Vaziir Jivaan's page

There is nothing anywhere that says you can't give your players an heirloom weapon at any level. RAW? Maybe, but I'm pretty sure if memory serves me correctly the number one rule of DMing is ignore the rules when & where they get in your way.

This isn't carte blanche to be taken "over the top" with idiotic arguments (well in that case, I want my wizard to be d12 HD!), but used judiciously it makes for fantastic games. I've done countless games that players started off with an item they didn't fully understand and it unlocked with them.

Also, you can't argue RAW about heirloom weapons and starting at level 2, and then talk about how the "rules" constrain you with regards to player death.

Just play the game you like to. Players that like your style will stay, and the rest will kick rocks.

-Vaz

EDIT: Grammar

I'm still stuck at the part about taking three weeks to create a character. Once I can wrap my head around that I might finish reading this thread…

-Vaz

In my 40+ (20+ DMing)* ** years of life it's been my experience that some tables are for some folk, some tables aren't. Find the table that suits you and grab on with both hands.

*the numbers are irrelevant. This should be common sense with age not being relevant to anyone over the age of 14.
** I'm an average DM at best but I must be doing something right because people keep sitting at my table, and I use the Benevolent Monarchy system.

Some people like story telling (story > rules) aspects...
Some people like a more gamist (25% RP, 75% Can I break the system...) approach...
Others love simulationist (50% storytelling, 50% gamist) games...

Others just like drama and getting people fired up.

-Vaz

Cape Cod (Dennis), MA

-Vaz

_Cobalt_ wrote:

I really don't know whether to ignore this thread or keep reading...

It is a train wreck...but it's your train wreck :)

This topic is ALWAYS a train wreck. It's like politics for gamers...

I personally love my gaming group because whoever bears the mantle of DM more or less gets ultimate veto power, and the players are 99% of the time perfectly ok with it. In a game with such a variety of class and race combos, the word "no" just means that the player moves on to the 2nd of his hundreds of concepts.

-Vaz

I've never understood Ciretose's elliptical logic (it's not QUITE circular) on this whole thing and I've pretty much given up trying.

Suffice it to say I disagree. I think anyone on either side of the table that refuses to compromise is being an a+%#+#+, unless there's a damn good reason for it.

If it was something like

"I want to play a Kitsune"

"Sorry, this campaign's kinda about a Kitsune army invading this country, it wouldn't really fit very well."

"I'll be an expatriate who is welcomed because he can provide valuable information to the opposing army!"

or "In my world none of the animal races (gnolls, serpentfolk/vishkanya, catfolk, all of 'em) were hunted and killed to almost extinction a few centuries back. If you came in with one hunters'd come from all over to kill you and make a coat of your luxurious fur."

"I'll work that into my backstory!"

or anything like that it'd be a good reason.

But "I don't think they fit, even though there's no real reason they shouldn't" or more often "I just don't like them" isn't fine. At that point both sides need to look over why they have the stance they do.

For the player, it's likely to be simple: I have a really cool idea I want to try, and Kitsune works best (or only Kitsune works for it). If it's just "I kinda just wanna play a fox guy, no real concept in mind that couldn't work with anything else", maybe he should be the first to bend.

For the GM, it could be anything he's already established. The aformentioned examples and more. But again, if it's simply "I don't like it" I really think he should be the one to cave on it.

Player's and GM's can go back and forth with this and sometimes the GM just needs to say, "Sorry man, I'm just not feeling it"

I've found in most cases the player's only motivation is to be "the special snowflake" or they're optimizing and "that race gives me the bestest stats!".

GM's saying no is ok with me. He's the guy who is being the storyteller and the referee, and he undertakes that willingly and if he asks me to make a small concession I'll move on to my next concept and go from there.

How often do these scenarios really play out how everyone describes them anyways? I was on the phone with my DM today and he didn't really like the idea of Ki Powers being rogue talents, they didn't really fit what he wanted to do and he felt they were overpowered. He didn't ban anything but asked me to take that into consideration. I was easily able to move stuff around and find something cool I liked. No. Big. Deal.

-Vaz

As can be said for 99% of the other threads...

Whatever works for you and your group.

-Vaz

I've been pretty fortunate. After 25+ year of gaming no one has ever felt stifled or violated at being told "no", and often times they didn't even need a reason. They were good enough players where they had more then one concept tucked up their sleeve. I recall the earlier days of gaming where the "DM is God" mentality was more prevalent and no one really seemed to mind.

These days I just limit everything to the core rulebook and usually if someone has a concept outside that they bring it to me for discussion and we act like adults.

We discuss it.

Characters I WISHED I had said no to but didn't....
Kitsune Gunslinger (Mysterious Stranger) named Nathaniel Rhodes.
Skittles, a kobold sorcerer of "light" (Wtf?!)
Characters that played that made me shake my head...
Seperatist Cleric of Desna who refused to heal the group when they were getting attacked by goblins...
Paladin of Ragathiel who stood by and guarded the cleric while he was busy NOT healing anyone.

Characters I LOVED....
Summoner Broodmaster (Mother of Dragons build), player loved it, I loved it, Soooo much fun.
Pizbik, the gnome rogue (sniper) with mechanically tinkered crossbow and retractable bayonet.
Bindle Bogfoot, Cleric of Plaugg, Deity of Mediocrity (build revolved around aid another and buffing others), "Plaugg may not be so great, but you are!"

YMMV

-Vaz