RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
No offense to anyone who prefers to play the type of games or characters I'm about to dismiss, but are there any other iron-fisted DMs out there like me who groan when someone brings up the idea of playing a half-dragon/giant warmage or a half-fiend/drow lich? Personally, I never allow any ECL of +2 or higher in my games. Even having an ECL in my games is extremely rare. I usually don't have too much of an issue with tieflings, aasimars, or genasi as long as the player is willing to accept the cultural isolation for it. I'll even occassionally admit a drow or duergar as long as the campaign would support one and the player has a compelling reason, but there is NO WAY I would ever allow a half-dragon, half-fiend, undead, ogre, troll, or anything else along those lines simply because the notion of a group of adventurers travelling around with a half-fiend troll is just plain RIDICULOUS to me and my group. If your group prefers a light-hearted, non-serious game full of silly things like half-dragon vampiric mules, that's fine, but I want to know if there's any serious gamers out there who feel the same way that I do and only allow these kinds of things in a game that is pre-ordained to be a one-shot "anything goes" game for s!&%s and giggles. Please, I invite your input and again, I mean no offense to the people who prefer to play this way. The game is whatever you make it out to be and if you have fun with your half-illithid vampiric drow wizard, all the more power to you.
|
I am a bit looser with the races but like to stay at or below the +2 ECL also. I actually worked up a medium sized minotaur race with a +1 LA for my homebrew and made lizardfolk and kobolds a more prominent race (and more neutral or good aligned). The minotaur is similar in feel to the Goliath. However I like to stick with the 3 corebooks, DMG2, PHB2, and The Arms and Equipment Guide. I haven't experienced the "Half-dragon/Draconic" burnout due in huge part to limited use of extra splat-books.
FH
We tried doing the World's Largest Dungeon with some pretty souped up ECLs, and it ended up not being as fun...at fourth level, we had too many hp to find typical fourth level stuff a challenge...but we didn't have the power (spells, etc) to go up against the tougher stuff. We eventually gave it up. I'm DMing SCAP right now, and I did not allow even a +1 ECL.
--Fang
Our group plays pretty vanilla (PHB only) races most of the time; it's easier to fit the standard D&D tropes. It's two parts characterization ease and one part gaming overhead reduction, but so far it works. Of course, we've only played 2 or 3 campaigns in modern 3.x D&D, so there's a lot of room before we hit exhausion.
And we do allow ECL craziness when we play one-shots, which does a good job of letting us set the craziness aside when we're ready to get back to our normal campaigns.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
We tried doing the World's Largest Dungeon with some pretty souped up ECLs, and it ended up not being as fun...at fourth level, we had too many hp to find typical fourth level stuff a challenge...but we didn't have the power (spells, etc) to go up against the tougher stuff. We eventually gave it up. I'm DMing SCAP right now, and I did not allow even a +1 ECL.
I've always been curious about the World's Largest Dungeon. Is it any fun? Are the encounters realistic? Is it seriously supposed to span from level 1 to level 20? I saw it on a rack at my local gaming store and I just stared in shock at it. That thing is HUGE! I'm curious to know if it's worth the money I'd need to put down to get it.
Off-topic, I know, but you piqued my interest.
I symptathize, Fatespinner. I am fortunate that my players are happy sticking to the core races. Heck, 2/3 of them have a hard time role playing their half-elves and halflings in a way that convinces me that they are something other than human. I would be reluctant to run a campaign with anything other than the core races. Monsters in the party just complicate things too much, as much from a role playing angle as from a mechanics angle. I prefer running humano-centric campaigns -- it makes it easier for the players to relate to what I am describing, and it's easier to imagine how a human (or, within limits, a demi-human) would react to horrific encounters. IMC, humanoids and monsters dwell far from the fringes of humanity--unless a country has been invaded, the average commoner has only heard legends and tales concerning the existence of frightening beasts, they haven't seen them with their own eyes. I think having monsters everywhere, including within parties, reduces their mystique as well as that of the setting. But that's just me, and I don't expect other DMs and players to feel the same way as I do. I'm just fortunate that my players are happy with my "vision" of the world.
...I want to know if there's any serious gamers out there who feel the same way that I do and only allow these kinds of things in a game that is pre-ordained to be a one-shot "anything goes" game for s%#&s and giggles.
Nope, i pretty much disagree wholeheartedly.
The game is whatever you make it out to be and if you have fun with your half-illithid vampiric drow wizard, all the more power to you.
And yes, "the game is really just about having fun" strikes again.
As ever,
ACE
We tried doing the World's Largest Dungeon with some pretty souped up ECLs, and it ended up not being as fun...at fourth level, we had too many hp to find typical fourth level stuff a challenge...but we didn't have the power (spells, etc) to go up against the tougher stuff. We eventually gave it up. I'm DMing SCAP right now, and I did not allow even a +1 ECL.I've always been curious about the World's Largest Dungeon. Is it any fun? Are the encounters realistic? Is it seriously supposed to span from level 1 to level 20? I saw it on a rack at my local gaming store and I just stared in shock at it. That thing is HUGE! I'm curious to know if it's worth the money I'd need to put down to get it.
Off-topic, I know, but you piqued my interest.
We didn't like it. Each area was written by someone different, and they didn't do a very good job of tying it together. I might be able to cannibalize it and use parts here and there, but if you're going to pay full price, I'd say it's a waste of money.
--Fang
Oh, yeah, and the other thing we didn't like--if you play it the way they suggest, the PCs are trapped in the dungeon, so there's no place to get any high level healing/restoration/resurrection unless you've got someone in the party who can do it, and the wizards really get hosed because there's no spells available unless the DM plants them in there. There's lots of treasure and stuff, but no place to spend it. You end up leaving stuff behind because you can't carry it all. You're not supposed to be able to teleport in and out, and teleport and dimension door don't work. The idea is it's this big prison thing for demons and such, so they can't get out either. I guess it does actually span levels 1-20, but I can think of much more fun ways to get to 20th level. Hope that helps.
--Fang
|
We tried doing the World's Largest Dungeon with some pretty souped up ECLs, and it ended up not being as fun...at fourth level, we had too many hp to find typical fourth level stuff a challenge...but we didn't have the power (spells, etc) to go up against the tougher stuff. We eventually gave it up. I'm DMing SCAP right now, and I did not allow even a +1 ECL.I've always been curious about the World's Largest Dungeon. Is it any fun? Are the encounters realistic? Is it seriously supposed to span from level 1 to level 20? I saw it on a rack at my local gaming store and I just stared in shock at it. That thing is HUGE! I'm curious to know if it's worth the money I'd need to put down to get it.
Off-topic, I know, but you piqued my interest.
I ran into the same problem FANG had with WLD. Keep the characters pretty normal and it is a joy. If you allow your players to create incredibly powerful multiclass-multiracial characters then you will have your work cut out for you so avoid the half illithiad/half dragon/half undead/celestrials/whatevers and you'll be fine. Dont get me wrong, my players loved the game. I'm just saying that you, as a DM, will have to put in A L O T of extra prep time to accomodate.
Fang is also right about how it was designed. I chose to alter certain scenarios to accomodate my own themes into the campaign. It is all up to you as the DM to know just what you and your player-characters would like and adjust accordingly. Who knows, you may be very pleased with its original design. Definitely check it out and decide for yourself. I, for one, believe it is definitely worth the money. You wont regret the investment. Game on!
Thoth-Amon
Ironfisted seems a little strong, but I'm probably in your camp, Fatespinner. You either play all "exotic" characters and enjoy it for what it's worth or you play a mainly core races game and enjoy a little more balance. But honestly, a really GREAT DM can make even the goofiest sounding scenarios awesomely fun.
Personally, I only allow the standard PHB races about 99% percent of the time and even the other 1% is very coservative.
My first serious game as DM, I made the mistake of telling my players 'anything goes!' My last campaign was core only, partly because all my players were newbies. I'm designing my next campaign now, with homebrew races and several non-core classes. All the races that I will allow are +0 LA, with the option of adding a single planetouched template that adds +1 LA; all playable from level 1. I am only allowing core classes and a few others that fit my homebrew. I feel that some of these are overpowered, such as the Favored Soul, so I have altered it in a major way.
So the simple way to answer your question in yes, I am an Iron Fist and proud of it!
I'm right there with you, Fatespinner. I don't encourage wild race/class builds, and my players would't think to take them. Not because they know I'd say no, but because it's understood the kind of games I run.
I did convince one of my players to run a lizardfolk druid for AoW. He went for it, and I'm glad, especially considering his connection to the Twisted Branch tribe. ECL is only +1. No big loss, but a lot to gain (natural armor renders him immune to Kyuss worms, which I'm glad for).
My campaigns last for years, and I've never DMed a one-shot game. If we're not working on a campaign, it seems like a waste of time to me. I need to build toward something, and my players want that too.
I think most of the problems with "exotic" characters come when players see the races as nothing but skins for a blandly generic adventurer. Not too much problem with troll characters, for instance, when the DM processes everything in terms of the culture of the character.
"You find a hive of the loathsome fire-users, their encampment ringed with canisters of the foul stuff. Periodically a wheeled box filled with their kind comes rolling out, wafting the aroma of warm bloody meat."
Once you know where the monsters are coming from its less likely they'll become Arigorn with green warty skin, and the more likely people will decide to play things that make more sense.
Now am I against ambitious players picking creatures as characters? Heck no--but I do expect the creatures to be examples every whit of their descriptions in culture and ecology. Making a half-fiend (or half-celestial even) who's "just a dude" is horrendous. Making a character who's a half-black dragon/half-formarian giant warmage who has dug deep to understand the cultures involved and who has created a really deep, interesting, complicated character can be a blast--as long as there aren't so many of the mix and match critters running around that it blows any sense of realism in the demographics of the setting.
Maybe +1 or +2 but don't allow it after that. I'm fortunate to do a game with only one player, my bro, outside a group. I even let him roll a lvl 1 Mindflayer Psion (El +7) since he won't outshine anyone else. I'm really open to entertaining options so long as it's balanced and they give me pretty damn good reasons why their character would be adventuring with those he/she might look down upon.
Yeah all the PC races in my campaign world are at most ECL +1. Where's the fun in facing terrifying monstrosities if you ARE a terrifying monstrosity?
Plus,
and it's easier to imagine how a human (or, within limits, a demi-human) would react to horrific encounters.
I don't think I've heard anyone use the term "demi-human" in about a decade. How...quaint!
|
I DMed the Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil with a varied ECL group, and I won't repeat that. We had a wild elf, an aasimar , a halfling -half copper dragon and a half-celestial elf, and at lvl 9 or so the straight character began to complain about the other three. For him, the disruptive element was the damage resistances rather than stat bonuses - the half-celestial paladin never failed a save, but had a glass jaw, and the aasimar had lower caster level etc. Thus, I'm less averse to running PC ogres or bugbears than I am with half-whatever templated PCs, as these gain no immunities or strange abilities.
It was still fun, but next time, I probably won't go with more than ECL +1, or possibly +2 if the PC has a incredibly cool backstory. No more half-celestials or fiends, though. At least for now.
Having said that - I really like the forest troll, and would love having a PC plaing one, even if it has a fairly high ECL - +3 or so?
Count me in the relatively iron-fisted camp. I don't mind different breeds of elves and dwarves and such, and I can figure out ways to work in other humanoids with ECL +1 or 2, but after that it gets a bit dicey, in my book. Savage Species has some interesting ideas for characters--I liked it on the whole, but most of those interesting character concepts work better for me as NPCs than PCs.
Templates are OK if used occasionally and you don't layer in more than one or two. Otherwise, you start wondering "how in the nine hells was this creature begotten?"
Iron fisted? No. But I am with a lot of the folks here who try to stick with nothing more than a +1 LA. I love Duergar, wish Drow took less of a hit, and want to encourage those who want to play the oddball to do so, as I like playing the odd-man out and most of my group tends to stick with fairly standard races.
I know from experience that once you get past LA +2, you're hurting, and anything past LA +3 is downright hurtful (I tried playing a maug once. Fun, but not suited for a long term character).
Fortunately, my group avoids loading up on templates. Just /one/ slice of weirdness is enough for us.
well, 20 years ago I was big into peeps sticking to the basic races, but as the years drone on that got a bit boring; now I let my players pretty much play whatever they want regardless of abilities and just work to balance it out a bit by bringing up other peeps or whatnot. I also believe that not everyone should be necessarily equal as some are naturally better at some stuff than others. I focus mostly on making sure players have a strong character concept, background and have a reason to be grounded and dedicated to the adventure; the rest works out. A lot of my game requires roleplaying interaction and thinking so being able to hit real hard or blast things isnt necessarily going to help you much most of the time.
that said; everyone still seems to stick to less than +2 so far; its the gms that ignore the +level and don't apply the restrictions that annoy me; a first level gnoll (+2) warrior and a first level human warrior at first level are not very competative and at third; the gnoll is like a 5th so the ECL get out of wack and he creams thing that munches the rest of the party; as long a peeps stick to the rules about advancement, I have no complaints.
We allow exotic character races, but we were using werebeasts, undead, dragons, demons, and combinations thereof as characters long before 3rd ed came out... so it was nice to see D&D catch up. ;)
However, our settings are also much more diverse than the standard 80% human / 20% demi-human (elf, dwarf, gnome, and halflings for you younguns) mix. No matter how exotic the group is, they're not out of place in large cities. Even in small towns or villages, there are likely to be some non-humans masquarading as humans and living along side them.
Why? Because we like our fantasy world drenched in magic to LOOK like a fantasy world drenched in magic. And because it makes absolutely no sense for humans to be the dominant species when they are one of a thousand intelligent races, especially when you consider that they are one of the weaker, more fragile races in relation to physical strength and life span. While they may breed like rats, they are simply to easy to kill to rise to the top of the civilization food chain in our way of thinking.
Yeah all the PC races in my campaign world are at most ECL +1. Where's the fun in facing terrifying monstrosities if you ARE a terrifying monstrosity?
Well said !
I didn´t use anything but the PHB in my present campaign, and "exotic" is a half-elf sorcerer and a half-orc barbarian/bard in the PCs group. The rest are humans.I would only consider exotic races if I had a good campaign reason for doing so. I still have that idea of an evil group conquering the lands of the good humans (background story from Heroes of Might and Magic III), and for those evil heroes, I´d allow humanoid races, drow, duergar and others like this.
But I still think that the half-somethings are mostly too far away from normal experiences, and I would reserve them mostly for NPCs. The same goes for giants and other very high ECL creatures. As someone wrote a long time ago: Imagine the adventuring as a group of mountaineers. The need to work together to achieve their goal, and a goat would be as misplaced as a one-legged elephant.
So, no too exotic beasties as PCs for me as well.
Stefan
I groan whenever an adventure in Dungeon makes use of werewolf-vampires and other templated nonsense. For me, I set a one template limit, if that, on anything and prefer to limit PCs to +1 level adjustment. I'm fortunate enough to have a group that really does just prefer the PHB races and classes, with perhaps the exception of Eberron races when those are in the campaign.
If a player was really serious about playing a troll or ogre or half-dragon well as far as role playing goes, I might consider it. But it would have to be an appropriate campaign and the other players would have to approve. Those kinds of characters steal the spotlight really easily, so the other PCs need to work extra hard to get their spotlight time, and then it becomes a competitive role playing experience, which isn't the idea.
|
|
I run two kinds of campaigns: 'everything goes campaigns' and 'restricted campaigns.' If my players want to play their hearts desire then i inform them that the baddies in the game will also have unlimited choices. It was a mutual agreement by all playing, that it was the toughest game they ever played. You see, i have a hellava bunch of material and i will throw things against them that will make their heads spin. In fact, i make it may mission to give them challenges that they have never come across before, therefore they know not how to react. Great fun. In the end: decide what's fun and run with it. It's DnD after all, and all ways are the right way when it comes to having fun.
Thoth-Amon
Personally, I never allow any ECL of +2 or higher in my games....but there is NO WAY I would ever allow a half-dragon, half-fiend, undead, ogre, troll, or anything else along those lines simply because the notion of a group of adventurers travelling around with a half-fiend troll is just plain RIDICULOUS to me and my group.
I wouldn't want players playing those characters unless as other posters have said, they have worked up a real developed background for that character. The only time I could really see +ECLs races is for replacement characters.
That said I think characters with templates and monsters with levels can be great as NPCs and encounters which (I always assumed) is the rationale behind those additons to the game.
I generally stick to the ultra powerful races like Humans and Dwarves ;-)
Seriously in my games it is very, very rare that any player comes to me with an "out there" race/class combo. Dark Elves, sure but I've never even had a person want to play a Tiefling! My players seem most content with the PHB races and a few extra ones from the Scarred Lands books.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
That said I think characters with templates and monsters with levels can be great as NPCs and encounters which (I always assumed) is the rationale behind those additons to the game.
I agree absolutely. I don't have such a huge problem with NPCs having strange templates and whatnot. It makes for interesting villains. My most famous game yet featured a half-fiend advanced red dragon who was trying to become a god and was enlisting the PCs help to perform his nefarious deeds on the material plane. The PCs were good-aligned and they had no idea what his true identity was. The campaign's design had them running errands for this fledgling god and giving him more power through seemingly innocuous things until finally (when they were approaching epic levels) they would discover his true identity and either alter alignment (one PC was headed that way) to join him or turn against him in a climactic final battle. NPCs with bizarre templates and all that are fine, I just don't want one in the party of adventurers because it detracts from the unity and cohesion of the party, imo.
Fatespinner, i'm on your side. I may not be a DM but I still don't like the idea of half-fiend/vampire/troll or anything like it. My DM will not allow +1 ECL or anything higher. I'm fine with that rule and would rather be a simple PHB race. Being a gnome can be just as fun. And I will gladly take any PHB character over some exotic and odd character. But others who do like playing exotic characters go on ahead and play. I just can't stand half-fiend/half-dragon/vampires...
~Flabulater OUT!
I'm pretty loose about what races are available for PC's, so long as they don't get in the way of the party working together. That means Aasimar and Half-Celestials are a yes and Tieflings and Half-Fiends are a no. I tend to remind PC's what exactly they're giving up for their level ajustment, so no one ever play with an adjustment of more than +1 if they're going to be a spellcaster. I allow any race of +1 LA or lower as automatic and +3 LA races only if the PC's can come up with a reasonable justification for adventuring. This is mostly because of my penchant for oddball characters (my favorite race is Thri-Kreen!), but any player that plays a race just for the abilities and acts just the same as a human soon finds him/herself turned into a human to befit their persona. I will never allow PC's to apply more than one template of to apply a template to a monstrous race however, as such thing are just too ridiculous to be anything more than a one-in-a-billion chance and are just plain ridiculous.
So no, I'm not an Iron-Fisted DM and I enjoy playing unusual races as a player. After all, this game is about getting away from reality and if I wanted to be a human slinging a sword around I'd go into the back garden and swing a sword around. I want to be a half-dragon who can scour the earth with dragon fire or a thri-kreen who can leap small mountains when I play, not me with extra HP.
I played in a game where all the pc's played Gnolls, Ogres and whatnot and we were trying to keep the humans and whatnot from pushing into our homelands and a meteor of special metal and mystic energy landed in the middle and we had our hands full of all the normal pc races as npc's scabbing to get the stuff. It was a great game and lots of fun from the other side. Like Thoth said earlier; loosen up and have fun; try new themes; try out anything; this is to cool a game to be stuck with only a handful of races. Believe me; no matter what your + level is or template or whatnot; a good gm can handle it. That said; an inexperienced gm might want to stay with the basic stuff as the rules can get wiggy and a feel for what is fun and competative can get lost.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I played in a game where all the pc's played Gnolls, Ogres and whatnot and we were trying to keep the humans and whatnot from pushing into our homelands and a meteor of special metal and mystic energy landed in the middle and we had our hands full of all the normal pc races as npc's scabbing to get the stuff. It was a great game and lots of fun from the other side. Like Thoth said earlier; loosen up and have fun; try new themes; try out anything; this is to cool a game to be stuck with only a handful of races. Believe me; no matter what your + level is or template or whatnot; a good gm can handle it. That said; an inexperienced gm might want to stay with the basic stuff as the rules can get wiggy and a feel for what is fun and competative can get lost.
I feel that there's a difference between playing an 'all-monster game' and just allowing these random things into a 'normal' game. If the players want to play members of an ogre tribe, that's fine and I find that to be a creative endeavor, but when you've got 2 humans, a half-elf, a gnome, and a half-fiend drow, it screws things up rather badly. Thus, I don't allow those sorts of things because, for the most part, we like our games relatively 'normal.'
|
|
To me it really depends on the type of campaign that is gonna be played. When i come up with a new campaign i usually set limits regarding starting level, avaiable races, classes whatever. I don't mind having an exotic character in a non-exotic game as long as it is playable and doesn't hinder the progression of the game.
For every character i demand a background story and if a player comes up with an exotic character that has a well thought out background, than i'm all for it. I like challenges as a DM and this may come in the form of an unusual pc. But this has limits, that's for sure. But i wouldn't say that i never allow this or that in my game because i often experienced cool characters that i'd never had thought of myself that made the campaign even more interesting and contributed greatly to the game. I can't imagine a cool background for an aquatic half-vampire black pudding swashbuckler too, but maybe someone else would and prove me wrong. I won't set limits of any kind in stone...
I DM'd and didn't play for a long time straight (pushing 4 years). During that time I didn't allow any exotic races or templates, figuring the requests were just a ploy to power game. After spending a good chunk of time as a player recently, and dealing with an "iron-fisted" DM, I forced myself to be more "anything goes" on my next campaign.
One of the players in my new campaign is playing a thri-kreen (no class levels yet). He worked out a back story involving a menagerie, and he plays his character as an outsider looking in. For instance, whenever one of the humans in the party behaves in a certain way, he assumes that it is common of all humans. And when half the party was dropped by a fireball trap, he discreetly nibbled at the fallen's crispy flesh as the the dragon shaman's fast healing ability slowly brought them back. He made me glad I opened it up.
Another player is a githzerai monk. He came up with no background, and plays just as if he's playing his old human monk. He only did it to get the +6 to Dex and extra psi-like abilities. He made me regret my choice.
It goes without saying that the thri-kreen will not only have a more rewarding roleplaying experience, but will recieve more actual in-game rewards. The githzerai on the other hand will continually discover the detriment of a +2 LA. But I have changed my initial outlook somewhat, and I am trying to let each person play the character he or she wants to play.
By the way, the monk is 3rd level right now and has only 7 hp's. I let him have his 23 AC, but for some reason all the bug swarms seem to head in his direction;)
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Another player is a githzerai monk. He came up with no background, and plays just as if he's playing his old human monk. He only did it to get the +6 to Dex and extra psi-like abilities. He made me regret my choice...
...By the way, the monk is 3rd level right now and has only 7 hp's. I let him have his 23 AC, but for some reason all the bug swarms seem to head in his direction;)
See, this is part of the problem I avoid by just disallowing them outright. Sure, a thri-kreen might make a compelling character concept, but when the party of adventurers enters town with a giant mantis creature with them, everyday people are going to freak out and run! Unless you're changing the demographics of the world substantially (we don't, we're playing 'textbook' Forgotten Realms), that would and should be the realistic reaction of the citizens of any established city. If it were a Dark Sun game, it would be more practical since thri-kreen are an established part of the world, but in most settings, this is not the case.
As for your githzerai monk, I don't usually allow LA races at all. If you manage to convince me to allow one, you'd better damn well have a good story to support his presence there. A character without a background is bad enough, an exotic level-adjustment character without a background is just asking to be denied. If he's 3rd level with only 7 hp, he must've rolled really badly for hit points and has a really miserable Con since first level hit points for a monk are 8 + Con mod. I would advise killing him to simply get it out of your hair and when he comes to you with another concept, tell him PHB races only because he had his chance to play something weird and he blew it.
Occasionally, someone wanting to play a weird templated monster as a PC does it as part of an interesting character concept. The rest of the time it's just gimmickry as a substitute for making the character interesting, without any thought for the campaign as a whole.
And a DM who doesn't play along with such nonsense is not iron-fisted, just doing his or her job.
This is pretty much what I take exception to...you can look at it the other way just as easily: it is the job of the GM to allow players to play whatever they want and adjust accordingly. Anything less than that can be considered, well, a number of things...iron fisted is just one of them.
This is just one symptom of a major schizm in the philosophy of gaming. Some folks think that a game is managed by the GM, others that the entire group manages the game (note the difference in wording here). The more power that a group of individuals have in shaping the outcome of anything (the game here) the better the chance that everyone will reap the rewards of seeing their collective vision come to fruition (i.e. a *Democratic* form of government). The more power that an individual has in shaping the outcome of (again, anything) the game here, the greater the probability that his/her decisions will not meet the expecations of the rest of the players (i.e. *Dictatorship*).
I've said it before on these boards and i'll say it again here, players shouldn't have to put up with a Dictatorial GM. If you want to play a half dragon or a human or whatever, you should be afforded the opportunity as a player to do so by your GM.
If you are a player and aren't happy with an overbearing GM, i'm truly sorry that you find yourself in those straits and if you are newer to the game just realize that there are GMs out there that construct adventures, campaigns, and a worlds to accomodate the group...these folks don't demand that the players around them conform to their expectations of gaming.
As ever,
ACE
|
|
What kind of DMing is that? Killing of characters because you don't like them? I understand, ghettowedge, why you regret having allowed the githzerai. Having an alien character without any background to focus on running around in your campaign is a drag, but to torment the player with the effects you described and favoring the thri-kreen-player doesn't shed a good light on your DMing. Why don't you adress your problem to him? And killing him off to get rid of it isn't a good advice. Please forgive my harsh words, but this isn't iron-fisted, this is just silly. DnD is a game of verbal interaction between the players. If this isn't an environment to adress problems, where else?
And regarding the thri-kreen in civilization, this can be a problem but could also be seen as a challenge. This provides many, many interesting roleplaying options and can really add to the game if the DM runs with it.
And it seems that the player is really into it and plays it great and i'd reward this somehow. Sure, i wouldn't change the world and the public view on exotic creatures because of this, but the frightened people could f.e. be soothed because one of the other characters has a good reputation there or something like that. Movies and literature give hundreds of examples how situations like this could be solved and a campaign could benefit from this. If it hinders the campaign because it is too much of a problem, then choosing such a creature as character should be prevented in the first place and every DM has the right to do so, but to bully a character later isn't fair.
How about instead of adding ECL to the characters, you just level up all the monsters by 2? :P
If it hinders the campaign because it is too much of a problem, then choosing such a creature as character should be prevented in the first place and every DM has the right to do so, but to bully a character later isn't fair.
Agreed. It seems more like the monk is new or struggling at roleplaying. A good solution would be to reward players with roleplaying xp and not to the monk if he isn't roleplaying. Eventually he'll catch on or fall behind a little. It's petty for the DM to pick on him after allowing him to play a more exotic character. As a DM it should be made clear that any template/exotic race should be granted for fun/roleplaying purposes, not powergaming.
Agreed. Perhaps as an added incentive, the player might be bribed with a role playing bonus to write up a decent background. I offer bonus xp for doing backgrounds and for answering some character development question every week. This is not required, but all my players do it because they want the extra xp.
--Fang
|
This is pretty much what I take exception to...you can look at it the other way just as easily: it is the job of the GM to allow players to play whatever they want and adjust accordingly. Anything less than that can be considered, well, a number of things...iron fisted is just one of them.
If this works for you when you GM, more power to you. It doesn't work for me. I view my job as presenting something that I find interesting and that my players will find interesting too.
This is just one symptom of a major schizm in the philosophy of gaming. Some folks think that a game is managed by the GM, others that the entire group manages the game (note the difference in wording here).
The common term for what you seem to dislike is "auctorial vision". While there are occasional exceptions, the vast majority of creative enterprises need a cohesive core around which to coalesce. Writing by committee is usually quite difficult, unsatisfying, and incoherent.
This does not mean that the players have no input, but rather that their input must work with the framework provided by the GM. One paradigm that could work here is jazz music. There's room for lots of experimentation and input by the players, but somebody has to set the tune. And the players need to respect that tune to keep things from devolving to noise.
The more power that a group of individuals have in shaping the outcome of anything (the game here) the better the chance that everyone will reap the rewards of seeing their collective vision come to fruition (i.e. a *Democratic* form of government). The more power that an individual has in shaping the outcome of (again, anything) the game here, the greater the probability that his/her decisions will not meet the expecations of the rest of the players (i.e. *Dictatorship*).
The best art comes from constraint. There is no command more likely to result in creative failure than "Draw me something" without further elaboration. Nearly any constraint can work, and the weirder and tighter constraints often result in the most innovative results.
I've said it before on these boards and i'll say it again here, players shouldn't have to put up with a Dictatorial GM.
They don't. Ever.
There's always a choice, even if only to walk away. That choice may be suboptimal, but that's pretty much the way the world works. The best you can do is take the most favorable choice of those available to you.
If you want to play a half dragon or a human or whatever, you should be afforded the opportunity as a player to do so by your GM.
As noted at length above, I disagree. If you want to play a (whatever) more than you want to play with your GM, then you should leave. (If your GM wants to play with you more than he wants to run the story he has conceived, he has a choice too.)
If you are a player and aren't happy with an overbearing GM, i'm truly sorry that you find yourself in those straits and if you are newer to the game just realize that there are GMs out there that construct adventures, campaigns, and a worlds to accomodate the group...these folks don't demand that the players around them conform to their expectations of gaming.
As ever,
ACE
As you noted, our philosophies are very different.
To tell you the truth, if you let them have what they think they want, a lot of times, they will learn their lesson if you apply the rule correctly. My kids wanted to play in my campaign, and they wanted to play some "out there" things, which LA wise wouldn't be a problem, since the campaign was already heading toward mid levels.
My daughter made a half-ogre monk, and I worked with her on the background, since she was new to the game. The half-ogre was an orphan that was found in the Stonelands north of Cormyr, and a Helmite monk travelling with an adventuring company adopted her and trained her in her craft, and she eventually joined the Everwatch Knights, a bodyguard branch of the faith. While people are intimidated by half-ogres and half-orcs, they are common enough in metropolitan areas that they aren't run out of town with pitchforks and torches, and she made for a good front line fighter with her mix of monk and half-ogre abilities.
My son, on the other hand, wanted a werewolf character. I said no. Then he said he wanted a drow. I said no. He begged for the werewolf. I told him he could play a lythari, and proceeded to tell him all of the downside (you are going to start at 1st level, and it will take you forever to gain levels compared to everyone else). He still wanted to do it. So we made up the lythari sorcerer, which I ruled wouldn't be a problem since he would look much like a moon elf in elven form. Then he made the mistake of changing into a wolf in the Old Skull in in front of everyone, and the party did pretty much get run out with the pitchforks and torches.
Long story short, while he loves his character, he knows now that its not much fun in combat when he basically runs and hides in the corner, throwing magic missles, while the cleric is calling flame strikes, the monk is battering foes with flury of blows, and the druid is ripping things apart as a bear. But he still likes to roleplay the character as a runaway from his lythari family that just hasn't quite caught on to how things work in the "outside" world.
In the end, if you make sure people have to deal with their consequenses, they may end up deciding themselves what they do and do not want to play.
Also, as I noted above, there is a certain degree of give and take to how I approached this. There are some things that are right out (not many places in Faerun are friendly to drow, so why ask for trouble), but there is a degree to which I will work with players to help them get what they want to play.
I've said it before on these boards and i'll say it again here, players shouldn't have to put up with a Dictatorial GM. If you want to play a half dragon or a human or whatever, you should be afforded the opportunity as a player to do so by your GM.
There are two related issues that tangle together.
1) You're right-- the game should reflect the group's desires, not just one person's. Whether that person is the GM or a player. (If everyone wants to play a funky character, or wants Fred to play something funky, congratulations on consensus.)2) No one is obligated to put in the time and effort to build a campaign that they wouldn't enjoy running. They should step aside and let someone else GM if it isn't to their taste.
A group of mature adults should be able to discuss what they want out of a game and decide what works, what everyone can agree to. This might kill some great flights of fancy-- but, if a player has earned it from their prior actions, many people will sign up for that flight, trusting.
Well, fellspinner has some good points about an ogre or troll messing up a human party; but i think it can be playable; the problem would mostly be not many cities or villages would allow an ogre to enter unmolested so I doubt the player would want to handle all the prejudice. After all, most of the + whatever races all have general outlooks and dispositions not accorded freindly by most.
In one game I played in last year; one guy was playing a centuar; i think that is like +7; and many others were playing other + something races while some played humans, but the gm made them all earn each of thier monster levels before they could start on learning a real class and this worked out well and kept things balanced. I am not sure what book he used, but he had one that broke monster/creature type levels down into levels to be earned; if anyone knows perhaps they should post it.
Savage Species. WOTC also posted a few more race/level progression on their site, and there are a few undead species broken up like this in Libris Mortis, and the Dreagloth in broken down like this in Champions of Ruin. I'm sure there are a few more scattered around other books.
There is also an alternate means to do this with some of the level adjusted races from the Expanded Psionics Handbook in the Complete Psionic book, but I wasn't thrilled with that, since it introduced yet another way of doing the same thing in a different way, and I always thought that we wanted a single, standard way for these things going into 3rd/3.5.
Well, Fatespinner, I'm in your camp. While I agree that high ECL monster races can be fun to play, they can be heavily upsetting to a group or module/campaign.
How?
Take a Drow in the Faerunian world (or a monster race in ANY world). Drow (or monster races) in general are despised and feared by everyone. Any Drow on the surface will therefore be associated with evil and people (in general) will want to have nothing to do with them until they've proven themselves. Even then, they will be seen as a potential danger and newcomers to the city will occasionally still react with terror when they spot the "monster" in the party's midst.
I play an Illythirii character (a member of the race who were cursed to become the Drow - her story is not the point, so that's all that need be said). This character is reacted to with fear most of the time, attacked on occasion, and no matter what group she spends time with, tends to eventually overpower their own goals in town or civilized territories with having to defend or explain her to those they interact with, using the ever popular line, said with a heavy sigh, "She's not a Drow..."
The point of this example is to prove that non-standard (ie. non-PHB) races DRAW ATTENTION and distract from the rest of the party in terms of issues outside whatever adventures the DM is running. Every time the group goes to town, if they have to deal with the fear of the Ogre/Half-Dragon/Half-Fiend/Drow/Whatever, then it will eventually become bothersome. That character will have to either not go into town (meaning that player gets left out of in-town interactions and has to have other PCs do his purchasing for him), have a high Disguise skill, or simply get used to being seen as a horrific example of what is out there that can and usually will try to kill the average everyday Commoner who doesn't know any better.
The other side of the coin is this - I have a Half-Elemental (Fire) Template Monk in a 5th level game. Half Elemental is a ECL 3, meaning she's only a 2nd level Monk. Ultimately, that character will be MUCH weaker than the rest of the party of standard PHB characters, since her attack values are those of a 2nd level character in a game designed for 5th level. She's likely going to DIE, but the concept is a neat one and I won't mind losing her and making something new.
You get what you get when you fiddle with ECL, basically. Take away from your character's level and you (in the end) reduce their survivability in a game designed for whatever level the game is. You're 1 level lower if you're a Genasi, Aasimar or Tiefling, you're 2 if you're a Drow, etc. Are the special abilities you get worth losing your character simply because you're not as tough as the rest of the "normal" characters?
So, yeah. I tend to have my players stick to PHB characters. The Half-Drow in my party is the only non-PHB race in my Age of Worms game and she's a Cleric of Eilistraee. There's another Fighter/Cleric in the party who worships Istus (Goddess of Fate). Together, they're enough healing power to keep the party alive, but when it comes down to it, they'd be better off stat-wise if she were a PHB race with no ECL Adjustment...
Syrinx