Patience please! Lots of text incoming.
Background: I've been playing with the same group for over a year. It's my first D&D campaign (ever), but I've done a lot of other roleplaying before. I really like the group, and my finacé and I have finally gotten them to start real roleplaying instead of roll-playing.
I'm playing a Dwarven cleric/fighter hybrid and I'm having a lot of fun. The character does what she does because her mother is a (retired) cleric of Berronar Truesilver, and her father is a Favored of Moradin. Why heal things when you can hit them too? Why only hit bad guys when you can also heal your friends? Character wise, she was raised in both temples, and according to both religions. Her choice to be a cleric of Berronar was because she embraced the ideals of family, loyalty, etc more than righteous rage and protection.
In all the roleplaying that's been done so far, my character is both motherly to the group (I have actually reminded characters to wear their hoods up because it's raining) and fierce in a fight (I destroy things well with my craghammer).
Situation: In our most recent roleplaying session, the party actually encountered my character's family (in part). I was excited about this, and was practically bouncing for the hijinx and fun I though would ensue. When it came time for the DM to roleplay the char's mother (a true believer of the dwarven goddess of family, protection and whatnot), she was condescending, disapproving of my char's choices, and actually suggested that my char step down as a cleric, as I couldn't really be a true follower of the goddess. The party members were not permitted in the home (she even started aiming a crossbow at them out the window later, as my character's pseudo-romantic interest is *gasp* a human), and a tentative request for food was abruptly denied. By a believer of the goddess of dwarven hospitality.
Problem: His portrayal of this religion has completely soured me on it. His portayal is not at all how I imagined that particular branch of clergy behaving, and for the life of me, I cannot find it attractive any longer.
My original plan was to go Warpriest (paragon) to Saint (epic). From a storytelling perspective, this follows the character's adherence to both Moradin (Warpriest) and Berronar (Saint). But after that session, I'm not excited about it. All I can think is to have a 'change of heart' mid-Paragon and change from a cleric of Berronar to one of Moradin, and end as Aspect of War.
TL;DR: I really like my character, but due to the DM's portrayal of something important in RP, I no longer like the religion or paths my character has chosen. I don't know what to do, and I'd like advice if anyone has any.
I would just copy and paste that block of text to your DM. You have good points and valid complaints about how he role-played your family. Tell him that you created your character with most of his background based on his family and the DM did a fairly good job of wreaking your vision. He'll probably just say it was "that time of the month" for your mom and the next time you see her it'll be okay!
I've seen similar things happen a lot in games, usually around religions and deities (alignments are so wooly, the groups just didn't go there).
We had one DM who had deities to turn up from time to time to instruct or assist the characters. This was never a "deus ex machina" (no pun intended), but it was always a problem. Why? The deity in question nearly always ended up being a comple a*** and upsetting the cleric or paladin. Often resulted in them changing religion (you'd have thought that meeting your chosen deity would usually be the high point of a cleric's career). Sometimes it was the player's fault, handling the realtionship as "I pray to you, so give me poweeer . . ."
In any case, it's the DM's world view that defines most things not immediately on your character sheet. If he or she is responsive, I second the advice above to have a chat. He might welcome some RP hints for your character's relatives, or for the religion which to your character is the main schtick, but to the DM is one of many he needs to understand. They are not your character, but provided you don't willfully write in special advantages, I am sure a little extra background from you would be great. The DM might feel they are operating in a vacuum and doing their best to make an interesting story.
On the other hand, we don't usually get to choose what our parents are like in the real world, and they are supposed to be NPCs under the DM's control . . . so allowing the DM to insert some things beyond your control is reasonable. If it spoils the mood for you, the character's family might best be put back into the background for fear of spoiling the game either for you or for the DM.
One alternative: If the meet-the-family section is mostly a bit of cosy RP-ing, that you put your character aside and co-DM the encounter. Obviously agree this with the DM, if you think it is workable. Important if you do this that you don't end up RP-ing your character's family for your own entertainment. The points would be to take on some of the things that the DM is making a mismatch for you, to make the whole thing a bit of RP fun, and try to bring out some RP from the other players by engaging between their characters and your character's folks. If you do this, your own cleric/fighter should be put aside somehow for the duration . . .
...this sounds like a perfect opportunity to explain to your DM that you don't like what just happened by way of role-playing your character as though she grew up with the family as you feel they would behave, and then insist to your adventuring companions that something evil has obviously tainted your family, or even replaced them with evil dopplegangers (possibly even literally) and ask that they all help you set things right.
Then you refuse all plot-line development that is not "go on quest to restore my family," until the DM gets the point.
Sorry, but a DM that wants to portray a PC's family members should only do so when they either a) are family members of a character that the player said "I don't care, do whatever you want with the family thing," about, or b) are going to have the player tell them who the family members are and how to portray them, and stick to it.
As a DM, I think this sort of behavior is exactly equal to things such as "Alright... so you wake up a Fighter instead of a Wizard, here's your new character sheet... but it's okay, you're still the same character." - meaning: this stuff just doesn't work out the way you though it would DM.
I agree that the DM crossed boundries into territory that he shouldn't have. If he's going to play merry hob with how your family members react then he ought to have consulted you first on whether you cared one way or another, if you had any thoughts on how familial relationships affected your characters development, and so forth. The DM doesn't have the right to just decide out of the blue that... oh, I dunno... your father was abusive, murdered your mother shortly after you were born, and hates you - especially if you had simply been thinking that he was a kindly, stereotype, unobtrusive farmer who would wish nothing but the best for you.
Personally, I would have a good conversation with the DM about how severely and UNNECESSARILY this destroyed your character concept. I'd also suggest that you inform the DM that you intend to consider this little more than a sure sign that your mother is under some kind of curse, magical control, or duress - the cause of which may be simple and easy to deal with or become a major focus in the game but that the next time the DM decides to go stomping into your characters background with his size 14's that he'd better find out what YOU think that background is in the first place. Even then, there had better be an ADDITIONAL conversation with the other players about how the DM may or may not consider their character background to be HIS to decide for you as well as to screw with at his whim.
IMO the DM is wrong because he should have been familiar with how a follower of a particular religion would act; unless there's some ulterior motive (not her real mother, possessed, etc) the DM messed up royally.
However, I have to say the reaction to the character's love interest may have been appropriate, since Dwarves aren't always fond of humans and the NPC might not like it if her daughter is romantically involved with a human.
Kind of reminds me of the odd exchange when Flint Fireforge meets Roerx.
I had talked to the DM before the gaming session, reminding him of my character's background and family life. I've not asked for anything special from the family; the family make-up just worked really well to explain how and why my character would choose the path she did.
I also brought this up to the DM because I wanted him to have a chance to be prepared for the probability of the character visiting home while in the city. His NPCs have a tendency to be snooty, unhelpful, or condescending. (We've often joked that we should be adventuring in Eladrin lands, because that attitude is something the player base has decided suits the Eladrin.) I mentioned this tendency of his, noting that it wasn't appropriate for my perception of the family.
The visit-the-family wasn't meant to be a huge deal. It was more of a chance to encourage more roleplaying from some of the other players, and was brought about after a group discussion to involve more family/background in the game setting. (We were not born level 1 adventurers with swords and shields in our hands, ready to face evil. We came from somewhere.)
I plan to talk to the DM before our next game, and let him know how his portrayal has changed my opinion of the character's history and beliefs. I can see the whole thing going one of two ways: I make the suggestion that the mother was under some sort of influence (which I like! This is why I asked the question of the forums!) and start searching for a resolution, OR the entire situation is ignored, and the rest of the player base sees that there's really no point in bothering with a background or motivation other than "I kills stuffs."
BTW: Yeah, her reaction to the human suitor was acceptable. I understand that races cross-breeding can often be seen as less than wanted, and I'd planned to run with it. I never got the chance with the cold-as-icy-nails mom, though I actually knew what I wanted to say if it was brought up.
"But Mother, even half-elves have to come from somewhere!"
...this sounds like a perfect opportunity to explain to your DM that you don't like what just happened by way of role-playing your character as though she grew up with the family as you feel they would behave, and then insist to your adventuring companions that something evil has obviously tainted your family, or even replaced them with evil dopplegangers (possibly even literally) and ask that they all help you set things right.
This may very well be what your DM intends. Remember that usually when a DM throws you a curve ball, there is most likely somthing amiss. RP it out, make your SM and Dip checks. I smell a deep emersion story arc adventure here.
People can interpret religion in a lot of different ways. It's possible that the dwarf in question is applying the concept of 'dwarven hospitality' to mean 'hospitality to dwarves, screw everybody else'. Religious tenets are remarkably slippery things; your character has your interpretations of the religion, your character's mother has hers. This doesn't mean either of you are 'wrong', and you have no reason to change your character's outlook, religion, or progression.
...this sounds like a perfect opportunity to explain to your DM that you don't like what just happened by way of role-playing your character as though she grew up with the family as you feel they would behave, and then insist to your adventuring companions that something evil has obviously tainted your family, or even replaced them with evil dopplegangers (possibly even literally) and ask that they all help you set things right.
This may very well be what your DM intends. Remember that usually when a DM throws you a curve ball, there is most likely somthing amiss. RP it out, make your SM and Dip checks. I smell a deep emersion story arc adventure here.
Maybe... but I'd mention it and plant the idea just in case.
People can interpret religion in a lot of different ways. It's possible that the dwarf in question is applying the concept of 'dwarven hospitality' to mean 'hospitality to dwarves, screw everybody else'. Religious tenets are remarkably slippery things; your character has your interpretations of the religion, your character's mother has hers. This doesn't mean either of you are 'wrong', and you have no reason to change your character's outlook, religion, or progression.
If the DM is a DragonLance fan this would make a lot of sense.
People can interpret religion in a lot of different ways. It's possible that the dwarf in question is applying the concept of 'dwarven hospitality' to mean 'hospitality to dwarves, screw everybody else'. Religious tenets are remarkably slippery things; your character has your interpretations of the religion, your character's mother has hers. This doesn't mean either of you are 'wrong', and you have no reason to change your character's outlook, religion, or progression.
(Emphasis mine.)
I want to agree with this, and I do in real life. In game life, the character's understanding of and belief in the religion was based on her mother's example. 
People can interpret religion in a lot of different ways. It's possible that the dwarf in question is applying the concept of 'dwarven hospitality' to mean 'hospitality to dwarves, screw everybody else'. Religious tenets are remarkably slippery things; your character has your interpretations of the religion, your character's mother has hers. This doesn't mean either of you are 'wrong', and you have no reason to change your character's outlook, religion, or progression.
(Emphasis mine.)
I want to agree with this, and I do in real life. In game life, the character's understanding of and belief in the religion was based on her mother's example.
It still works, with a tiny bit of finagling.. Your understand and belief in the religion was based on your mother's example ... and you decided she was wrong. 
The more I read into this, the more I think there is a plot involving a (literal) doppelganger. You should definitely talk to your DM to ensure that he/she knows of your concerns, and to possibly confirm that there is more to this situation meets the eye.
While I agree with Salla that not all members of a religion should act the same without some explantion from the setting, I would think that close family members generally know of the religious views of other family members. I guess they could change suddenly, but that doesn't address the underlying issue that the PC's backstory was not taken into account, resulting in a situation which can't really be RPed, and is more then a bit rude.
If you are determined to take this IC (I suggest OOC, telling the DM that he RPed the mother completely wrong) I suggest starting small first, as not to deter the group goal. Depending on the relationship the PC has with her mother, ask the NPC upfront why she's changed so much. While taking the party on a quest to resuce Mommykins from the evil doppleganger will get the hint across, the others may not be interested or misinterpet your goals. However, your PC may become saddened by the encounter, knowing that she left her mother in questionable mental health and or in mortal peril in order to save the world.
I still suggest talking OOC, because it sounds like your DM has a slight issue with NPCs that needs to be addressed. Unless its not affecting the fun of your game.
While it may have soured things for you, their might have been more to it indeed.
A common view of dwarves holds them to be traditional of mindset, slightly xenophobic and untrusting of other races and highly loyal to their clan. At the very least devoted to the thing they put their minds on.
Then you get a dwarven child (in a parents' eyes) that left the clan, claims to devote her/himself equally to 2 gods, has a non dwarf love interest, stops by to get food, ans wants to bring non dwarves in the houses.
A cleric of the dwarven goddess of hospitability might not be hospitable to non-dwarves afterall.
It might have soured it for you, but if I were you, I would just run with it. Children don't always agree with their parents. You can always later try to come to an understanding with your parents later. Dwarves don't exactly have short lives, so let it cool for a few decades.
On the other hand, it's possible that your dm just felt like playing your mother in an 'interesting' way and fumbled it.
You know your dm, so you probably can better guess which of the 2.
People can interpret religion in a lot of different ways. It's possible that the dwarf in question is applying the concept of 'dwarven hospitality' to mean 'hospitality to dwarves, screw everybody else'. Religious tenets are remarkably slippery things; your character has your interpretations of the religion, your character's mother has hers. This doesn't mean either of you are 'wrong', and you have no reason to change your character's outlook, religion, or progression.
(Emphasis mine.)
I want to agree with this, and I do in real life. In game life, the character's understanding of and belief in the religion was based on her mother's example.
And as we all know, a child's perception of they're parents is always incorrect. Parents do everything they can to only pass on the best traits and values that they posses. Looks like you are seeing some of your mother's darkside for the first time, you should roll with it. Besides getting upset with how the DM chooses to play an NPC, and especially letting it effect your perception of your own character is kinda poor form imo, if everything always worked out shiney and happy there wouldn't be a point to playing the encounters out.
i'd say the biggest element to tell your DM is that your character's family is essentially your character also. those family members are not a part of his NPC line-up, and his portrayal of them should be railroaded by you.
the decisions about how the mother feels toward her daughter's decisions are yours to decide. i'd force a re-play of the entire encounter after speaking with the DM about it.
if he has some fun plan to make you go out on a quest to repair what happened to your mother, you should have been consulted; because, [as i said] your character's family is your character not his NPC.
i wouldn't accept anything less. tell him that he retcons the scene or you simply walk away from the table until another DM takes over.
There are a huge number of options presented by this situation and simply switching gods is by far the least attractive of them.
In truth, I don't even see the problem. Instead I see a situation packed with great RP which adds a tremndous emount of new depth to your character and his background.
Just cos your mom sees thigns a certain way doesn't mean that's necessarily the way they are, or that you and your mom must see eye-to-eye on everything. There are many ways to interpret a religion, it could simply be that your and your mother's are diametrically opposed and a source of much conflict between you both. And even if she is emblematic of your religion as a whole, that doesn't mean you have to follow that path. Perhaps you have a very unique take on your faith and are wokring to change it from within. And hell, even if that doesn't work for you, how could you possibly fail to see the fabulous RP potential in a cleric undergoing a crisis of faith?
There is a saying in design: "See a flaw, make a feature". You see a flaw right now, but take the time to see the huge number of eatures you can make of it. We should all have such a predicament. I envy you.
Cheers.
There are a huge number of options presented by this situation and simply switching gods is by far the least attractive of them.
Out of curiosity, why is this an unattractive choice?
Alright, you get her head, I'll get her legs! We've got to tie her down before the demon inside of her wakes up and starts killing us all! Quick, get the incense, we have to start the exorcism!
Alright, you get her head, I'll get her legs! We've got to tie her down before the demon inside of her wakes up and starts killing us all! Quick, get the incense, we have to start the exorcism!
Yea, If I were DM, I would *likely* go along with your idea, perhaps make you fight a imp or two that just were kicked out of their homes! It would be funny, to say the least...
IMO the DM is wrong because he should have been familiar with how a follower of a particular religion would act; unless there's some ulterior motive (not her real mother, possessed, etc) the DM messed up royally.
However, I have to say the reaction to the character's love interest may have been appropriate, since Dwarves aren't always fond of humans and the NPC might not like it if her daughter is romantically involved with a human.
I'll go one step further and suggest that a DWARVEN follower of the DWARVEN Goddess of Hospitality is under no obligation to be hospitable to non-dwarves. She might have been, had the love interest not been a non-dwarf. I really don't see anything that was played wrong by the DM. Could it have been played differently? Absolutely. But how it was played was perfectly in line with the situation.
As for DMs portraying family members. Any being that is not a PC is an NPC. The PC can give some general personality traits about his family, but cannot control the in depth personalities of his family members. That's for the DM to do. What's more, as situations come up(like a non-dwarven romantic interest), things will change in how your family reacts.
As for DMs portraying family members. Any being that is not a PC is an NPC. The PC can give some general personality traits about his family, but cannot control the in depth personalities of his family members. That's for the DM to do. What's more, as situations come up(like a non-dwarven romantic interest), things will change in how your family reacts.
not so IMO, the character's family members or key members of their background belong to the player. those are not the incarnations of the DM and it would be inappropriate for the DM to take ownership.
the player owns those elements. it is true that they are not party members. they are not necessarily adventurers. but they belong to the player that spent their own imaginative juice to create them and should be respected as such. it is similar to intellectual property.
so, there ought to have been consultation between the player and DM about how those background elements can be used by the DM in the game. if the DM doesn't treat it with appropriate respect, then the player retains the right to revoke DM privilege of that material.
seriously, read DMG2 for more info about including elements from players. they have just as much ability to generate creative elements. if a DM doesn't treat their contribution with consideration, they could take their game elsewhere.
I think the DM is mostly right in this.
If you go home and it's all happy kittens, there is no drama.
I posit that you have fond SELECTIVE memories of home.
I'd roll with it and say "You can never go home again."
As others have posted, your PC has two religions, brings home outsiders, etc. etc.
You are a haight ashbury love child trying to fit into the corporate dwarven business world...and not liking it.
Press on.
Your PC sheet is your history as you see it.
The world is what exists as the DM envisions it.
If you write "My Brother is a happy, loving kind soul," does that mean that the DM can never embroil them in a plot where they are accused of murder, and you need to seek proof of his innocence?
Can your PC never wake up in an inn room drenched in blood with no memory of what happened, after the night of drinking?
Some players, can't abide this stuff. Some can.
Good luck in any case, and welcome to D&D (Albeit a year later.)
Generally speaking: I had no problem how the DM portrayed Mom's reaction to the non-Dwarven love-interest. I actually thought that was funny and accurate. It was the portrayal of the mother to be contrary to everything he and I had discussed two days before the game.
I did talk to my DM for a long time about how I felt regarding the situation, and that if there wasn't some specific plot-based reason for the reaction (doppleganger, larger familial problem, etc) that I wanted to ret-con the whole thing--either redoing the RP or as if the situation had never happened. My DM and I actually got to talk a lot about the way things were going in game, and the kinds of things we'd each like to see happening. We actually came to a really solid understanding. He said that he'd let me choose which way to follow up the encounter, or we could decide on a die roll (odds are plot-hook, evens are redo). I opted to follow the plot hook, since we are just about done with our current job.
Unfortunately, one of our players (incidentally, the one who had the location) got a job six states away and asked us to table the game for when he comes back. We hemmed and hawed a bit, but several players and the DM were excited to start an Eberron campaign instead. We spent our entire 6 hour session talking about the kind of game we wanted, citing the recent RP-with-Mom upset to fully discuss and decide on the kind of roleplay we wanted as a group and as individuals.
Because we had this confrontation, the DM has actually become more open, and wants to have more character background and character NPCs, which he promised would be played primarily as written. That way, he said as he grinned at me, we'd know something was wrong or different when they behaved differently, and it would help the players feel more connected to the world (which is what I was aiming for in the first place!)
I want to thank everyone for their responses to this thread. It was helpful to be able to see both sides of possibility, and to find the best way to talk to my DM about my concerns. It was actually pretty awesome to have such an open conversation about everyone's expectations and desires about the game come out of such a problem point for me.
There are a huge number of options presented by this situation and simply switching gods is by far the least attractive of them.
Out of curiosity, why is this an unattractive choice?
It's not unattractive, simply the least attractive option. Mostly cos it is the easy way out and completely eschews all the great RP potential of the situation.
Generally speaking: I had no problem how the DM portrayed Mom's reaction to the non-Dwarven love-interest. I actually thought that was funny and accurate. It was the portrayal of the mother to be contrary to everything he and I had discussed two days before the game.
I did talk to my DM for a long time about how I felt regarding the situation, and that if there wasn't some specific plot-based reason for the reaction (doppleganger, larger familial problem, etc) that I wanted to ret-con the whole thing--either redoing the RP or as if the situation had never happened. My DM and I actually got to talk a lot about the way things were going in game, and the kinds of things we'd each like to see happening. We actually came to a really solid understanding. He said that he'd let me choose which way to follow up the encounter, or we could decide on a die roll (odds are plot-hook, evens are redo). I opted to follow the plot hook, since we are just about done with our current job.
Unfortunately, one of our players (incidentally, the one who had the location) got a job six states away and asked us to table the game for when he comes back. We hemmed and hawed a bit, but several players and the DM were excited to start an Eberron campaign instead. We spent our entire 6 hour session talking about the kind of game we wanted, citing the recent RP-with-Mom upset to fully discuss and decide on the kind of roleplay we wanted as a group and as individuals.
Because we had this confrontation, the DM has actually become more open, and wants to have more character background and character NPCs, which he promised would be played primarily as written. That way, he said as he grinned at me, we'd know something was wrong or different when they behaved differently, and it would help the players feel more connected to the world (which is what I was aiming for in the first place!)
I want to thank everyone for their responses to this thread. It was helpful to be able to see both sides of possibility, and to find the best way to talk to my DM about my concerns. It was actually pretty awesome to have such an open conversation about everyone's expectations and desires about the game come out of such a problem point for me.
They should put one word in every rule boook in large, red type because so many problems in D&D would be solved if people paid attention to it:
COMMUNICATE!
not so IMO, the character's family members or key members of their background belong to the player. those are not the incarnations of the DM and it would be inappropriate for the DM to take ownership.
The background is set in the DMs world, as such, it is in his hands once complete. The players can't just dictate to the DM how his world is going to be via their backgrounds.
the player owns those elements. it is true that they are not party members. they are not necessarily adventurers. but they belong to the player that spent their own imaginative juice to create them and should be respected as such. it is similar to intellectual property.
They don't own it. It's a co-ownership since it sits in and modifies the DMs game world. The most the player can do is let the DM know in general how his family behaves and what they believe.
so, there ought to have been consultation between the player and DM about how those background elements can be used by the DM in the game. if the DM doesn't treat it with appropriate respect, then the player retains the right to revoke DM privilege of that material.
Yes. There should definately be consultation. However, if game play alters things about the background or woud change the views or behaviors of the family, the DM is in charge. The player has no right to revoke the DMs RIGHT to control his game world and all things in it other than the PCs.
seriously, read DMG2 for more info about including elements from players. they have just as much ability to generate creative elements. if a DM doesn't treat their contribution with consideration, they could take their game elsewhere.
This is their option, yes. That doesn't mean that the DM can't decide that circumstances have changed an outlook or behavior on the part of the parents.
@ Maxperson: nope. IMO. i don't buy it.
if one of my players created it, it belongs to them, even in my world. i work with them to create an experience they will enjoy.
i appreciate when players are interested and active in creating an immersive setting. if it doesn't fit, then i find a way to work it in. but their creations always belong to them. their ideas never become co-owned by me.
As for DMs portraying family members. Any being that is not a PC is an NPC. The PC can give some general personality traits about his family, but cannot control the in depth personalities of his family members. That's for the DM to do. What's more, as situations come up(like a non-dwarven romantic interest), things will change in how your family reacts.
not so IMO, the character's family members or key members of their background belong to the player. those are not the incarnations of the DM and it would be inappropriate for the DM to take ownership.the player owns those elements. it is true that they are not party members. they are not necessarily adventurers. but they belong to the player that spent their own imaginative juice to create them and should be respected as such. it is similar to intellectual property.
so, there ought to have been consultation between the player and DM about how those background elements can be used by the DM in the game. if the DM doesn't treat it with appropriate respect, then the player retains the right to revoke DM privilege of that material.
seriously, read DMG2 for more info about including elements from players. they have just as much ability to generate creative elements. if a DM doesn't treat their contribution with consideration, they could take their game elsewhere.
Sentences start with capitol letters.
The part in bold is just flat wrong. Yes the player created it, but it is the DM's job to bring it to life, and to do so in the context of the story and the campaign that the DM is running. If the player adds character background in to the shared world they do not "own it", your characters background isn't intellectual property. The DM might have reasons for doing some of these things that will add to the game down the line that we don't even know about.
I have read the DMG2 and there is a lot in there about cooperative world / story building. All of that is optional advice and by no means are they rules carved in stone that DMs need to feel obligated to follow. And no where in there did it say that you have to take the player's suggestion completely as is, to the contrary in most of the given examples the DM modifies the contributions.
not so IMO, the character's family members or key members of their background belong to the player. those are not the incarnations of the DM and it would be inappropriate for the DM to take ownership.the player owns those elements. it is true that they are not party members. they are not necessarily adventurers. but they belong to the player that spent their own imaginative juice to create them and should be respected as such. it is similar to intellectual property.
I disagree with every part of this. The player does not own the elements of his background. D&D is a shared experience and the moment he introduces those elements into the game they become part of that communal fiction. The player has control over one part of the game - his PC - but the PC's past and background are the DM's to do with as he will.
A PC background exists for a two reasons - to contextualize the PC within the game and world and to provide the DM "fluff" to work into the game. The moment a player dictates that his backstory elements are inviolate he is essentially saying his PC is of paramount importance, more so than the other PCs or even the game itself. This is utter nonsense. Any player who is so in olve with their
so, there ought to have been consultation between the player and DM about how those background elements can be used by the DM in the game. if the DM doesn't treat it with appropriate respect,
This, however, is pretty much right on the money (except for the word "can") at least until…
then the player retains the right to revoke DM privilege of that material.
…which is a load of cobblers.
seriously, read DMG2 for more info about including elements from players. they have just as much ability to generate creative elements. if a DM doesn't treat their contribution with consideration, they could take their game elsewhere.
Yes they can take their game elsewhere, but they cannot dictate to the DM what he is permitted to do with story elements into which they had input. When a player is part of a game they are ceding control to the DM of everything in the game universe that is not their PC, and that includes any and all background elements of said PC.
If a particular element is important to the PC and the player then the player should discuss it with the DM, and a good DM will respect the player's input and creativity, but the player cannot simply veto the DM's interpretation. Once in play a player has no more control of how his NPC parents act than you or I can for our own parents in the real-world.
i still disagree. if my player tells me that the parents were kind and loving as PC grew, gave attention and nice things--even bought a pony-- then that is the creation they get to keep. if they want to visit their parents in-game, we can discuss how they want that to go.
let's say they want to ask dad for an uberpowerful weapon so that nothing is ever hard again. i can still have father answer, "no. i don't have any way to get that for you." but, i'm not going to have dad suddenly say, "no, and i hate you child. i wish that you had never returned from your exile. why can't you get eaten by a dragon?"
it is up to me and my players how that exchange goes, and if do a bad job of it--totally screweing their family life experience, then they ought to tell me so and let me know they want to enjoy their RP moments.
ownership isn't about forcing a DM to give you what you want.
i don't buy into your logic that once it is on the table that it belongs to the communal donation plate.
my players own their ideas. if they work, it is easy to include those ideas. if they don't work, i may have to adapt them to fit, but i do that in consultation with the player. i don't get to hear a neat idea and just make it my own to run with as i please.
but i own my ideas too. they don't get to make my decisions for me.
my table group is pretty fantastic. we work together to develop the story arc and they've been able to really take advantage of the communal effort. even so, my NPCs are mine and their ideas are theirs. adaptations are basically theirs also.
a journalist doesn't lose ownership of their writing just because an editor looked it over and made, or asked for, changes. and that is what i mean by the similarity to intellectual property. i can make adaptations, but i still call it their idea. i still work out the details with the player before it comes into the game.
well, all-in-all, i disagree with the reasoning presented. i respectfully disagree.
you've got good sound logic, but i don't buy into it. i'm going to continue playing differently.
i'm done making my case. i've been clear and concise, and you also have been clear and concise. i still disagree. some i'm finished making my case and i'm finished reading through yours.
see you around the forums.
i still disagree. if my player tells me that the parents were kind and loving as PC grew, gave attention and nice things--even bought a pony-- then that is the creation they get to keep. if they want to visit their parents in-game, we can discuss how they want that to go.let's say they want to ask dad for an uberpowerful weapon so that nothing is ever hard again. i can still have father answer, "no. i don't have any way to get that for you." but, i'm not going to have dad suddenly say, "no, and i hate you child. i wish that you had never returned from your exile. why can't you get eaten by a dragon?"
What your parents were when you were growing up does not dictate who they are now. Things, and people, change. There may be a very good reason why the PC's parent has turned on him so. Without such a reason, though, it would just be bad DMing, which is not unique to this scenario.
A lot fo people had great childhoods but ended up disappointing their parents or going against their wishes and having their relationship turn cold, or even antagonistic. Why should it be any different in D&D?
it is up to me and my players how that exchange goes, and if do a bad job of it--totally screweing their family life experience, then they ought to tell me so and let me know they want to enjoy their RP moments.
Which is endemic to all DMing and D&D gameply and again in no way specific or unique to this scenario.
ownership isn't about forcing a DM to give you what you want.
No, but your comments about the player allowing or diallowing the DM to do certain things is just that.
i don't buy into your logic that once it is on the table that it belongs to the communal donation plate.
I'm not asking you to. You can choose to "buy into" or avoid whatever you choose.
my players own their ideas. if they work, it is easy to include those ideas. if they don't work, i may have to adapt them to fit, but i do that in consultation with the player. i don't get to hear a neat idea and just make it my own to run with as i please.
If the player is not willing to have the DM "run with" elements of the PC's backstory then those elements should not be included.
A player should discuss his backstory with the DM before play begins. If there are certain things that the player believes are untouchable or unchangeable then that should be worked out with the DM beforehand. Once the dice hit the table the DM can, and should, use every element at his disposal as he sees fit to help create the most enjoyable game possible.
but i own my ideas too. they don't get to make my decisions for me.
You are suggesting that they should, however.
my table group is pretty fantastic. we work together to develop the story arc and they've been able to really take advantage of the communal effort. even so, my NPCs are mine and their ideas are theirs. adaptations are basically theirs also.
If that works for you then great. Why does that mean you cannot accept that others play it differently and that their style of game is not incorrect or flawed?
a journalist doesn't lose ownership of their writing just because an editor looked it over and made, or asked for, changes. and that is what i mean by the similarity to intellectual property.
D&D is not journalism. It is not literature. It is not publication. It is a game.
And FYI, the ower of a piece of writing is very often not the person who wrote it, but rather the person who published it and who paid the writer or journalist to write the piece for them.
i can make adaptations, but i still call it their idea. i still work out the details with the player before it comes into the game.
And all such details should be worked out before the game. The player cannot simply veto the DM during play as you suggested above. Once the game begins, the DM is free to do whatever he wants with the tools at his command, including those provided by the players.
i still disagree. if my player tells me that the parents were kind and loving as PC grew, gave attention and nice things--even bought a pony-- then that is the creation they get to keep. if they want to visit their parents in-game, we can discuss how they want that to go.
The problem is that kind and loving parents can still get angry. Kind and loving parents can still be mean to someone who is a threat to their children. The player doesn't get to dictate the parental reactions to circumstances later introduced into the game.
let's say they want to ask dad for an uberpowerful weapon so that nothing is ever hard again. i can still have father answer, "no. i don't have any way to get that for you." but, i'm not going to have dad suddenly say, "no, and i hate you child. i wish that you had never returned from your exile. why can't you get eaten by a dragon?"
So what. If the DM is doing this, then the problem isn't his control of your NPC parents. The problem is that he's just a lousy DM. The rest of the game will be suffering just as badly..
Me: "No...?"
Her: "HE IS NOW."
Me: "But... you're a cleric of Ilmater?!!!"
Her: "Yeah... the god of suffering!"
I didn't read the other posts, but...
Cleartly your family is being pressured, or has been killed or kidnapped and replaced. Those people are not your family, you must do something about it.
Also talk to your DM.
hm... ask your mother something that only her immediate family would know, that impodters wouldn't think to ask. If she gets it wrong, capture her and any other suspicious family members you can catch, and use as many mind-reading, compultion, or other spells that could help you fiigure out the location of your real parents
The DM basically has free reign to do whatever he or she wants in his or her world, with any character except the PC.
That said, I find it to be exceptionally bad form to allow a player to create a background and then, later on, proceed to contradict it. If a player wants to create a background and it's not consistent with the DM's vision, then the DM should be up front and informative about that at creation. "Oh hey, this won't fit with any dwarves in my world--would you like to change it?"
The DM basically has free reign to do whatever he or she wants in his or her world, with any character except the PC.
That said, I find it to be exceptionally bad form to allow a player to create a background and then, later on, proceed to contradict it. If a player wants to create a background and it's not consistent with the DM's vision, then the DM should be up front and informative about that at creation. "Oh hey, this won't fit with any dwarves in my world--would you like to change it?"
Right, but what the DM did with the parents in OP's background did not contradict anything. It was simply one of many consistent responses to what OP did.
Does it really matter whether the DM has the right or not to change NPCs based on what the players designed? The real issue is that the DM did something that lessened the fun of one of his players and that is always a bad idea if you want your players returning to your game ;) If a DM works with things designed by the players, it is always a good idea to make sure to know what the player envisioned when designing the item and to realize that messing with them is somewhat risky. Some players love it when you do so, others dislike it.
Does it really matter whether the DM has the right or not to change NPCs based on what the players designed? The real issue is that the DM did something that lessened the fun of one of his players and that is always a bad idea if you want your players returning to your game ;)
The DM did what he thought was right and it turned out not to work. The DM cannot simply ask his players every time he does something if what he wants to do is wrong, and then only do it if the players all agree that it will be fun. He just has to do things and usually they work out for the best. If like what happened this time it turns out badly, he makes a note of that and moves on.
If a DM works with things designed by the players, it is always a good idea to make sure to know what the player envisioned when designing the item and to realize that messing with them is somewhat risky. Some players love it when you do so, others dislike it.
A rather useless endeavor. The player will never be able to articulate everything he expects in every situation. Rather, the player will do as OP did and present things to the DM in general terms and the DM will have to interpret those things for what happens with specifics. And yes, messing around with that IS risky, but it's a risk that cannot be avoided unless you never, ever bring a PCs background into play. I've yet to see a player who made a background not want their background to be brought into the game.
I never said that I expected the DM to have a perfect track record. DMs are humans too 
It is just that when a DM works with something a player has designed he has to pay more attention it and be much more ready to retroactively change things.
I never said that I expected the DM to have a perfect track record. DMs are humans too It is just that when a DM works with something a player has designed he has to pay more attention it and be much more ready to retroactively change things.
Yes, but the player ALSO needs to keep an open mind and try and see the DMs view as well. In this case(if I recall correctly), the player was most upset at the idea of his mother, a priestess of the Goddess of the Hearth, turned away the rest of the PCs.
OP failed to realize and understand that a DWARVEN follower would not necessarily feel any need to treat non-dwarves as welcome in her home. OP did not specify that she was far more open than the vast majority of dwarves and would extend her dwarven feelings to non-dwarves. Nor did OP realize that the outside factor of his romantic relationship with a non-dwarf would affect how mom felt towards being nice to non-dwarves. This despite realizing and accepting that mom was upset by that relationship. The DM did nothing wrong here, and I think in this circumstance, OP should have been the one to say "I can see that." or "That makes sense." and then move on.
I never said that I expected the DM to have a perfect track record. DMs are humans too It is just that when a DM works with something a player has designed he has to pay more attention it and be much more ready to retroactively change things.
Yes, but the player ALSO needs to keep an open mind and try and see the DMs view as well. In this case(if I recall correctly), the player was most upset at the idea of his mother, a priestess of the Goddess of the Hearth, turned away the rest of the PCs.OP failed to realize and understand that a DWARVEN follower would not necessarily feel any need to treat non-dwarves as welcome in her home. OP did not specify that she was far more open than the vast majority of dwarves and would extend her dwarven feelings to non-dwarves. Nor did OP realize that the outside factor of his romantic relationship with a non-dwarf would affect how mom felt towards being nice to non-dwarves. This despite realizing and accepting that mom was upset by that relationship. The DM did nothing wrong here, and I think in this circumstance, OP should have been the one to say "I can see that." or "That makes sense." and then move on.
I read it as he was upset that his character had learned his ways of whatever god from his mother, and now their views are irreconcilable. His background indicated that his mother's and his viewpoints were nearly identical, and the DM contradicted it.
The question is whether or not it's a plot point.
I read it as he was upset that his character had learned his ways of whatever god from his mother, and now their views are irreconcilable. His background indicated that his mother's and his viewpoints were nearly identical, and the DM contradicted it.
The question is whether or not it's a plot point.
Either way, it's the same. The viewpoint is only irreconcilable if OP doesn't understand how mom's actions fit with the Hearth Goddess viewpoint still.
I read it as he was upset that his character had learned his ways of whatever god from his mother, and now their views are irreconcilable. His background indicated that his mother's and his viewpoints were nearly identical, and the DM contradicted it.
The question is whether or not it's a plot point.
Either way, it's the same. The viewpoint is only irreconcilable if OP doesn't understand how mom's actions fit with the Hearth Goddess viewpoint still.
Mmmnot quite. Whether or not they still fit with the Hearth Goddess isn't the point. The point is, he established in his background that his mother was, well, nice. The DM turned his mom into a harpy (to use a somewhat polite term). The question is, did the DM just ignore what the player established, or is there something bigger here?
Mmmnot quite. Whether or not they still fit with the Hearth Goddess isn't the point. The point is, he established in his background that his mother was, well, nice. The DM turned his mom into a harpy (to use a somewhat polite term). The question is, did the DM just ignore what the player established, or is there something bigger here?
The DM did not turn mom into a harpy. OP brought home a non-dwarven significant other. That's tantamount to bringing home an axe murderer to most dwarves. She wasn't "not nice" at all. She just reacted appropriately by making sure the axe murderer and his friends stayed outside.
D&D isn't modern America where interracial couples are mostly accepted.
The DM did not turn mom into a harpy. OP brought home a non-dwarven significant other. That's tantamount to bringing home an axe murderer to most dwarves. She wasn't "not nice" at all. She just reacted appropriately by making sure the axe murderer and his friends stayed outside.D&D isn't modern America where interracial couples are mostly accepted.
D&D also isn't Othello, or 45-years-ago-America, or whatever other time period in real Earth's history involved interracial-couple hatred. It can be any or all of these things, but by default?
The degree to which it's accepted largely depends on the campaign world, and thus often the DM, but, I think it's entirely reasonable for a PC to assume that such couplings are at-least-somewhat-accepted in the "good" parts of the world. Half elves are in the most important book in the game, after all.
"[Half-elves] are generally well liked and admired by everyone, not just elves and humans." PHB p. 43. I realize that quote doesn't necessarily mean everyone's gonna be AOK with all interracial couplings, but it at least suggests that most people don't hate the sheer idea of them.
I don't see anything in the Dwarf section that suggests they are especially xenophobic, except if you are an orc, goblin, or giant.
Now, I'm not saying the DM was entirely in the wrong--this issue, at its core, was just a misunderstanding. What I am saying is the player was entirely reasonable to assume the family would be... at least nominally tolerant?
Mmmnot quite. Whether or not they still fit with the Hearth Goddess isn't the point. The point is, he established in his background that his mother was, well, nice. The DM turned his mom into a harpy (to use a somewhat polite term). The question is, did the DM just ignore what the player established, or is there something bigger here?
The DM did not turn mom into a harpy. OP brought home a non-dwarven significant other. That's tantamount to bringing home an axe murderer to most dwarves. She wasn't "not nice" at all. She just reacted appropriately by making sure the axe murderer and his friends stayed outside.D&D isn't modern America where interracial couples are mostly accepted.
Depends on how you run it. In my game, that wouldn't get a second glance from 99 percent of the population. Racism is not a theme of my games.
Now I must admit I haven't read through all of this thread, but I would like to post even though I doubt the OP will see this.
Yes, I am the DM that runs the games she plays in, and I am very glad to have her play in my games. Frankly, the OP generates quite a bit of RPing opportunities in my games. Plus, with the new game that the entire group agreed to start, she's generated a great backstory. I'm looking forward to developing it further in the future (and not screwing it up!).
This entire mess was a miscommunication that went south. I had misinterpretted what she wanted (my memory is pretty poor on the audio side of things), and didn't really get into more characterization of her mother I had planned for in the game. Ultimately, I'm sorry for what happened and will strive to correct the mistake. Communication is key.
Afterall, if the players aren't having fun, then I've failed in my job.
If you memory of conversations is not terribly good, consider having a set of questions for players to fill out regarding their plot NPCs. Stealing the 7th sea 20 questions or generating your own may help. As an added bonus, it might help players think about the details of NPCs and come up with better fleshed out NPCs.
yes the DM can run your parents any way he wants to really...however your interpretations of their actions are YOURS...You can act and react to your interpretations of what happens in the world as you wish.
I think its criminal for a DM to distort a characters background to such an extent. If this was a plot that he was starting with this he should have used third party NPC's, not your parents. He could of done it all just fine with your mothers neighbor Misses Mcgillicutty...but no he did it with your mother.
Now you are free to react as if your mother was possessed, or dopplegangered because that was clearly not how your parent would react.
Thanks for the idea about the questions. I've seen them in other sources and even tried a set once or twice before, but never could get a solid or written set of answers out of the players. With the current group make-up, I think something like that will work.
So far, I've gotten two written backgrounds and a third on the way (out of four). Maybe with a good set, I can get them to flesh out the backgrounds even further, although it may be good to leave some holes to better work with for future plotlines.
yes the DM can run your parents any way he wants to really...however your interpretations of their actions are YOURS...You can act and react to your interpretations of what happens in the world as you wish.
I think its criminal for a DM to distort a characters background to such an extent. If this was a plot that he was starting with this he should have used third party NPC's, not your parents. He could of done it all just fine with your mothers neighbor Misses Mcgillicutty...but no he did it with your mother.
Now you are free to react as if your mother was possessed, or dopplegangered because that was clearly not how your parent would react.
This is very poor advice. All it will accomplish is to make things worse, not better. However, you are correct. People are free to make things worse with their interpretations if they wish.
As stated before, though perhaps not as clearly:
I take my share of fault for the problem that was generated. I was guilty of the number one problem on these boards--poor communication with the GM.
I have since rectified this problem, and my GM and I are getting along better than before. The situation has been discussed, and the resolution will apprently be forthcoming.
My GM has also posted on this thread. I believe we are both happier with the way our gaming has been influenced by this speedbump, and things are already working out better and better.
If you want to continue discussing any aspect of this, please feel free. I will probably not be responding to posts from this point on, as I am pleased with the resolution I have gotten regarding this issue.
I am pleased with the resolution I have gotten regarding this issue.
Awesome.
Glad this was solved through communication.
Its a much better solution than reverse powerplaying the DM. My advice was simply to illustrate that players have rights too on the roleplaying side of things.
In my opinion, this is very poor advice. All it will accomplish is to make things worse, not better. However, you are correct. People are free to make things worse with their interpretations if they wish.
Fixed.
