able to topple kingdoms and put new ones in their stead (should they desire to). It'd be hard as hell, as I believe it rightfully ought to be, but it's still a possibility.
Along those same lines, they can kill quest givers for all I care (though I may give them a warning if it's an incredibly stupid idea, or if I'd really not planned for them to go that way) and I don't confine them to the plots of the story (after the first few levels, once they've developed some camaraderie and have a general purpose). They are welcome to do whatever they want within the framework of the world that I've provided.
That said: when I started creating this world, I didn't want gnomes. I didn't ask any of the players if they cared, I just told them, "No gnomes." Not a huge deal, since many of my players don't care for gnomes anyway, but had it been an issue, I would've explained that D&D accomplishes two different functions (for our group, anyway). They get to play, and that's where they have fun. I get to build a living, breathing, organic (hopefully :P) world, and present it to them in an interesting way and keep them engaged. That's where I have fun.
So when they want to play outside of the rules I've presented, I will typically work with them. I'm not going to bend on the "no gnomes" rule, but I'd totally let them play, mechanically, a gnome, and call him a halfling that for whatever reason isn't a normal halfling. We'll work it out. But it's not your place to tell me I'm wrong for refusing to budge on the point.
Think of it this way: I've created a pantheon of deities specifically for my world. The players are aware of this, though I didn't give them any input. So if a player comes up to me and says, "I want to play a cleric of Pelor!", am I supposed to allow that, even though Pelor doesn't even exist in my world? Of course not!
I think this whole thread can be boiled down into a few points:
- Each group has a different playstyle, and each group views the DM's job in a different light.
- The DM provides the framework for the entire campaign world. Whether or not he ever chooses to deviate from his original blueprints is his choice, but he should be consistent in his rulings to all players.
- The single most important part of D&D is communication! The players have to tell the DM what's fun and what's not, and the DM needs to tell the players about the world and any particular changes (though whether he lets them participate in the changes obviously will vary).
Does anyone disagree with these three points?
I can imagine they would be as insulted as I am to have my way of doing things being implied to be nonsense.
I meant no insult, so please accept my apology for causing one no matter how minor it may have been.
Having this bit of back-and-forth has mostly been enjoyable, as I love to learn things - and seeing different points of view is one way to learn, no matter how reluctant my brain is to respond to it.
For a final clarification - my nonsense comment was supposed to come off as being said in the same vein that someone could say "stop speaking gibberish" to a friend that speaks a language that they do not who happens to be speaking it towards that someone in question.
For all the people that have told me "Aaron, you should be an English professor" I sure have a horrible time choosing words...
If you want to play an evil level 1 demigod half-gnome half-red dragon cleric of Lolth masquerading as an avenger of Torm, go pick up a DMG and go to town. Good luck trying to find players that will cater to your DMPC.
D&D isn't a democracy. It's not rule by the peanut gallery. DM's game, DM's world, DM's rules.
Last post for me here.
If you want to play an evil level 1 demigod half-gnome half-red dragon cleric of Lolth masquerading as an avenger of Torm, go pick up a DMG and go to town. Good luck trying to find players that will cater to your DMPC.
D&D isn't a democracy. It's not rule by the peanut gallery. DM's game, DM's world, DM's rules.
Since no one suggested anything remotely close to the idea you suggested...o.O
I think the internet is growing exponentially dumber (yes, dumber) by the day.
Did you ever stop to think that maybe you're ruining the game for your DM? I mean they're people, not video game consoles. and when the game in ruined for the DM, everyone suffers, because the DM just isn't "into it". It's not his fault, he's not being immature, he's bored.
that said, someone who has n the past been glad to let you reflavor things suddenly change his stance does seem worrying...
Did you ever think that maybe, just maybe, the DM wants to have fun playing too? and maybe a bunch of races that that look like dragons, have a dragon's signature move, and are called dragonborn, but are not actually related to dragons in any way, they're mammals. you know, so they can have boobs, or of some other similarly ridiculous nature might ruin that for him? It just doesn't fit in with his idea of fantasy: it'd be as if you asked to play a sayian or an ewok or something.
Did you ever stop to think that maybe you're ruining the game for your DM? I mean they're people, not video game consoles. and when the game in ruined for the DM, everyone suffers, because the DM just isn't "into it". It's not his fault, he's not being immature, he's bored.
that said, someone who has n the past been glad to let you reflavor things suddenly change his stance does seem worrying...
For the gazillionth time! There was NEVER a request to BE A DRAGONBORN. lol. There was simply a request to use the mechanics of the Dragonborn and their stats. But be a completely different race.
I think this whole thread can be boiled down into a few points:
- Each group has a different playstyle, and each group views the DM's job in a different light.
- The DM provides the framework for the entire campaign world. Whether or not he ever chooses to deviate from his original blueprints is his choice, but he should be consistent in his rulings to all players.
- The single most important part of D&D is communication! The players have to tell the DM what's fun and what's not, and the DM needs to tell the players about the world and any particular changes (though whether he lets them participate in the changes obviously will vary).
Does anyone disagree with these three points?
Nope, I think this is a perfect summary of the thread, subtracting those posts that were made without really reading what was going on. :P
For the gazillionth time! There was NEVER a request to BE A DRAGONBORN. lol. There was simply a request to use the mechanics of the Dragonborn and their stats. But be a completely different race.
that was more a response to the sub-discussion about wether or not banning races was ok.
that was more a response to the sub-discussion about wether or not banning races was ok.
Well it read more like a response to someones serious Dragonborn hate.
"I don't like it, so whether it makes the game more enjoyable for you or not, I'm taking it out."
No. Bad reason. I'm sure there could be a reason for not having a race, but if not because you think it's "silly."
Imo, its a reasonable reason for the DM not to include it. His choice whether or not to include it. Your choice whether or not to play in the campaign.
The DM could have listed the 'banned' material up front. It would have prevented this problem. The player, on the other hand, is new to the group and it would suit her not to force the issue. If they can't reach an agreement, the DM's word is final and the players have the right to leave his game for it. The solution would be to let the DM write down his houserules (so everybody knows what game is being played), followed by the new girl creating a character that fits within the boundaries set by the DM. It may not be the perfect game for all of you, as long as it is good enough for those who decide to stay
Agreed. I think all DMs should write out their house rules including:
1. Banned core material
2. altered core material
3. approach to supplemental material (e.g., banned, selectively allow specifics, etc.). If limited to select bits update the house rules list to list appropiate material. If only select bits are banned list those items.
4. if supplemntal material is allowed, but altered list the changes.
A good example of world building - finding a place for everything, even the ones that you don't like as much as the others.
That's one view. Another view is the what you disallow is just as important as what you allow.
Personally, I hate settings that include a place for everything- it's one of the reasons I don't like Eberron or the retooled Forgotten Realms. I know many people that feel the same.
I even have players do a lot of the "work" of designing the campaign by letting the players toss in suggestions during the course of the game - up to and including inserting locations into the campaign that I did not previously make up or plan for in any way: best example of that: The party ended up in a mummy filled tomb because the players thought "hey, this is a great place for their to be some ancient tomb hidden" while I was describing a certain bit of cavern they were exploring.
If it works for your players, great. Personally, I'd hate this approach and walk out.
But, it does sound like it's turned into two stubborn groups sniping at each other. Once it's become Player vs. DM, I don't think you're going to get a good game going. It sounds like the player's have a grudge now with the DM having his way. If the player's eventually get their way, the DM will have a grudge.
Alien vs Predator. Whoever wins... We lose. /cheesy line
Well since there's been enough comments on whether one person's right or wrong, I'll go ahead and skip that.
But, it does sound like it's turned into two stubborn groups sniping at each other. Once it's become Player vs. DM, I don't think you're going to get a good game going. It sounds like the player's have a grudge now with the DM having his way. If the player's eventually get their way, the DM will have a grudge.
Alien vs Predator. Whoever wins... We lose. /cheesy line
Since making the original post I've played two more sessions with the DM. The trouble continues, though it's happening in a different fashion now that the new PC has actually joined the game. I'd explain but I'm concerned about a flurry of furious debate.
Sadly I think you're right, even though it's been a year of good gaming something is making it head downhill. I'm wondering if the DM needs a hug. :P
Agreed. I think all DMs should right out their house rules including:
1. Banned core material
2. altered core material
3. approach to supplemental material (e.g., banned, selectively allow specifics, etc.). If limited to select bits update the house rules list to list appropiate material. If only select bits are banned list those items.
4. if supplemntal material is allowed, but altered list the changes.
100% agree with this. If playing with a new DM for the first time, and they don't offer one I ask these exact questions in this exact order. Even if I plan to play a "PHB only fighter" or the game systems equivilent.
As a DM, for 3.5 I would keep a printed copy of this to give to each player at the start of the first session, now, in 4e I drop them a link to my wiki and say "Read the houserule section".
i think more DMs need to realize that they are only 1/6th of the ppl at the table
... that do 80% of the work. If something just won't fit into the campaign that they've taken a huge amount of their own personal time outside the game to come up with, then your just asking them to spend even more time bending their entire campaign to your will.
Granted if them saying no is for a reason such as "Well it doesn't effect my campaign, but i think the race is silly" then that is just a stupid reason.
o.O
... that do 80% of the work. If something just won't fit into the campaign that they've taken a huge amount of their own personal time outside the game to come up with, then your just asking them to spend even more time bending their entire campaign to your will.
Granted if them saying no is for a reason such as "Well it doesn't effect my campaign, but i think the race is silly" then that is just a stupid reason.
o.O
QFT.
I've found most of the arguments that the DM thinks they are too important to be made by the same people who, when given the opportunity to DM, become totally lost.
I have had players like this, so I inform them they are DMing next session to prove their superiority. The few that ever took me up on the offer sat there unprepared, flipping through monster manuals like madmen and wondering why the players are confused that they've met a Beholder shopkeeper who is also a Cleric of Yondalla.
It's just the typical, "Things didn't go my way so I know I could do the job better" whine.
It's just the typical, "Things didn't go my way so I know I could do the job better" whine.
I've seen this, but I only have done it to players who were on the verge of quitting anyway, because once a player does this, he's got to admit to himself and the rest of the group that he's wrong.
In my experience, people who have been DMs typically don't go for the stand-off, and just advise via notes..(if that) of things that might work better for the game.
Lastly:
If the campaign is d20 Modern, in Afghanistan, I'm not taking the PC sheet that says, "Psychotic VA Patient Gulf War Vet, that snuck back into the army to kill his former CO"
Nor will I allow Jedi in my Star Trek.. just because a player wants it for his "Cool PC concept First Choice."
No Wookies in My Battletech. Just because...I as childish whatever the hell else DM say so, and it makes sense to me.
No Tieflings, nor Dragonborn in my D&D. Just because.
Marshzd, I'm going to say this:
I was reading. Your DM was inconsistent. Whether that will cause you to quit or not is up to you.
Best of luck... to all here.
No Tieflings, nor Dragonborn in my D&D. Just because.
Marshzd, I'm going to say this:
I was reading. Your DM was inconsistent. Whether that will cause you to quit or not is up to you.
What he said. A GM may have reasons for disallowing certain races (my upcoming GM doesn't like Devas, Goliaths, or Gnomes, not because of the racial concept, but because the way they're written up doesn't satisfy his own concept of "interesting"). That's okay.
A GM can be inconsistent (his game, after all).
Good GMs try not to be so inconsistent. Personally, I'd not have allowed using the template idea in the first place, but that's just me.
A paraphrase from someone else's tagline: "What the DM says, goes. If he says enough stupid stuff, the players go, too."
If you don't like someone's GMing style, well - vote with your feet. Look for another game.
You'll have to tell me your secret.
You can actually NOT play D&D for a short time. Your hands might start shaking and foam might appear in the corners of your mouth, but if you get past the part where you appear in public shouting 'I WANT TO BE A DWARF' you'll live (probably). ;)
...people whom you enjoy playing...
But if you enjoy playing with the group, why risk that because you have to play something the DM won't allow? And if you don't enjoy hanging out with these people, why play D&D with them?
Don't get me wrong: as a DM, I generally* allow my players to choose whatever they want to for their characters. As a player, I once joined a game where the DM stated 'no monks' or supplements. So I didn't play a monk and didn't use any supplements. It was actually that simple. I had a great time in his campaign until it no longer worked out due to scheduling.
*'Generally' means no Leadership, use these 94 books as you please, and run these 3 books and any second prestige class by me first. I leave it up to the players to keep an eye on the in-party balance, and that works out. I think that's pretty lenient. This is a 3rd edition game: the mentioning of Leadership, prestige classes an 97 books should have tipped most people off. ;)
If one DM has to put up with something, it may impact 5 players enjoyment.
So who gets their way?
The players get to say "I don't like this DM." And thus quit, or run their own, if they wish. That's always been true.
If I have to go a week without gaming, then usually I wind up locking myself in an empty room with three buckets after making my friends promise to not let me out now matter how much I beg.
That's probably for the best. I should have done that myself. The neighbours still hasten to get their kids inside if I show up on the street.
I want to know precisely WHY they don't fit. If the answer makes sense from a story perspective, then sure...I'll go along with it. But if it's really just a matter of the DM's personal preference then to hell with them and their game.
I understand what you mean, and I agree. The problem I'm trying to point out is, if you generally enjoy playing with this group and there is this one thing the DM bans 'for the heck of it', is it worth it to leave the game? Banning the monk interfered with my original character-concept. It was an argument against playing in this DM's game. But I'd need a bit more to decide to walk away. Not because I'd feel socially obliged to keep the peace, but because the 'pros' still outweighed the 'cons'.
The DM is the one throwing the party. The players just have to show up for the free beer. If they don't like the selection they can gtfo.
any DM who only leaves those two options(shut up or leave) is both a bad DM, and probably an *******.
Any player who can't voice their objections in a calm reasonable manner, during times when they're not supposed to be playing, needs to grow up or I'd kick them from my game.
If one of the other DMs in my group acted like this guy's DM I'd have a long, serious talk with him, and if he kept it up, he might get boycotted as a DM, possibly barred from my campaigns.
Any good DM will have discourse with his players, will listen to why it's important to them that they get to play a certain build, why it won't feel like the character they imagined with the wrong stats, etc. And yes, sometimes a few points in a tertiary score can make a tangible difference as to whether the character feels right, which is usually what's the case when I ask for a compromise with a DM who wants to ban a race that I want to play.
I've created a story that took a year to play through, set in a world that I've been creating for years, where every single race that exists in it is placed with careful thought and attention to their place relative to other cultures, how their juxtaposition would affect their interaction, what the best trade routes would be and how that would effect alliances and turf wars, and on and on. In that campaign I had a player who just wanted to play a half-orc barbarian.
It was cliche, but he hadn't done it in years and we'd talking about old times and he had an itch. I knew that he'd be bummed if I didn't allow his character, which he'd already started to personalize through jokes and conversation, so I figured out a way to make a half-orc work in a world where orcs didn't exist. I decided that people mistook him for someone with troll or giant blood, and just ugly, and that really orcs had existed an extremely long time back in the world's history, and his family was the last remaining bloodline with any orcish blood, and had been hiding themselves in a mountainous region near valley of the centaurs.*
This took about an hour to figure out, and that only because I started trying to think of a way to make orcs work in the world, and then struck upon the "last of a bloodline" idea because my sister was reading the da vinci code.
This wasn't just a campaign setting, folks. This was the world wherein a set of stories I've been working on since I was 10 takes place. I can assure you that I am more attached to the people of my world than most DMs are to their campaign settings. Hell, than most people ever are to their characters. Any writers reading this will understand, I'm sure.
If I can retcon something in this situation, the DMs who are all "my world, love it or leave it!" are just being stubborn.
*Damn Centaurs. I decided that it was unacceptable for one of the most widely respected cultures in my world to be a monster race, so I had to figure out a way to make them a PC race that didn't have a frickin insane level adjustment. Took forever to strike a balance that made them playable while keeping the feel of the centaur. Only single thing that was more time consuming in converting my world to a setting was making a whole new class.
If I can retcon something in this situation, the DMs who are all "my world, love it or leave it!" are just being stubborn.
Pardon me for being more conservative vis a vis your world, where you are more liberal.
I let players know up front, what I want, and they can choose to join and follow that, or leave. Kind of a verbal contract.
Your group might like to negotiate, and you seem to be open to it. I like to define what is, and while I'll negotiate on, up front. if that makes me stubborn, so be it.
It's not that I'm unwilling to play in a game that bans material, but if the DM wants to throw core races and classes out of his game then I'm going to want to know why, and I'm not going to be satisfied with "They're silly" or "They don't fit into my world."
I want to know precisely WHY they don't fit. If the answer makes sense from a story perspective, then sure...I'll go along with it. But if it's really just a matter of the DM's personal preference then to hell with them and their game.
Well... what if I think a class or race is silly but I have good reasons for it being silly? If I'm running a game that's close to the ground, I've gone out and done a large amount of research on medieval history for both flavor and mechanical purposes, and let's say you want to run a monk... if I come back and talk about how the monk as a DnD class is really anachronistic in medieval Europe (yes, there were monks but not like DnD monks) and was added on because Gary Gygax liked 1970s kung fu movies, is that going to be suitable? If I was in a creative mood I might even go so far as to allow the class but seriously reflavoring everything about them - I played a game back in the day with a guy who was a 4th degree black belt in Tae Kwon Do who I allowed to do this (not in DnD; in a superhero RPG) because I know he'd be really accurate and it would add a lot to his own enjoyment (in a medieval atmosphere, maybe I'd allow someone who was skilled in savate or pankration... but again, reflavoring and the onus is on them to make it savate or pankration and not chopsocky). Anyway, my reasoning WRT monks has a little to do with setting but mostly it's that I think they're silly. Is that enough to make you pack up and leave?
Actually, milieu itself is kind of a cop-out. Sure, in some situations you've set up the drow or whomever as notorious baby-eaters and you don't want to RP the party getting chased out of every town they try to enter, but even then it would really just take a little tweak to the milieu (most of which the players never see anyway) to allow them. In a sense, all instances of "race/class X is verboten" comes down to "race/class X is silly" or at least "I want to try a game without race/class X".
And I'm not saying that's a bad thing. I definitely understand the fear of walking in to a GM who refuses to allow fighters because fighters are dum and sux; a person who makes nonsensical and arbitrary decisions like that is extremely likely to make other nonsensical and arbitrary decisions in the future. But here's the thing: you've got to go on a case by case basis. A good game could still come out of something with weird decisions up front and conversely a bad game could come out of an anything goes philosophy. It's best to weigh everything before you before making a decision.
Well... what if I think a class or race is silly but I have good reasons for it being silly? If I'm running a game that's close to the ground, I've gone out and done a large amount of research on medieval history for both flavor and mechanical purposes, and let's say you want to run a monk... if I come back and talk about how the monk as a DnD class is really anachronistic in medieval Europe (yes, there were monks but not like DnD monks) and was added on because Gary Gygax liked 1970s kung fu movies, is that going to be suitable? If I was in a creative mood I might even go so far as to allow the class but seriously reflavoring everything about them - I played a game back in the day with a guy who was a 4th degree black belt in Tae Kwon Do who I allowed to do this (not in DnD; in a superhero RPG) because I know he'd be really accurate and it would add a lot to his own enjoyment (in a medieval atmosphere, maybe I'd allow someone who was skilled in savate or pankration... but again, reflavoring and the onus is on them to make it savate or pankration and not chopsocky). Anyway, my reasoning WRT monks has a little to do with setting but mostly it's that I think they're silly. Is that enough to make you pack up and leave?
Actually, milieu itself is kind of a cop-out. Sure, in some situations you've set up the drow or whomever as notorious baby-eaters and you don't want to RP the party getting chased out of every town they try to enter, but even then it would really just take a little tweak to the milieu (most of which the players never see anyway) to allow them. In a sense, all instances of "race/class X is verboten" comes down to "race/class X is silly" or at least "I want to try a game without race/class X".
And I'm not saying that's a bad thing. I definitely understand the fear of walking in to a GM who refuses to allow fighters because fighters are dum and sux; a person who makes nonsensical and arbitrary decisions like that is extremely likely to make other nonsensical and arbitrary decisions in the future. But here's the thing: you've got to go on a case by case basis. A good game could still come out of something with weird decisions up front and conversely a bad game could come out of an anything goes philosophy. It's best to weigh everything before you before making a decision.
That may be the most logical and well thought out post I've read in days.
Personally, and butting in a bit on a question you asked someone else, as long as I at least got a chance to argue my case about the monk, I'd be cool with your decision. Particularly once the 4e monk comes out, since I could just be a quarterstaff wielding acrobat and the mechanics would fit just fine.