Now then we have been playing together for a while and we usually switch between two people as DM's. The guy who is starting up the 4th edition campaign doesn't have the best of reputations with the group. He has a tendency to make games unnecessarily complicated. However every one wants to play 4th but he and I are the only ones who have really learned enough to run it. I would run an campaign for them but it is one of my only opportunities to play.
The real problem came when he started describing the world we where going to be playing in. He really started not with all the cool locations and groups we could be in but with the restrictions of what we could and couldn't be. First he tells one player that he can't be a dragonborn fighter. This isn't due to a restriction of no dragonborn, no it was because he says all martial minded dragonborn are paladins. Ok that was when I knew things were bad. First paladins are not martial they are divine warriors. I could see making dragonborn martial characters warlords maybe but why no fighters. The only explanation given was that was how it worked in his world.
Next sticking point came from one player deciding he was going to be a halfling ranger dual wield. Control freak DM comes in and rains on his parade by saying if he wanted to be a halfling he had to be from some marsh that was being controlled by a black dragon. ??? Ok so on his world every single halfling ever born is born in that marsh.
Last thing coming out was toward me. I had decided to run a human wizard. I thought it would be really cool to have arcane symbols tattoed on my body. First he tells me I cant have any on my face because barbarian will kill me. Then he tells me i cant have a pentagram on my hand because its a warlock symbol. After an arguement mostly due to me being extremely offended that he was implying the pentagram was an evil symbol I let it go.
We haven't even played a session yet and are just getting our back stories together. Me and the halfling have gotten together so I can provide a reason for him being out of the marsh. I wrote a pretty long back story. 3 pages to be specific. He reads it and tells me a whole bunch of stuff needs to be changed. Ok i can handle DM prerogative saying stuff doesn't fit or is over powered but i was very careful to make sure my character by the end of the story had lost most of his power and pretty much all of his resources and contacts. As you might have guessed I am a story telling type player. The reasons he gives me is it doesn't match with his lore. His lore which he just created not to long ago for a campaign that only we are running.
Ok so I just sent him a revised version of my back story after trying to explain the stuff he had a problem with and him just not getting any of it. I'm hoping that he will take this one. If not I am seriously thinking of running my 20 str human fighter named Ug who has and intelligence of 8 and a back story of UG iz fytrz.
Sorry for the rant but am I crazy or is it a little much to have that much lore and restrictions for a system you or any of your players haven't mastered yet.
So, the black dragon king of the swamp says "Thou shalt not dual-wield."? I doubt this guy would ever win a "campaign search" contest. His entry would be more likely to end up in the laughing stock pile.
The Players simply get together, decide they don't want him as DM anymore and evict him from the group, then simply select a new DM.
If you can throw out an abusive and annoying player why can't you do the same with a DM.
As a long time DM (20+ years) i'll let you in on a secret "Its not that hard to DM", in fact i find playing harder.
Like all tyrants the solution here is simple, a Coup
The Players simply get together, decide they don't want him as DM anymore and evict him from the group, then simply select a new DM.
If you can throw out an abusive and annoying player why can't you do the same with a DM.
As a long time DM (20+ years) i'll let you in on a secret "Its not that hard to DM", in fact i find playing harder.
Only problem is he is a friend. As I stated the only ones available to run 4th are myself and him and I already am dming 2 groups. That being said we might go back to running the older campaign that he wasn't running and just wait to play 4th when the other DM gets in to it but I sure he wants to play once in a while too.
Second, point out (as above) that paladin are divine and not martial, then that the dragonborn itself is portrayed as an archetypical fighter.
Thirdly, threaten to completly ignore what he tells you is typical for his campaign. A DM is only in power as long as his players can stand him.
Here's what you need to say:
"Bob, I've been doing some thinking about this campai-- what? No, I'm just calling you Bob because it's in the script, try to keep up. Anyways, I've been doing some thinking about this campaign of your, and I think I ought to point out that some of your restrictions are, to be frank, ridiculous.
"Look, Joe, we're all still dazzled by-- eh? No, it's Joe now. Don't ask me why, the guy on the internet said to call you Joe in the second paragraph. Now listen. We're all still dazzled by 4E and the options presented therein. We want to player certain characters, and you're not letting us play our characters. Lighten up.
"I challenge the notion that all dragonborn warriors are paladins. Why make up such a restriction other than to pigeon-hole players in to restrictive character concepts. Why can't there be an exception?
"I challenge the idea that an entire race exist solely within one small area, dominated by a tyrannical, lizard-shaped XP piñata. Why can't there be an exception to the norm?
"I challenge any barbarians my wizard encounters to try and kill me for my face-tattoo. I'll give them scars and burns to match. The simple act of drawing a pentagram does not make me a warlock, and if it did, then I'll just inscribe it during the game to instantly gain warlock powers.
"Let us play what we want. Find a way to make it work. The DM's job is to help the players have fun, not tell them what they can't do all the time."
Oh, and Nova is basicly giving examples to my ideas...
If you don't like it, don't play.
Simple.
And Pentagram is generally a dark symbol, whereas a pentacle is not.
But whatever.
Just politely withdraw, and run your own halfling dual wield, Pentagram Wizard game.
Don't like, don't play may work some of the time, but not all the time.
And Pentagram is generally a dark symbol, whereas a pentacle is not.
A) The relevant difference between a pentagram and a pentacle is negligible, at best
B) Check your history, and tread carefully.
NovaCat-
I'd expect no less from a Btech fan.So, other than odd restrictions, what does this game/setting have to offer? Anything to counter the control-freak aspect?
A) The relevant difference between a pentagram and a pentacle is negligible, at best
B) Check your history, and tread carefully.
NovaCat-
I just googled both and would have to say I contest that statement. I invite you to do a search as well. I don't find it surprising that merriam has a confused understanding of these terms.
Zaydrache I would discuss things within your group and see how everyone feels. The point of the game is to get together and have fun (well it is for me anyway) with friends. If DM Power Trip is preventing that perhaps someone else could read the books and DM understanding that you run two already and want to play for a change. There is now point to having a group of people coming together only to be subjected to the delusions of one out of control DM.
Is something like at the start of a campaign the party all being from the same town or something like that. As much as I might have a great idea for a dwarf kingdom where tieflings are forbidden I feel it is wrong to deny players choices. If I really want to do the Dwarven kingdom thing I'll write about it. The MO of 4e is say yes and have fun.
Pentacle
On the actual subject, you're playing exceptional individuals. That's the point, why couldn't the halfling be the child of refugees, who died getting them free. Adopted by wolves who use two weapon fighting.
And how about a dragonborn who identifies heavily with the religious aspects of his culture but -mechanically- is a fighter. You just -holy- cleave and call out your gods name when you attack, dedicating each swing to his glory.
The more I see on the forums, the more it seems "Just Change the fluff" is the right answer.
ovaCat-
Assuming you mean Battletech, I'm not, actually. Not sure what gave you that impression.
Seriously, though, just tell him you think the race/class restrictions are crap and that the world is not/should not be so restrictive of a place.
I've been DMing for about 1.5 years now and there have been a couple times when I thought I had come up with a great idea or when I thought making a specific restriction was wholly within my rights. Then my PCs told me to, um, "stick it in my....ear...." and I realized that I wasn't the only one playing the game. If my PCs hadn't told me to stick it my ear, then I'd still think the ideas were good and I wouldn't have grown as a DM.
Seriously, if the guy is your friend, he will understand, especially if 3 of you tell him to screw off at the same time.
Seriously, Nova said it very well. Sit 'im down, explain that, since you're already running two campaigns, you were really looking forward to playing, right up until he started pulling this crap. Now he's got you worried that you're signing on for the railroad express, and you wanted to PLAY, not be strapped in and ridden down the rails on whatever plot he's got written. It's a new system, and the options certainly aren't out of hand (yet), limiting them further seems, well, limiting. You had a good concept (heck, I'd let you play it in a heartbeat!) which was shot down, and so did two of the (how many?) other players, which is killing the fun before you even pick up the dice.
Let him know that you do believe he's capable of running a good game, however, he needs to ease up a bit and be more flexible. (Mind, doesn't matter if you believe it or not, TRY to believe it!)
This is why I hate homebrew settings.
Eh, it isn't a problem with homebrew settings as much as with the DM having a very narrow vision of his world and being, as the title of the thread says, a control freak. Given a non-homebrew setting the same DM will likely be just as bad.
"No, your wizard can't wear red, because everryone will assume you are a Red Wizard of Thay and kill you. And if you are a Dwarf you HAVE to be from the Great Rift..." etc.
On a side note the pentagram is a 5 pointed star with the central point standing up surrounded by a circle. It is one of the first religious symbols for Christianity and many European early religions. It has several meaning including the power of man (see Di Vinci) as well as in magic it represents the 4 elements earth wind water and fire as well as spiritual power bound within a circle representing control. It is not used in any black magic in any mythos. The inverted pentagram is a symbol used by "evil" or black magics. It commonly called the signet of baphomet represents the dissention of man and is used by satanists. Saying the pentagram is evil just because of the inverted pentagram is the same as saying the cross is evil just because people use inverted crosses in black magic. end rant.
Any way thanks for the comments I might talk to the rest of the group a little later.
Another way to feel him out might be to talk to him about refluffing a dragonborn fighter to play like a paladin in game, if the player who wanted to be dragonborn doesn't mind playing a holy warrior RP concept. If not, maybe he can try pitching his character as special forces or something, or use his departure from cultural stereotypes as an excuse to be out adventuring instead of defending the ancestral homeland with all the other good little caniggits.
Before you get bent out of shape over his restrictions, try this: out of game, in his presence, start talking with the guy who's playing the halfling about making the overthrow of the dragon and the liberation of the halflings a campaign goal for your two characters, and guage his reaction. If he gets excited over that and jumps into the conversation on the "yeah, that'd be cool" side, then he's salvageable as a DM. If he pulls a puss, starts telling you it'd be suicide for the party or expresses aversion to you guys doing things that will change "his" world, use that as an opportunity to start the "we're heroes. Isn't that our job?" dialogue.
Another way to feel him out might be to talk to him about refluffing a dragonborn fighter to play like a paladin in game, if the player who wanted to be dragonborn doesn't mind playing a holy warrior RP concept. If not, maybe he can try pitching his character as special forces or something, or use his departure from cultural stereotypes as an excuse to be out adventuring instead of defending the ancestral homeland with all the other good little caniggits.
Yep tried that when we started as well as my first draft of my story. His answers where the black dragon had only taken over for about 100 years and the Halflings hadn't started open revolt yet. As far as the Dragonborn issue I was thinking of running a battle cleric or warlord dragon born but ended up going with my human wizard concept. Trying to convince one of the other guys that not too good a creating characters to run a battle cleric just to thumb him in the nose.
As to refluffing in my story my young character was attacked by what I called a goblin warrior and he made me change it because i wouldn't be able to kill it like i said i did. The mechanical class was a goblin cutter I just called it a warrior because it made a better story. He also made me change some story elements because i was using rituals he didn't think made sense even though I no longer have access to them with my current character. So in short I doubt he would take a DB fighter masked as a paladin.
"What do your restrictions add to the game?"
Now I understand that in some settings there need to be restrictions because it adds to the flavor of the game. But when your restrictions begin to severely hamper character concepts, that's when things start to go awry. Especially since, as heroes, you guys are different anyway. His restrictions are just that- not guidelines to aid in the advancement of a game, but restrictions which prevent certain concepts from being possible at all. And there is something intrinsically wrong with that.
Oh, something that's on a completely unrelated note, the upside-down cross has just as little to do with "black magic" as penta/grams/cles/gons (
) do, and are actually a catholic holy symbol, that of St. Peter. I understand it's just an example, but I've had an emphasis on symbols pounded into my head since a young age (even if I didn't retain too much of it) so I like to point things out so I can convince myself of this notion that I'm smart. :POh, something that's on a completely unrelated note, the upside-down cross has just as little to do with "black magic" as penta/grams/cles/gons (
Thanks for the advice and quite right upside down cross is a symbol of St. Peter however it is also used by satanist and other dark occult as well. I am not saying there is anything wrong with the symbol and many could just be using the symbol incorrectly. The analogy is valid but I see your point and lumping symbols together is not cool.
In any event, I've dealt with a decently nasty DM (this was at the dawn of 3.0) and he made the outrageous ruling that "Fighter's cant use bows." o_O
At this point, the player should do two things: one, insist on a written list of restrictions; two, hold the GM to that when they draw up characters - no takebacks or surprise restrictions. If the GM is going to impose a bunch of campaign-specific rules, it's only fair to have those restrictions up front. (If you can get full-scale background info on this alternate campaign world he's creating, it would be worth it, since he's obviously changing a *lot* about the setting, and you don't want any more nasty surprises.)
The other overall option is for the players to just tell the GM - courteously and as a group - that they want to play x and y characters, and they would really appreciate it if they could. Any decent GM should make allowances for player preference, if they are constructive and reasonable (for example, is it really going to break the campaign if this one halfling was orphaned by goblin raiders and found by elves, or whatever?).
I think the real problem is that he's imposing all these restrictions with no warning. If he has such a specific background in mind, he needs to tell the players that *before* he even suggests drawing up characters. And the players need to demnd to see *all* the restrictions on their character options before they roll them up.
At this point, the player should do two things: one, insist on a written list of restrictions; two, hold the GM to that when they draw up characters - no takebacks or surprise restrictions. If the GM is going to impose a bunch of campaign-specific rules, it's only fair to have those restrictions up front. (If you can get full-scale background info on this alternate campaign world he's creating, it would be worth it, since he's obviously changing a *lot* about the setting, and you don't want any more nasty surprises.)
The bold section is some great advice, the rest is also pretty fair
As a DM, I can relate to having taking a great deal of time to come up with a cool campaign world, and then having the players come in and take a dump on it because their idea for a character concept superceeds the world I've painstakenly built for him.
Now, don't get me wrong, this dude sounds like an a-hole. Needlessly restricting all fighting Dragonborn to Paladins is pretty bad. So, okay, WHAT? Aren't there Dragonborn Mercinaries out there? Or dragonborn who turned from the faith? Likewise with the halfling situation.
The only part where I can KIND OF see where he's coming from is the cosmetic stuff. Maybe the humans have some sort of social . . . cultural dislike of facial tatoos. Okay, I can kinda see that. Maybe it's tied into a backstory, who knows. Yes it's limiting you as a DM, but I can kinda see that.
Now, the issue with backstories. I don't know how to side with you on this one, as I haven't seen the stuff before. As a Dm, it's frustrating sometimes when players make up big chunks of my campaign world without asking me. Or if players try to get boons by working it into a backstory. (I've had players say they were princes before. Then, as soon as play starts 'Empty the treasure vault, give it to me! Lol i is teh winnerz!) Of course, he may just be unwilling to compromise or railroading you, as I've had DMs do that before.
My general rule for backstories is to ask what the campaign world is like, then fit a backstory around it. I try to make up as little of the campaign as possible, usually only one town or small area.
So, yeah, sounds like he's not a great DM, but speaking as a fellow DM, I can see where SOME of his issues are comming from. But needlessly restricting classes or birthplaces is a bit far.
I think the real problem is that he's imposing all these restrictions with no warning. If he has such a specific background in mind, he needs to tell the players that *before* he even suggests drawing up characters. And the players need to demnd to see *all* the restrictions on their character options before they roll them up.
At this point, the player should do two things: one, insist on a written list of restrictions; two, hold the GM to that when they draw up characters - no takebacks or surprise restrictions. If the GM is going to impose a bunch of campaign-specific rules, it's only fair to have those restrictions up front. (If you can get full-scale background info on this alternate campaign world he's creating, it would be worth it, since he's obviously changing a *lot* about the setting, and you don't want any more nasty surprises.)
This post is spot on.
I'm not afraid of making big changes (e.g., my current 4e campaign world has no clerics or paladins for story reasons), but I discuss that type of key setting stuff with the players before-hand, and the setting info gets put in writing. Also, one focus of setting creation should be ensuring that the players have the options that they're interested in.
The only part where I can KIND OF see where he's coming from is the cosmetic stuff. Maybe the humans have some sort of social . . . cultural dislike of facial tatoos. Okay, I can kinda see that. Maybe it's tied into a backstory, who knows. Yes it's limiting you as a DM, but I can kinda see that.
Now, the issue with backstories. I don't know how to side with you on this one, as I haven't seen the stuff before. As a Dm, it's frustrating sometimes when players make up big chunks of my campaign world without asking me. Or if players try to get boons by working it into a backstory. (I've had players say they were princes before. Then, as soon as play starts 'Empty the treasure vault, give it to me! Lol i is teh winnerz!) Of course, he may just be unwilling to compromise or railroading you, as I've had DMs do that before.
My general rule for backstories is to ask what the campaign world is like, then fit a backstory around it. I try to make up as little of the campaign as possible, usually only one town or small area.
So, yeah, sounds like he's not a great DM, but speaking as a fellow DM, I can see where SOME of his issues are comming from. But needlessly restricting classes or birthplaces is a bit far.
Yes I completely agree with the above statement. I should specify that the end of my back story as well as providing tons of potential story arcs also reset all my characters power to that of a beginner. As far as any contacts I also established that he was banished from all such contacts.
I also made sure to go out of my way to insure i didn't make any specifics unless they were provided beforehand. I used generalized terms like hometown or instructors rather than specific names. The only specific characters I used where a name for a specific instructor however I didn't specify any information about him so it is just someone the DM can use and I incorporated one of the bigger npc's as a childhood friend that I knew for about a year but then never heard from again. He also made me change this.
I do agree with the prince scenario being not cool and I did use a lot of big npcs in a previous campaign. We were running Star Wars New Jedi Order campaign and I established relationships with Jacen Solo and Lando. I also never used those relationships to exploit the game. The DM who ran that one allowed it because by doing so I also countered it by limiting myself allot as far as other contacts.
In short I completely agree with what you are saying which is why I went out of my way to make sure I wasn't doing any of those things.
.
I'd suggest finding a better DM, or getting together with all the players and specifically REQUESTING a simple, standard, vinilla DnD setting. I'm sure he could have tons of fun making backstory for a points of light campaign, and the campaign, by it's very nature, requires all people on the 'light' side to work together thus allowing for any race being any class.. Then again, if he's as bad or stubborn as you make him out to be, he may be unwilling to listen or compromise.
Hey, try this. Tell him that you've been kicking around the idea to scrap your wizard and play a Dwarven Rogue. If he says, "no, absolutly not, there has never been a recorded case of a Dwarf who was ever a scout or thief or TRAPFINDER," then I don't think he's salvagable.
I know I am probably not being very fair and I do realize I might just be blowing things out of proportion. It is just frustrating when you create this great backstory that provides lots of great hooks and story arcs and are told you have to change stuff for fluff reasons and not mechanical issues. I really think he is just stuck on previous editions.
Not the Dragonborn all being paladins,
Not the halflings all coming from a certain marsh/swamp region,
Not the vetoing of various backstory elements for fluff reasons......
What I do see is a whole lot of mis & non communication going on. Both on the part of the DM and the players.
Obviously the DM in question has some vision of what he wants his world to look like, how he wants it to function, story ideas, etc etc etc.
What he needs to do is accurately commincate this stuff to the players.
And the players need to stop assuming everything they read in the PHB is auto-standard, then getting mad when they discover otherwise. They also need to be asking questions about the world/area where the games foccussed. That way they can try & make characters who fit within the world the DMs created.
I also see too much emphasis on splitting hairs over termonoligy.
You know what? If the symbol/tattoo you describe is said to be viewd as evil by the NPCs & would get you character attacked, then it really doesn't matter what you call it, or what it might mean in the real world. Just accept the fact that your character would know better than to openly display one.
Same for the exact type of goblin killed. An armed goblin attacked you & was killed. Would your 1st lv character know what it was beyond that? No, not likely. Would they care? No. It was a goblin, it fought, it died.
Same again for jumping down the DMs throat about reffering to DB paladins as a martial type. You know, it's possible he was using the term in general, not as a specific mechanical description.
No real problems, just alot of poor communication on all sides.
"Let us play what we want. Find a way to make it work. The DM's job is to help the players have fun, not tell them what they can't do all the time."
And the players have to respect what the Dm is trying to accomplish. Playing DnD is a two way street.
What should be done is find out what the campaign world is like from the Dm, then everyone knows what is what and after you have that knowledge compromises can be asked for.
(This is why, if I'm gaming with a group that I don't know well and who don't know ME well, I do a couple page writeup of what to expect and what the world will be like. For earlier editions, it also listed which books were OK to use for character creation, and so forth, never ran into a situation like this. The "but I want to play a (race the player created) (class the player created), here's the stats, all typed out in five-point font for you..." DID come up, and was dealt with by the DM-bat on the spot.)
Unlike most of you I don't see any real problem with the restrictions the DM has so injustly impossed.
Not the Dragonborn all being paladins,
Not the halflings all coming from a certain marsh/swamp region,
Not the vetoing of various backstory elements for fluff reasons......
What I do see is a whole lot of mis & non communication going on. Both on the part of the DM and the players.
Obviously the DM in question has some vision of what he wants his world to look like, how he wants it to function, story ideas, etc etc etc.
What he needs to do is accurately commincate this stuff to the players.
And the players need to stop assuming everything they read in the PHB is auto-standard, then getting mad when they discover otherwise. They also need to be asking questions about the world/area where the games foccussed. That way they can try & make characters who fit within the world the DMs created.
I also see too much emphasis on splitting hairs over termonoligy.
You know what? If the symbol/tattoo you describe is said to be viewd as evil by the NPCs & would get you character attacked, then it really doesn't matter what you call it, or what it might mean in the real world. Just accept the fact that your character would know better than to openly display one.
Same for the exact type of goblin killed. An armed goblin attacked you & was killed. Would your 1st lv character know what it was beyond that? No, not likely. Would they care? No. It was a goblin, it fought, it died.
Same again for jumping down the DMs throat about reffering to DB paladins as a martial type. You know, it's possible he was using the term in general, not as a specific mechanical description.
No real problems, just alot of poor communication on all sides.
CCS I do see where you are coming from and to some extent I agree with you. If the DM in question came to the prep session with a concise list of things what is allowed and what isn't I would have less of an issue. The problem came from the seemingly random method we received the information. Every time someone came up with a character concept he had some kind of restriction to put on them.
If it was only one or two small things or something at least within the same theme I could see some of the restrictions being perfectly valid restrictions. No fighters or no paladins or no arcane something that transcends the entire world and you can just look at the world and see no one doing that. I could also see taking out Dragonborn or any other race for a story reason this was just so specific. As a side note he was referring to the mechanical class fighter not any fluff fighter.
As for splitting hairs I admit the pentagram thing bugged me more than it should. The rest it may have just been miscommunication or him or myself taking things too literal.
Also I did bring up many of my concerns during the planning session and his only responses where "not in my world".
You're fighting an uphill battle.
CCS I do see where you are coming from and to some extent I agree with you. If the DM in question came to the prep session with a concise list of things what is allowed and what isn't I would have less of an issue. The problem came from the seemingly random method we received the information. Every time someone came up with a character concept he had some kind of restriction to put on them.
If it was only one or two small things or something at least within the same theme I could see some of the restrictions being perfectly valid restrictions. No fighters or no paladins or no arcane something that transcends the entire world and you can just look at the world and see no one doing that. I could also see taking out Dragonborn or any other race for a story reason this was just so specific. As a side note he was referring to the mechanical class fighter not any fluff fighter.
As for splitting hairs I admit the pentagram thing bugged me more than it should. The rest it may have just been miscommunication or him or myself taking things too literal.
Also I did bring up many of my concerns during the planning session and his only responses where "not in my world".
Then the game world isn't ready yet.
You already have two other games you are Dming for. Do you need to play in a third that hasn't been fully envisioned?