as i was reading the list from the email i couldn't help but feel slighted, as per i had explained tohim what most of my characters were, and he seemed pretty okay with it until the list included none of the options that i wanted. ( we actually spoke at legnth about gaming theories and issues)
no divine classes, no primal classes, no drow, no elves, no eladrin, no sub humans... half orc, half elf, genasi, shifter, tiefling, shadar kai, no dragonborn, no xp, no skills, and so on.
come to think of it the only races and clases hes allowing are humans, dwarves, warforged, halflings, all martial and all arcane. the reasons he gives are petty at best. i think hes basing it on some sort of steam punk and he will give up other rules that take the place of rules that i know from the books.
i have not responded to this person just yet, and while i respect that he made his own world and his own setting. i dont have intrest to play.
im looking for a polite and respectful way to decline his invitation without getting offinsive about it.
what i came up with was -
"that looks like alot of work you did on your campaign setting, and it looks intresting, but its not what i want to game right now, call me when somthing more of a familiar setting comes my way. "
any advice for a better responce?
what i came up with was -
"that looks like alot of work you did on your campaign setting, and it looks intresting, but its not what i want to game right now, call me when somthing more of a familiar setting comes my way. "
any advice for a better responce?
"After getting more information about your game world, it doesn't look like I'm going to be a good fit. Best of luck to you!"
It's real close to what you came up with, but the spin is that it's YOUR problem and not his.
I don't think you should dismiss it based on the no Divine/Primal classes and the limits on races. I've been thinking about my next campaign and am thinking that I actually want the campaign to be set in the Shadowfell. When I do that, I will be limiting the power sources for classes and the allowed races.
and to devo, i dont think his vision of whatever campiagn world sacred me away, i think it was attitude that he cast away the races/classes/rules.
This DM may find people who LOVE this setting and are all for it. Great! So maybe other people are good with it, in which case, it won't benefit him in the slightest.
As for you, you may get dragged into an argument regarding player freedom and DM power. It could be civil, maybe not. But I am willing to bet you'll never change his mind, and you'll never change yours. You probably won't be able to make the campaign more to your tastes, and other players may not appreicate the changes back to normal 4e. Therefore, you'd probably won't have anything to gain from arguing.
And for all you know, he has good reasons to ban these, either for the feel or plot of his story. Maybe he just wants something different once in a while. Maybe he has issues integrating religion, either due to mechanics or the fact that no one really wants to bring it up, even in the form of make believe religions at the gaming table.
So yes, the idea that the DM should start tossing out bits of the game can be worrying. But I don't think its something to make a big deal of, and could just be you two happen to disagree on this one subject. I still advise just going your seperate ways on good terms and find a DM who is more to your style.
polite courtesty is what im trying to achive more then proving any point.
i also am not looking to burn any bridges either. there might be a game to come up that i might be a good fit for.
this particular game however is out of my comfort zone, i'll talk to him today and let you all know his reaction. i wont be posting his name or a post by post lol. but i will mention if he went to as many pains as i did for manners. =D
Anyway, good luck to you both.
stuntman.- i dont think i would mind doing that, if i had a better trust in his ability. i think finding a good game has a lot akin to dating, you feel each other out, you find your comfort zones you set things on the table and figure out compatabilty.
-everyone else instrested. i spoke with this dm as kind as i could, but he got nasty. so i got stoic. he got whiney, i got nasty, then he figured out how he was acting, then apologised. i accepted quickly his apology and now we are in negotiations on a game that may include me. turns out other gamers had similar issues he never once asked about.
but i congratulate him for reaching his own apology, too many people now a days cant do that, and also big grats for listening to his players.
btw, i love those cats in the pic stuntman =D
Find someone whose game you like and player with them - walk away from the others.
grumpycelt- agreed =] in a roundabout way your right. but the level of homebrew between willfuly ignoring half the rules and not is i guess whats being spoken about here lol.
feyberry- my own personal rule is that i avoid homebrews precisely for that reason. i only found out it was homebrew when i got the first email. even then i might have still given it a shot, if there was a bit more freedom.
...
stuntman.- i dont think i would mind doing that, if i had a better trust in his ability. i think finding a good game has a lot akin to dating, you feel each other out, you find your comfort zones you set things on the table and figure out compatabilty.
-everyone else instrested. i spoke with this dm as kind as i could, but he got nasty. so i got stoic. he got whiney, i got nasty, then he figured out how he was acting, then apologised. i accepted quickly his apology and now we are in negotiations on a game that may include me. turns out other gamers had similar issues he never once asked about.
but i congratulate him for reaching his own apology, too many people now a days cant do that, and also big grats for listening to his players.
I'm glad you were able iron things out. I'd probably have issues as well with regard to how strict his house rules were initially.
In my group the other DM's game is a bit of a homebrew. He has some restrictions on character choices to suit his own world. It affected only two players. One player simply chose another race since gnomes weren't allowed. The other player had more of a powergamy character (partially my fault as I was discussing various combos with him) and they eventually came to an agreement what would be proper after a rather lengthy discussion.
btw, i love those cats in the pic stuntman =D
Yeah. It's my best shot of them together. Most of the time when I pull out the camera, the pose gets ruined when one or both move up to me to sniff the camera.
feyberry- my own personal rule is that i avoid homebrews precisely for that reason. i only found out it was homebrew when i got the first email. even then i might have still given it a shot, if there was a bit more freedom.
I have to say, I invite people to games and I expect, when joining a game, to be given a premise and a set of house rules. That's where I start from.
And you're not, in any way, wrong to look at the game contract and tell the GM that you're not interested in playing in that setting or with those restrictions on characters. But the idea that any system-legal character MUST be appropriate for any game is just plain weird.
=D
Arn't all games a home-bew in a fashion? I mean, all TT games are carried out by people using the rules as they choose to use them. In a MMORPG the computer system used and the people running it impose an absolute set of rules. But in a TT game it is variable, with rules and systems being used and enforced as people care (and remember) to do so.
Find someone whose game you like and player with them - walk away from the others.
I suppose, but I think most would fine this sort of homebrew a bit excessive.
The DM basically changed the whole system around from under the players. From my limited experience, a good time comes from being comfortable. To put your players off their bases so early certainly suggests there won't be as much fun/immersion later on.
I suppose, but I think most would fine this sort of homebrew a bit excessive.
The DM basically changed the whole system around from under the players. From my limited experience, a good time comes from being comfortable. To put your players off their bases so early certainly suggests there won't be as much fun/immersion later on.
No, no. "From under the players" implies that he had players, and then they showed up looking for a specific kind of game, and then he changed everything on them suddenly after they'd started playing.
That's not what this guy did.
This guy changed everything around completely, and when looking for new players, told them exactly what he'd done and what had changed, before they joined the game.
The new player didn't like the changes and decided not to play, but told the GM why he didn't want in and asked to be included next time if the game setup was different. Other players decided they didn't mind (or liked!) the changes and decided to play.
All of this is well and good and AS IT SHOULD BE. Seriously. Everyone in this situation did *everything* exactly right.
If you eliminate skills from 4e, you're not homebrewing a setting, you're full-on houseruling a whole new game system (with 4e as a base).
I use a homebrew setting, and I have almost exclusively gamed in homebrew settings, but that just means that the backstory is different and the races and cultures have some slightly unusual characteristics. It doesn't mean I've rewritten the 4e mechanics.
I much prefer homebrew settings because they tend to have a lot more freedom. I don't need my DM trying to interpret somebody else's characters and themes, I'd much rather they felt comfortable making their own decisions and defending them on their own terms. Plus none of the established settings really hold much interest for me. Maybe Eberron. But in general the official settings seem like they are intended to be generic enough that DMs can put their own mark on them anyway, so I say skip the middleman.
This thread seems to be conflating a homebrew system (such as the OP describes) with a homebrew setting.
If you eliminate skills from 4e, you're not homebrewing a setting, you're full-on houseruling a whole new game system (with 4e as a base).
The only *mechanical* change the guy made was removal of Skills, and that's not a big deal if he tosses in an alternate suggestion - or even if he doesn't. Every other change he made is purely setting, and taking out Skills entirely is a *small* mechanical change.
And, even then, *he still did everything right*. He told a prospective player what his changes were, the player told him he didn't want to play with those changes, everyone walked away with no illusions. Regardless of how much he did or didn't change the mechanics of the game, he still did it right.
basics are:
no xp.
no skills.
no divine classes.
no gods.
no primal classes.
only 4 races. dwarves, humans, warforged, halflings.
no monster manual.
only the material plane setting. setting was described as a steampunk. there are no forests, or outdoors. the world is a wasteland so there are interior buildings, exterior buildings, sewers/underground, and non city settings.
all arcane classes to be renamed to and reflavored to science and mechanical nature. example wizard= scientist, swordmage= mechanic, sorcerer= chemist, bard= scholar, artificer= alchemist.
can only get up to heroic level.
must turn in character after 9th level to be recycled as a bbg for the next game.
hope that is informative. =]
Except for the no xp part, since you can get rid of xp with no problems with a competent DM.
no skills.
What did he do instead of Skills?
(Apart from this one specific thing, the rest is just standard, if extensive, worldbuilding.)
::shrug::
no xp.
I don't have a problem with this. I'm thinking of getting rid of it myself and just level up everyone when it seems appropriate.
no divine classes.
no gods.
no primal classes.
only 4 races. dwarves, humans, warforged, halflings.
My only issue is that this really limits what you are able to play. It makes it start to not feel like D&D to me.
no monster manual.
Not sure what this means. Sounds like he's making his own monsters. If this is the case I have not problem with that.
only the material plane setting. setting was described as a steampunk. there are no forests, or outdoors. the world is a wasteland so there are interior buildings, exterior buildings, sewers/underground, and non city settings.
Settings sound similar to one I'm playing in. I don't know what Steampunk means. A wasteland setting doesn't really change anything mechanically.
all arcane classes to be renamed to and reflavored to science and mechanical nature. example wizard= scientist, swordmage= mechanic, sorcerer= chemist, bard= scholar, artificer= alchemit.
Reflavouring is no big deal. Sounds like they are mechanically the same.
can only get up to heroic level.
must turn in character after 9th level to be recycled as a bbg for the next game.
Not a big deal unless you are really looking forward to paragon paths.
skill checks work normally, but you are to use your base stat with no help from skills. his purpose is to show/prove that as adventurers, you dont have time to grind out skills or learn abilties other then those found in combat. skill checks are supposed to be hard with little chance of success.
::shrug::
Not sure how this fits into the setting. This particular rule makes me think that this is going to be some hack and slash.
"What? We suck at sneaking past the enemy, or tricking them or negotiating with them? OK. Let's just kill 'em."
the only creatures we will encounter are other warforged, dwarves, halfings, humans, with class templates. he described akin to "pvp" halfings and dwarves are in name only. halflings are wasteland dwellers affected by pollution and are deformed. dwarves are stunted humans who've lived in "clockwork city" and are fluffed as evolved humans. warforged are "clockwork tinkermen"
your absolutely right about skills. his disdain for them may stem from people using them to avoid "encounter fights" hes established. among other things. he wants us to divide treasure to hire "experts" so to be effective at what skill encounter they want to accomplish, they have to divide the loot an equal share. more experts equals more cuts and balances what he says is "too much loot freely given"
If the setting simply isn't gonna work out for you, kindly bow out of the game, explaining that while you respect his homebrew, it simply doesn't contain several vital elements you are lookin for in a campaign.
I personally would want nothing to with what you described :P
lol, while i described it, i dont take credit for the mans game nor endorse it. =D
infact my whole starting post is how to politely/respectfully bow out of the mans game, as per its not my thing.
i also had to edit alot of what little sniping remarks he took at everything, they way he wrote it was
"no monster manual- uttery worthless garbage imho". i did this on purpose to show a completly neutral stance, because my opinion was irrelevant.
no monster manual means there will be nothing in his setting/campaign that will use anything to do with the monster manual. no animals, fey, undead, giants, humanoids or other critters.
Interesting setting. I guess it sounds OK. What I feel is that this is not sounding very D&Dish. I generally expect to see something fantasic. I'm not saying there should be dragons in every game, but throw me some orcs or goblins at least.
the only creatures we will encounter are other warforged, dwarves, halfings, humans, with class templates. he described akin to "pvp" halfings and dwarves are in name only. halflings are wasteland dwellers affected by pollution and are deformed. dwarves are stunted humans who've lived in "clockwork city" and are fluffed as evolved humans. warforged are "clockwork tinkermen"
Does he realise that there are warforges, dwarves, halfings and humans in the MM? If he is planning to use mainly PC builds, then it would likely make things really difficult on him. Monsters are simpler because the DM has to run many of them. Does he plan to use any minions at all?
your absolutely right about skills. his disdain for them may stem from people using them to avoid "encounter fights" hes established.
Railroading alert here! It seems that his intent is that players have no say in how they complete adventures. PC's must get into fights A, B and C no matter what they decide to do. Regardless of setting, this aspect of the DM would turn me off completely. Now I understand where you are coming from regarding your comment about his abilities as a DM.
among other things. he wants us to divide treasure to hire "experts" so to be effective at what skill encounter they want to accomplish, they have to divide the loot an equal share. more experts equals more cuts and balances what he says is "too much loot freely given"
I don't understand this. He makes skill encounters, but do not give you any skills? He seems to have a weird way to control the amount of loot given out. If he does not want as much treasure handed out, he has control of it. He can simply give out less treasure. Has that ever occurred to him?
If you don't want to play in his game, I don't blame you. I think that you have enough reasons to let him know you don't want to play in his game without having to mention his DM'ing style.
I tend to let the world expand with whatever players want to do (within reason, obviously.)
But I guess every group has to find their comfort zone on the continuum between my kind of game and that of the DM you describe.
I have to agree with the others, though, that there are other RPG systems that seem like they would suit his world better than D&D. But chacun a son gout, I s'pose.
That would be why. You should never let your players dictate everything in the campaign. Especially if you have a theme you want to run throughout the game.
I think "letting the players dictate everything in the campaign" is a pretty far cry from what I just described.
That would be why. You should never let your players dictate everything in the campaign. Especially if you have a theme you want to run throughout the game.
I think "letting the players dictate everything in the campaign" is a pretty far cry from what I just described.
Not really. If there was no good reason for an elf to be with the group in that particular area, you should say no to the player wanting to play an elf. And by good reason, I mean an absolutely great reason with well thought out points to show why, how, when, and what the elf is doing there and why they're not skewered for being an elf by the locals.
and here between feyberry and earth pressed flat is exactly the same problem that dm vs players often have.
the dm has a vision of a world.
the player has an idea on what to play.
the dm narrows the playing field for whatever reason and doesn't allow the race x, or the class y.
the player says this isn't for him and walks off.
now knowing how hard it is to set up a game, if every dm takes this aggresive control stance, or if the players dont work with the dm to make somthing available and apropriate , then when will people actually play?
wizards was right in setting up a generic setting with so many options available. im not saying that i like every race, nor every setting, but both players and dms need to be flexible and open to allow actual gaming to occur and needless bickering to cease.
im in complete disagreement with the ban hammer. i am all for dms and players finding resolutions by working together to come to a conclusive goal and play. if the dm comes to the table and says, ''this is my vision for the game" and the other players say cool then continue.
and truth be told, i have never seen a game homebrew to be anything but adequete. usually its the dms version of ... "my worlds cool cause it doesnt have teh elv or dorfs. and you can have gunz in it ftw!''
wizards was right in setting up a generic setting with so many options available. im not saying that i like every race, nor every setting, but both players and dms need to be flexible and open to allow actual gaming to occur and needless bickering to cease.
Sometimes, people are just unable to reach some sort of compromise. Deciding not to play or not allowing certain character options lead to people not joining or leaving the group. It's quite OK to not play because you would not feel satisfied with the gaming experience in that group. I have in the past decide to not play at all and spend my time on something else instead.
very true stunt man, this doesn't always work. hence the opening post. i saw at a glance that there was no way i would enjoy that game and promptly walked off. but such should be the rare case, and not the standard.
very true stunt man, this doesn't always work. hence the opening post. i saw at a glance that there was no way i would enjoy that game and promptly walked off. but such should be the rare case, and not the standard.
Why shouldn't it be?
Players are not in short supply. DMs who are really excited about something they want to do that's different and unusual are. So they *should* be telling people exactly what game they want to run, exactly what kind of characters are appropriate, and the players *should* be walking away from anything that doesn't excite them right back - let someone who wants to play play, and hopefully the next game to spin off because someone thinks it will be fun to run a game will be more to your liking.
i disagree, and will leave it at that. =]
i disagree, and will leave it at that. =]
Players should have a influence on the worlds the DM has designed. DM sets the framework of the world and players help with putting in the details. This assuming that the players want to.
In a game I was recently in my goliath would honor his dead friends. He would bury them and put a coin in each eye to pay the toll of death.
Is this written anyway in Goliath fluff. Did the DM design Goliath's like that. No to both, but gave life to the Goliath.
This is just one example, and i hope players take initiative in trying to fill there world with details.
To the original poster. It sounds like the DM is gun ho about the way he is running his game and I think you made the right descion to politely walk away. Personlly when I heard no exp, followed up by no skills I would have done the same
Players should have a influence on the worlds the DM has designed.
Why?
take for instance iron man, a hokey and silly marvel comic character becomes much better when the actor makes his own spin on it in the movie.
Players should have a influence on the worlds the DM has designed.
Why?
Because if you have no input, you might as well be reading the DM's novel rather than playing in his game.
But there's an important difference between "no input" and "reasonable input" and "unreasonable input".
Players should have a influence on the worlds the DM has designed.
Why?
Because its very narrow minded not to. This is the players game as well as the DM.
Even the DM2 has suggestion on letting players have influence the game and world around them. I really wish my players would do it.
The players may come with somehting you never thought of before. Letting players(not the PCs in these points) influence keeps them involed in the game. More intersted and dare I say could even role-play more.
Excluding the extrme player influence why shoudln't players have influence in a DM's world
There is ALWAYS a negotiation between the DM and the players. However, it can take any of a number of forms.
One extreme is where the group outlines the world together and then decides which of them will be DM. That's just fine.
The other extreme is where the DM designs the world and then goes to find players. If the DM is honest and up front with the players - "This is an outline of the world; this is the sort of campaign I have in mind; are you interested?" then the DM is absolutely entitled to hold to a take-it-or-leave-it position. (Although he might be wise to listen to suggestions, he isn't in any sense obligated to do so.)
The problem presented in the original post was that a DM had gotten players interested in one game world, and committed to playing in his game based in part on discussions with him about that world, and THEN pulled out a different world that they would actually be playing in.
That's a dishonest negotiation.
And apparently several players who had committed to a game in world A, were unwilling to play in world B instead.
So the dishonest negotiation didn't work.
Now the potential players will be somewhat suspicious of that DM in regard to future negotiations.
(And I want to add: when I said that I have no problem with ANY degree of homebrew, that doesn't mean I'd be interested in playing in any setting. It means there is little connection between my interest in playing and the degree of homebrewing. Although the more homebrewing of mechanics there is, the more I'll want to know that the DM has lots of DMing experience and a good rep. I know some people I'd happily let write a whole system, and others that I'd be reluctant to let choose the tier for a new 4eD&D feat.)
and truth be told, i have never seen a game homebrew to be anything but adequete. usually its the dms version of ... "my worlds cool cause it doesnt have teh elv or dorfs. and you can have gunz in it ftw!''
We use a homebrew setting and I think our DM has done a good job with it, but he allows everything published in 4E so far and has no problem retconning in new material. He puts the races on different continents and regions, so for individual campaigns races and classes are banned with the knowledge that the next campaign will probably have a compeletely different set of restrictions so if you can't play your revenant warforged warlock with a vampiric hertiage this time, just wait till next campaign. Player contributions to the world are welcome and we have a wiki we use for editing the campaign. Main difference from other settings is that it has a wierd cosmology without any dieties, but still has powerful dualistic spiritual forces.
Our previous DM had a homebrew setting much like what you described, which is one of the main reasons he is no longer our DM.
very true stunt man, this doesn't always work. hence the opening post. i saw at a glance that there was no way i would enjoy that game and promptly walked off. but such should be the rare case, and not the standard.
Hopefully, if it is a game with friends, it would not (or rarely) lead to anyone walking away. How often it may happen depends on many factors such as how well you know the group socially, the style they play, the availability of other groups and whether or not you actually have something better to do with your time.
Players should have a influence on the worlds the DM has designed.
Why?
Because the game belongs to the whole group, not just the DM.
Many DMs use DMs fiat as an excuse to force their personal playing preferences on other players.
It's kind of like saying, My way of playing is better than yours and I'm going to make you see it that way.
The Rpg experience is a collaborative effort and a DM can make it or break it. One way to break it is to forget that's it's a group effort and what each member of the group thinks is important.
Some players forget this also and must remember that it's not just about them advancing their character and them having fun, but that it's suppose to be fun for the whole group.
There's no point in playing a game if you're not having fun.
got a good example of how this doesn't work.
john and his friends are hanging out and decide to have a barbeque. john has an amazing idea for a barbeque that he wants to share with his friends. when johns friends come over they find out that john chose to ignore steak, pork chops, hotdogs, burgers, and instead chose to cook dog. dog is an aquired taste that some cultures eat, and john has gone to alot of trouble to cook fido.
while john has volunteered to cook dog, and it technically is johns barbeque, dog isn't exactly the meat that everyone wants to eat.
johns barbeque would have been much better if john didn't take total control of the barbeque, and instead had everyone bring in thier share. if richard brought burgers, tom brings steak and pork chops, and cathy brings a salad (shes a vegan) john can still cook dog after everyone has had something to enjoy just dont cut the menu to only cator to john. even if dog isn't to everyones taste they still had thier fill to eat.
required reading. this has been an issue in the game for a long time: home.earthlink.net/~duanevp/dnd/manifest...
1 persons fun should trump 5? thats silly
got a good example of how this doesn't work.
john and his friends are hanging out and decide to have a barbeque. john has an amazing idea for a barbeque that he wants to share with his friends. when johns friends come over they find out that john chose to ignore steak, pork chops, hotdogs, burgers, and instead chose to cook dog. dog is an aquired taste that some cultures eat, and john has gone to alot of trouble to cook fido.
while john has volunteered to cook dog, and it technically is johns barbeque, dog isn't exactly the meat that everyone wants to eat.
johns barbeque would have been much better if john didn't take total control of the barbeque, and instead had everyone bring in thier share. if richard brought burgers, tom brings steak and pork chops, and cathy brings a salad (shes a vegan) john can still cook dog after everyone has had something to enjoy just dont cut the menu to only cator to john. even if dog isn't to everyones taste they still had thier fill to eat.
And yet, if I tell you I'm cooking dog, that the meal I'm preparing for everyone is dog, that you should only come if you want to eat dog, and there's no room in my oven for anything but dog, it is *your* job to *not* show up expecting roast beef, and not to whine about me not letting you throw shrimp sauce on my Dog Steaks.
As a Player I'll try just about anything. Some of the most fun games I've played were setups that I wasn't particularly enthused about at the start. Which is to say, using the recent analogy, that if John goes to a lot of trouble to cook dog the least you can do is give it a try.
I've played with a heavy-handed DM in a homebrew setting who altered our backstories, changed our appearance, and made other after-the-fact changes to characters we had designed for his campaign. By the second session, we lost all interest because we weren't even playing our own characters - we were just warm bodies there to fight his PCs against his monsters. The camapign fell apart, and guess what? One of our players became our new DM. Guess you can't always just play the "DMs are rare" card to get what you want.
1 persons fun should trump 5? thats silly
got a good example of how this doesn't work.
john and his friends are hanging out and decide to have a barbeque. john has an amazing idea for a barbeque that he wants to share with his friends. when johns friends come over they find out that john chose to ignore steak, pork chops, hotdogs, burgers, and instead chose to cook dog. dog is an aquired taste that some cultures eat, and john has gone to alot of trouble to cook fido.
while john has volunteered to cook dog, and it technically is johns barbeque, dog isn't exactly the meat that everyone wants to eat.
johns barbeque would have been much better if john didn't take total control of the barbeque, and instead had everyone bring in thier share. if richard brought burgers, tom brings steak and pork chops, and cathy brings a salad (shes a vegan) john can still cook dog after everyone has had something to enjoy just dont cut the menu to only cator to john. even if dog isn't to everyones taste they still had thier fill to eat.
And yet, if I tell you I'm cooking dog, that the meal I'm preparing for everyone is dog, that you should only come if you want to eat dog, and there's no room in my oven for anything but dog, it is *your* job to *not* show up expecting roast beef, and not to whine about me not letting you throw shrimp sauce on my Dog Steaks.
which is why you will have very lonely barbeque parties. lol =D
seriously im not pushing for a player extreme but a balance of sorts that should exist, dnd should be a cooperative game not a game for dms by dms. but for dms and players alike.
what you keep pushing is a dm exclusive catoring game. which to my knowledge dnd isnt.
I'm sure everyone has different tastes on what type of setting they are willing to play and what feels reasonable for a DM to change or restrict. Some may feel it is reasonable to restrict dragonborn and tieflings, but allow everything else. I think that the less things that are restricted in a setting, the more receptive players are to play in that setting. The more things you restrict the more likely you are eliminating a first or second choice of character for a player. When you start eliminating options that a player would want to play the less likely that player will like the setting. As a player, there are some classes and races that I do not want to play. If all of the options that are left are the classes and races I do not want to play, I definitely will feel unhappy.
Probably the more different the setting is from the default, the higher the likelihood a player would not like it. Hopefully, DM's would choose a setting that they like and that players are going to be comfortable playing in.
I'm not sure what the OP's DM's expectations are. Maybe he thinks players would love it. Does he understand why players may not like his setting? Does he care?
If he expects players to play anything he chooses whether they like it or not, then I think that DM has issues not limited to choosing the setting.
No more issues than the player who expects the DM to run/allow what the player wants whether he likes it or not.
Probably the more different the setting is from the default, the higher the likelihood a player would not like it.
Personally, I tend to prefer a setting that's different from the default (and isn't the Best-Left-Forgotten Realms).
No more issues than the player who expects the DM to run/allow what the player wants whether he likes it or not.
That is true. One is no worse than the other, but that's not exactly any kind of defense. Anyone, on either side of the screen, that expects someone else to conform to his expectations with no regard to personal enjoyment has a very bad attitude problem.
No more issues than the player who expects the DM to run/allow what the player wants whether he likes it or not.
I certainly think you're right, Tenzhi, and that it is unreasonable for the players to expect the DM to totally conform to what they want, especially if they're asking the DM to do something that he specifically doesn't like. Obviously, planning a campaign should be a collaborative thing and a group certainly shouldn't be running something that someone at the table just plain can't enjoy. However, as a guy who does sometimes DM and who generally expects DMs to be very accomodating of what players want, I think there are reasons why it's reasonable to expect the DM to, in a certain sense, be more accomodating of players than players are of the DM.
1. The standard is that a particular option (race or class) is allowed. If it's an actual race or class in a core book published by Wizards, and it's not commonly challenged as overpowered or mechanically troublesome somehow, a player can generally expect to be allowed to play it unless the DM specifically and intentionally bans it. The standard is generally not that everything is banned until the DM specifically allows it, nor is it generally that everything is neither allowed nor not allowed until the DM rules on it. The standard is that you can play it unless the DM goes out of his way to ban it.
What do I mean by "it's the standard"? I mean it's the standard on two different levels: it's both what's implied by the books and what's operative in practice. The books consistently imply that something presented as a player's option is just that: something the player can chooser to use or not. And in practice, if a player joins a new group or shows up to a new campaign, he generally expects that he can use an officially published, mechanically sound race or class.
So, the point is, a player's getting to use a race or class he wants to use is the standard; the DM's banning something is very much the exception.
2. Banning a certain race or class often has a much greater effect on a player than on the DM. If a player had a great dragonborn sorceror character he really wanted to play, but a certain aspect of the world the DM was planning on running doesn't allow for low level dragonborn sorcerors, the player's whole character is shot. Now, if the DM is accomodating and agrees to change that one aspect of his new world to allow the character the player wants to play, the player is now totally set, and the DM's world has only been harmed a little. The DM's world is still very close to what he wanted to run; all the cool things about the campaign the DM was looking forward to are still in tact. By giving up one tiny aspect of his campaign world, he's really boosted one of his player's experiences at the table by a whole lot.
I think that most banned race and class issues happen like that. Banning the race or class is rarely central to the setting; it's often only peripherally important to the setting, or even not really important at all and just something the DM envisioned once. But the banned race or class may very well be central to a particular player's character.
3. Now, as for settings that do in fact conceptually require the banning of a bunch of classes or races (a low magic setting can't have arcane classes), I think a group should only run in such a setting if all the players are on board. Often when analyzing issues like these community members here on these boards think in terms of a DM who plans his world and then offers a bunch of players the option of playing in the world or not, and they can accept it if they like it or respectfully decline if they don't.
But that's not often the case in the real world, is it? Often the group is already a group. The DM needs the players he's been playing with for month to stay on board for his newest campaign, and the players need the DM because finding another group is hard. So the DM can't just make his world and offer it to the players to take or leave, and if he does so, the players can't just say no thank you if they don't like it and not play with the group any more. It's their group, the one with their friends in it that they always play with!
So, the decision of whether or not to run a campaign where there are no arcane casters needs to involve the players. And if even one player definitely won't enjoy the low magic setting, the group should do something else. Why? Because surely there's some other sort of campaign, some other sort of setting, that the DM will also enjoy. But the player may very well legitimately not be able to enjoy a setting at all in which he can't play an arcane caster.
=D
So, the point is, a player's getting to use a race or class he wants to use is the standard; the DM's banning something is very much the exception.
No, that's not the standard. What the DM allows or builds into their campaign setting, that's the standard. The rulebooks are just a set of rules on how D&D works. They're not a set of rules for what has to be allowed in a campaign setting. Just because a race or monster is in some D&D book does not mean the DM has to use it in their campaign setting. I can create a world populated only by humans and only allow martial power source classes and still create an intriguing and interesting setting with plenty of room for adventure. Just splash in a bit of myth and legend for those epic fights at the end of a long series of adventures.
Player entitlement is the worst thing ever for a DM to deal with. That's why I require players to apply to a game after they've read the campaign synopsis, which details what races and classes are allowed. If they don't like it, they can find another DM. I can always find players willing to stretch their roleplaying skills, instead of settling into familiar characters.
No, that's not the standard. What the DM allows or builds into their campaign setting, that's the standard. The rulebooks are just a set of rules on how D&D works. They're not a set of rules for what has to be allowed in a campaign setting. Just because a race or monster is in some D&D book does not mean the DM has to use it in their campaign setting. I can create a world populated only by humans and only allow martial power source classes and still create an intriguing and interesting setting with plenty of room for adventure. Just splash in a bit of myth and legend for those epic fights at the end of a long series of adventures.
Player entitlement is the worst thing ever for a DM to deal with. That's why I require players to apply to a game after they've read the campaign synopsis, which details what races and classes are allowed. If they don't like it, they can find another DM. I can always find players willing to stretch their roleplaying skills, instead of settling into familiar characters.
I agree with much of what you say in this post. The D&D books are guidelines, and while reading the books might lead one to assume that the races and classes therein will be in all D&D games one plays, that doesn't mean the DM has to include them.
It sounds like you're pretty concerned about player entitlement (and rightly so), but not all player requests or input are a sign of player entitlement. When you have players apply, are they allowed to request exceptions or present their case for a character who doesn't fit into the stated guidelines? It sounds like you have a very take-it-or-leave-it approach. I think that does players a disservice - it doesn't hurt to hear a player out, even if you end up saying no.
For example, if in the humans-only, all-martial setting you described, a player asked me:
"Can I play a dragonborn?"
I would say no.
If he/she asked,
"Can I play a dragonborn refluffed as a human?"
I would say no.
But if he/she said,
"I'd like to play a rogue who grew up as a circus performer, and I think the dragonborn race reflects this background perfectly. This rogue has kept a few tricks from his circus performer days, and how better to surprise the enemy than to pull out a lighter and breathe fire (dragon breath)? As a born and bred performer, this character is quite charismatic, (+2 Cha) and years of manual labor have made this character strong as well (+2 Str). Although the character previously only used Intimidate to scare audiences during a performance, it has resulted in a natural flair for the skill (+2 Intimidate). Growing up in a wandering caravan also led to hearing a wide variety of rumors, stories and facts about the places he visited (+2 History). The small community was intensely protective of their own, and had to defend itself against intolerant thugs on many occasions, leading to increased resilience (+Con to healing surge) as well as a ferocious temper when angered (+1 atk when bloodied). I won't take any dragonborn feats that don't fit with this story (I'm not planning on taking any at all, really), and I'm not just doing this because I have some ridiculous Draconic Arrogance combo planned. What do you think?"
I would say sure, that sounds great! The idea of whipping out a lighter to breathe fire is both cool and unique, and will add a lot of flavor to the rogue without compromising either balance or the integrity of my all-human world. The ability scores are good ones for the rogue but not perfect (no +Dex), and the player doesn't seem to be interested in using choice of race to powergame. The player's description and the way he will play his character will keep me from thinking "dragonborn" every time he says something, so I'm willing to go along with his vision of this character. My initial instinct would be to require a second minor action to draw a lighter before using his firebreathing, but if he's been practicing this for years he's probably got it down pat by now, and limiting his "racial" power to needing materials on hand is restriction enough.
So, the point is, a player's getting to use a race or class he wants to use is the standard; the DM's banning something is very much the exception.
No, that's not the standard. What the DM allows or builds into their campaign setting, that's the standard. The rulebooks are just a set of rules on how D&D works. They're not a set of rules for what has to be allowed in a campaign setting. Just because a race or monster is in some D&D book does not mean the DM has to use it in their campaign setting. I can create a world populated only by humans and only allow martial power source classes and still create an intriguing and interesting setting with plenty of room for adventure. Just splash in a bit of myth and legend for those epic fights at the end of a long series of adventures.
Player entitlement is the worst thing ever for a DM to deal with. That's why I require players to apply to a game after they've read the campaign synopsis, which details what races and classes are allowed. If they don't like it, they can find another DM. I can always find players willing to stretch their roleplaying skills, instead of settling into familiar characters.
im just needing some help understanding what exact "player entitlement" your talking about. are you talking about a guy who wants to play a standard race with a standard monster class written up to play?
or are you talking about a person who picks up the monster manual and picks a giraffe, who then thinks its funny to homebrew a class to play called "lionbait" ?
No, that's not the standard. What the DM allows or builds into their campaign setting, that's the standard. The rulebooks are just a set of rules on how D&D works. They're not a set of rules for what has to be allowed in a campaign setting. Just because a race or monster is in some D&D book does not mean the DM has to use it in their campaign setting. I can create a world populated only by humans and only allow martial power source classes and still create an intriguing and interesting setting with plenty of room for adventure. Just splash in a bit of myth and legend for those epic fights at the end of a long series of adventures.
Player entitlement is the worst thing ever for a DM to deal with. That's why I require players to apply to a game after they've read the campaign synopsis, which details what races and classes are allowed. If they don't like it, they can find another DM. I can always find players willing to stretch their roleplaying skills, instead of settling into familiar characters.
Feyberry,
I have to admit that my "what's the standard" point was a bit tenuous.
But I cannot agree that a player who simply does not enjoy martial classes and humans asking his DM not to run a campaign where he has to play a human member of a martial class is player entitlement.
However, I'm surprised to hear that your model of deciding what you're going to run and then offering it to players to either take it or leave it works. As I've said in several threads now, I'm pretty sure the usual situation for D&D gamers is a cohesive group of friends who always play together and want to continue playing together. When that's the case, it's absolutely incombent upon the DM to run something everyone in the already established group will enjoy. This is the situation I was assuming in my last post.
But I suppose if you're in a location and a situation where the DMs can describe what they're gonna run and the players undrestand that they are not a definite member of a group but can freely join or decline to join a given offered campaign, then having a less accomodating DM is more reasonable.
In such a situation, I would still expect a DM to be somewhat accomodating to a prospective player. Not agreeing to scrap a whole campaign idea in favor of another fun idea, as I would expect of a DM in a cohesive group with a player who simply will not enjoy idea #1, but agreeing perhaps to reflavor a race that a prospective player likes to fit with the offered campaign world. Expecting a bit of give and take is not player entitlement.
EDIT: And my post is bold and I have no idea why.
"Player entitlement" and "player expecting to be treated fairly" are two very different things.
A lot of times it seems like people think that a player wanting to be treated as an equal collaborator is somehow player entitlement, when really DMs who don't treat their players as collaborators are just creating extra work for themselves.
I mean, I've known some people who I wouldn't let tweak my settings if they paid me. Well, maybe if they paid me a lot. But I just don't game with them because our styles are too different. The people I game with have a style and approach that meshes with mine, and that means that if I treat them as collaborators rather than guests the world develops in a far more interesting way for me than if I tried to do it all by myself.
I know that some groups like the DM to do all the work and the players just show up with character sheets, but that just isn't as fun for me no matter which side of the table I'm on.
"Player entitlement" and "player expecting to be treated fairly" are two very different things.
Yes, both are extremely relative.
I guess I just see this as fairly black and white. If you're joining a game, and don't like the homebrew stuff, you have one of two options.
a) Ask the DM really nicely to make an exception (do this once, and once only)
b) Join another game
The end? There are lots of concepts that I want to play that routinely get shot down (no Faerun races in one game, certain powers outlawed), and I either play or just kick back and find another game.
scheduling/time alloted to gaming.
chance that people will even like what the dm comes up with. ( personally never saw a homebrew i thought was even adequate.)
local gaming population vs common friends.
playstyle. agrresive dm vs referee dm.
the fact of the matter is that the place im in disagreement with is that the dm is putting himself out by dming. he is dming because thats usually what they chose isn't it? kinda what 4th edition is all about, easier set up so everybody has fun including them dm?
all these factors limit the gaming experience by proxy, is it fair to those who want to play somthing else to be stuck playing what the dm wants or nothing at all?
my way or the high way?
if you dont like it you can leave?
all im asking for is an equal footing for players and dms to play on an even playing field.
That would be why. You should never let your players dictate everything in the campaign. Especially if you have a theme you want to run throughout the game.
I think "letting the players dictate everything in the campaign" is a pretty far cry from what I just described.
Not really. If there was no good reason for an elf to be with the group in that particular area, you should say no to the player wanting to play an elf. And by good reason, I mean an absolutely great reason with well thought out points to show why, how, when, and what the elf is doing there and why they're not skewered for being an elf by the locals.
A DM can and should try to compromise with his/her players.
As for the elf example, a "traveling adventurer" sounds like a great reason to me.
Better to have the player with delusions of entitlement to walk away than ruin the DM's fun.
D&D is a cooperative game, the DM's fun isn't the only fun that matters, the players' fun is equally important.
In my opinion, that's not the standard. What the DM allows or builds into their campaign setting, that's the standard. The rulebooks are just a set of rules on how D&D works. They're not a set of rules for what has to be allowed in a campaign setting. Just because a race or monster is in some D&D book does not mean the DM has to use it in their campaign setting. I can create a world populated only by humans and only allow martial power source classes and still create an intriguing and interesting setting with plenty of room for adventure. Just splash in a bit of myth and legend for those epic fights at the end of a long series of adventures.
Player entitlement is the worst thing ever for a DM to deal with. That's why I require players to apply to a game after they've read the campaign synopsis, which details what races and classes are allowed. If they don't like it, they can find another DM. I can always find players willing to stretch their roleplaying skills, instead of settling into familiar characters.
Fixed
"Player entitlement" and "player expecting to be treated fairly" are two very different things.
QFE
D&D is a cooperative game, the DM's fun isn't the only fun that matters, the players' fun is equally important.
I get what you're trying to say, but I don't like the word "equally".
If a player quits, the game either replaces him or works without him, and that's *maybe* less fun. Maybe more fun - some players are losers and replacing them is better. Conversely, some GMs are losers and the best thing you can do to improve the game is quit.
If a GM quits, the game ends, and nobody has any fun with it ever again.
Put another way, stealing from bands everywhere wrt lead singers: If the GM ain't havin' fun, ain't NOBODY havin' fun.
In the group that I'm currently a part of, someone else takes over DMing if the current one steps down. This has happened many times now, though generally due to the previous DM's story arc having run to completion rather than a how-dare-you-tamper-with-my-artistic-vision tiff.
As such, "I'm the DM and I'll stop DMing if I don't get my way!" wouldn't work very well as a threat.
In your experience, perhaps. In the group that I'm currently a part of, someone else takes over DMing if the current one steps down. This has happened many times now, though generally due to the previous DM's story arc having run to completion rather than a how-dare-you-tamper-with-my-artistic-vision tiff. As such, "I'm the DM and I'll stop DMing if I don't get my way!" wouldn't work very well as a threat.
Again, I see the disconnect: That's NOT a threat. That's a statement of simple, plain fact: "I have a game I want to run. If you don't want to play it, you shouldn't play. If not enough people want to play, it won't run at all".
The difference is that you seem to think of this a a PROBLEM rather than *EXACTLY HOW ALL GAMES SHOULD WORK, FOREVER*.
I also keep seeing a disconnect: YOU may typically work on the basis of, "I'll come up with my setting/story/etc on my own and then go fishing for players" but that is not the model used by everyone else, yet it seems that every statement you make about DM perogative assumes it to be so.
Fixed
No, not fixed. It's not an opinion. It's a fact. The D&D rulebooks are guidelines. Nothing more. They are not set-in-stone rules that every single DM has to use for every single campaign setting they create. Just because dragonborn and warlocks are in the PHB1 does not mean that every campaign must include them. That is a fact and not an opinion. If you think it's an opinion, you're a ****.
A DM can and should try to compromise with his/her players. As for the elf example, a "traveling adventurer" sounds like a great reason to me.
It's a stupid reason. The PC's should have greater ties to the area they begin their adventures in. This gives them a meaningful reason to care about what happens outside of loot whoring and xp farming. It's much harder to engage the elf traveling through desert nomad lands. They don't care as much, since they can always go home to their islands and palm trees, sipping cocktails on the beach.
I can come up with good reasons for an elf to be there, but if every player has these exceptions to the norm, than why bother adventuring in that region in the first place? I've banned races from certain campaigns, because even though the races existed, I didn't want a group of exceptions. I wanted a group of characters that had meaningful ties to the area the campaign started in.
Characters can retire, die, be replaced for any number of reasons as the campaign progresses. Just because you can't play your wet-dream eladrin orbizard right off the bat, doesn't mean the opportunity won't ever arise in some campaigns.
Everyone plays the game different, and as long as everyone at the table is having fun, you're doing it right. There's no reason to defend your style of play here
My campaign is running along fine, I have no problem motivating anyone in the party and I allow anything, ask players for input on the setting and direction of the game, and everyone seems to be having a lot of fun.
You know, by asking your players to explain their character's place in the world and the how/why of him being there they'll actually make him fit in.
Prejudice between nations is a consious choice of the DM to include. I only include such things if they'll enhance the game. They're not there by default. Drop that one from your setting and your combination of classes/races/alignments makes a lot less issues.
My only rule for character generation is 'play nice together', and we've never had trouble coming up with a story on how and why the characters are together, and what it is they're doing.
You can play your game your way as much as you want, and you can hammer on mine as much as you like, but in the end we're all still having fun, so either you're wrong about it not working, or my friends and I are all completely delusional. (hint: we're not)
I get what you're trying to say, but I don't like the word "equally".
If a player quits, the game either replaces him or works without him, and that's *maybe* less fun. Maybe more fun - some players are losers and replacing them is better. Conversely, some GMs are losers and the best thing you can do to improve the game is quit.
If a GM quits, the game ends, and nobody has any fun with it ever again.
In my opinion, a good DM is one who is willing to compromise with his/her players. Everyone's fun is important after all.
If a DM quits, there's always the option of having one of the players DM
Or, maybe you just don't have the creative juice to make it work?
I'm more than capable of forcing it to work, but I shouldn't have to work at it or force it. It should be a natural extension of the characters and their backgrounds. That's why having the players create characters from a specific region and only that region helps improve the game. They have built-in reasons for caring about events that take place in adventures whereas characters from outside that region... they fallback to base motivations of altruism, greed, or just plain boredom.
You know, by asking your players to explain their character's place in the world and the how/why of him being there they'll actually make him fit in.
They usually suck and are full of cliches. At least in my experience. I can't even begin to recall the number of players whose character's parents were brutally slain and the character was forced to grow up quickly and trained daily for years to avenge their parents.
Prejudice between nations is a consious choice of the DM to include. I only include such things if they'll enhance the game. They're not there by default. Drop that one from your setting and your combination of classes/races/alignments makes a lot less issues.
Conflict between nations and prejudice inherent in those conflicts creates a more believable setting. Just look at history. Irrational hatred is a great motivator in ancient conflicts. Allowing two characters from opposing factions to work together in the same group stretches the suspension of disbelief and breaks it with long term cooperation. Obviously you could use any number of cliches to say why they're working together, but that's boring and overdone. Like the elf/dwarf rivalry between Gimli and Legolas.
I kicked a player out because he kept counting his kills just like Gimli. Guess what he was playing? A dwarf fighter.
No, not fixed. It's not an opinion. It's a fact. The D&D rulebooks are guidelines. Nothing more. They are not set-in-stone rules that every single DM has to use for every single campaign setting they create. Just because dragonborn and warlocks are in the PHB1 does not mean that every campaign must include them. That is a fact and not an opinion. If you think it's an opinion, you're a ****.
Just because you try to state something as a fact, doesn't mean it is. I could state that the sky is green, doesn't make it a fact.
I agree that they're guidelines, but in my opinion, they are standard guidelines.
In my opinion, it's a stupid reason. The PC's should have greater ties to the area they begin their adventures in. This gives them a meaningful reason to care about what happens outside of loot whoring and xp farming. It's much harder to engage the elf traveling through desert nomad lands. They don't care as much, since they can always go home to their islands and palm trees, sipping cocktails on the beach.
Fixed
That's alot of assumptions there. What about the traveling elf adventurer who is adventuring to improve the places he/she visits, or to gather gold, or to just go on adventures and see the sights(gather stories)? Seems to me that is is quite easy to motive characters when the DM and players are willing to work together.
I can come up with good reasons for an elf to be there, but if every player has these exceptions to the norm, than why bother adventuring in that region in the first place? I've banned races from certain campaigns, because even though the races existed, I didn't want a group of exceptions. I wanted a group of characters that had meaningful ties to the area the campaign started in.
I can come up with good reasons as well, see above. There's nothing wrong with playing "exceptions" just as there's nothing wrong with playing "the norm" it all depends on the type of campaign and what the players and DM will have the most fun with.
Characters can retire, die, be replaced for any number of reasons as the campaign progresses. Just because you can't play your wet-dream eladrin orbizard right off the bat, doesn't mean the opportunity won't ever arise in some campaigns.
Why not try to compromise and work with the player so he/she can play a concept they are really looking forward to right off the bat rather than forcing them to wait for "the opportunity"?
Saying yes to everything leads to a party made up of the worst possible combination of races and classes and alignments possible. And that's not taking into account worldly prejudice between different nations. It makes the DM's job that much harder when it comes to motivating such a screwed up mixture. DM's are often forced to rely on two base motivations. Greed and Survival. Makes for boring adventures.
It could also be said that always playing the "norm"(rather than "exceptions") makes for boring adventures as well.
Or, maybe you just don't have the creative juice to make it work?
I'm more than capable of forcing it to work, but I shouldn't have to work at it or force it. It should be a natural extension of the characters and their backgrounds. That's why having the players create characters from a specific region and only that region helps improve the game. They have built-in reasons for caring about events that take place in adventures whereas characters from outside that region... they fallback to base motivations of altruism, greed, or just plain boredom.You know, by asking your players to explain their character's place in the world and the how/why of him being there they'll actually make him fit in.
They usually suck and are full of cliches. At least in my experience. I can't even begin to recall the number of players whose character's parents were brutally slain and the character was forced to grow up quickly and trained daily for years to avenge their parents.Prejudice between nations is a consious choice of the DM to include. I only include such things if they'll enhance the game. They're not there by default. Drop that one from your setting and your combination of classes/races/alignments makes a lot less issues.
Conflict between nations and prejudice inherent in those conflicts creates a more believable setting. Just look at history. Irrational hatred is a great motivator in ancient conflicts. Allowing two characters from opposing factions to work together in the same group stretches the suspension of disbelief and breaks it with long term cooperation. Obviously you could use any number of cliches to say why they're working together, but that's boring and overdone. Like the elf/dwarf rivalry between Gimli and Legolas.
I kicked a player out because he kept counting his kills just like Gimli. Guess what he was playing? A dwarf fighter.
Things are cliche for a reason, you know. It's because they work. Also, "Conflict between nations and prejudice inherent in those conflicts" is also a cliche, so your work isn't exactly free of them, either
And maybe, just maybe, your players come up with boring crap because you've shot down to many of their actually good ideas that they used to have? Nothing kills creativity faster then having your ideas shot down; I should know.
If you want players to have a motivation beyond "altruism, greed or survival" in region X, ask them for one instead of forcing them to be from region X (which might still make them motivated only by the base 3, and make them enjoy their character less)
They might be able to surprise you if you encourage them to really put some thought into their character.
Or, maybe they're just not all that interested in a story and want to kill some stuff. Players differ greatly. But you should at least cater to them... if they really can't be bothered to come up with something then you might get better results with more rules, but you might get an even better result with less story.
You'll never know if you don't try to run a different kind of game to see if you enjoy it.
I'm more than capable of forcing it to work, but I shouldn't have to work at it or force it. It should be a natural extension of the characters and their backgrounds. That's why having the players create characters from a specific region and only that region helps improve the game. They have built-in reasons for caring about events that take place in adventures whereas characters from outside that region... they fallback to base motivations of altruism, greed, or just plain boredom.
Communication, compromise and working with the players are important here. What is, in my opinion, called being a good DM.
They usually suck and are full of cliches. At least in my experience.
In my opinion, a good DM is one who is open-minded and willing to work with/help his/her players with their backstories. Rather than just automatically assuming that a player's character background ideas are going to "suck" and be "full of cliches"
I can't even begin to recall the number of players whose character's parents were brutally slain and the character was forced to grow up quickly and trained daily for years to avenge their parents.
"Cliche" as in always having to have conflicts and prejudices between races in order to make things "more believable" ?
The above is a perfectly valid character background, even if it may be a bit "cliche," but that's just my opinion of course.
Conflict between nations and prejudice inherent in those conflicts creates a more believable setting. Just look at history. Irrational hatred is a great motivator in ancient conflicts. Allowing two characters from opposing factions to work together in the same group stretches the suspension of disbelief and breaks it with long term cooperation. Obviously you could use any number of cliches to say why they're working together, but that's boring and overdone. Like the elf/dwarf rivalry between Gimli and Legolas.
There's always the case of a member of a race who does not share his/her races' opinions and beliefs and is perfectly able to work together with members of other races whom would normally be considered an "enemy" due to his/her races' prejudices.
In my opinion, needlessly restricting a player's options just to make something "more believable" is rather silly.
I kicked a player out because he kept counting his kills just like Gimli. Guess what he was playing? A dwarf fighter.
So because a player played his character the way he wanted to and not how you wanted him to, you kicked him out? Perhaps you'd be better off just writing a novel.
I don't like players that just want to show up and roll dice to kill monsters. They don't have a place at my table and it's part of the flyer I post at the LGS. I've run dungeon crawls, I've run games with mixed parties, I've run games with the typical cliche'd crap. I'm tired of it. The best game I've had is one where the players knew nothing about roleplaying and I told them to create characters as if they were creating a character for a stage play.
They were all students in the drama class/thespian club.
Or, they could just be the harbingers of destruction, and act their normal, human-centered self, and you can make an interesting story about what happens to a Utopia when the **** hits the fan.
Bullpoodoo. They are guidelines, nothing more. They are not standard. They are not required. They are merely options that each DM can pick and choose from to create their campaign setting. If you don't like it, go find another DM.
Never said they were required, simply voiced my opinion that I see them as standard guidelines, please try to pay attention.
I am quite happy with my current game. None of us(we rotate DM) are restrictive or rather close-minded DMs, so the game is quite fun. I appreciate your interest though.
You're going on my ignore list for that crap.
Don't worry, I will still continue to quote and reply with my opinions, whether or not you choose to see them is entirely up to you.
It's stupid, peurile, and asinine.
It could be said that the same is true for attempting to state one's opinions as facts.
Cliche. Trite. Overdone. BORING.
Or you could try... Iinteresting. Cool. Engaging. Fun.
If it's an entire party of exceptions, it ruins the theme I was trying to evoke. It makes it that much harder to motivate the players/characters to care about the people they interact with. If they're born in that region or have lived most of their lives there, their characters have a vested interest in the safety and well-being of their neighbors, friends, and allies. Some stupid elf from a bunch of islands half a world away isn't going to have that same interest.
How about talking with the players to find out if they'd have fun with a theme before attempting to "evoke" it.
I agree, that elf would likely not have the same interests, but that doesn't necessarily stop that elf from wanting to help out in whatever situation may be occuring in the location he/she is currently visiting.
Because their concept doesn't fit the campaign at the beginning. Matrim Cauthon wasn't a great leader in the first book of the Wheel of Time. Over the course of the "campaign" his character evolved into something entirely different. New characters were introduced and the party changed.
But with a bit of compromise, open-minded thought and working with the players, a concept can indeed fit with the campaign.
Human ideals and motivations are easier to understand, since we are human. That's why fantasy races are typically just humans in funny-suits. Most players are not capable of playing anything else. It takes a truly gifted individual to slip into the mindset of an inhuman creature. Most of those people become writers. They're able to see the world through inhuman eyes and paint a fraction of a picture that tells their story.
You, yourself, are easiest to portray in any story. Isn't the charm of a roleplaying game that you aren't playing yourself, but moving yourself into something else? I consider it a challenge to play as something else.
It's also an interesting contradiction; on one hand, you want players to be interested, motivated and non-cliche, but on the other hand you seem to want a world like our own, where players have characters that act like we do here.
(Also, I consider trying to be half the fun; so even failing to really play the role you choose perfectly should make for an interesting game and a fun time)
Are you a pessimist, by chance? You seem to place little faith in your players (and yourself, as well)
Just a realist. I know my limits and the typical limits of my players based on years of experience.
You, yourself, are easiest to portray in any story. Isn't the charm of a roleplaying game that you aren't playing yourself, but moving yourself into something else? I consider it a challenge to play as something else.
Most people don't. They just want to kill stuff and steal their lewt and watch numbers get bigger. It's gotten worse since MMO's came out.
It's also an interesting contradiction; on one hand, you want players to be interested, motivated and non-cliche, but on the other hand you seem to want a world like our own, where players have characters that act like we do here.
I prefer realistic motivations in a living, breathing world as real as our own. Take Pandora for example. That's the kind of world I like to create.
Also, find other players. If you have access to them, see if you can't find the real roleplayers in the club and ask them what you'd have to do to get them to play with you.
It might give you some fresh insight in the game. You sound like you could use some new insight...
(I'm notoriously bad at reading people over the internet, so I might be wrong, in which case I apologize
)I've found that the more experienced the player is, the more likely they're to create whatever they want to play instead of working with the group to play something that compliments the group, outside of a given role of course.
Just a realist. I know my limits and the typical limits of my players based on years of experience.
Most people don't. They just want to kill stuff and steal their lewt and watch numbers get bigger. It's gotten worse since MMO's came out.
I prefer realistic motivations in a living, breathing world as real as our own. Take Pandora for example. That's the kind of world I like to create.
Realism is knowing your limits and the typical limits of your players. Pessimism is letting that knowledge lead you to assume the next time won't be different. I also know my limits and my players' limits, but I try to give them the benefit of the doubt every time anyways. I believe there's always room for improvement or interesting development, even for someone with an established pattern (to say nothing of a new player at the table). Communication, as well as never getting too settled into what is "right," are keys.
As for kill/loot motivations, I think these are definitely huge factors as to why people play D&D. These "base" motivations are not mutually exclusive with the compelling, rich narratives I like to create and participate in. In fact, rather than steer players away from simple motivations and towards the deeper ones, I try to hit them all at once - the better to hook people into my story.
Saying yes to everything leads to a party made up of the worst possible combination of races and classes and alignments possible. And that's not taking into account worldly prejudice between different nations. It makes the DM's job that much harder when it comes to motivating such a screwed up mixture. DM's are often forced to rely on two base motivations. Greed and Survival. Makes for boring adventures.
It could also be said that always playing the "norm"(rather than "exceptions") makes for boring adventures as well.
I'm more than capable of forcing it to work, but I shouldn't have to work at it or force it. It should be a natural extension of the characters and their backgrounds. That's why having the players create characters from a specific region and only that region helps improve the game. They have built-in reasons for caring about events that take place in adventures whereas characters from outside that region... they fallback to base motivations of altruism, greed, or just plain boredom.
Communication, compromise and working with the players are important here. What is, in my opinion, called being a good DM.
They usually suck and are full of cliches. At least in my experience.
In my opinion, a good DM is one who is open-minded and willing to work with/help his/her players with their backstories. Rather than just automatically assuming that a player's character background ideas are going to "suck" and be "full of cliches"
I can't even begin to recall the number of players whose character's parents were brutally slain and the character was forced to grow up quickly and trained daily for years to avenge their parents.
"Cliche" as in always having to have conflicts and prejudices between races in order to make things "more believable" ?
The above is a perfectly valid character background, even if it may be a bit "cliche," but that's just my opinion of course.
Conflict between nations and prejudice inherent in those conflicts creates a more believable setting. Just look at history. Irrational hatred is a great motivator in ancient conflicts. Allowing two characters from opposing factions to work together in the same group stretches the suspension of disbelief and breaks it with long term cooperation. Obviously you could use any number of cliches to say why they're working together, but that's boring and overdone. Like the elf/dwarf rivalry between Gimli and Legolas.
There's always the case of a member of a race who does not share his/her races' opinions and beliefs and is perfectly able to work together with members of other races whom would normally be considered an "enemy" due to his/her races' prejudices.
In my opinion, needlessly restricting a player's options just to make something "more believable" is rather silly.
I kicked a player out because he kept counting his kills just like Gimli. Guess what he was playing? A dwarf fighter.
So because a player played his character the way he wanted to and not how you wanted him to, you kicked him out? Perhaps you'd be better off just writing a novel.
Bullpoodoo. They are guidelines, nothing more. They are not standard. They are not required. They are merely options that each DM can pick and choose from to create their campaign setting. If you don't like it, go find another DM.
Never said they were required, simply voiced my opinion that I see them as standard guidelines, please try to pay attention.
I am quite happy with my current game. None of us(we rotate DM) are restrictive or rather close-minded DMs, so the game is quite fun. I appreciate your interest though.
You're going on my ignore list for that crap.
Don't worry, I will still continue to quote and reply with my opinions, whether or not you choose to see them is entirely up to you.
It's stupid, peurile, and asinine.
It could be said that the same is true for attempting to state one's opinions as facts.
Cliche. Trite. Overdone. BORING.
Or you could try... Iinteresting. Cool. Engaging. Fun.
If it's an entire party of exceptions, it ruins the theme I was trying to evoke. It makes it that much harder to motivate the players/characters to care about the people they interact with. If they're born in that region or have lived most of their lives there, their characters have a vested interest in the safety and well-being of their neighbors, friends, and allies. Some stupid elf from a bunch of islands half a world away isn't going to have that same interest.
How about talking with the players to find out if they'd have fun with a theme before attempting to "evoke" it.
I agree, that elf would likely not have the same interests, but that doesn't necessarily stop that elf from wanting to help out in whatever situation may be occuring in the location he/she is currently visiting.
Because their concept doesn't fit the campaign at the beginning. Matrim Cauthon wasn't a great leader in the first book of the Wheel of Time. Over the course of the "campaign" his character evolved into something entirely different. New characters were introduced and the party changed.
But with a bit of compromise, open-minded thought and working with the players, a concept can indeed fit with the campaign.
QFE.
Realism is knowing your limits and the typical limits of your players. Pessimism is letting that knowledge lead you to assume the next time won't be different.
Nope. That's just life.
As for kill/loot motivations, I think these are definitely huge factors as to why people play D&D. These "base" motivations are not mutually exclusive with the compelling, rich narratives I like to create and participate in. In fact, rather than steer players away from simple motivations and towards the deeper ones, I try to hit them all at once - the better to hook people into my story.
They detract from other motivations however. I guarentee that most players would sacrifice something in-game that doeesn't really mean anything to them, if it meant they got an additional +1 to attack and damage rolls. I've had LG paladins argue with me that they should be allowed to use the black sword that emits pure evil and drips necrotic green energy onto that ground which kills any plants and small animals it touches. Just because it did more damage then the sword they were using. They tried to say they wanted to redeem the sword, but I know it wasn't true. They just wanted to hit more often and do more damage.
This is a roleplaying GAME. stats and numbers, and existence of the characters in stats and collections of abilities is just as important as the flavor wrapped around them. You seemed to have confused a group of actors as people set out to play a role playing game. They'd be just as good as generic RP probably, free form or whatever. You know what? many players would totally not be okay with something as that and wouldn't touch a concept without a character sheet and numbers to it like a binding contract.
Everything, in all of fantasy, that all of us will ever write is going to be some degree stereotyped and cliche.
*by "terrible", I mean that in the sense that we all write possibly awfully, but because it's our OWN creations it sounds awesome when we have that fire and passion behind an idea. Things that don't fit within it feel dimminishing. Of course, this is because of versimilitude and constency, which are probably balls as concepts. *
Feyberry, what you state should be the motivations are just as cliche as the own unique ones out there. I mean hell, I live in the US and I couldn't give a damn about the majority of the world's events or politics right in myy own backyard. People are like that.
People TODAY are like that. In a historical or fantasy era, they're definitely going to be very concerned about events in their "own backyard". It could mean the difference between going hungry in the middle of winter or making it through.
Characters can easily be like that. What you want is some bizzare warped representation of character freedom for your games the suit your own "terrible" pre-planned plots and world, probably because consistency feels better when it's your consistentcy. That's fine, the problem is, the other side is just as valid.
No, I just want motivations other than meta-gaming crap like loot-whoring and xp-farming.
This is a roleplaying GAME. stats and numbers, and existence of the characters in stats and collections of abilities is just as important as the flavor wrapped around them. You seemed to have confused a group of actors as people set out to play a role playing game. They'd be just as good as generic RP probably, free form or whatever. You know what? many players would totally not be okay with something as that and wouldn't touch a concept without a character sheet and numbers to it like a binding contract.
That's because most players suck and should just go play World of Warcraft or EverQuest 2 instead, if all they want is to "roll dice" and kill crap to steal its loot
That's because most players suck and should just go play World of Warcraft or EverQuest 2 instead, if all they want is to "roll dice" and kill crap to steal its loot
Many would argue that if D&D players don't have any interest in that and just want to role-play, then they have chosen exactly the wrong game system to play with. Maybe they shouldn't be playing with a published rule set at all, and should just free-form their storytelling and acting.
The "crunch" is a massive part of D&D - it is now, and it always has been. If you don't like crunch, perhaps you should play an RPG that doesn't revolve so heavily around it.
People TODAY are like that. In a historical or fantasy era, they're definitely going to be very concerned about events in their "own backyard". It could mean the difference between going hungry in the middle of winter or making it through.
People in your fantasy world maybe. In mine, they really don't care about oddballs moving through their city (they'd go insane; there's too many of them) and they're not going to execute anything that doesn't look like a human (pointy ears and beard optional) since they have a hard enough time already and they can use any hands they can get.
Stating that "In all fantasy worlds there must be X!" only shows at you do not have enough imagination.
Also, I agree fully with VaultDweller
People TODAY are like that. In a historical or fantasy era, they're definitely going to be very concerned about events in their "own backyard". It could mean the difference between going hungry in the middle of winter or making it through.
Except these are player characters, simply having class levels in D&D means you're instantly beyond these things if you want to be. you start OFF as a HERO that matters and is instantly relevant solely by putting numbers and words down on a character sheet. Especially so for the very large number of games where characters don't start at 1st level. (and if I really wanna get jerkfaced, even the rules support that. and no offense, fluff is the bitch of mechanics.)
No, I just want motivations other than meta-gaming crap like loot-whoring and xp-farming.
I was not talking about loot and XP, although I think EVERYONE to some degree is interested about getting better at what they do. the difference is in the world of D&D, we can measure that. You know what's a perfectly valid idea of motivation for RPG games probably of all time? Wanting to be a badass in the game world. (And in fact most all roads probably lead here)
That's because most players suck and should just go play World of Warcraft or EverQuest 2 instead, if all they want is to "roll dice" and kill crap to steal its loot
I'd say most DMs suck because they want players to dance to this mythical Bullshit story they invent that's going to be awesome, when in reality most people probably want to fufill the motivations they come up for THEIR CHARACTER. I come to have fun. Do you know what the motivation(s) are and have been for my current wizard in a 3.5 game?
lets see, Get rid of her own icky humanity because it's probably the greatest flaw she has that compromises her genius (Completed the Alienist Prestige class, Check)
Gain access to Mythical thoughtstream (not even something that the DM has said a thing on, but something she certainly talks about and what she believes in over any choice Deity, the concept of some super source of all knowledge and insight that when tapped into lets you know possibilities of all, in a controlled manner. (in progress)
There we go. We're in a war for artifacts that have the power if unlocked to probably blow up a country with a single spell cast through it, and while interesting, it's not exactly been Vawn's thing despite conflicting with her goals. Just "work"
Now, back to you that those points are in a smoldering ruin.
Nope. That's just life.
Nope, that's just cynicism. There's nothing wrong with it, but it is just one way of looking at the situation. If we were looking at the plain facts, we wouldn't be able to make any predictions about the future. Any time you begin to make assumptions or draw conclusions about what's going to happen next, you're interpreting or analyzing the data you've collected. That process is subjective. I prefer to assume that things will change for the better, but to each his own.
They detract from other motivations however. I guarentee that most players would sacrifice something in-game that doeesn't really mean anything to them, if it meant they got an additional +1 to attack and damage rolls. I've had LG paladins argue with me that they should be allowed to use the black sword that emits pure evil and drips necrotic green energy onto that ground which kills any plants and small animals it touches. Just because it did more damage then the sword they were using. They tried to say they wanted to redeem the sword, but I know it wasn't true. They just wanted to hit more often and do more damage.
I'm sorry that you've had players like this. My players often make mechanically disadvantageous decisions in the interest of roleplaying.
And when they make choices that are also mechanically advantageous, I don't jump on them for it. Maybe that has something to do with it.
I'd say most DMs suck because they want players to dance to this mythical Bullshit story they invent that's going to be awesome, when in reality most people probably want to fufill the motivations they come up for THEIR CHARACTER. I come to have fun. Do you know what the motivation(s) are and have been for my current wizard in a 3.5 game?
lets see, Get rid of her own icky humanity because it's probably the greatest flaw she has that compromises her genius (Completed the Alienist Prestige class, Check)
Gain access to Mythical thoughtstream (not even something that the DM has said a thing on, but something she certainly talks about and what she believes in over any choice Deity, the concept of some super source of all knowledge and insight that when tapped into lets you know possibilities of all, in a controlled manner. (in progress)
There we go. We're in a war for artifacts that have the power if unlocked to probably blow up a country with a single spell cast through it, and while interesting, it's not exactly been Vawn's thing despite conflicting with her goals. Just "work"
Now, back to you that those points are in a smoldering ruin.
Have you ever communicated those motivations in fleshed out, implementable thoughts about such things to your DM? Often time my players have ideas, but when questioned on how they want it implemented into the campaign, discover either (a) they have no idea how it would fit, or (b) realize that what they want is really out of line with anything else in the universe.
The mythical thoughtstream sounds like "I WANT TO KNOW EVERYTHING AND BE SUPER COOLZ!!!!"...you know, the kinda thing that, had it existed, would have been discovered by someone way more powerful then you a long freaking time ago. That said, I'd put it in to a campaign, but in a far more nastier way then the character may believe (might make the character go insane, is being controlled by something bigger then it and is used to manipulate power-addicted spellcasters, etc). That might be the way your DM sees it, even if it's not your intention.
Humans suck because they'd rather all be about themselves rather then try to craft a coherent story and game that would be fun for all. :-p
Personally, as the "guy who is always stuck DM'ing", I've determined I can be far lazier by letting my players come up with motivations, and just building a campaign out of them. Throw in some curveballs, completely screw the munchkin if there is one (I want to be immortal! I want to be !, etc).
The mythical thoughtstream sounds like "I WANT TO KNOW EVERYTHING AND BE SUPER COOLZ!!!!"...you know, the kinda thing that, had it existed, would have been discovered by someone way more powerful then you a long freaking time ago.
Someone way more powerful than the players?
Who's that now?
In the upper epic tier, players are pretty close to becoming the most powerful entities that exist and have ever existed. So who do you have in mind that's way more powerful than that and would obviously have discovered everything already?
That said, I'd put it in to a campaign, but in a far more nastier way then the character may believe (might make the character go insane, is being controlled by something bigger then it and is used to manipulate power-addicted spellcasters, etc).
So in other words, you'd turn it into a gigantic, passive-aggressive "F*** you, jerk" to your player?
Humans suck because they'd rather all be about themselves rather then try to craft a coherent story and game that would be fun for all. :-p
(I want to be immortal! I want to be !, etc).
Why screw this player? Why not politely point him to any of the numerous Epic Destinies that give him immortality, for a fine example of crunch exactly matching character motivation?
Careful, using logic and reason in a discussion with Feyberry will get you promptly ignored.
QFT.
Someone way more powerful than the players?
Who's that now?
In the upper epic tier, players are pretty close to becoming the most powerful entities that exist and have ever existed. So who do you have in mind that's way more powerful than that and would obviously have discovered everything already?
Not quite. If you're using an established universe (say Faerun), you have such luminaries as Elminster, Drizz't, Szass Tam, etc, what have you. Plus, you're messing around with the deities, and most of those deities still have the entire "army of followers, many of which are around your level" deal backing them.
At 30th level, you're about as powerful as any mortal that has existed. You can become a minor deity. But there are still a lot of deities / demon lords / devil lords who will happily put a PC in place if they sense a threat to their own well-being.
On a mechanical level, I can just call the game at level 30, and go "Hey, you've won D&D! Good job. Now what do you want to do?" or say "Well, you've now hit the pinnacle of your powers. But there are still injustices to be wronged, stories to be had, and foes that require the peak of your abilities in order to bring down." For those who want to "win" at D&D, the first is fine. I suspect for my players, they'd prefer the second. In order to do the second, the universe can't just stop creating monsters that are weaker then level 30 characters.
So in other words, you'd turn it into a gigantic, passive-aggressive "F*** you, jerk" to your player?
If my players are stupid enough to ask for flat-out omniscient knowledge at level 30, I'll first tell them "um, no." If they can't figure out why giving one being in the universe omnsicent freaking knowledge (something the whole of deities don't have, mind you), then yes, they need to be smacked around a little.
Plus, let's face it. When was the last time anything advertised as "Real Ultimate Power" or anything of the sorts actually turned out to be remotely working as advertised?
Humans suck because they'd rather all be about themselves rather then try to craft a coherent story and game that would be fun for all. :-p
Not sure what you were going to say, but it's still true. :-p
Why screw this player? Why not politely point him to any of the numerous Epic Destinies that give him immortality, for a fine example of crunch exactly matching character motivation?
There's a rather large difference between the ability to resurrect oneself mid-fight once, and being flat out unkillable. Nothing in D&D is unkillable. The gods themselves (see: Scales of War, Forgotten Realms) can be killed with the proper motivation, tools, and abilities.
I understand that PCs want to be special, and that makes sense to a certain degree, because, after all, the game is really about them. But in order to keep any semblance of realism, they have to be subject to the same rules of the world as everything else. Part of the challenge (to me, when I play) is that although I'm powerful, I'm unique in my own ways, but there is always something bigger and better awaiting me.
D&D is a pretty dumb game if you're trying to "win" at it.
Not quite. If you're using an established universe (say Faerun), you have such luminaries as Elminster, Drizz't, Szass Tam, etc, what have you. Plus, you're messing around with the deities, and most of those deities still have the entire "army of followers, many of which are around your level" deal backing them.
Just because you're in an established setting doesn't mean that players can't exceed published characters. There's no fault in having a character become more powerful than Elminster, Szass Tam, Larloch, or whoever - it might not fly in 'canon', but you only need to be concerned with what's canonical in *your* Realms. Also, as a side-note, becoming more powerful than Drizzt is neither difficult nor noteworthy. He's a widely read hero, but fighting orcs is hardly a claim to power in Faeurn.
Where gods are concerned - that's getting into something totally different. Despite the fact that they're written as having the wisdom and mentality of elementary school kids, gods are supposed to transcend human thought processes, so who's to say they would need or desire what the player is aiming for?
If my players are stupid enough to ask for flat-out omniscient knowledge at level 30, I'll first tell them "um, no." If they can't figure out why giving one being in the universe omnsicent freaking knowledge (something the whole of deities don't have, mind you), then yes, they need to be smacked around a little.
So you say no, it won't work, and explain why. You don't say yes, then proceed to take a power trip and screw them over for making a request you don't like, instead of explaining why you don't like it.
Besides, what this guy in particular is asking for doesn't have to make him an omniscient super-power. Sure, he has access to an ultimate source of knowledge. Does that mean he can instantly absorb it all and perfectly retain it? Not necessarily. Have you ever seen Ghost in the Shell (the first film version)? Good parallel to this. The Major largely transcends mortal knowledge, but she doesn't become godlike.
As another side-note, I'm in kind of the exact opposite predicament in my campaign. I can tell that the DM is gunning to have my character usurp Bane. I've had to come out and say a few times that Tazok would be much happier if his destiny was to instead replace Fzoul Chembryl at Bane's right hand.
Plus, let's face it. When was the last time anything advertised as "Real Ultimate Power" or anything of the sorts actually turned out to be remotely working as advertised?
Ummm.... hello? www.realultimatepower.net. D'uh. I also own Real Ultimate Power - The Official Ninja Book. It's not only awesome, it's totally sweet! 1,000,000,000,000,000 billion times as awesome and ultimate as advertised, it's better than having my very own personal ninja jamming on an electric guitar.
There's a rather large difference between the ability to resurrect oneself mid-fight once, and being flat out unkillable. Nothing in D&D is unkillable. The gods themselves (see: Scales of War, Forgotten Realms) can be killed with the proper motivation, tools, and abilities.
Semantics. When a player asks for immortality, they're asking for the same immortality as other characters in the same setting have. See Elminster, liches and demi-liches, any number of aspects of the Planescape setting (or Planescape: Torment, The Nameless One for the win), etc. They can be killed, yes, but they're still generally regarded as being immortal. I think players often just want to be the bad mofo that gets to call others puny mortals.
Many would argue that if D&D players don't have any interest in that and just want to role-play, then they have chosen exactly the wrong game system to play with. Maybe they shouldn't be playing with a published rule set at all, and should just free-form their storytelling and acting. The "crunch" is a massive part of D&D - it is now, and it always has been. If you don't like crunch, perhaps you should play an RPG that doesn't revolve so heavily around it.
Rules are just a means for conflict resolution. Roleplaying can happen regardless of the crunch. The rules however, create a different atmosphere, a different texture to the roleplaying. They're used to provide consistency and a level playing field. That's all. D&D does not inhibit roleplaying. Nor do you have to min/max the crunch to play D&D. You can play D&D just fine as a normal person and not be a munchtard.
Dungeons & Dragons does not revolve around crunch. That's a horrible misconception and detrimental to the enjoyment of the hobby. Rules are required for consistency and nothing more. They should never be the focus of what's marketed as a role-playing game. Otherwise, the game should be marketed as an adventure game instead.
People in your fantasy world maybe. In mine, they really don't care about oddballs moving through their city (they'd go insane; there's too many of them) and they're not going to execute anything that doesn't look like a human (pointy ears and beard optional) since they have a hard enough time already and they can use any hands they can get.
It's not about oddballs... it's about actual events and the people that live in those regions. I want the characters to worry about those people and be concerned about the consequences of their actions. Oddballs passing through aren't going to care and the players playing those oddballs will not be motivated by altruism or actual concern. All they're going to care about is how much the villager can scrounge up to pay the PC as a reward.
Rules are just a means for conflict resolution. Roleplaying can happen regardless of the crunch. The rules however, create a different atmosphere, a different texture to the roleplaying. They're used to provide consistency and a level playing field. That's all. D&D does not inhibit roleplaying. Nor do you have to min/max the crunch to play D&D. You can play D&D just fine as a normal person and not be a munchtard.
Dungeons & Dragons does not revolve around crunch. That's a horrible misconception and detrimental to the enjoyment of the hobby. Rules are required for consistency and nothing more. They should never be the focus of what's marketed as a role-playing game. Otherwise, the game should be marketed as an adventure game instead.
I see what you did there! You stated your opinions as facts!
It's not about oddballs... it's about actual events and the people that live in those regions. I want the characters to worry about those people and be concerned about the consequences of their actions. Oddballs passing through aren't going to care and the players playing those oddballs will not be motivated by altruism or actual concern. All they're going to care about is how much the villager can scrounge up to pay the PC as a reward.
That's alot of assumptions, why can't an "oddball passing through"(traveling adventurer) be motivated by altruism and actual concern?
It's not about oddballs... it's about actual events and the people that live in those regions. I want the characters to worry about those people and be concerned about the consequences of their actions. Oddballs passing through aren't going to care and the players playing those oddballs will not be motivated by altruism or actual concern. All they're going to care about is how much the villager can scrounge up to pay the PC as a reward.
That's alot of assumptions, why can't an "oddball passing through"(traveling adventurer) be motivated by altruism and actual concern?
And why would a local care? There's about 20 people in the whole of my city that I don't want to see get hurt, and everyone else can go screw themselves. Being local doesn't mean you suddenly care a lot.
As I've said in several threads now, I'm pretty sure the usual situation for D&D gamers is a cohesive group of friends who always play together and want to continue playing together. When that's the case, it's absolutely incombent upon the DM to run something everyone in the already established group will enjoy. This is the situation I was assuming in my last post.
This is pretty much the crux of these arguments (which seem to come up repeatedly) about player vs DM entitlement.
I agree with Feyberry's view on player entitlement, if not always his cynicism and occasional hostility. Why? Because I haven't played D&D with a "group of friends" since high school, and even then it was uncommon. My friends are rarely regular D&D players. I play D&D with whomever I can find to play, and while many of the folks I play with are good people, they aren't really my friends. On top of that, gaming groups never seem to hold together for any particular length of time (a year is a good run to me), so it's necessary to move between groups. And given that most D&D groups meet less frequently than I like to play, I'm usually in and running several campaigns at once.
All of that means the standard assumption for me is that you will be reading a DM's synopsis of a campaign, then joining it based on the DMs limitations he has previously specified. Is that a global standard? Of course not. And since my last go round on DM vs Player rights (mainly with lofgren I think ;) ) I no longer assume that it is normal. And it's impossible to claim one or the other is normal AFAIAC.
I see what you did there! You stated your opinions as facts!
You seem to be quite hung-up on an imagined requirement that people prefix their opinion with, "In my opinion." I am very much the opposite. "In my opinion" is a major pet peeve of mine. When people say it, I want to smack them for being so redundant because, seriously, what else are your words going to be other than your opinion?
We know that what feyberry says is his opinion, by virtue of the fact that it's feyberry saying it.
Because this setting was tied very closely to the original PHB (all the races, and classes from that book had a history and place in the campaign world), this made extra work for me introducing character races/classes from PHB 2. Now I don't use/allow rule books that are based on existing campaign settings (i.e. Forgotten Realms, etc.) so those options weren't really an issue. However, I had always intended to use the non-campaign setting rule books in my game, provided of course that they fit in with the setting.
Unfortunately, a lot of the new races from PHB2 didn't fit in with my campaign world. Some went against the type of setting I was going for, others existed, but were yet to be discovered by the rest of the world. Furthermore, some of the new classes (for reasons the party will uncover as they progress through the campaign) didn't fit into the campaign world. So I told my players about the limitations of using PHB 2 when I picked up my copy.
However, I tend to work to the rule that it's my job as a DM to provide the players with something that they find fun and enjoyable. So when I had a player that really wanted to play one of the races that didn't fit, I worked with that player to make that race fit. First I let the player know that the race may have to be changed from the official rules in order to fit into the setting. I assured the player that I would be up front with any changes I wanted to make and would explain the reasons why the changes were being made. Then I carefully worked through the race itself, along with the background the player had provided for their character, and adapted them so that it fit into the campaign setting. Having done that, I emailed the player my changes and requested their feedback. As it turns out, the player had no problems with the changes I had made (which were minor, and had more to do with the background and flavour than the race stats), and proceeded to create their character.
Yes it was a lot of extra work for me; however, I feel it was worth it in the end, as the player appreciated my work and love's their character. What's more they have an understanding and connection to my setting that they wouldn't have had if I hadn't made the effort to give them what they wanted to play.
So my advice, as a DM, would be to try to allow the players to play the characters they want to play. Be upfront with them about any limitations or changes you want to make to the rules, and work with them if they really want to incorporate something which as written doesn't fit into your campaign.
I just thought I'd weigh in as a DM, who's created their own homebrew setting and recently had to deal with this type of issue. Please note, my intentions with this post are to show how with some extra work on the DM's part, players can be integrated into a campaign setting which has some limitations on races/classes, etc.
Because this setting was tied very closely to the original PHB (all the races, and classes from that book had a history and place in the campaign world), this made extra work for me introducing character races/classes from PHB 2. Now I don't use/allow rule books that are based on existing campaign settings (i.e. Forgotten Realms, etc.) so those options weren't really an issue. However, I had always intended to use the non-campaign setting rule books in my game, provided of course that they fit in with the setting.
Unfortunately, a lot of the new races from PHB2 didn't fit in with my campaign world. Some went against the type of setting I was going for, others existed, but were yet to be discovered by the rest of the world. Furthermore, some of the new classes (for reasons the party will uncover as they progress through the campaign) didn't fit into the campaign world. So I told my players about the limitations of using PHB 2 when I picked up my copy.
However, I tend to work to the rule that it's my job as a DM to provide the players with something that they find fun and enjoyable. So when I had a player that really wanted to play one of the races that didn't fit, I worked with that player to make that race fit. First I let the player know that the race may have to be changed from the official rules in order to fit into the setting. I assured the player that I would be up front with any changes I wanted to make and would explain the reasons why the changes were being made. Then I carefully worked through the race itself, along with the background the player had provided for their character, and adapted them so that it fit into the campaign setting. Having done that, I emailed the player my changes and requested their feedback. As it turns out, the player had no problems with the changes I had made (which were minor, and had more to do with the background and flavour than the race stats), and proceeded to create their character.
Yes it was a lot of extra work for me; however, I feel it was worth it in the end, as the player appreciated my work and love's their character. What's more they have an understanding and connection to my setting that they wouldn't have had if I hadn't made the effort to give them what they wanted to play.
So my advice, as a DM, would be to try to allow the players to play the characters they want to play. Be upfront with them about any limitations or changes you want to make to the rules, and work with them if they really want to incorporate something which as written doesn't fit into your campaign.
Bingo. One of the primary jobs of the DM is keeping the players happy. I fine letting the players influence the world a DM has created makes the players feel like there part of the world.
Hell I may have even gone one step further and made my player come up with a reason that races or class is in my world. The players seem to appreciate they have some descion in what happens in the world there PC is in
Rules are just a means for conflict resolution. Roleplaying can happen regardless of the crunch. The rules however, create a different atmosphere, a different texture to the roleplaying. They're used to provide consistency and a level playing field. That's all. D&D does not inhibit roleplaying. Nor do you have to min/max the crunch to play D&D. You can play D&D just fine as a normal person and not be a munchtard.
Roleplaying can happen regardless of how bad and terrible and one dimensional the fluff is too. People who design characters with no guidelines out of thin air around the basics of a common theme work. The problem is we come to play a GAME AS WELL. Have you ever SEEN a 1st edition DMG? it's not roleplaying advice. it's tons of charts, tables, and information on what your dice get you in what situations. Rules ARE a means of resolving conflict, of course. However, being a character that is strong mechanically means the DM does not have to worry every 5 seconds about if an encounter may be too much. You are supposed to be an awesome hero, both in flavor, and with those numbers to help destroy dimension eating entities.
Dungeons & Dragons does not revolve around crunch. That's a horrible misconception and detrimental to the enjoyment of the hobby. Rules are required for consistency and nothing more. They should never be the focus of what's marketed as a role-playing game. Otherwise, the game should be marketed as an adventure game instead.
We buy these books for the rules. the fluff, even in the forgotten realms and ebberon is so bad I think 5 year olds can write more interesting things. However, those rules are REALLY important, because that's what we paid those designers for, to design a ROLE PLAYING GAME! I buy the system for the RULES because while I can come up with any amount of tight delicious fluff around the rules, coming up with those rules for balance is ten times harder.
It's not about oddballs... it's about actual events and the people that live in those regions. I want the characters to worry about those people and be concerned about the consequences of their actions. Oddballs passing through aren't going to care and the players playing those oddballs will not be motivated by altruism or actual concern. All they're going to care about is how much the villager can scrounge up to pay the PC as a reward.
Whose to say they're an oddball? Maybe that particular society has been so oppressed or wrecked by bad events that most just don't care anymore? In that case characters out for themselves might be living in it for themselves just because they think it's doomed. Denying them this might lead to full on screwball characters that work for your plans and ideas of what you expected until the eleventh hour and then secretly compromise to completely screw things up once past a point they can manipulate things. I've totally done things in games like that before. (Yes, this DID break character consistency, but who the hell cares? the rules do explicitly state you are what you do, not necessarily based on previous actions or alignment.)
Also, nothing you can do as a DM can ever make a player care about the consecquences of their actions, don't kid yourself. I may have only run RPGs since I was 15, (almost 25 now) but I sure as hell know that's based on the person behind the character, not the character, and nothing you can ever do short of NOT playing with them can change that. I am REALLY invested with my wizard in one game, but if Vawn dies and cannot be resurrected (the cleric does have that now and is just a level away from true res,) It would suck. It doesn't mean I'm going to not aim all I have against really deadly foes, given her failure can also mean the death of the only friends she's ever had. There's a price for her not having enough power. But I'd get over it probably by the end of the night and be working on something new. (Maybe a warblade.)
Remember, every character death is just a chance for you to try out a whole new concept or replay an old favorite.
What D&D is differnt to each person. How they play and what they do is up to each person. As long as someone is having fun that is all that matters.
Wizards has laid out the framework(rules) and the players and DM have to do is fill in with what they want to get out of it.
Just because you're in an established setting doesn't mean that players can't exceed published characters. There's no fault in having a character become more powerful than Elminster, Szass Tam, Larloch, or whoever - it might not fly in 'canon', but you only need to be concerned with what's canonical in *your* Realms. Also, as a side-note, becoming more powerful than Drizzt is neither difficult nor noteworthy. He's a widely read hero, but fighting orcs is hardly a claim to power in Faeurn.
Where gods are concerned - that's getting into something totally different. Despite the fact that they're written as having the wisdom and mentality of elementary school kids, gods are supposed to transcend human thought processes, so who's to say they would need or desire what the player is aiming for?
The quote that led to that was "In the upper epic tier, players are pretty close to becoming the most powerful entities that exist and have ever existed. So who do you have in mind that's way more powerful than that and would obviously have discovered everything already?" That description of "most powerful entities that exist and have ever exited" would include deities. So, I can't agree that the PCs are at that point.
Plus, then what the heck is the point of the game? If the PCs don't have anything to aspire to..then they might as well stop playing.
So you say no, it won't work, and explain why. You don't say yes, then proceed to take a power trip and screw them over for making a request you don't like, instead of explaining why you don't like it.
Besides, what this guy in particular is asking for doesn't have to make him an omniscient super-power. Sure, he has access to an ultimate source of knowledge. Does that mean he can instantly absorb it all and perfectly retain it? Not necessarily. Have you ever seen Ghost in the Shell (the first film version)? Good parallel to this. The Major largely transcends mortal knowledge, but she doesn't become godlike.
As another side-note, I'm in kind of the exact opposite predicament in my campaign. I can tell that the DM is gunning to have my character usurp Bane. I've had to come out and say a few times that Tazok would be much happier if his destiny was to instead replace Fzoul Chembryl at Bane's right hand.
They'll usually get an explanation, but in my experience, the few players I've had ask me that want it for mechanical and RP purposes. The Ghost in the Shell analogy is good, except for the one problem that one person (the writer in GitS) is in charge. If I give a player a source of ultimate knowledge, he or she is going to use it whenever they generally can, and heaven help them if their character is in any kind of danger. That's not very challenging, and, eventually, fun fun.
Ummm.... hello? www.realultimatepower.net. D'uh. I also own Real Ultimate Power - The Official Ninja Book. It's not only awesome, it's totally sweet! 1,000,000,000,000,000 billion times as awesome and ultimate as advertised, it's better than having my very own personal ninja jamming on an electric guitar.
Not going to lie, I was hoping you'd say that. :-p
Semantics. When a player asks for immortality, they're asking for the same immortality as other characters in the same setting have. See Elminster, liches and demi-liches, any number of aspects of the Planescape setting (or Planescape: Torment, The Nameless One for the win), etc. They can be killed, yes, but they're still generally regarded as being immortal. I think players often just want to be the bad mofo that gets to call others puny mortals.
Heh, that's hecka semantics. :-p Generally in my games, there's a 95% chance you can call someone a puny mortal and you'll be fine, there's a 5% chance that the guy you called a puny mortal and probably messed with is a retired 30th level something or another that is about to lay a beatdown. I don't mind being seen as nearly immortal (see: Raise Dead), but I would never give actual immortality to anything.
I see what you did there! You stated your opinions as facts!
You seem to be quite hung-up on an imagined requirement that people prefix their opinion with, "In my opinion." I am very much the opposite. "In my opinion" is a major pet peeve of mine. When people say it, I want to smack them for being so redundant because, seriously, what else are your words going to be other than your opinion?
We know that what feyberry says is his opinion, by virtue of the fact that it's feyberry saying it.
However some on this forum(and others) purposely attempt to state their opinions as facts. At least from what I've witnessed in the past. So I simply point it out and/or clarify when I notice it.
However, I tend to work to the rule that it's my job as a DM to provide the players with something that they find fun and enjoyable. So when I had a player that really wanted to play one of the races that didn't fit, I worked with that player to make that race fit. First I let the player know that the race may have to be changed from the official rules in order to fit into the setting. I assured the player that I would be up front with any changes I wanted to make and would explain the reasons why the changes were being made. Then I carefully worked through the race itself, along with the background the player had provided for their character, and adapted them so that it fit into the campaign setting. Having done that, I emailed the player my changes and requested their feedback. As it turns out, the player had no problems with the changes I had made (which were minor, and had more to do with the background and flavour than the race stats), and proceeded to create their character.
Yes it was a lot of extra work for me; however, I feel it was worth it in the end, as the player appreciated my work and love's their character. What's more they have an understanding and connection to my setting that they wouldn't have had if I hadn't made the effort to give them what they wanted to play.
So my advice, as a DM, would be to try to allow the players to play the characters they want to play. Be upfront with them about any limitations or changes you want to make to the rules, and work with them if they really want to incorporate something which as written doesn't fit into your campaign.
And that, in my opinion, is what makes you a great DM.
However, I tend to work to the rule that it's my job as a DM to provide the players with something that they find fun and enjoyable. So when I had a player that really wanted to play one of the races that didn't fit, I worked with that player to make that race fit. First I let the player know that the race may have to be changed from the official rules in order to fit into the setting. I assured the player that I would be up front with any changes I wanted to make and would explain the reasons why the changes were being made. Then I carefully worked through the race itself, along with the background the player had provided for their character, and adapted them so that it fit into the campaign setting. Having done that, I emailed the player my changes and requested their feedback. As it turns out, the player had no problems with the changes I had made (which were minor, and had more to do with the background and flavour than the race stats), and proceeded to create their character.
Yes it was a lot of extra work for me; however, I feel it was worth it in the end, as the player appreciated my work and love's their character. What's more they have an understanding and connection to my setting that they wouldn't have had if I hadn't made the effort to give them what they wanted to play.
So my advice, as a DM, would be to try to allow the players to play the characters they want to play. Be upfront with them about any limitations or changes you want to make to the rules, and work with them if they really want to incorporate something which as written doesn't fit into your campaign.
And that, in my opinion, is what makes you a great DM.
Seconded. That is the absolute, undeniable truth. QFMFT.
Whose to say they're an oddball? Maybe that particular society has been so oppressed or wrecked by bad events that most just don't care anymore?
Because I said they weren't oppressed or wrecked. It's my campaign setting. The player don't get to decide what the cultures are like.
Also, nothing you can do as a DM can ever make a player care about the consecquences of their actions, don't kid yourself.
You're wrong.
That's like a hundred characters in each city that could singlehandedly lay the smack on an entire army of Orcs. Unless the Orcs also follow this rule, in which case one of them could singlehandedly destroy the entire party in the surprise round
@Feyberry: You cannot make players care more then they choose to care. If you force them to care about something, they'll probably leave. If they do care about your games, it's because they choose to, not because you make them.
If the PCs don't have anything to aspire to..then they might as well stop playing.
My understanding was that they do stop playing when they hit the level cap - or at least, they stop playing with the level-capped character and move on to the next adventure or campaign with a new one.
Whose to say they're an oddball? Maybe that particular society has been so oppressed or wrecked by bad events that most just don't care anymore?
Because I said they weren't oppressed or wrecked. It's my campaign setting. The player don't get to decide what the cultures are like.Also, nothing you can do as a DM can ever make a player care about the consecquences of their actions, don't kid yourself.
You're wrong.
I would like to think its the players campiagn setting to. I mean they are in it and playing it
, and I can see both sides of the coin. I can see where Feyberry is coming from. A lot of DM's wouldn't let the player take decisions about the campaign setting when it comes to things like cultures. There are exceptions of course. The DMG2 talks about cooperative campaign world building where the players do make those types of decisions and the DM takes what the players present and runs with it. However, that is a particular style of the game. I guess it comes down to what the players and DM are happy with. Having said that Rian_king is also right, it is the players campaign setting too. A lot of DM's make the mistake of getting so caught up in their world building that they forget about meeting the needs of their players. Just because a culture tends to have a certain behaviour pattern, doesn't mean that player's characters from that culture must follow the cultural norms. Also you can create the most fantastic campaign setting in D&D history, but with out the players to play in it, you don't have a game.
With regards to making the players care about the consequences of their actions, again I can see both sides. Draco is right in saying that the DM can't 'make' the players care about anything to do with the game. However, what a DM can do, is put in place a sequence of events that occur as a direct result of player actions and have those events affect the campaign setting in big or small ways.
For example, one of my Players is a Warlord. Now warlords in my campaign world are basically Knights, which belong to particular orders. These orders have a responsibility to police the citizens and maintain the peace. I designed an encounter where two NPC's swindled an old woman. The old woman came to the player for help.
Now the player has a choice, do they help the woman, or do they ignore her. To make things interesting, I designed things so that what the two NPC's did to this woman wasn't against the law. They didn't do anything illegal, but they were immoral. The player could have said, sorry no laws were broken, I can't help you. If the player chooses to do that, they would have eventually found the old woman's dead body when they were patrolling the streets. She wasn't murdered, but she did become penniless and was forced to live on the streets where she died. This was a direct result of her own misfortune and a consequence of the player not helping her.
What the player did is chose to help her, this involved contacting the two noblemen who swindled her and challenging them or their champion to a duel on the jousting fields. If the player won, the old woman's debt would be cancelled, if the player lost, then the player had to publically apologise to the two noblemen for questioning their honour, and pay them a rather hefty sum of gold as compensation. Oh, and the old woman suffers as a result too.
In the game, it was a close fight, but the player won. The old woman was freed of her debt and lives on. However, the two noblemen have been humiliated, and this too will have consequences.
What the above example shows, is that whilst a DM can't make a player care about the consequences of their actions - a DM can use the decisions made by a player to build future encounters in the campaign in such a way that what the player decides to do has an impact on the world around them.
Because I said they weren't oppressed or wrecked. It's my campaign setting. The player don't get to decide what the cultures are like.
You certainly get to decide what's in your campaign setting. What I put down on my paper and how I say my character reacts can change at any time as long as it's not rules text is perfectly okay though. In fact it's perfectly normal to play with a character sheet with just rules info down. (In 3.x you never even needed to put down a deity if you were worrried about the DM pulling you around for that as a cleric! best change about that)
You're wrong.
I could not be wrong unless there's some kind of bizzaro definition of the word wrong in you dictionary. You can't MAKE players CARE about their characters. For some, it's always going to be just a piece of paper with stats on it. Ain't a damn thing you can do in all the universe about that, hell even the greatest writers and storytellers in all of mankind and history couldn't do it. Whatever happens to theirs, as long as they live to them it's okay. if they become unplayable, they're just going to erase the name and resubmit or whip out a fresh character sheet and start writing things down.
Whose to say they're an oddball? Maybe that particular society has been so oppressed or wrecked by bad events that most just don't care anymore?
Because I said they weren't oppressed or wrecked. It's my campaign setting. The player don't get to decide what the cultures are like.Also, nothing you can do as a DM can ever make a player care about the consecquences of their actions, don't kid yourself.
You're wrong.
@Feyberry: You cannot make players care more then they choose to care. If you force them to care about something, they'll probably leave. If they do care about your games, it's because they choose to, not because you make them.
I think these two viewpoints are talking about the same events from different angles. The events in question are when the DM uses the compelling nature of his/her campaign setting, character creation guidelines, or in-game hooks and the result is a player becoming attached to his or her character.
In one sense, the fact that the players care more because of the DM's actions means the DM is responsible for the change. In another sense, the fact that a player decides whether to buy in or not means the player is responsible for the change. In reality, both contribute.
@Feyberry, Pluisjen: A good storyteller can get the players to buy in without them ever making a conscious decision to do so. I believe this is what Feyberry is referring to when he "makes" people care more about their characters or the game. However, it's worthwhile to remember that the players still play a part in the process; the relationship is not simply one of action by the DM, although that action is the only visible part when a good storyteller is at the wheel. Nor is the relationship one where players are choosing to care in the ultimate free will sense of the word, because what the DM tells or shows them does influence their decision in a powerful way.
I try to dissuade my players from acting like rampant ****es; this is one of those ways. I've only had to ever use it once (in 3.0), when the players decided that they could just kill every shopkeeper in existence and get stuff for free. Protip: Shopkeepers with lots of magical equipment might possibly be higher level then you. :D
@VaultDweller
For one, I fully expect the equivalent of the Epic Level Handbook for 4th Edition at some point. Second, my players would strangle me if I made them switch characters ath 30th, they like things too much to want to change it.
Topic at hand: I think a lot of it depends on what the DM derives enjoyment from. I like running the game as a whole and just BS'ing with my friends. Others like the creation of a world deal. Those who prefer world building might be a little more protective of their world.
another point i wanted to bring up on why i dont' really trust dm's and thier homebrews is the lose the ability to beome neutral as a dm and more of father of a evil brat of a kid that bullies the players into stupidity.
most dms who make thier baby homebrews are very protective of it, and loathe when players get interactive with it, either for the positive or negative. they become biased that always ends as a contest with pc's vs npc's/bbg or other.
another point i wanted to bring up on why i dont' really trust dm's and thier homebrews is the lose the ability to beome neutral as a dm and more of father of a evil brat of a kid that bullies the players into stupidity.
most dms who make thier baby homebrews are very protective of it, and loathe when players get interactive with it, either for the positive or negative. they become biased that always ends as a contest with pc's vs npc's/bbg or other.
This can happen, yes, especially when the DM thinks something present is cool and one or more players don't. However, I would say most DMs don't have that problem ... it's just that it's a very visible minority. Nobody ever posts on the internet to praise a good DM, they just post to complain about bad DMs.
another point i wanted to bring up on why i dont' really trust dm's and thier homebrews is the lose the ability to beome neutral as a dm and more of father of a evil brat of a kid that bullies the players into stupidity.
most dms who make thier baby homebrews are very protective of it, and loathe when players get interactive with it, either for the positive or negative. they become biased that always ends as a contest with pc's vs npc's/bbg or other.
I let one player make one decision that wrecked the entire continent they were on. Hundreds of thousands of citizens died. Monsters let loose upon the world. A great evil was ressurected. It also created a ton of work for me as I had to advance the realm several hundred years and extrapolate what would happen after the players characters were either slain or forced into permanent retirement.
I'm not protective of my campaigns.
I think you want to be careful of falling into this fallacy. How many DMs do you know? How many DMs have you played with in their campaign world?
Now how many DMs exist in the world?
I have a homebrew world. I do put a lot of time into it. However the characters dictate nearly everything that goes on. I have more fun letting them loose in it and seeing what happens then I do trying to railroad them into some plot that I wrote up.
In my world now magic is unraveling because of actions that the players' have done. Not to mention a wild demon that is loose on the streets destroying a capital city.
A king may die.
I don't like running official published game worlds because there has been in my experience ALWAYS that one player who is an uber fan boy of the world in question (forgotten realms, ravenloft, dragonlance, whatever world you can think of) that knows EVERYTHING about the world, so that every little story line piece I introduce is scrutinized at the utmost level and you constantly hear:
"that character would actually not say that" or "that guild isn't really like that" or "I'm surprised that this item exists here because during the great sundering (written in book 4 of the Sundering Trilogy published in 1987) in chapter 8 around page 275 there is a passage that reads in elven "behold this item is now so rare to only be found in the pits of mulkhagey guarded by the demon Zog")
I have nightmares from past Forgotten Realms campaigns. Sticking to Homebrew means I know exactly what is going on in my world. No obscure author wrote a paperback novel 24 years ago detailing a city that I want to send my characters in where some event happened that I was not aware of because I did not read the book.
The only exception is Ravenloft. I love Ravenloft and know most of that setting backwards and forwards. However I would only send my characters there once in a while for a short time (kind of like a delve)
My two cents.
most dms who make thier baby homebrews are very protective of it, and loathe when players get interactive with it, either for the positive or negative. they become biased that always ends as a contest with pc's vs npc's/bbg or other.
I think you want to be careful of falling into this fallacy. How many DMs do you know? How many DMs have you played with in their campaign world?
Now how many DMs exist in the world?
I have a homebrew world. I do put a lot of time into it. However the characters dictate nearly everything that goes on. I have more fun letting them loose in it and seeing what happens then I do trying to railroad them into some plot that I wrote up.
In my world now magic is unraveling because of actions that the players' have done. Not to mention a wild demon that is loose on the streets destroying a capital city.
A king may die.
I don't like running official published game worlds because there has been in my experience ALWAYS that one player who is an uber fan boy of the world in question (forgotten realms, ravenloft, dragonlance, whatever world you can think of) that knows EVERYTHING about the world, so that every little story line piece I introduce is scrutinized at the utmost level and you constantly hear:
"that character would actually not say that" or "that guild isn't really like that" or "I'm surprised that this item exists here because during the great sundering (written in book 4 of the Sundering Trilogy published in 1987) in chapter 8 around page 275 there is a passage that reads in elven "behold this item is now so rare to only be found in the pits of mulkhagey guarded by the demon Zog")
I have nightmares from past Forgotten Realms campaigns. Sticking to Homebrew means I know exactly what is going on in my world. No obscure author wrote a paperback novel 24 years ago detailing a city that I want to send my characters in where some event happened that I was not aware of because I did not read the book.
The only exception is Ravenloft. I love Ravenloft and know most of that setting backwards and forwards. However I would only send my characters there once in a while for a short time (kind of like a delve)
My two cents.
*applaudes* thank you. this is the players game to. Let them make it also
most dms who make thier baby homebrews are very protective of it, and loathe when players get interactive with it, either for the positive or negative. they become biased that always ends as a contest with pc's vs npc's/bbg or other.
I think you want to be careful of falling into this fallacy. How many DMs do you know? How many DMs have you played with in their campaign world?
Now how many DMs exist in the world?
I have a homebrew world. I do put a lot of time into it. However the characters dictate nearly everything that goes on. I have more fun letting them loose in it and seeing what happens then I do trying to railroad them into some plot that I wrote up.
In my world now magic is unraveling because of actions that the players' have done. Not to mention a wild demon that is loose on the streets destroying a capital city.
A king may die.
I don't like running official published game worlds because there has been in my experience ALWAYS that one player who is an uber fan boy of the world in question (forgotten realms, ravenloft, dragonlance, whatever world you can think of) that knows EVERYTHING about the world, so that every little story line piece I introduce is scrutinized at the utmost level and you constantly hear:
"that character would actually not say that" or "that guild isn't really like that" or "I'm surprised that this item exists here because during the great sundering (written in book 4 of the Sundering Trilogy published in 1987) in chapter 8 around page 275 there is a passage that reads in elven "behold this item is now so rare to only be found in the pits of mulkhagey guarded by the demon Zog")
I have nightmares from past Forgotten Realms campaigns. Sticking to Homebrew means I know exactly what is going on in my world. No obscure author wrote a paperback novel 24 years ago detailing a city that I want to send my characters in where some event happened that I was not aware of because I did not read the book.
The only exception is Ravenloft. I love Ravenloft and know most of that setting backwards and forwards. However I would only send my characters there once in a while for a short time (kind of like a delve)
My two cents.
you know what? your right.
i can only speak from personal experience, as many other must also be talking from thier own personal experience. it has been my experience that the 13 dms (estimate 65 players) i've had since my second edition have fallen in many of the mistakes that i have experienced to cultivate my personal opinion.
i have had the bad luck to be proven right time and time again.
i know for fact that salla, feyberry, myself, and just about everyone on this thread have had troublesome players and dms alike, and these are the times that influence us to think and act as we feel and mention.
my experiences with homebrews from 9 out of the 13 dms implores me to look somewhere else on a gaming table. i have never yet read a homebrew that was ever as in depth or "cool" as a dm really thought it was.
you may be the exception to the rule of what i have witnessed. and your world might be better then ebberon x5.
He had a homebrew world but it was inconsistent. Nothing was ever the same. The king's name even changed.
The current world that I am running in now I created two years ago because I was bored with the one I had been using for close to twenty years. I have a real life group and an online group that play in different parts of it. Both have a blast. Both get to do whatever they want and in fact they dictate the plot points.
My online group is down one player. Anyone is welcome to join it and see what I'm talking about =)
I don't think my world is better than Ebberon x5. Or x1. Ebberon is just another world. A DM can just as easily trash Ebberon as they could an LFR game just as easily as making their own city up. I think I do Ok because I have never really had a hard time finding new players and everyone seems to enjoy themselves.
If you require an official setting to have fun, that's the same branch as requiring a non official setting to have fun =) Find what you like and stick with it. That's the point of a hobby.
I have a homebrew world. I do put a lot of time into it. However the characters dictate nearly everything that goes on. I have more fun letting them loose in it and seeing what happens then I do trying to railroad them into some plot that I wrote up.
In my world now magic is unraveling because of actions that the players' have done. Not to mention a wild demon that is loose on the streets destroying a capital city.
A king may die.
I don't like running official published game worlds because there has been in my experience ALWAYS that one player who is an uber fan boy of the world in question (forgotten realms, ravenloft, dragonlance, whatever world you can think of) that knows EVERYTHING about the world, so that every little story line piece I introduce is scrutinized at the utmost level and you constantly hear:
"that character would actually not say that" or "that guild isn't really like that" or "I'm surprised that this item exists here because during the great sundering (written in book 4 of the Sundering Trilogy published in 1987) in chapter 8 around page 275 there is a passage that reads in elven "behold this item is now so rare to only be found in the pits of mulkhagey guarded by the demon Zog")
I have nightmares from past Forgotten Realms campaigns. Sticking to Homebrew means I know exactly what is going on in my world. No obscure author wrote a paperback novel 24 years ago detailing a city that I want to send my characters in where some event happened that I was not aware of because I did not read the book.
This has been my PRIMARY experience of homebrew worlds – that players (and DMs) have far more agency than they do in established settings. You are also less likely to get DMs who feel like they have to force players to play the most typical characters in a setting, which is frustrating. You are less likely to hear, "No, you can't play drow because they are evil," for example.
Also, even if you don't have that one player, I feel like it is preferable to go homebrew because DMs need to be able to stand on their own two feet. Taking huge swathes from established settings is fine, even desirable when those swathes are interesting. But the DM needs to feel comfortable owning the setting and deviating from what is written (regardless of who wrote it) where it serves the campaign. That is more likely when the DM is tweaking his own work rather than merely acting as a gatekeeper for somebody else's ideas.
This is pretty much the crux of these arguments (which seem to come up repeatedly) about player vs DM entitlement.
I agree, Fitz, I think 90% of the answer to the question of player entitlement is dependent on the paradigm in play. A coherent group of friends that will play together vs. a DM offering his campaign to a number of prospective players who can respectfully accept or decline with little trouble.
i was thinking about the second part of what you mentioned. in regards to established settings vs homebrew. especially the one about you dming forgotten realms and some rules lawyer or lore sage telling you about a special instance that happened in novel x or y. i think the dmg covered that (at least in previous edition) and they had a fix for that, or several.
its somthing bound to happen, except of course in your established games. the problem most dms (again im talking from personal experience. and not for every dm =] ) is that they dont invest the time in something they kinda like vs somthing they really like. you give a good example of yourself, but i'll use me as an example to explain what i mean. during 3rd edition i only looked as far as what was covered in the 8 part arshardalon adventures and perhaps if they mentioned a book, only half the time i'd go and look up whatever they were referring to.
one of the players who was a huge die hard greyhawk fan would ask me about topic x or y much like what you faced in the realms. if i thought it would enhance the game at the table i would have him explain to the table what he was talking about or even better assist me with bringing cool topic x into the game and annoying rules laywer/loresage becomes an important resourse to me rather then a hinderance. he also helped me expand the world got the players more intrested and resulted in somthing fun. was starts out as an established world soon became all of the players world. as the player introduced a whole bunch of heraldry i would have skipped. the players turned the game the direction they wanted to explore, while still completing the adventure with somthing new that i learned. =] while not all games have such a happy ending in game experience, this is the one that i had.
like you, im also a huge ravenloft fan. and know the lore for the most part inside and out. so much so i often found myself flipping through some of the books from third edition and adding info from 2nd edition.
I think Forgotten Realms is cool. I have read a lot of novels on the Realms. Pretty much every RA Salvatore novel. The Elminster Series. A bunch of misc here and there. I wouldn't consider myself stupid on the Realms, and I've been through the campaign guide from 2nd edition, 3rd edition, and 4th edition... but I still am no where near what a lore master would know who loves FR and has read every novel.
I think for me why I don't like running FR is more to do with now that I don't want to be put into another situation that I have been in the past, in both an FR game I ran in the 90s as well as LFR games I've run recently. I don't like not knowing how a piece of lore should fit in the game and I don't like when that type of player speaks up in game to tell me how wrong I am and that according to the fluff they would never do that.
It's disrespectful of that player to do that, though they may not be meaning to be disrespectful. It's a stress I don't like. ;)
However get a DM who LOVES forgotten Realms and I'm sure they can do it justice! And I'd be willing to be a player in that campaign as well. If the DM loves what they are doing, you can tell 1000 fold over someone who isn't as into it.
I think for me, as a Dungeon Master, I want to be sure that I know my setting inside and out, and homebrew worlds are the easiest for that because I wrote the world, I know every crack and cave and dungeon and commoner there is. =)
I see a lot takl about Player entitlement, but what about the concept of Dm Entitlement. I don't see much talk about that. I wonder why. I think DM's hate to give up control of there game. Some feel like there the most important aspect of the game and giving up that is hard.
Here are some thoughts of DM entitlement. hope you can add more
A dm feels entitled to run a game any way he wants regredless of what the players want. IF he wants to do this, there is no compremise
The DM has the final word and once he says no, end of argument.
A DM can force a adventure to go the way he planned it
The Players must adjust they way they play to how the DM wants it.
The DM must have the players play the way the DM sees as fun(such as forcing players to role-play, or forcing players to get involeded)
The Players have no say in how the world works, because the DM created it and the DM is the final word
It is a symbiotic (sp) relationship. You can't have a D&D game without a DM. You can't have a good D&D game without a good DM. You can't have a D&D game without players. You can't have a good D&D game without GOOD players.
Good players and DMs work off of each other. Entitled Players and DMs alike need to get over themselves.
Good DMs write stories around their pCs. THey don't write stories where the PCs just happen to live and can ooh and ahh about how great the world is. The PCs ARE the world. All aspects of a good fantasy novel that I have ever read involve solid characters that dictate the story. I've never read a good fantasy novel where the main characters were drug along by the world. They always get choices ... they always leave their mark on the world.
Good DMs listen to what their players' want. If the players want predominant military tactical based combat... give it to them. If the DM doesn't like that, he doesn't have the right group of players and needs to find a new group and vice versa.
Good DMs leave their players wanting to come back for more!
Good players feed the DM ideas. Good players give plot hooks. Good players interact with the world. Good players are appreciative of the time that a good DM puts into the game world. Good players make the world come alive. Good players accept rulings without throwing tantrums like some five year old spoiled child.
Good players leave their DMs wanting to write and expand the campaign more!
Players and the DM form a team. Your team is only as strong as its weakest link. If your players are fighting the DM, that's a poor team and really you are losing out on a lot of what the hobby has to offer.
I think "entitlement" of either side is crap and helps destroy campaigns.
It is a symbiotic (sp) relationship. You can't have a D&D game without a DM. You can't have a good D&D game without a good DM. You can't have a D&D game without players. You can't have a good D&D game without GOOD players.
Good players and DMs work off of each other. Entitled Players and DMs alike need to get over themselves.
Good DMs write stories around their pCs. THey don't write stories where the PCs just happen to live and can ooh and ahh about how great the world is. The PCs ARE the world. All aspects of a good fantasy novel that I have ever read involve solid characters that dictate the story. I've never read a good fantasy novel where the main characters were drug along by the world. They always get choices ... they always leave their mark on the world.
Good DMs listen to what their players' want. If the players want predominant military tactical based combat... give it to them. If the DM doesn't like that, he doesn't have the right group of players and needs to find a new group and vice versa.
Good DMs leave their players wanting to come back for more!
Good players feed the DM ideas. Good players give plot hooks. Good players interact with the world. Good players are appreciative of the time that a good DM puts into the game world. Good players make the world come alive. Good players accept rulings without throwing tantrums like some five year old spoiled child.
Good players leave their DMs wanting to write and expand the campaign more!
Players and the DM form a team. Your team is only as strong as its weakest link. If your players are fighting the DM, that's a poor team and really you are losing out on a lot of what the hobby has to offer.
+5 this
I see a lot takl about Player entitlement, but what about the concept of Dm Entitlement. I don't see much talk about that. I wonder why. I think DM's hate to give up control of there game. Some feel like they're the most important aspect of the game and giving up that is hard.
It has nothing to do with being the most important person at the table. It has to do with the time and effort I put in creating the campaign and running the game itself every session. I deserve to have fun as well. As the DM, I'm not there just to roll the dice for the npc's so the players have an impartial arbiter. World building is a lengthy and time consuming process that requires a lot of work and creativity.
I am entitled to run the campaign the way I want to run it. Go create your own campaign if you don't like it and run the game the way you want to run it instead of trying to browbeat your DM into running his or her campaign your way.
The DM has the final word and once he says no, end of argument.
Yup, that's the way it is and the way it should be. Any DM that caves in all the time during a game is just going to create problems and slow the game down. Deal with problems outside of the session. Don't be a disruptive prick just because you got your panties in a wad.
A DM can force a adventure to go the way he planned it.
This doesn't have **** to do with entitlement. It's just bad DM'ing and it's called railroading.
The Players must adjust they way they play to how the DM wants it.
Yup. I run my campaigns a certain way and if the players can't adapt to it, they need to find another game. Every player adapts to the multitide of different ways that DMs run a game. It's just the way things are. One DM may use all kinds of house rules while another doesn't. Any player that tries to force either DM to chage is being an ass and thinks they're entitled to determine how the game runs.
The DM must have the players play the way the DM sees as fun(such as forcing players to role-play, or forcing players to get involeded)
D&D is an RPG and a social activity. If you're not there to roleplay and you're not there to get involved in decision making in combat and social encounters, you're not there to play D&D. You're wasting the time of the DM and everyone else at the table and wasting space that someone else could take. Someone that wants to play, wants to roleplay, wants to make decisions, and wants to be active in the campaign.
The Players have no say in how the world works, because the DM created it and the DM is the final word
Yup. If you want to have a say, make an equal contribution. Very few players will ever make even half the contribution a DM makes towards creating a world.
lol, if you dont share your toys no one wants to play with you fey =]
lol I want to say the same thing but in a lot more words. Thanks for making it easier for me
That being said, despite how hostile, negative, belittling, asinine, rude, and whiny you act, you can obviously find players willing to play with you, and you do seem to spend a lot of time building a setting (perhaps so much time that you've become too attached to it), so good for you. Personally, I'd say that you're doing it wrong and that you should try to be more accommodating, but that's just my opinion, just as it often seems to be your opinion that you're doing it right and everyone else is utterly wrong.
The point is, I'm not telling you how to play your game, and not too many people are. Mostly, we're just saying why some things likely won't work. I won't tell you how to run your game if you don't tell me how to run mine.
Feyberry, I've said it before, and others have said it as well: sometimes, even when someone acquiesces to every restriction to your game, they still won't roleplay all that well because they're there to kick butt and play a game. You can try, but you likely won't succeed at making them care.
That being said, despite how hostile, negative, belittling, asinine, rude, and whiny you act, you can obviously find players willing to play with you, and you do seem to spend a lot of time building a setting (perhaps so much time that you've become too attached to it), so good for you. Personally, I'd say that you're doing it wrong and that you should try to be more accommodating, but that's just my opinion, just as it often seems to be your opinion that you're doing it right and everyone else is utterly wrong.
The point is, I'm not telling you how to play your game, and not too many people are. Mostly, we're just saying why some things likely won't work. I won't tell you how to run your game if you don't tell me how to run mine.
it's sad that people instantly jump the "you can't tell me how to run my game" statement. It's so bad we have to say "we are not tellig you how to run your game" just to make sure someone won't play that card
It would be nice if people just assume that as players we are not ever telling how to run your game, just our thoughts
"I'd like some advice on this game/houserule/custom content/etc."
"I wouldn't recommend it, because (logical criticisms here)."
"DON'T TELL ME HOW TO RUN MY GAME!"
Basically, people who don't want criticism or critique, they just want people to agree with them.
Basically, people who don't want criticism or critique, they just want people to agree with them.
Eh, unfortunately, people also tend to go out of their way to state their opinions on campaigns as facts in the most insulting way possible, which sounds an awful lot like trying to tell other people how to play the game or telling other people that their style of play is inherently wrong or that they're wrong for having fun the way they do.
Feyberry, I've said it before, and others have said it as well: sometimes, even when someone acquiesces to every restriction to your game, they still won't roleplay all that well because they're there to kick butt and play a game. You can try, but you likely won't succeed at making them care.
Those kinds of players don't last long in my games. I will kick them out if all they want to do is roll dice and kill monsters. I require players to particpate beyond combat. D&D is after all, a role playing game and not just a tabletop wargame.
[...] you can obviously find players willing to play with you, and you do seem to spend a lot of time building a setting (perhaps so much time that you've become too attached to it), so good for you.
Of course I'm attached to my setting. I've spent a lot of time working on it and players given the privilege to play in my game should be players who are going to actively take an interest in it. Anyone can just throw some encounters together and claim to be a DM.
Personally, I'd say that you're doing it wrong and that you should try to be more accommodating, but that's just my opinion, just as it often seems to be your opinion that you're doing it right and everyone else is utterly wrong.
The only people doing it wrong, are the morons that just roll dice. I honestly don't care how other people run their campaigns (that I'm not part of) and almost everyone else is always telling me I run mine wrong because I place restrictions on character creation and don't cave in to player demands. Eff that. My way is the best way and I'll defend it as such. You're free to run however you want (again, as long as I'm not playing in the campaign).
The point is, I'm not telling you how to play your game, and not too many people are. Mostly, we're just saying why some things likely won't work. I won't tell you how to run your game if you don't tell me how to run mine.
Except that you just did...
"Personally, I'd say that you're doing it wrong and that you should try to be more accommodating..."
I can't help it. Every time I see Feyberry make a comment like that, I think back to the 'religious fanatics' closing statement of one of the 3E developers' rants about roleplaying judgementalistm, which could almost have been written to describe him from one side:
www.montecook.com/arch_anrant3.html
ShowI see a lot takl about Player entitlement, but what about the concept of Dm Entitlement. I don't see much talk about that. I wonder why. I think DM's hate to give up control of there game. Some feel like they're the most important aspect of the game and giving up that is hard.
It has nothing to do with being the most important person at the table. It has to do with the time and effort I put in creating the campaign and running the game itself every session. I deserve to have fun as well. As the DM, I'm not there just to roll the dice for the npc's so the players have an impartial arbiter. World building is a lengthy and time consuming process that requires a lot of work and creativity.
I am entitled to run the campaign the way I want to run it. Go create your own campaign if you don't like it and run the game the way you want to run it instead of trying to browbeat your DM into running his or her campaign your way.The DM has the final word and once he says no, end of argument.
Yup, that's the way it is and the way it should be. Any DM that caves in all the time during a game is just going to create problems and slow the game down. Deal with problems outside of the session. Don't be a disruptive prick just because you got your panties in a wad.A DM can force a adventure to go the way he planned it.
This doesn't have **** to do with entitlement. It's just bad DM'ing and it's called railroading.The Players must adjust they way they play to how the DM wants it.
Yup. I run my campaigns a certain way and if the players can't adapt to it, they need to find another game. Every player adapts to the multitide of different ways that DMs run a game. It's just the way things are. One DM may use all kinds of house rules while another doesn't. Any player that tries to force either DM to chage is being an ass and thinks they're entitled to determine how the game runs.The DM must have the players play the way the DM sees as fun(such as forcing players to role-play, or forcing players to get involeded)
D&D is an RPG and a social activity. If you're not there to roleplay and you're not there to get involved in decision making in combat and social encounters, you're not there to play D&D. You're wasting the time of the DM and everyone else at the table and wasting space that someone else could take. Someone that wants to play, wants to roleplay, wants to make decisions, and wants to be active in the campaign.The Players have no say in how the world works, because the DM created it and the DM is the final word
Yup. If you want to have a say, make an equal contribution. Very few players will ever make even half the contribution a DM makes towards creating a world.
The only people doing it wrong, are the morons that just roll dice. [...] My way is the best way and I'll defend it as such.
I honestly was not expecting that. Usually posters here who act as though roleplaying-heavy D&D groups are implicitly superior admit that they aren't when confronted by the question directly.
Homebrew is fine, to me, as long as it remains D&D (a fantasy game about killing monsters and saving the (town/region/world) from threats. I expect when I sit down to play D&D to have something familiar to grasp onto to make it familiar. (dwarves live in the mountains and dig mines, the forests are full of monsters and ancient ruins of fallen cities, etc). If the details are different that's fine with me, as long as those details make sense (The dwarves that still live in the mountains have resorted to slavery due to a low birth rate, their nobles are the Duergar mirroring Bael Turath and the Tieflings. The remaining free dwarves brand themselves with the symbol of Moradin or other good gods on their forheads to mark themselves as not belonging to the slave clans, for example).
But there's a certain point where you're not playing D&D anymore. You're playing something else, which is what the OP's story seemed to be - The DM had mucked with the system to the point that it not only was a different genre (Sci-Fi) but also a different system. Sometimes its a subtle distinction, sometimes its glaringly obvious. But if someone asks you to play D&D and then when you ask about the game you find out its altered 4e and you're all playing with the vampire heritage bloodline feat and you have to keep your existence secret from the mortals of the city while navigating the dangers of vampiric politics...
Yeah, that's not D&D. Even if you're running a modified D&D system.
As far as players or groups "doing it wrong" by roleplaying too much or too little, well, I'm sorry. No. This is a game of make believe with rules attached. Sometimes, I want to RP my character top to bottom. Speaking in strange accents, thoroughly describing my characters actions, or having conversations in character with other characters.
Sometimes I want to throw dice, kill monsters, and take their stuff.
Neither way is the right way, nor the wrong way. They are both just ways.
Text!
I call troll.
Indeed.
The only people doing it wrong, are the morons that just roll dice. [...] My way is the best way and I'll defend it as such.
I honestly was not expecting that. Usually posters here who act as though roleplaying-heavy D&D groups are implicitly superior admit that they aren't when confronted by the question directly.
I'm not saying that role-playing heavy is superior. I'm just saying that any roleplaying at all is the superior and correct way to play D&D. Just rolling dice and moving crap around on the taable isn't playing D&D.
One person's way is not better than another's, another's way isn't better than your's, it's just different.
The only people doing it wrong, are the morons that just roll dice. [...] My way is the best way and I'll defend it as such.
I honestly was not expecting that. Usually posters here who act as though roleplaying-heavy D&D groups are implicitly superior admit that they aren't when confronted by the question directly.
I'm not saying that role-playing heavy is superior. I'm just saying that any roleplaying at all is the superior and correct way to play D&D. Just rolling dice and moving crap around on the taable isn't playing D&D.
lol almost took you serious
has often been a problem in D&D.D&D is an RPG. That's a fact. In order to be playing D&D properly, you do in fact, need to roleplay.
lol I acutally think you believe what you type
D&D is an RPG. That's a fact. In order to be playing D&D properly, you do in fact, need to roleplay.
Yep. you mean just like the dozens of silent RPG protagonists in other games wherein while you might interact with NPCs, it's nothing more than YEs/NO/Do this like across tons of PC and video games, which coincidentially are RPGs and solutions are nothing more than plug in the X?
Round 2. I can do this for a long time.And the G stands for Game, and properly playing a game means having fun.
You can't just cut out part of that and claim it to be true. You have to use the whole part of RPG, aka role playing game. It's not just a game, it's a role playing game.
D&D is an RPG. That's a fact. In order to be playing D&D properly, you do in fact, need to roleplay.
Yep. you mean just like the dozens of silent RPG protagonists in other games wherein while you might interact with NPCs, it's nothing more than YEs/NO/Do this like across tons of PC and video games, which coincidentially are RPGs and solutions are nothing more than plug in the X? Round 2. I can do this for a long time.
They're called CRPG's and thus are by their nature, more limited, but as tech has advanced, so has the choices available. =)
And the G stands for Game, and properly playing a game means having fun.
You can't just cut out part of that and claim it to be true. You have to use the whole part of RPG, aka role playing game. It's not just a game, it's a role playing game.
And why do people play games? To have fun. A game is still a game, despite what genre it belongs to. ;)
Feyberry, just as they have said above, it is a game. I mean just look at Magic: the Gathering with formats like EDH which are totally not sanctioned and have their own rules, and yet people play it just as so for fun. You seem to have this ridiculous notion game designers control the intent to which their product will be used, when they can just offer it as is to their own definitions, yet people can change whatever they want about it once they own it, really. Right down to how it will be played. as I said, Gygax being a silly grognard didn't make it true, and you can't either.
D&D is an RPG. A role playing game in which you play a role. It's not just a game. It's a role playing game. If you're not going to play a role, and that includes speaking in character, you shouldn't be playind D&D in the first place. Go find some other game to play that doesn't require roleplaying.
In some ways this is an improvement. In the very early days of D&D it was not at all uncommon to get into heated arguments over whether a PC or NPC had cover, was within range our could be affected by spells due to the inherent subjectivity of the verbally described encounters. Playing with miniatures helped, and with AD&D rules for movement, placement and tactics were revised and improved, as they have been (or have been attempted to have been) with each release ever since.
The natural response to this clarification and tightening of the rules has been the repeated exploitation of those rules. This inevitably increases the number-crunching aspect of the game.
When I first started playing D&D combat didn't even have rules for two-handed combat. My brother introduced the concept to us by wishing to be ambidextrous and bingo, we had a two-weapon fighter with no real guidelines for how to deal with attack frequency, attack bonus, etc. So we had to make them up.
In those days there weren't a lot of published modules either, and the content was used up pretty quickly. I remember spending hours at my job as a night drive-up bank teller. between customers creating my own campaign, which eventually grew to three loose-leaf binders, one for maps, one for NPCs and one to describe the world, continents, countries and political interaction of the countries. It was a labor of love and I never once heard a complaint about it from those who played in it. As such I tend to still prefer to "roll my own" when I run a campaign, most of which are still set in that ever-expanding world, even after several sets of rules updates.
"Role-playing" is a subjective term anyway. Some people are quite comfortable role-playing their character sheets as tactical gaming exercises. Others want to create complex multi-layered characters with strengths, weaknesses, foibles, history and ambitions.
I am biased, I prefer to role play characters as if they have lives, dreams and goals of their own. I have a fifth level fighter in a 3.5 campaign who has drinking and gambling problems, whose wife has thrown him out and whose greatest dream is to provide his somewhat homely daughter with a dowry and a chance to marry into the landed gentry. As such he just won a bunch of money gambling on a wild bet, and his first reaction is to send the bulk of it back to his estranged wife as a down payment on the dowry he has always promised his daughter.
I'm sure such a thing would drive some D&D players crazy since he could have instead upgraded his equipment or bought some consumable items that would have made him a better fighter. But his goal is to try to be a better father and to win back his wife. So that's how I play him. I think that makes him a more interesting and compelling character.
But that's not the only "right" way to play the game. There is plenty of room in the game for players who just want to create the biggest badass monster-kicking machine they can. I've played with all kinds of players and for the most part, I've enjoyed every game I've played.
It's not "only a game" but it is a game and there isn't just one way to have fun.
But back to the original topic of this thread, there is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the best campaigns I have ever been part of, either as a player or as a DM have been wholly home-grown. The richness of the experience and the satisfaction of having jointly created a unique collaborative story that NOBODY ELSE has ever seen is pretty sweet, especially when it's also far more imaginative, flexible and fun than any module I've ever played.
I guess I've been blessed with good DMs and good players.
But I'm reminded of the old man sitting on the road as a car comes by. The driver stops and leans out of the window and says to the old man "We are moving from another town where the people are spiteful, hateful and gossip about everything, we hated it! What's the town up ahead like?" And the old man replied "It's about the same as where you left." So the man says "Thanks! and turns off a side road to find a new town. A bit later another car comes by and the driver leans out and says "We are moving from a town full of wonderful, caring people who work and play together and help each other out. WHat's the town up ahead like?" And the old man says "It's about the same as where you left."
Arguing about whether it's better to play this way or that way on a forum like this isn't going to matter a hill of beans when it comes to actually playing the game. So far all of the players I've played with have been decent, interesting, fun people to play with, and all the DMs I've payed with have been creative, hard-working people intent on providing an enjoyable experience for their players. I suspect I'm going to keep finding players and DMs like that in the future.
D&D is an RPG. A role playing game in which you play a role. It's not just a game. It's a role playing game. If you're not going to play a role, and that includes speaking in character, you shouldn't be playind D&D in the first place. Go find some other game to play that doesn't require roleplaying.
So by that logic, if a person decides to play a mute character, they're not playing the game correctly...
The fact that D&D is a roleplaying game is irrelevant, it is still a game. And what are games? An activity/hobby/task that is meant to offer fun and enjoyment when taken part in.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. There is only one right way to play D&D, and that is whichever way is the most fun for your group.
If your group is having fun, you're doing it right. If your group is not having fun, you're doing it wrong.
One person's or group's way is not the best way, nor is it the better way, it is the way that is right for them(provided that they're having fun).
Simple as that.
D&D is an RPG. A role playing game in which you play a role. It's not just a game. It's a role playing game. If you're not going to play a role, and that includes speaking in character, you shouldn't be playind D&D in the first place. Go find some other game to play that doesn't require roleplaying.
So by that logic, if a person decides to play a mute character, they're not playing the game correctly...
The fact that D&D is a roleplaying game is irrelevant, it is still a game. And what are games? An activity/hobby/task that is meant to offer fun and enjoyment when taken part in.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. There is only one right way to play D&D, and that is whichever way is the most fun for your group.
If your group is having fun, you're doing it right. If your group is not having fun, you're doing it wrong.
One person's or group's way is not the best way, nor is it the better way, it is the way that is right for them(provided that they're having fun).
Simple as that.
everytime I play a mute character I'm tempted to draw up and cut out word bubbles with ellipses. It's very rare. Also this is hilarious, keep going. Seriously can we get any stance not based on gygax logic and nothing more than a naming convention to the genre which doesn't hold actual weight?
That's one of the many great things about this hobby, there's so many different ways D&D can be played.
That's one of the many great things about this hobby, there's so many different ways D&D can be played.
Yep, my way, and all the other wrong ways.
Seriously, I try to make my D&D sessions fun for everyone whether I'm the DM or a player. Life's too short to mess up one of my favorite pasttimes by worrying about whether we're doing it "right."
I’ve removed content from this thread because baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code of Conduct here: wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg...