I was going to respond to Doug's points, but the counterpoint format is a bit awkward, so i'll just summerize:
1. The major difference in philosophy stems from how both the players and GM view the game. I contend that tabletop RPGs are a collective experience, created not just by a GM with an agenda, but by the GM and the players in a community. Canned adventures, weather they are purchased off of a bookstore shelf or created independently of the players, are a disservice to a specific group of players...these adventures need to be modified and tailored to fit the players. The players should NEVER tailor a character or a party just to fit an adventure. Normalizing a party or a group to fit a "typical" adventure puts creative constraints on players and their characters.
2. Auctorial vision is fine if you are writing a book, painting a picture, or chisiling a sculpture. These are all creative expressions of an individual working with a singular idea. Like i've pointed out, however, tabletop gaming is a collective experience. Each player has his/her own vision of how events in a fantasy world should occur and deserve to be afforded the opportuinty to construct those visions with their PCs within the game. I think that comparing the role of a GM in a tabletop game to the creation of the kind of art that you are describing in music is a poor analogy. If you choose to view tabletop gaming as art, it is an interactive experience that constructs (art) across time. If you are running a campaign, it is a simultanious build of however many people are sitting around a table for a number of days. If you are jsut moving mineatures through a dungeon, then there is no art involved in the game at all (and that's fine, but don't conflate the two). The mode of game that a group plays should be a group decision as well.
3. Because tabletop gaming is structured, i'd suggest using forms of governance to discuss philosophy of gaming. Think of the different hats that a GM wears and the interaction that is involved with the players around him/her. Apply your style of governance to the group, and that's how the games will shake out. I'd also suggest that a Democratic form of governing has the most probability of a community constructed game instead of a GM "running" the players through his/her game (as noted in previous post).
Hey, history has shown that communisim, facsism, ditatorships, monarchies, etc. have worked...the question is, what is best for all parties involved? If you are a player in a game with a GM that has a preconceived notion of what your role in his/her game will be, does not tailor the game to the PCs, or exibits any personal qualities that smack of ruling "with an iron fist" and are cool with it...then everyone is happy. Just know, though, that the game doesnt' have to be played like that - talk to your GM about it and if he/she blows you off, you probably shouldn't be playing in that group.
As ever,
ACE
quite frankly, I'm an Iron-Fisted DM. if the race isn't in the PHB, you better beg me to be able to use it. If it's got a Level Adjustment, forget it.
If your feat/spell/ability/skill/prc/whatever seems broken to me, I say "no." and that's the end of it. there will be no screwing up of my game for your munchkin desires, and if you don't like it, go find somewhere else to game.
|
I kind of straddle the fence on this subject.
I will usually allow the players to run most things that they wish to -- There are just some instances of abilities that I either don't allow, or limit to some degree. Some of the things that can really mess with a campaign are damage reduction, energy immunity or high energy resistances, spell resistance, and to a lesser degree, special abilities.
I was considering allowing a Satyr in the group, but the player decided that the LA was too high. (And actually, it wasn't that the LA was too high -- +2 -- but that they wouldn't start getting normal PC levels until 7th level.) The one ability that almost made me veto it was the DR 5/cold iron. From a DM's point of view, either many more people would be carrying around cold iron weapons than normal, or the bad guys would be able to dish out considerably more damage per hit. The first option would not have been fair to the player while the other option wouldn't have been fair to the group. In the end, I would have allowed it and just dealt with the consequences.
I personally feel that allowing a different/more powerful race has much more to do with the special abilities in question rather than the actual LA number.
I also feel that the player would need to have a GREAT back story to allow a really odd combination.
The ruling in games that I DM is "It Depends..."
I have to agree pretty much 1000% with Doug's post here.
While it's preferable if the DM and players are all on the same page, the final vision rests with the DM. Too much fragmentation within the group on what the campaign should be doesn't work at all.
Regards,
Jack
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I seem to have started a very popular post here and I'm glad plenty of people have seen fit to post their thoughts on the matter.
In response to the people who have stated that 'any DM who thinks this way is a tyrant' I have the following reply:
My players love me for it. They consistently tell me that I am the best DM they have ever had and that they prefer my games over any others they've played before. Do I limit character concepts to traditional fantasy elements and deny them the ability to play bizarre half-breeds? Yes. Are they glad that I preserve the sanctity of their party's story by holding to this rule? Yes.
In the end, the players are happiest with the decisions that I have made. If you want to call me a dictator, so be it.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
quite frankly, I'm an Iron-Fisted DM. if the race isn't in the PHB, you better beg me to be able to use it. If it's got a Level Adjustment, forget it.
If your feat/spell/ability/skill/prc/whatever seems broken to me, I say "no." and that's the end of it. there will be no screwing up of my game for your munchkin desires, and if you don't like it, go find somewhere else to game.
Amen.
What I'll allow very much depends on the individual player, their grasp of the rules, and what they have as motivation for playing an unusual character. In my current campaign everyone is human except for one illumian (a visiting scholar to a local academy) and a half-dragon. The half-dragon is being played by my husband, who has spent hours developing a backstory for him. My husband is easily the most experienced player at the table (excepting myself) and I trust him to roleplay the character.
The current campaign is a shackled city campaign, and much of Kos' background is centered on him not realizing how cruel the world can be to the non-standard humans... he was raised by a tribe of nomadic halflings who accept him completely as the child of a copper dragon who protects the tribe. He fled for adventure and has only just arrived in Cauldron. His draconic features haven't fully developed yet, but he hasn't done anything disasterous to reveal himself yet either (except to his fellow adventurers).
- Ashavan
As a DM I tend to let more go than not. If they want, they could have a half dragon/celestial/pachyderm... I would insist on a back story, and they would eventually see that LA doesn't work out so well. I did allow a lot draconic Pc's, added a few dragon bane weapons, and a bigger assortment of Draconic goblin sorcerers, Draconic bugbear warriors. I find it harder to modify the game to accomodate "Complete CLass" characters than stat scores or LA as the "Complete Classes" do not seem to have as much of a sense of game balance as core books, FR or even Eberron do.
Amen.quite frankly, I'm an Iron-Fisted DM. if the race isn't in the PHB, you better beg me to be able to use it. If it's got a Level Adjustment, forget it.
If your feat/spell/ability/skill/prc/whatever seems broken to me, I say "no." and that's the end of it. there will be no screwing up of my game for your munchkin desires, and if you don't like it, go find somewhere else to game.
Fatespinner -
I have no doubt your players love you for it. It's still not the decision I would make... I'm much more of a "and WHY are you a lizardfolk mummy sorceror and how did you meet the rest of the party in a way in which they didn't immediately kill you?" sort of guy.
I want my characters to have interesting backgrounds I can draw on to make preexisting adventures more personal and draw them into the story. Sometimes characters having a wacky race is enough to make them think about their character background rather than just saying I'm Joe Schmoe human fighter number 359. I'd much rather work with the complexities of a non-human, non-standard character than that.
- Ashavan
As a DM I tend to let more go than not. If they want, they could have a half dragon/celestial/pachyderm... I would insist on a back story, and they would eventually see that LA doesn't work out so well. I did allow a lot draconic Pc's, added a few dragon bane weapons, and a bigger assortment of Draconic goblin sorcerers, Draconic bugbear warriors. I find it harder to modify the game to accomodate "Complete CLass" characters than stat scores or LA as the "Complete Classes" do not seem to have as much of a sense of game balance as core books, FR or even Eberron do.
I'm curious, as I've found the Complete classes fairly balanced, why you think this is so...
(yes, before you say it, even the warlock - though the warlock in question is only at level 6 right now)
Apologies in advance for threadjacking! :)
- Ashavan
I have to agree pretty much 1000% with Doug's post here...
Let me add one more thing -- campaigns aren't important to many people. When your D&D is a bunch of unrelated adventures, then it's OK to have a half-dragon feytouched lycanthrope alongside a Mindflayer assassin alongside a human, etc, etc, etc.
But if a cohesive, consistent campaign and campaign world is important, some things need to be excluded. The DM is the final word on that. Being in agreement with what players want is great, but sooner or later the DM will have to draw lines. Some call that iron-fisted. If so, I hope they call me that :)
Regards again,
Jack
As a DM I tend to let more go than not...
...I find it harder to modify the game to accomodate "Complete CLass" characters than stat scores or LA as the "Complete Classes" do not seem to have as much of a sense of game balance as core books, FR or even Eberron do.
I'm curious, as I've found the Complete classes fairly balanced, why you think this is so...
I half agree with Kirwyn. Complete (fill in the blank) books tend to stray farther outside the rules in my experience.
While I'm not willing to go so far as to accuse much of the content to be broken, the result is often oddly-imbalanced sets of abilities that can be hard to deal with.
IMHO
Jack
I favor Players Handbook races but, on occasion, will allow a player to go for something different. Simply for the role-playing aspects of the game, PH races are more easy to handle in city/village situations than, say, Yakfolk.
Then it gets me thinking about what a campaign with all Players Handbook races banned would look like... Imagine a world with no humans, elves, dwarves, gnomes and halflings. You'd have only Yakfolk, Minotaurs, Centaurs, Ogres, etc...
Hhmmm...
... The wheels are turning...
Ultradan
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.
Thr33 things:
1)Where would you get the worlds largest dungeon
2)How much does the worlds largest dungeon cost
3)And back to the thread: I think that anyone could be anything (obviously limited by the Level Adjustment) but what you could have them do is go get savage species find the ithillid racial class, take levels in that untill they are level eight, and there you go, you have a eight level ithillid 1st level wizard.
But as far as undead go, I personally would go all secretive on the entire party, or if you are brining in the character in the middle of the campaign (as a replacement or something) have them be carrying a hat of disguise so that they have some cover...
The DH
I have a guy I might play with who does the Driz'zt clone thing.
I was thinking of ganking his darkness, faerie fire, and spell resistance and saying, "Lolth don't love you no more; you're hosed." Is that nice, or am I being an Iron Fisted Tyrant? I'd give him an ecl of 1...
That's exactly what this WotC article, Savage Progressions: Level-Adjusted Races does-- the second entry is Drow. It breaks up the advantages over racial levels so, he'll never be too far from the group's power.
I want my players to have a damn good reason for the characters they play. There is the caveat that if you choose something outrageous, I reserve the right to do something outrageous myself as well as remind you, in game, that you are an outsider and will not likely fit in anywhere.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
1)Where would you get the worlds largest dungeon2)How much does the worlds largest dungeon cost
1) I saw it at my local gaming store awhile back. I imagine you can probably find it online somewhere.
2) About $100.
In response to the post about ganking the drow's darkness, faerie fire, and SR because they've left Lolth's favor... I say go for it! It's a great idea and not unprecedented. Drow are one of the few LA races I'm willing to admit with good reason because they're a staple of the setting and there is precedent for them leaving their society to find life on the surface. In my 13 years of gaming, however, I have allowed exactly 4 to be played over the course of some 50+ campaigns and one of those campaigns was an Underdark game where 2 of the players were drow. So, only 2 surface drow so far.
|
|
quite frankly, I'm an Iron-Fisted DM. if the race isn't in the PHB, you better beg me to be able to use it. If it's got a Level Adjustment, forget it.
If your feat/spell/ability/skill/prc/whatever seems broken to me, I say "no." and that's the end of it. there will be no screwing up of my game for your munchkin desires, and if you don't like it, go find somewhere else to game.
As i can accept these limits i don't really like the harsh tone it is presented in. Begging a DM to play a certain race? Where are we playing? Guantanamo Bay? Okay, i can only speak for myself but i play with friends and if i play with strangers, i treat them in a friendly manner. I'm far from allowing anything at my table but i give everyone who comes up with an idea i don't like the opportunity to raise arguments.
Gaming is about fun and i'm trying to give the players as much freedom as i think is possible within the limits of the campaign. Everything a player comes up with thinking it might be fun deserves a look. If i'd show a Dirty Harry attitude as it seems to be the case in the quoted posting i'd find myself alone at the gaming table really fast. This is not about limits, this is about how these are presented to the players.And i won't accuse anyone of munchkinism because he wants to use something i don't see fit into the game.
Maybe i'm a little light-skinned and the whole thing isn't meant as harsh as it sounds, but i wouldn't want to DM in this way. I'm sure there are reasons for this and i'm glad i, until now, haven't been forced to act this way.
While reading this entire thread (while working...heh) the word that pops most to mind is 'compromise'.
Players working with the GM on character creation will feel like part of the world already, coming to a compromise that enriches the campaign *and* the player's experience. GMs will have forewarning of what character races/classes to consider.
Players need to recognize the effort GMs put into a campaign, and that their decisions will influence someone elses effort. GMs need to remember who they're doing this for ultimately. A little concienciousness can go a long way for all involved.
Compromise & communication.
There's always going to be the GM who wants to run a strictly PHB campaign, or player dead set on a vampiric drider who collects...marbles (CRAZY!!!). There's little that can't be worked out with "Let's try that next campaign.".
Personally, next campaign will see a lot more effort on my behalf on character creation and development. I used to complain that my playing group was a little lacking in roleplay, but the fault is mainly mine as GM for not engaging them. If that player with the vampiric drider is focusing only on the stats & abilities, let's see what they'll do with the opportunity to flesh out their depth of character.
Of course this is just applicable to me, and where I'm at as a GM. I've handled some low ECL options so am ready to stretch it a bit further. As a player though, I'm all about the core stuff ;-)
Marbles!
J-
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Players working with the GM on character creation will feel like part of the world already, coming to a compromise that enriches the campaign *and* the player's experience. GMs will have forewarning of what character races/classes to consider.
My favorite and most successful game so far was actually one where I assigned each player a race/class/alignment and left the concept and personality up to them. I wrote a campaign specifically designed for this group of adventurers and I said "You are playing a NG human fighter, you're playing a NG human cleric, you're playing a LG dwarf rogue, and you're playing a CG elf ranger."
It was awesome! The plot progressed smoothly because everything had been planned out, the players had a blast because in a few of their cases I was making them play something they had never tried before, and they kept eagerly awaiting the next game session. The game ran from level 4 to level 20 (I typically avoid starting games at level 1) and the only complaints I received were about mechanics in a few rough spots during combat in the Underdark. I acknowledge that it all depends on your players but, in my case, I get to pick my players and they know that I'll deliver quality entertainment without the need for crazy half-breed extraplaner nonsense.
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.
Let me clear this up. The character has an ECL of 3. One class level and an LA of +2. For this campaign I allowed the characters with LA's to start at 1st level with a penalty to all d20 rolls equal to the LA. So he started as a 1st level monk with a -2 to all attacks, saves, and checks, and he started with 7 hp's (8 -1 for Con). When he normally would've hit 2nd level the penalty instead dropped to -1, and at 3rd level there is no penalty at all. He still hasn't gained any additional class levels though.
I had the inkling that this player would drop the ball as far as role-playing and background. I only allowed it because I am trying to get out of the "MY GAME" mentality and make it "OUR GAME". The last DM I played with had a very strict sense of where the story was supposed to go. And even though all of the character races were standard, a lot of our other choices felt restricted (rules and role-playing). As much as he wanted to tell his story, some of us felt constrained. After that I became very conscious that D&D isn't as much about my story, as it is about my friends and I playing a game. If I can deal with elves and dwarves, I'm sure I can put up with a mantis and gith for a while. And they get to play the characters they want.
1)Where would you get the worlds largest dungeon
2)How much does the worlds largest dungeon cost
You can usually find it on ebay or amazon. I've seen it as low as $50.
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 would have thought there's an easy way to get out of Drow racial profiling in FR:
"Aah! A Drow!""It's cool, calm down. You know Drizzt? Yeah he's, uh, my dad. I'm ah, one of the tragically misunderstood good ones. Yeah."
"Phew. Have a seat."
|
That's exactly what this WotC article, Savage Progressions: Level-Adjusted Races does-- the second entry is Drow. It breaks up the advantages over racial levels so, he'll never be too far from the group's power.I have a guy I might play with who does the Driz'zt clone thing.
I was thinking of ganking his darkness, faerie fire, and spell resistance and saying, "Lolth don't love you no more; you're hosed." Is that nice, or am I being an Iron Fisted Tyrant? I'd give him an ecl of 1...
This is freaking perfect. I likes it. Thankee sai!
Reminds me of Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed or Evolved or whatever. I'm gonna make up some drow faen!
Then it gets me thinking about what a campaign with all Players Handbook races banned would look like... Imagine a world with no humans, elves, dwarves, gnomes and halflings. You'd have only Yakfolk, Minotaurs, Centaurs, Ogres, etc...
Hhmmm...
... The wheels are turning...
Ultradan
Hahaha! That would be awesome. Can u give me a statblock for a Yalkfolk? :)
Hahaha! That would be awesome. Can u give me a statblock for a Yalkfolk? :)Then it gets me thinking about what a campaign with all Players Handbook races banned would look like... Imagine a world with no humans, elves, dwarves, gnomes and halflings. You'd have only Yakfolk, Minotaurs, Centaurs, Ogres, etc...
Hhmmm...
... The wheels are turning...
Ultradan
Sorry, I'm at work and don't have my Monster Manuals with me...
But I'm serious about this idea than bans core races. Wouldn't it give a world a sort of 'Narnia' or mythical feel to it?
Ultradan
But I'm serious about this idea than bans core races. Wouldn't it give a world a sort of 'Narnia' or mythical feel to it?
Ultradan
Ooh ooh! I'll take the centaur ranger!
What about dwarves? They're pretty common in Narnia and not much different from d&d dwarves...just giving you a hard time Ultradan!
|
|
The most gold fisted thing ever I did as the dm...
I took the stats from the Arthurian Legends section of the Deities and Demigods and told my gaming group to pick a knight of the round table to play.
King Arthur, Launcelot, and Merlin were off limits; they were too powerful...
One guy really wanted to be Merlin, so I let him be Merlin's illegitemate son. They needed a magic user, after all, for some reason. It was either that or Elric.
Then, with the monster roster from S4, as well as a lot of Dragon magazines with the planes of hell and their rulers/power players statted up, we went on a hi-level monty haul 9th grader rampage.
Baphomet. Dusted. Graz'zt. Dusted.
It lasted about a month and a half, until everybody got sick of it. But it was fun experimentation, and I got a chance to run the heavyweight threats for a change.
I generally allow players to try anything they can afford the level adjustment for. If they don't want to play a wacky half-dragon vampiric ex-golem they don't have to, but the option is there. Of course, if my players were of the type to prefer a more serious game, I'd be more stringent with my restrictions.
Unless you're running an all-monster game or a game with one unlikely monster PC, I tend to discourage them, at least in the case of high-level-adjustment monsters. The level adjustment on, say, a mind flayer, makes him weak in hit points and such for his level, and he has no really strong class options that naturally progress from his race. Plus, if you play with the monster progression you're lacking the ability to multiclass or take prestige classes, at least until everyone else is level 15.
The most important criteria for me is that the race fits in with the campaign world and the individuals in it. Hence I allow some races, like Centaurs and Lizardfolk, with high ECL adjustments but won't allow player character kobolds. Sure the kobold is balanced but a kobold player character disrupts the realism of my campaign world in a manner that does not take place with a centaur.
I outline all the allowable races in my campaign's players book and include a description of their culture and the geo-political situation their race is faced with. Hence Centaurs have a place at the table alongside Dwarves and Humans while Goblins do not. For me the way the race fts into the larger story is more important then its ECL adjustment.
Another requirment for allowing or disallowing a race, in my campaign world, is whether or not the creature in question has a truely alien mind. In this manner Lizardfolk are about as far in the direction of alien I allow. Hence Thri-Kreen are a race that could fit in as allies of humans and Dwarves however they are not allowed because their motivations, beliefs and values are to different from the rest of the allowable races.
I can't disagree more with the sentiment displayed here; In my humble opinion limiting players to specific characters and races and types is for beginning players; if you are an experienced GM and have a mature, experienced group of players then limiting yourself and your players limits the game...Iron-Fisted? YES!!!! Only in so much as the lack of flexability that entails.
I better stop now before my frothing caused by theis thread gets the better of me...<grin>
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I can't disagree more with the sentiment displayed here; In my humble opinion limiting players to specific characters and races and types is for beginning players; if you are an experienced GM and have a mature, experienced group of players then limiting yourself and your players limits the game...Iron-Fisted? YES!!!! Only in so much as the lack of flexability that entails.
I better stop now before my frothing caused by theis thread gets the better of me...<grin>
Think of it this way: In Lord of the Rings, if you replaced Legolas with a thri-kreen, Gimli with a frost giant, Frodo with a kobold, and Gandalf with a half-dragon, how silly would that look? The answer is "very silly." My games focus more on continuity and fantasy staples than they do on bizarre concepts and strange exceptions to the rule. I play Forgotten Realms and, on rare occassion, Eberron. I don't have any homebrew worlds that would allow any bizarre combinations to be practical. If the setting says that centaurs are frequently found in cities, then so be it. It's not 'weird' if its an established part of the culture, but in FR and Eberron, seeing a thri-kreen walking through town square or watching an orge paladin duck into an inn are just TOO far-fetched for me to enjoy. This is my reasoning, like it or not, and my players are happier this way.
I can't disagree more with the sentiment displayed here; In my humble opinion limiting players to specific characters and races and types is for beginning players; if you are an experienced GM and have a mature, experienced group of players then limiting yourself and your players limits the game...
Sorry, can't agree :/
My experience (28 years worth, though that doesn't necessarily make me right) has been quite the opposite -- mature players are better at and happier with accepting limits. A well-defined campaign world (which necessarily excludes some things) leads to a richer and more satisfying experience for many players (assuming they are into what the world is like, rather than just going from dungeon to dungeon).
If you're not into a consistent, convincing campaign background, that's fine -- just ignore everyting I just said :)
Regards,
Jack
What happens when one of your players wants to play a vampiric, half construct dwarf ranger of vengence. Iron fisted is all well and good when all your players agree but it's only a matter of time until someone disagree's with you (we're all human after all and disagreement is a fundemental condition)
The key is that there's a whole group, not just the DM and one player in a pissing match. If the GM has pitched a "narrow PC background game" (human only, standard PC races, or whatever) and the players are on board, then your one squeaky wheel needs to sacrifice his vampiric half construct for the good of the group.
On the other hand, if there are several players who want some butt kicking fun, then this is the campaign where the GM should let everyone be their crazy combos and enjoy the freewheeling game. If, for some reason, the GM doesn't want to run this game (maybe he's eager to play in it, say), then someone else should step up and run it.
Let the group as a whole decide-- it's everyone's fun, not one player's and not the GM's alone.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
The key is that there's a whole group, not just the DM and one player in a pissing match. If the GM has pitched a "narrow PC background game" (human only, standard PC races, or whatever) and the players are on board, then your one squeaky wheel needs to sacrifice his vampiric half construct for the good of the group.
On the other hand, if there are several players who want some butt kicking fun, then this is the campaign where the GM should let everyone be their crazy combos and enjoy the freewheeling game. If, for some reason, the GM doesn't want to run this game (maybe he's eager to play in it, say), then someone else should step up and run it.
Let the group as a whole decide-- it's everyone's fun, not one player's and not the GM's alone.
I agree entirely! I say that I'm Iron-Fisted because I refuse to run games with character concepts like those in it. However, if someone else wants to put up with it, I have no problem playing in such a game. It's an all or nothing thing in my opinion. Either you're all playing weird stuff or none of you are. If all of you are, I'm not running it. :)
Again I can't disagree more. That vampiric player has limitations and that player better know since...IF the GM is doing their job they would know it and would not be afraid to point those disadvantages out in the most inopportune moments. Mature players would know this and play to those disadvantages.
As for mature players appreciating being limited...This is totally anathema to my experience...What mature players truely appreciate (In my experience)is the chance to decide for themselves and to know that the GM is willing to go there; whereever that may be.
Let me give you an example: I ran a group for many years who had decided in the beginning to start with the basics but let fate take them where the game took them...All except one player who came to me and wanted to play a Vampire (The rest were human psychics or magic users but HUMAN.) there was one catch to his plan...He would go out of his way to avoid detection by the other players/characters; now he knew what this meant and he knew I would not play fair...He knew this going in and he still wanted to play it. If it had been any other player I would have immediatly said NO!!!! In this world a Vampire was just too powerful however this player knew this and created some self-imposed limitations that were well within the game mechanics...Guess what? Despite some hairy close calls and despite my best attempts he managed to avoid detection for TWO REAL TIME years; every one else would swear on a stack of bibles that the character was human!
That is what I mean by flexability and maturity; A Vampire in a Human campaign IS overpowered as is; an ECL+3 is overpowered as is; a Cyber-Knight IS over powered in a Human campaign...Unless the player is Mature Enough to realize this and impose some limitations on themselves. That is where true 'Role' not 'Roll' playing comes in; mature players invest time and consideration into the Characters' Character; motivations, disposition and flaws 'Why am I, as the Character, doing this?' is a question that players in my campaigns better ask if they want to survive.
This brings me to another point: In my experience we as human beings have hard lives no matter what we do for a living...we have extreme highs and extreme lows...There are days where we want to shout out how much we love most people in general and then there are days where we wake up to discover we want to be the screaming Alien bursting out of the chest of the fool that pissed us off...all of the mature players I have experienced want to play harder than they live and therefore they want me to create a hell for their heroic characters that give them the opportunity explore darkness in a safe environment...I would be disrespecting my friends if I did anything else.
Just the thoughts of a 'Role' Player
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.
I agree whole heartedly, for every 1/2 class thats suggested to me I say ok, as long as I pick the other parent >8)
Since everyone knows my love for the mongrelman, I haven't had a taker yet
an example on a vampire PC.
Great if this story works for your game!
Would it have been as good if all the other players came up with their own exotic story ? If everyone plays something exotic, IMHO neither of them gets the spotlight he deserves.
You wrote yourself that you would not have allowed the vampire story to your other players. Why not ? Weren´t they up to play something exotic ?
Maybe not every player is suited to playing something exotic, so it should be restricted with an eye towards each players´ strenghts and weaknesses.
In games I DMed I had some general ideas about what I wanted to do, and as my games are typically humanocentric, I feel that most exotic races just would not fit in. But most of my players were ok with playing humans or demihumans, probably due to the difficulty one encounters in trying to play something really alien - you just have a human mindset, so playing a human comes easily. Demihumans can be difficult, so much so that in several games I played in even Elves were mostly NPCs, as it is diffcult to play them believeable (thats the way we viewed it).
In one game I play in, I play a dwarf, and thats the most exotic PC in the group (our wizard has a rakasta bodyguard, but that´s an NPC), and we agreed before starting that we keep even demihumans to a minimum.
Stefan
an example on a vampire PC.
Great if this story works for your game!
Would it have been as good if all the other players came up with their own exotic story ? If everyone plays something exotic, IMHO neither of them gets the spotlight he deserves.
You wrote yourself that you would not have allowed the vampire story to your other players. Why not ? Weren´t they up to play something exotic ?
Maybe not every player is suited to playing something exotic, so it should be restricted with an eye towards each players´ strenghts and weaknesses.
In games I DMed I had some general ideas about what I wanted to do, and as my games are typically humanocentric, I feel that most exotic races just would not fit in. But most of my players were ok with playing humans or demihumans, probably due to the difficulty one encounters in trying to play something really alien - you just have a human mindset, so playing a human comes easily. Demihumans can be difficult, so much so that in several games I played in even Elves were mostly NPCs, as it is diffcult to play them believeable (thats the way we viewed it).
In one game I play in, I play a dwarf, and thats the most exotic PC in the group (our wizard has a rakasta bodyguard, but that´s an NPC), and we agreed before starting that we keep even demihumans to a minimum.Stefan
Stef, you read my mind...
Ultradan
Great if this story works for your game!
In games I DMed I had some general ideas about what I wanted to do, and as my games are typically humanocentric, I feel that most exotic races just would not fit in. But most of my players were ok with playing humans or demihumans, probably due to the difficulty one encounters in trying to play something really alien - you just have a human mindset, so playing a human comes easily. Stefan
For body of comments references, see my previous comments on this thread (and elsewhere on these boards)...This is a perfect example of point of perspective. Who's game is this? Is this the DM's game or the group's game? What is the difference? Think about it...
As ever,
ACE
We all know this game is a cooperative experience. But the Dungeon Master is the player trusted to act as arbitration in case of disputes, architect of the story and all of the NPCs. If a player wants to use exotic character options, it has to be with the agreement of the Dungeon Master and the other players. The problem with those kinds of options is that they tend to push one character into the spotlight at the expense of the rest. If your half-dragon werecrocodile drow can't enter town without a huge hubbub, that PC is the center of attention in town. If that PC has a lot of powers and options beyond the other characters, they're stealing the spotlight in combat as well. And when the other characters are way ahead of said PC in class levels and hit points, keeping that PC alive becomes a hog of party resources.
In that case, if the character isn't allowed, a compromise has to be reached. Maybe the player that wanted an exotic character would settle for a unique spin on what's, on paper, a character without a level adjustment. It is about the role-playing experience, right?
Great if this story works for your game!
In games I DMed I had some general ideas about what I wanted to do, and as my games are typically humanocentric, I feel that most exotic races just would not fit in. But most of my players were ok with playing humans or demihumans, probably due to the difficulty one encounters in trying to play something really alien - you just have a human mindset, so playing a human comes easily. Stefan
For body of comments references, see my previous comments on this thread (and elsewhere on these boards)...This is a perfect example of point of perspective. Who's game is this? Is this the DM's game or the group's game? What is the difference? Think about it...
As ever,
ACE
Most groups I played or DMed to date were expecting the DM to provide the story an played in a reactive style. With the story, the DM provided the framework for the characters, and PCs had to fit that frame. So, it is probably more a DM´s game.
It is perhaps the difference between free-form games and "guided" games. Free-form taken to the extreme does not need any rules, as it is a shared storytelling experience in which every participant can shape the story. Guided games are typical RPGs, in which one DM has control over the story. The DM´s and the groups taste dictate how much control the DM is willing to give up. In general, I don´t give up too much control over my stories.
Stefan
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?
I am so with you there, although I may be a "double iron fisted DM. I run 3.5 games in the 1st Ed tradition so it's only core classes/races allowed and only PrC's that would be realistic (thru game events ) for the PC to have access too.
I will allow some PC classes or PrC's that are campaign specific, depending. I also don't allow use of most of the splat books either, with the exception of some things from the "complete series" if I think they are "balanced".
I wont even allow a Paladin unless the player can convince all the other player to play "lawful" characters. (which is why I am happy about the PHBII, Knight class)
I also am planning on banning druids given huge problems in my current game, (or at least write my own house rules for animal companion as IMO the rules for 3.5 are wildly unbalancing) so my friend, you are definitely not alone.
Iron Fist all the way!!
|
I'm mostly of the same opinions as Absinth and Captramses, and mostly disagree with Fatespinner. I'll quickly point out, however, that this is only on the matter of "preferred style" of DMing. I wouldn't presume to say one way is right or wrong.
I don't like to limit my player's options. HOWEVER, I'll always remind them of the consequences of choosing a strange race (social outcast, fewer hit dice, etc.) so that they know playing a succubus paladin (or whatever) means they'll probably die from lack of hit points.
If I wanted to run Lord of the Rings, I'd buy that RPG book. As it is, I prefer Forgotten Realms, a setting virtually defined by its vastness and diversity as well as being rich in magic. I can't say there are many githyanki walking the streets in Cormyr, but if my player wants a githyanki and it doesn't clash with the party in a grinding-halt sort of way, then I'll make adjustments to allow that character. That's the kind of give and take that I think is ideal in a gaming group. Everyone has fun and the story goes on (although perhaps not in the exact way I had planned it to from the start).
I'd also like to relate a bad experience I've had while gaming under an iron-fisted GM (a loaded term, but fitting in this case.) The GM allowed us plenty of freedom on character creation, but the problem arose during gameplay. The story, it seemed, was already set. In lands far away from our characters, things were happening to reshape the world, and we were not allowed to interfere. It turned out after a lot of questions that the DM was basing the plot around ANOTHER game wherein adventuring group #2 was trying to attain godhood, and were shaking things up in a Time-of-Troubles way. Naturally then, our characters determined to immediately end this power play (certainly a concern for the group's cleric) but the GM wouldn't allow us to persue any course but group #2's footnotes. It quickly became the worst gaming experience in my memory. NPC's that were important in #2's plotline would periodically chat with our group (or worse, defeat rediculously powerful monsters for us because they happened to show up), but were untouchable in terms of spell resistance and armor class, and I suspect did not have recorded hit points. My character, a fiercely independent type, and the terrified rogue eventually 'agreed' to an NPC's pointless errand and walked out, entirely fed up with these "benefactors". Sorry for the rant, it still gets me riled.
Essentially, I'm trying to say that I think it's a bad idea for a DM to start an adventure with little flexibility and predetermined outcomes. Players should be the star of the show, not delivery boys for NPCs who hold all the cards. I realize a lot of characters start as delivery boys, but they should be allowed some room to grow beyond that.
And when the other characters are way ahead of said PC in class levels and hit points, keeping that PC alive becomes a hog of party resources.
Why does it befall the other PCs to keep that PC alive? Why is it anyone's job but the Player's? Now, I hate it when a PC gets killed in my game, but it does occasionally happen, and my Players see this. Consequently, the system is self-correcting. If you want to play something with a big LA, you stand a greater chance of getting killed.
In any case, the original question on this thread has no right or wrong answer, only what is right or wrong for your group. Personally, I dislike lots of weird combinations because I run a human-centric campaigns in the world of Greyhawk. In one game, I just started the PCs at first level in the SCAP. Before the game, I provided a specific list of available races, and limited the classes to the PHB. So far the game is going great and it's lots of fun.
In my other game, where the PCs are level 12, I'm seeing increasing diversity, but my PCs have made an effort to fit into the world in their campaign design. I'm currently running the Istivin: City of Shadows mini-path and here are two new PCs, just brought in:
1) Half-dragon (gold), half human, consecrated harrier of Pelor. In the second adventure, it's revealed that the Pelor Temple priests have been killed by a maorti (sp?), so this PC has been sent by the temple in Hochoch to investigate. Knowing how I run things, the PC chose a Hat of Disguise to help avoid drawing attention to herself.
2) Half-celestial, half human paladin of Pelor. This PC came in just BEFORE the Pelor temple was wiped out, so it was kind of pure luck; he'll be taking over operations using the followers he has from his Leadership feat. Although he usually glows due to the Nimbus of Light feat (Book of Exalted Deeds), he tends to keep his wings hidden under a special cloak barring special circumstances.
Both came up with character histories that fit in well with the campaign history, both take into account their PCs' unusual appearances and compensate in some way for it, and both are fully aware, I am sure, that they'll get no special treatment because of the lower hp's they have because of their LAs.
And that's about as exotic as I like to allow my PCs to get.
I'd also like to relate a bad experience I've had while gaming under an iron-fisted GM (a loaded term, but fitting in this case.) The GM allowed us plenty of freedom on character creation, but the problem arose during gameplay. The story, it seemed, was already set. In lands far away from our characters, things were happening to reshape the world, and we were not allowed to interfere. It turned out after a lot of questions that the DM was basing the plot around ANOTHER game wherein adventuring group #2 was trying to attain godhood, and were shaking things up in a Time-of-Troubles way.
I´d get mad if a DM used my character (and the whole group) as a stand-in for the "real heroes" as well. That only serves the DM and allows him to "show off" his setting and his NPCs. It is normally a sign of an immature DM.
PCs absolutely have to be in the spotlight in the campaign, otherwise, what´s the point ? The point of being a hero is havng close escapes and near kills, not having some über-NPC saving your butt. Hell, if the fighter is not at least half-dead by the end of the day, he didn´t have fun.But that is not an example for an iron-fisted DM, it is an example for a bad (and, as noted above, probably immature) DM.
Stefan
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I'd also like to relate a bad experience I've had while gaming under an iron-fisted GM (a loaded term, but fitting in this case.) The GM allowed us plenty of freedom on character creation, but the problem arose during gameplay. The story, it seemed, was already set. In lands far away from our characters, things were happening to reshape the world, and we were not allowed to interfere. It turned out after a lot of questions that the DM was basing the plot around ANOTHER game wherein adventuring group #2 was trying to attain godhood, and were shaking things up in a Time-of-Troubles way. Naturally then, our characters determined to immediately end this power play (certainly a concern for the group's cleric) but the GM wouldn't allow us to persue any course but group #2's footnotes. It quickly became the worst gaming experience in my memory. NPC's that were important in #2's plotline would periodically chat with our group (or worse, defeat rediculously powerful monsters for us because they happened to show up), but were untouchable in terms of spell resistance and armor class, and I suspect did not have recorded hit points. My character, a fiercely independent type, and the terrified rogue eventually 'agreed' to an NPC's pointless errand and walked out, entirely fed up with these "benefactors". Sorry for the rant, it still gets me riled.
Essentially, I'm trying to say that I think it's a bad idea for a DM to start an adventure with little flexibility and predetermined outcomes. Players should be the star of the show, not delivery boys for NPCs who hold all the cards. I realize a lot of characters start as delivery boys, but they should be allowed some room to grow beyond that.
I agree 110% here as I have had the same thing happen to me. The amusing thing was, the "group #2" in my scenario was a group that ANOTHER CHARACTER OF MINE had been in! I was literally watching my own character's actions through a different character's eyes. It was a little silly and made no sense at all since I already knew, as a player, what the outcome was going to be. Granted, it was a new experience for my character, but it was not terribly fun for me to watch the same game that I'd already played.
Also, I should probably defend my views here since a lot of people seem to think that denying exotic character concepts is just being petty. I stated that I won't RUN a game with those concepts in them. Why? Because a lot of my players are very closed-minded and immature. There are 3 players that I would trust with an exotic concept, but I can't let them play them without hearing a chorus of whining from the other 3 players, so I avoid the issue entirely by laying a flat-out BAN on such ideas.