However Seeker, and other GMs like him (myself included) may very well have varieties of flavour for every spell. For example, in my games, everyone knows what religion you belong to if you cast a healing spell, becasue your gods symbol appears and melts into the person being healed.
Something along that line, yes. Wizards spells normly have runes circling about the hands. Sorcerers tend to briefly take on the acept they have bonded with. Skalds have symbols, where the wizards have Runes. They are diffent, but non-skald "bards" {witches} have different symbols, close but not the same as a skald
Clerics are often display holy symbols or aspects of the gods they follow, while druids often have a green glow or animal like display {cat like eyes, whiskers, claws and such} while they cast
Channel looks different for each and every god as well{this I do in all games}
Going back to the Bard thing, what does a healing spell cast by a Bard class character who is a priest of the god of song do?
I do not have a god of music in that game, but if I did it would not change how the spell was cast, It would be cast like any other "bard"
In most worlds I have no issue with the bard priest. The concept does not however fit this one.
Also wrath you keep safe to next time.
The paladin's special ability to "Smite stuff" and cast spells and be fancy comes from the goddess herself. So the wayward vagabond, cool as he is, wouldn't get divine power from the goddess unless she noticed him and was like "Yeah, I can make an exception for you 'cause I'm JUST like that." If you get raised in the order, you sure as heck can be a monk.The goddess grants various sacred powers? Fine.
These sacred powers are these specific class abilities and the only way to get them is through the goddess? Not so much, out side of the sumo dwarf world.
You're assuming that you have to be a paladin to get divine power from this goddess. Not so. The cleric class can also get power from this goddess as is normal per their class. It's fluff-breaking in this case to get the paladin abilities from another source, due to background info about the goddess. It's like me telling you "I am wizard. I don't study to gain new spells, I just know them when I level." The fluff and the crunch should be interdependent.
The NPCs can't tell Smite Evil from various different buffs. They can't tell Lay on Hands from a healing spell. And just because the vagrant holy warrior's powers are the same list of class abilities doesn't mean they have to be the same as some goddess knight's in the world. They can, in fact, be radically different, just with the same mechanics.
In this case, it makes more sense in the game world, save the player making up a reason that everyone is OK with for having the abilities as above.
You're assuming a lot by the way. For example, smite evil has no visual effect, but leaves a reverberation of the paladin's anger in the hearts of his enemies. Holy Might looks a hell of a lot different, and an 8 int commoner can tell you "Hey, I don't think those two guys are doing the same thing there." If that's metagaming, then sue me. Giving the players absolute control over everything their characters do is BORING.
I guess what I'm trying to say is it's like an additional restriction beyond what's in the rules for paladins, since I changed their oath to "Uphold Fair and True Justice" Instead of all that crazy "Evil people are evil you should smite them" stuff. It's like the restriction that you have to be lawful and good, just it's for fluff instead of mechanics.
However, taking that restriction on fully-initiated paladins and grafting it onto the Paladin class adds nothing to the world. The oath is a world aspect.
I'm sorry but you're wrong there. A: This is technically a house rule. Meaning that it has mechanical presence. B: The paladin's oath must be kept if he is to maintain his class abilities. C: If you want to be part of a class you take the whole package. The horrible restrictions I've put on the class to help the player find a place in the world are far less destructive rules-wise than telling him he has to be lawful good, and if he commits an evil act (vague) he falls. Evil could be something like snubbing your annoying neighbor when he's in need for all the rules help out.
D:Through a select, worthy few shines the power of the divine. Called paladins, these noble souls dedicate their swords and lives to the battle against evil. Knights, crusaders, and law-bringers, paladins seek not just to spread divine justice but to embody the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve. (from the Paladin entry)
This is an extremely specialized class. You play this class if you want to be a holy warrior of the church. There are not a lot of you. You should be cool with your deity. Oh, and JUSTICE.
The class is a mechanical aspect. The DM chaining the mechanical aspects to the world aspects and then blocking off the players use of those mechanical aspects for other things without contribution to the game is a Bad Thing.
So you're saying I can play a wizard who doesn't use magic and instead uses wacky inventions for his spells (less irritating example: takes magic potions that fuel chemical reactions in the air that he uses to create magical effects) when the GM has already outlined that wizards in his game should use magic?
The GM has every right to tell you he doesn't think your ideas fit the theme of his game. And he has the right to bend his world if he wants to. Not respecting your fellow players or GM by throwing a concept into the mix that deliberately violates pre-established fluff that you agreed to follow is something a truly selfish player would do. It detracts from the fun of the game. If I have to bend my world to your every stray whim, then why should I have come up with anything in the first place? Why should I run a game that lets the players do whatever they want? Maybe that's fun for you, but it breaks the tone of the game for me.
The goddess of justice has her order of paladins you choose to represent with the Paladin class. That doesn't mean there aren't other characters for whom the mechanical class of Paladin would be appropriate, nor does it mean that forcing those characters to be Fighter/Clerics enriches the world in the slightest.
Mechanically speaking, a wizard can be a fighter if he uses nothing but touch spells and presents his character as being really buff and using a sword. But he still has to prepare spells. Basically the Paladin is saddled with additional requirements, like those put in a prestige class, that must be fulfilled should their player choose to take levels in that class.
To be a paladin in the setting, you only have to take the oath. You don;t even have to have levels in paladin or be Lawful Good, you'll still be called Brother or Sister whatever, and have the expectations of that group and the benefits thrust upon you.
That someone chooses not to share the burden (and often chooses to pile on wasted tonnage) does not mean they can then turn around and claim superiority because they chose not to share. The DM has a great deal of authority, yes, but ultimately the DM is no greater or lesser than her friends, the players. The players' insights and feelings matter every bit as much as the DM's.
Yes, and they can choose their character's destinies. I'm not forcing them to become a paladin if they want to be a divine crusader or whatever. They can be a rouge for all I care. If they want to be an eldrich knight, they have to cast spells, know which end of the sword goes in the bad guy, and be willing to splice the two. If they want to be a paladin, in this case, they have to draw power from the goddess some way or another, and prevent her from shutting off the switch, either through obedience or other means. The players have had no problem whatsoever with this being the way things are, because a world that functions without them makes sense to them. If one of them said they wanted to play a paladin but didn't want to be a paladin, I would be just as confused as I am right now, since all their cool powers are hyper-specialized and not vague in the least, and this guy not playing within the boundaries I've set up is kind of off-putting. And I'll let players invent guns in the game. Character creation? What does the book tell you? OK, that's how it is. It's not unreasonable to have the warrior of the church serve the church, just like how it's not unreasonable to have the wizard study magic.
Sure, their feelings matter, but you shouldn't just let them do whatever they want. Their character should bend to fit the setting as well, because as you said everyone participating has an equal say. If I lay down the ground rules of my sandbox, and you agree to them and then break them in the same sentence, suddenly I have to bend my rules? Just because you want to break up the fluff you agreed was going to flow for you? These things should inter-connect. A compromise on both ends is necessary.
It has everything to do with the entire argument!
Class does not exist in the world. If you put a Fighter/Cleric next to a Paladin next to a Favored Soul/Knight, the world sees little appreciable difference that isn't so minute and hair-splitting that it would result in sumo dwarf world.
Smite Evil, the class feature, is invisible unto itself. It is a representation tool. That it is chosen to represent the blessings of the goddess is standard fare, but to then say that it cannot represent anything else? It's baseless. It doesn't even make sense, without bestowing a massive amount of metagame knowledge upon the world on the inner workings of classes and class features.
Really? That's what you're trying to say? That the mechanics and fluff should have NO connection? Maybe I do want them to have some connection. Maybe, in this case, it's something special that only the paladin can do, like how only an assassin can have a chance to drop a target in one hit with a sneak attack. Maybe the characters should bend to the world in this case, and it'll do its share of bending later when they're in-game. You have to learn how to do things in my setting, you don't just get born knowing them because you have no ties to the world. Having no ties to the world means I'm going to have nothing for you to get attached to besides Princess Snowflake, your voodoo priestess who's actually a barbarian, and god is SHE boring.
A class is a sack of abilities. Nothing more, nothing less. It is a set of rules that can be fitted to any character type it suits.
Just because you have the Psion class does not mean you are the meditative psychic. One with the Psion class can just as easily be Merlin himself with only the slightest of imagination, for the abilities of the Psion class are appropriate to spell-slinging Merlin. That he does not have the Wizard class does not make him any less of a wizard.
And that you can fit a class to a stupid and inappropriate character does not mean that adapting classes to perfectly appropriate characters is invalid.
It doesn't have to be. If I decide that Fighters are trained warriors who practice with their weapons daily, and that all Fighters should do this because it makes sense, you're telling me I can't decide to tie that fluff together with that crunch, just to make the game more interesting, because it's infringing on the player's rights? Since when did the players have any actual control beyond their intent with what happens to their characters? The DM can just decide that, mechanically, wizard is inappropriate for the wizard, like you've done in your example.
And why is that character inappropriate or stupid? Because the class mechanics pertain to the fluff, by your own admission. Unless the classes are, in fact, just a bunch of mechanics like you said earlier.
Adapting existing rules to interesting character concepts is to be encouraged. Selecting the rules appropriate to the character is a good thing.
And denying access to the rules appropriate to the character in order to cheapen the game without enriching the world is a bad thing.
And cheapening the game world by not playing by its rules is a bad thing. I'm glad we're in agreement here. If I say a cleric had to worship a god or ideal to get his powers, it's no more restrictive than saying a paladin has to swear an oath and be trained to get his, especially considering how much you're alreayd restricted by the paladin class. Want to play a holy knight, crusader, knight-errant or superhero? Then paladin works. Other than that, people will probably be asking the character why, if he's not from the church, he can channel divine faith. The character would probably get strung up in someone else's game.
The fluff and the mechanics are to be integrated at the time of creation.
I have this alchemist/chef who blows things up with his concoctions. Which mechanics best represent that? The Warmage. And now I knit the two together. That does not mean that Warmages can only represent alchemist chefs, nor that all alchemist/chefs must use the Warmage class, only that the Warmage was the appropriate tool for representing this alchemist chef.
To tie up the Warmage class in the alchemist/chef is to deny that tool next time a character for whom the class is appropriate comes along. Like, say, the imperial war mage.
Yes, but you're not knitting the warmage fluff together at all, unless your alchemist trained at a school devoted to magic. Sure, it can represent that, but warmage is not a highly specialized class. It can represent a few street fighter characters with projectile attacks, should we play a game where that would be appropriate. If the GM allows it, it's fine. If he says "Hey, warmages have to go to this school, but however you use your powers is up to you", why not use it? Is your character deathly afraid of warmage school? I could also represent the alchemist chef (which I think we can both agree is awesome) with a cleric with craft(cooking), and incorporate all my potions into tiny tarts with liquid in them, otherwise identical to a potion, which does not even have to have a container.
But I have already said "look, these guys can teach you how to channel divine energy this way". If you argue against it with an angry french chef who uses the power of souffles to smite evil and it's not appropriate to the setting I can say "Fine, be a cleric instead." since that class is a lot more flexible and it sounds like you just want to play something that would get eaten alive by the guys who already exist that you're doing a crude imitation of. If that same chef wanted to swear an oath to the goddess and go to school it would be sound except for the fact that he's a combat chef, which breaks the tone of my game.
In addition, these classes are like jobs. What do you have skill in? I'm a game designer. All my abilities are based around game design. I had to go to school for it. If a fighter ain't a fighter, then maybe you shouldn't class him as one. The wandering vagabond sounds a lot like a cleric to me, personally, but if he wants to play a paladin, is it so wrong to ask that he at least try and integrate my ideas like I'm trying to integrate the player's personalities, back stories and actions into the background I made while keeping suspension of disbelief?
Dragonlance is one of the absolute worst violators of the mechanics/fluff divide ever.
Dragonlance is one of the worst things ever. But FR is not far behind it. That said there is nothing wrong about the GM saying that "X happens when you do X", provided it isn't something crazy like "Everything in the world will die if anything performs a melee attack". Preventing easy, already thought out solutions to things causes the players to be creative, and, dare I say it, have fun.
Now, a Fighter... no, a Paladin who was born bearing the soul of an ancient and powerful saint/swordsman, who knew from birth how to wield the sword and through birthright possesses supernatural powers? That's interesting. That's good material to build a game out of.
A Cleric without faith is easy. Go Ur-Priest style. The Cleric steals power from the gods in daily meditation. That makes perfect sense in most traditional fantasy settings. Or the Cleric collects the souls of the dead and extracts power from them. Or the Cleric made a pact with a devil for power (which is actually how priests of a lot of the evil gods work; no faith involved, only haggling). These are all interesting and have real potential that shouldn't be stifled.
And any DM who gripes about carrying all the weight in setting creation and world building who throws out awesome stuff like that aught to be slapped in the face, 'cuz that's just hypocrisy. The players can serve you gold on a silver platter if you have a little trust and aren't so caught up in your own vision that you blot out everyone else's. You don't have to accommodate everything, but the rules are tremendously flexible, and if you let them stay that way, they can create some absolutely glorious things.
If those character concepts aren't supported by the setting and don't fit the tone of the game, they'll get thrown out. If the DM says he's going to run a dark low-fantasy game then both of those character concepts would a be cool, but they would have to bend to the game. Maybe the fighter would have been distrusted as a child and eventually the duke would have had him thrown out of the city for his supernatural powers. Maybe the faithless cleric has, instead, discovered that the gods are but simple masks on a store of infinite power, and he has slowly learned how to take that power, or has indeed bargained with the demon and must at some point offer up his soul in exchange. These are ways that, as GM, I can give them a hook right from the beginning that ties them to the setting unless they provide me with something that fits the tone. Otherwise they could be playing in any setting, using any other game. Why not give them something unique, a twist for them to react to that's beyond their control while character creation is going on? It's as much a part of the game as rolling dice is. Giving their character requirements can change them a bit, but they can choose to embrace or resent the requirements which makes the character even more well-developed. It doesn't depreciate their input at all. Just because your character is unique and special doesn't mean I can't have any input on him, because as you said my opinion matters just as much as anyone else's, and guess what, the other players really don't care that much about your character.
I guess suspension of disbelief is a bit shallow for me. If I say something goes, and someone else says "no", well, we have a problem folks. If I say "Alright, how does everyone feel about this game being all dwarves from this region with this background fluff?" and the players accept, and player X wants to have just arrived there from another region as another dwarf, I would be begrudging to accept. Why should I treat your character differently? Why does he need to not belong with all the other guys? Why can't you go by these restrictions that you agreed would make the game fun? Admittedly, if it's not important or a breach of the tone, I usually accept. Heck, in the serious game I have a goblin alchemist whose goal is to liberate his people from the orcs. His motives have very little to do with what's actually going on. But, I let the players make the story, and maybe the kingdom will fund the revolution if he scratches their back. After all, I never make an end to my games unless the group is going to be split up or it's no longer entertaining.
There's no reason he has to call himself a paladin. He could just be a someone who really hates evil and is out to fight it.You've already answered this, but for clarity's sake I think Tri's question could be rendered "are you willing to take the Paladin class mechanics and allow a player to play them with any other fluff". This could be anything. Time traveler with nano-bot technology, a specialized form of arcane spellcasting that deals with evil, a dude who's just really focused when he encounters people who thinks are unethical, etc.
I don't think an answer of "no" to this sort of question automatically makes anyone a bad GM. If your setting has no magic and the only way possible way to cross any arbitrary amount of distance instantly is to have access to the teleport satellite ran by the Martian empire for the exclusive use of it's military officers, then there's not going to be much leeway in having letting a concept that includes being able to teleport
In this setting, no, I don't think it would be appropriate, considering how wafer-thin the paladin's abilities can go. If you wanted to smite evil really bad and have that ability, I would cater to that. I would homebrew some stuff. Maybe a Fighter with one feat pre-turned into smite evil and delayed weapon mastery. I just don't think summoning a celestial mount and healing the injured and sick fits that character concept in this setting. If I had nothing planned and the pally was just a cool guy who smites evil and doesn't afraid of anything, you could decide you're going to play "Crocodile Dundee, except with evil instead of crocs" and I would say OK if everyone else was playing on the same page, then build it in my head to justify it with discworld logic.
I would totally be cool with the player being a paladin using whatever character concept he'd cooked up. But the class is a bad example because it's so specific. Even the bard is less specific, and you have to grab perform (blargh) for that class, meaning your character knows how to do that thing.
I guess my main point here is that I was trying to go by the traditional fluff, and I had very exact ideas about this specific class. Sure, a knight could fill the same role, but mechanically this job should have some benefits and expectations. The goddess actually plays a big role in the overarching plot of my game world where paladins will have their souls stolen and turned into constructs would be a good example of that. I think that the world having certain people be the go-to guys for this particular thing adds a lot to the game. It provides something for everyone playing to expect should they see a guy in shining armor on a supernaturally beautiful white horse, striking down evil where it stands. "Oh, that guy is with this church, that means I can expect him to do such and such to me." Like in the real world, where I can look at a guy who is wearing the policeman's uniform, and think "That guy upholds the law. He has a gun, he knows the law, and he might know the ways around this area fairly well." It makes sense subconsciously. Were the class less specialized I would concede on these points, but it's really so restrictive without houserules that offering a tie to an in-game organization as the only way in makes perfect sense.
I would still allow people to play a paladin if they had a great character concept outside my own that fit with the world, though. Say you were cast out of the order, then one day your powers came back. Cool and fitting with my ideas. Say you're a wanderer who hates evil with a firey passion and you act like a paladin and have all their abilities, even though you're not of the order. Interesting enough that I might change some stuff around to fit you in, and then let you reap the consequences later. Maybe I'd even include a dark sect of the order that actually did make you a part of them and then used magic to erase your memory of the events.
Ultimately, I don't think players here are going to their DMs and saying "You MUST allow me to play my character concept, no matter how unrealistic it would be in the campaign world!", nor do I think any DMs here are saying "You may ONLY play what I tell you because I am GOD here!".
I'm pretty sure it's more likely that it's a DM wanting a certain theme and tone for his game, and players wanting certain concepts.. and when these conflict, the DM and Players talk it out and come to some kind of compromise (even if it's just "We play this way this time, and your way next time, or vice versa" kind of thing).
Tossing around words like "abusive" and "disruptive" are a bit on the hyperbole side of things.
Maybe we can tone things down a bit so as not to make this thread any more riled up than it is.
Just because that's been your experience doesn't mean that's how it happens with everyone.
The same could be said about your experiences. I think that since both of you are capable of having a good time with each way, indicates that both ways are equally viable as options.
Neither invalidates the other. So there's no need to tell the other they are having badwrongfun.
More often than not though, the player comes to play his character and either is told of the restrictions during gameplay (after going out of the way to clear his schedule for the game and taking his afternoon to come be part of the GM's campaign), or the restrictions pop up later after the PC's already been playing the game a while and his character dies and it's time to make a new one.
Actually, in my own personal experience, most of the people who I play with first find out what the game is about (Epic Fantasy, core D&D only, dark and serious mystery/intrigue, cthulu, kick-down-the-door, etc), and THEN come up with a character for that game.
I've never been asked into a game (nor asked people to join a game) without hearing, at the time of asking what the game is about.
It's usually something like "Hey, want to play an Iron Kingdoms game?"... it's part of the asking.
So while the nitty gritty rules might come out when the person accepts joining, the player usually has a rough idea of the tone of the game before they even join.
I've never heard of someone just saying "wanna play D&D" and the other person say "yes" and then they go make a character without ever hearing word one what the campaign is about or where it's taking place.
90% of the time, you need to know so you know what books you are going to pull your mechanics from.
I don't think my situation is all that unique.
Are tiers so uncontroversial that people have to argue about player-driven vs. GM driven and plot-based vs. sandbox to keep themselves amused?shhhhh, this topic's more entertaining. (That and the tier topic has a fresher thread at it's disposal.)
I think the OP of "I hate tiers, and I don't know why" has pretty much ended. If there was a way to continue this discussion in another thread without losing a lot of the focus we have right now.. *shrug*
We've got a better Tiers discussion going on in the other thread anyways.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the most important things I've found that both DMs and players need to learn is that you can be an assassin without being an Assassin, or a barbarian without being a Barbarian. A druid from a tribe of savages in the north is no less barbaric then a Barbarian is.
Likewise, you can be a Barbarian without being a barbarian. An angry fighter who eschews mastery of arms for pure, unrelenting strength, doesn't have to wear animal furs.
And allowing his mind to be purged of the ability to read. ¬_¬
Barbarians are no longer illiterate in Pathfinder, for what it's worth.
He's implying that the Fighter gets things that a normal Barbarian mechanically wouldn't, and therefore the character is not really the same as a "Barbarian" because of those extra things.
Although the example does fall flat in Pathfinder...
:D
The DM shouldn't have to cater to the players. I can understand working with a player to provide examples to what he can do, bending to agree with him, but you're making it sound like the players should rule the board. The DM does do a lot more work that the players and is ultimately the host of the game. If someone was demanding things of a host at the host's party after having been explained that what they were asking would involve the host bending over backwards, I would just ask them to leave if the host didn't.
I spent countless hours on my setting, making sure the fluff supported the mechanics and shaving off some bits to include more stuff later, and creating an interesting and varied environment to use as a backdrop for the players. I want the players to have come from somewhere in the setting that they can use to their advantage when roleplaying. If they want to walk out of the center of the earth, naked and alone, that's fine, but my promise is that I'll treat them like it.
In the end, they spent maybe two hours on their characters. Maybe. And they might have to spend two more if that character dies. No skin off of my nose if they don't like the way the setting is. Wanting to play something that is wall-eyed off what the setting gives you will only force me to come and make you a part of the setting. In some cases, that could be painful.
It is not the DM's game. It is the group's game, and the DM is just another member. Problems like "I" did X can easily be resolved by the group as whole having input into the creation of the world.
How is the host bending over backwards? If it does not break the game mechanically, and the player can explain it from a story point of view in such a way that immersion is not broken then why can't he do it?
Kaisoku wrote:
Ultimately, the DM is telling the story.No. She isn't. The DM is absolutely, positively not telling a story if she's any good at all.
I couldn't disagree with you more. There is a reason they call the GM the Storyteller in World of Darkness.
I've played in plenty of games where the GM let players roam arround freely. They lacked focus, and you could tell. Most of the games died fairly quickly. On the other hand, the games where the GM had 20 lvls outlined ran smoothly, even if not in the dirrection the GM planned, and survived for years of playing. The Gm guides the players where he wants them to go, and the players write the story of how they get there.
All the best games I have played were on rails, its just the players couldn't see the rails they had been on until the end.
Nobody said don't use rails. We are saying the story is not determined by DM. The story is determined by what the players do as they go from points A to Z. You are really nothing more than a referee/judge. When the players get off track you nudge them back on track. What does WoD have to do with anything? What if someone came out with a game and the GM was called a "viewer"? Assigning some arbitrary title does not mean anything.
If I lay down the ground rules of my sandbox...
Why is the group not creating the world together? Why do you have to lay down the rules alone?
Why is the group not creating the world together? Why do you have to lay down the rules alone?
If I lay down the ground rules of my sandbox...
Specifically, in my situation? I had one player (my brother) insist that he not be "in on it" so that not only would his character not know what was happening in the world, but so that he didn't have to try and ignore meta-knowledge and actually be surprised himself.
Now, I know an entire world doesn't have to have spoilers throughout it. However, there's going to be a lot of information that the characters should probably not know yet, especially when it comes to other factions or magic or whatnot.
Some players like to have that element of surprise affect them personally, and not have to "pretend" being surprised.
I think it's something similar to throwing a surprise party for someone. If that person knows it's coming because someone let it slip, then the person gets less enjoyment out of it, even though it's a nice thing overall.
Except.... isn't the whole idea of playing a character to have control over what they do?
In the end, you state your intent to the GM who determines the specifics of what happens. I never said the GM completely gets to twist your actions, but in the end that usually happens a bit. If, for example, you describe hitting the evil druid in the face, well, that would kill him in my game because if you hit someone in the face with a sword they die. Instead I say you swung at his face but hit his shoulder.
If you have EVER played a character who has never failed, who has never had their intent played out and been surprised that it's not what they wanted at all, etc. then I'm surprised. I let people describe their actions to the T. If they just "attack", I feel free to describe their action within reason so spice up combat a little. If they describe something really cool and the die roll is a failure then the GM gets to change how the result appears. A lot of groups I've played with play this way.
The smite was just an example. The current paladin player in my game has his sword shine just every so slightly before it hits with a thunderous explosion. I can say what the "stock" smite feels like to a particular commoner if I'm asked though.
Plus if the magic rules were more concrete that COULD be the only way a player or DM will have it! I once played in a game where, for some reason, Transmutation magic had a purple aura and everyone knew about it but me. Did I complain that the magic my spells radiated was purple according to everyone else? Heck no! I bought purple robes as soon as I could.
What exactly is the tone of the game for you madcap? When I gm the point is to tell a fun cooperative interactive story, to challenge my players and see how the world and the story evolve and develop. It's to see the emotional depth of their immersion, whether through the heartbreak in their eyes when a beloved NPC dies or betrays them, the shine in their eyes when an NPC (or PC) gives birth to a new child, or to see the triumphs of victory after overcoming an especially difficult challenge.
The players struggle to succeed in everything they do. They don't have control over how the world is put together because they were thrust into it. However in game they have the power to bend or break the world to suit their needs. I give them the starting point, they give me the rest. I plan only what I see them doing in the immediate future.
I'm actually pretty flexible should you give me the chance. And I break my own rules quite often, once we're in-game, which can either give the players ideas or leave them hopping mad. :P
It is not the DM's game. It is the group's game, and the DM is just another member. Problems like "I" did X can easily be resolved by the group as whole having input into the creation of the world.
How is the host bending over backwards? If it does not break the game mechanically, and the player can explain it from a story point of view in such a way that immersion is not broken then why can't he do it?
If the player can explain it in such a way and it makes sense with the stuff the GM has already established, then he's not bending over backwards.
He's bending over backwards, if, for example, someone wants to play a ranger with paladin abilities from the nature worshipers. The GM says he doesn't think that makes a lot of sense, since the nature worshipers KNOW what a paladin is, and a ranger (Their equivalent) with the same restrictions would seem odd. Unless the GM wants to house rule some things, he's being forced into a creative corner. How do I get this guy's character into play? Looks like I have to scrap these notes I was going to give to him on how rangers interact with normal society under druids and write up something else that lets him be a paladin.
If your players write up organizations, that's great. I've never known a player (Including me) to do anything of the sort.
If your players write up organizations, that's great. I've never known a player (Including me) to do anything of the sort.
I would not ask a player to write up his an organization, but if he has an idea we can work on it together. That way the player can get what they want, and the campaign world I am running does not get any surprises.
My groups do tend to be DM-heavy so that may be why we let other people do things that won't fly in another group.In case it has not been stated I am not suggesting saying "no" is inherently wrong, but I am an advocate of players having as much freedom as possible.
Why is the group not creating the world together? Why do you have to lay down the rules alone?
If I lay down the ground rules of my sandbox...
Why should the GM have to let the players in the design? Its perfectly valid for the players to have no understanding of what they are getting themselves into.
One of my favorite games the GM created the world, the problem, the system, and everything that would happen from the beginning and told the 18 players to make characters that fit. Their backstory didn't matter much to him other than filling out a few NPCs to tie everyone in. From there, we learned how to break reality to our whim, and why not to. Each player left the game with a different story, and the GM told his.
Now this play style isn't for everyone, and it takes a really good GM to pull off at all, but I have seen it run and would play in a game like that again in a heatbeat. Likewize, complete sandbox games don't appeal to me very much. To me, they tend to lack a theme and I just can't get into them. That other people love them and prefer them, I have no doubt. They just aren't for me.
Why should the GM have to let the players in the design? ...Why is the group not creating the world together? Why do you have to lay down the rules alone?
If I lay down the ground rules of my sandbox...
If he is going to complain that he had to do all the work he should let them help. Every time this subject comes up the DM having to do everything comes up. If that is the primary defense I was just putting an alternative out there. If the DM chooses to do the work that was his decision, and he has to right to use it to say I now have supreme power.
PS: I did read the rest of your post. I was just explaining why those that choose to do all the work don't have as much of a leg to stand on as they think they do.
Why should the GM have to let the players in the design? ...Why is the group not creating the world together? Why do you have to lay down the rules alone?
If I lay down the ground rules of my sandbox...
If he is going to complain that he had to do all the work he should let them help. Every time this subject comes up the DM having to do everything comes up. If that is the primary defense I was just putting an alternative out there. If the DM chooses to do the work that was his decision, and he has to right to use it to say I now have supreme power.
PS: I did read the rest of your post. I was just explaining why those that choose to do all the work don't have as much of a leg to stand on as they think they do.
Oh, I completely agree with you there. Give players a basic world and ask them for a backstory and you can often create everything you need from that.
Is this a contest of some sort? Is there a prize for beating the # of posts in the "Update: Summoner" thread?
Darn, he's on to us. :)
Is this a contest of some sort? Is there a prize for beating the # of posts in the "Update: Summoner" thread?Darn, he's on to us. :)
I thought we were just going for 5X the orriginal tiers thread :)
Why should the GM have to let the players in the design? ...Why is the group not creating the world together? Why do you have to lay down the rules alone?
If I lay down the ground rules of my sandbox...
If he is going to complain that he had to do all the work he should let them help. Every time this subject comes up the DM having to do everything comes up. If that is the primary defense I was just putting an alternative out there. If the DM chooses to do the work that was his decision, and he has to right to use it to say I now have supreme power.
PS: I did read the rest of your post. I was just explaining why those that choose to do all the work don't have as much of a leg to stand on as they think they do.
I agree, if you take on the world design all by yourself, you have no right to complain about the players not giving feedback
On the other side of this, if you let your GM design his world and give no feedback or impute into what kind of world you want , you have no right to complain when it's to restrictive or has elements you didn't want.
I often ask players what Kind of world they want, and make it, show them what I have and ask for feedback. Often I get a "what ever you think works best" and sometimes I get "I would like if we had something like"x" or if we had a nation like "Rome" or a culture like the "Celts" and such.
The homebrew with the Skalds, had a sect of monk called Ja'han that was the brain child of one of the players and I just expanded it
Feedback is nice, but at the end of the day it's your world. Your putting all the work into it, your crafting storys and plots and arcs for it and your players. I think it's the GM's job to craft the world, to bring it to 'life" for his players, to make it a living breathing thing. You set the mood and the stage for the players.
I agree 100%. The only way I really want to see a player change or shape the campaign world is through the actions of their characters.
|
I think the Paladin is the only class that needs to be called "paladin". I feel the nature of the Paladin is such that getting to it by another route not using divine magic consciously is incorrect for the class.
For pretty much all other classes, I'm okay with whatever title, but the paladin is the big and only exception to this (that I can think of, though we don't really explore that many prestige classes).
On the other hand, all of my campaigns I've been in have allowed NPCs to know the base classes at very least. I don't feel strongly one way or another about that. As an example, the bladesinger PrC sucks in 3.5, and I don't have a huge problem using other classes to simulate the title/role if there was a good way of doing so.
Why should the GM have to let the players in the design? ...Why is the group not creating the world together? Why do you have to lay down the rules alone?
If I lay down the ground rules of my sandbox...
If he is going to complain that he had to do all the work he should let them help. Every time this subject comes up the DM having to do everything comes up. If that is the primary defense I was just putting an alternative out there. If the DM chooses to do the work that was his decision, and he has to right to use it to say I now have supreme power.
PS: I did read the rest of your post. I was just explaining why those that choose to do all the work don't have as much of a leg to stand on as they think they do.
On the other side of this, if you let your GM design his world and give no feedback or impute into what kind of world you want , you have no right to complain when it's to restrictive or has elements you didn't want.
...
I agree. I hate it when people say "do whatever..", and then complain later in any facet of life.
Yeah I had a game going once, and players wanted to try something new, so I had a few setting gathering dust and asked what they wanted to play
I got pick one, we'll play. So after I spend a week working an a darksun arc, most of the players make a pc, then the last guy is like. "I wanted to play something else"
VV you seem to be painting everyone elses words with your own vanilla flavoured spell system.
You assume that the spell, "protection from evil", looks the same no matter who casts it and therefore NPC's couldn't tell the difference. Perfectly fine if you run a vanilla flavour kind of magic system (actually that doesn't sound like a very flattering term, not trying to be insulting here).
It's also a rather silly assertion. I'm the one who has a chef casting fireballs by taking a swig of whiskey and godonlyknows to spew out gouts of flame. And I assure you, the godonlyknows isn't vanilla.
I'm quite specifically not assuming the spell always looks the same. In fact, the appearance of the spell can vary wildly, even from character to character or source to source within a single setting.
However Seeker, and other GMs like him (myself included) may very well have varieties of flavour for every spell. For example, in my games, everyone knows what religion you belong to if you cast a healing spell, becasue your gods symbol appears and melts into the person being healed.
And that flavor is a character aspect. You can have very flavorful spells. In the same world as the alchemist/chef, I had another Warmage who summoned various spirits. So while the alchemist/chef's Fireball involved whiskey and a mystery concoction, the summoner's Fireball involved summoning a raging ram spirit who spewed gouts of flame from its nostrils.
I'd like to think both versions of the spell are quite flavorful. However, they're aspects of those specific characters. There's no need to say, "In this world, all Fireball spells are the summoning of a raging ram spirit that spews gouts of flame from its nostrils," in order to has that flavorful version of the spell in the game. Likewise, just because the priests of various deities have the whole holy symbol display going on doesn't mean there can't be versions that don't.
Sure a sorceror might cast a spell that is similar to singing that a Skald gets, but it looks and feels nothing like the skalds spell, despite having the same effect.
In essence, each class has a variety of flavours to choose from for the same spell effect.
Why? What does the non-existent notion of class, something that isn't even a part of the game world, have to do with anything? The elements of those various spells are character aspects. There is absolutely no reason why a Bard's Cure Light Wounds can't be aesthetically identical to a Cleric's Cure Light Wounds. 'Because I say so,' does not make something a contributing world aspect.
I even let my players determine the effects for their religions or schools, then let their choice be the universal one for my game world. Collaborative orld building in essence.
Now this works. After all, the player's character is all they have, and if a world starts imposing too far into a player's character, then elements of the world become the player's purview, not the DM's. But that's a side issue.
And note that I never said a thing about flat breaking the rules. Though Dragonlance is one of the absolute worst violators of the mechanics/fluff divide ever.Hmm, how so?
Eh, I've got some real bias, but one of the worst offenders for letting fluff ruin the game was Dragonlance. This one game just really sticks in my craw... it was in the era with all the gods were dead, before sorcerers existed, so Bards didn't get Spellcasting, Clerics/Druids started out with no spellcasting or supernatural abilities or domains, and the only other classes offered were, like, Fighter, Rogue, Barbarian, and Wizard.
The actual rules of Dragonlance are basically about gutting the game to stay true to the source material; this class doesn't exist yet, that class has no abilities at that timespan. If a setting is all about ruining the game, it's a bad setting. If you can't find a way to implement a setting within a system without utterly ruining the system, use a different system. Blue Rose, True20, GURPS, Burning Wheel. Blah.
Having that said there's a lot more leeway for alternative explanations for various mechanics than is apparent at first glance. You could take the entire wizard class and "reskin" it to be a wielder of particularly advance technology. Magic missle is a pulse cannon. Creature summoning is avtivating short-use robots. Teleportation is access to the aforementioned satellite. This will strain in a lot of places (why can I only access an arbitrary selection of my technologies, and why are they all on the same eight hour cooldown?) because the existing mechanics are integrated with a certain type of fluff. However fluff and mechanics are neither totally separate nor totally a one for one equivalence. It is possible to do some drastic fluff rewrites, even if some will impact suspension of disbelief more than others. Things like smite evil are the easy ones, it's just a bonus to an already abstract part of the game. If you (the generic you) can't think of another way to fluff smite-evil, then honestly you're just not trying too hard. Things that interact with the numbers in a game system are generally pretty easy to rewrite. It's the qualitative things that are more rigid.
I'm actually playing an Eberron game now where the Warforged Warlock's powers are derived from badass tech. Eldritch Blast is a pulse laser. Vitriolic Blast is a disintegration beam. Eldritch Cone is a wide-angle mode. Fell Flight? Jet pack. Breath of the Night is hooked up to the exhaust ports.
Yeah, the Warlock class tends to work better for tech-based characters. No cooldown issue, for one.
Actually, group 2 is just thinking that having fluff restrict options isn't necessarily abusive to players.
Fluff restricting options is standard fare. However, locking a mechanic, saying "X is used for Y and only Y and nothing else," is wildly different. You can define a world strongly, but to isolate so many different mechanics and especially individual classes? That's going way into the player's domain.
What they can't do though, is to build a character with the Bardic Performance ability, with no in-game training from the Skald. Also, that last claim (I was trained by Skald) might be challenged by a real Skald if they come across one.
It's not that the DM is telling the players how to think and act, but rather where they can obtain specific sets of abilities.
Which is a constraint with zero value.
Bardic Music does not exist in-character. There is no such thing. Skalds can't train you in Bardic Music. They can train you in their magical and musical ways, which can be represented by Bardic Music, but there are still many, many things that Bardic Music can represent, and many, many things that can represent skald training.
The reason it's abuse is that it's a constraint with no logical connection to the world without metagaming out the wazoo, it doesn't contribute, it doesn't make the world deeper, and it vastly stifles the players and their ability to contribute to the creative vision.
What feels strange is that ultimately, if this were proposed in a gaming system that was classless (bought class abilities instead of a class per level system), and the Skald were the only ones that taught Bardic Performance, "group 1" probably wouldn't bat an eye at this.
Oh, yes I would.
I am looking at the Bard as a bag of mechanics. I think the issue here is that "Bard" the word can mean a lot of things, and some people might be thinking that colloqual usage of the word in-character is being restricted, rather than just the actual mechanics.
As far as I can tell, that's not the case. Call yourself a Bard if you want. It's the Bardic Performance, and 6 spell levels that you won't get from anywhere else but the Skald training.
WHICH IS THE ENTIRE PROBLEM!
That Bardic Performance and 6 spell levels and various skills and dX hit die can represent any number of things. In saying it can only represent skalds and vice versa is abusive precisely because the class, the ability sack doesn't exist.
And while the Skald training only being available in the form of the Bard class, instead of any class that can thematically be put together to mimic a Bard's abilities to a degree...
... that is exactly the same as limiting what classes are available.
Not remotely.
Banning the Wizard class because it's a broken class mechanically? That's limiting the mechanics because the mechanics are bad. Banning the Psion class because the world doesn't have psions? That's arbitrary and irrelevant, because the fluff is only tangentially related to the mechanics, and the Psion class can make fantastic wizards.
I've played in games that were highly restrictive before (World's Largest Dungeon, 3d6 stat rolling, core rules only, see how many lives it takes to get through the whole dungeon). As long as everyone involved wants the same thing (perhaps the PLAYERS want Bardic Performance to be Skald only as well?) then being argumentative here telling people they are having badwrongfun.
If the players want Bardic Music to be skald-only, then it means Bardic Music can be anything at all, it can represent absolutely any concept for which it could conceivably be appropriate. It's just that the players choose not to use it for anything else.
If even one player disagrees, however, it becomes an inappropriate and abusive constraint for all the reasons I've been laying out.
It's just like psionics. Banning psionics is generally a Bad Thing, whether for fluff or mechanical reasons (there are some valid reasons to ban it, but those tend to be rare); it's easier, more intuitive, and more balanced than the Vancian horrors, you can learn it in minutes, and it represents many, many standard fantasy concepts every bit as well as the classes designed for those concepts. However, that doesn't mean every game should be using psionics non-stop. If no one in the group wants to use psionics, that's the exact same as allowing psionics but everyone choosing not to take it.
If on the other hand your suggesting they are a Bard, who claims to be a priest of the god of music, then they aren't channeling that gods magic and everyone will know it. In fact, they won't make it very far up in the church in my world. The bard could happily go around espousing the virues of the god of magic, but unless they're channeling the gods power, they can't call themselves a priest of that church. But that's my game.
And if they're a Bard who is a priest of the god of music? Bards make spectacular priest of such gods. And why can't a Bard's magic come from her deity? There's absolutely no good reason a Bard casting Cure Light Wounds can't be doing so.
It's about the DM getting so tied up in her own creative vision that she steals the tools that are there for the players to create their own.
In your game you could do what you want with the bard and explain how the magic worked.
Ah, so your players can explain how their Bard is, indeed, a priest of the god of music. Excellent. For it is the players' game every bit as much as the DM's. The game belongs to the group as a whole, not any one member.
It's when the DM starts thinking it's their game, their vision rather than the group's that they start treading into the realm of the tyrant DM.
I wasn't arguing that they were one and the same, I was disagreeing with the way VV keeps mentioning metagaming NPC's because they know the spell caster wasn't a bard when they cast a certain spell. She seems to think that's metagaming. It would be in a magic system where all "cure light wounds" spells looked the same for instance.
However I was making the point that in a game world where the spells appearence depends on who casts it, not the spell name, metagaming has nothing to do with the NPC's knowing about it.
But again, the spell's appearance does indeed depend on who casts it, not on what the character class is.
A priest of the music god casting Cure Light Wounds produces the ghostly treble clef? Fine. But unless the cosmos metagames or the houserules are deliberately written badly, it doesn't matter whether that priest is a Cleric, a Druid, or a Bard, because a priest casting Cure Light Wounds creates a ghostly treble clef. Just as a spirit binder casting Fireball summons the red raging ram whether they're a Wizard, a Warmage, or a Wu Jen, even if they're right next to a Wizard/Warmage/Wu Jen who isn't a spirit binder and who uses considerably blander VFX.
Again, this is all because the spell varies on who casts it that character class ultimately doesn't factor in.
Something along that line, yes. Wizards spells normly have runes circling about the hands. Sorcerers tend to briefly take on the acept they have bonded with. Skalds have symbols, where the wizards have Runes. They are diffent, but non-skald "bards" {witches} have different symbols, close but not the same as a skald
Clerics are often display holy symbols or aspects of the gods they follow, while druids often have a green glow or animal like display {cat like eyes, whiskers, claws and such} while they cast
And there is absolutely zero reason why this can't be ported to the Psion wizard or the Bard priest or the Psychic Warrior skald.
You're assuming that you have to be a paladin to get divine power from this goddess. Not so. The cleric class can also get power from this goddess as is normal per their class. It's fluff-breaking in this case to get the paladin abilities from another source, due to background info about the goddess. It's like me telling you "I am wizard. I don't study to gain new spells, I just know them when I level." The fluff and the crunch should be interdependent.
No I'm not. I'm assuming no such thing. Power can come from anywhere, can manifest in any way that makes sense. You can have a Fighter whose feats are the collective wisdom of an army of ancestral spirits.
And a bad character is a bad character. A character without explanation is a character without explanation. To say that a fantastic character who happens to be unusual is the same as a bad and undefined character is rubbish.
Yes, the goddess of justice has a higher order of followers known as paladins who are represented by the Paladin class. That does not mean that Paladin cannot represent anything else, nor that it is in any way a contribution to the game to say that the Paladin cannot represent anything else. There are many, many ways to gain power. To become a living vessel for the spirits of the lost and the wronged and seek vengeance and reparation on their behalf could manifest in the Paladin class abilities in a way wholly unlike the goddess' paladins, but the mechanics are the same. They may see this possessed man as some bizarre abomination to be destroyed, but it doesn't cheapen the world any.. To force the spirit vessel into a class that doesn't represent it as well just because you've already locked the Paladin to one thing, And Only One, cheapens the game because you're denying access to the mechanics that serve the character for no adequate reason.
That there are other ways to get power from the goddess, or other divine types? It's irrelevant. The problem is that the toolbox for representing characters is being diminished without any logical reason. Fluff constrains fluff. Any mechanic that can be made to work within the fluff is good. To ban or shackle mechanics based on fluff is to say, "I cannot imagine any other appropriate way to implement this mechanic within this world, therefore you cannot imagine such a way either. It is forever chained, now begone!"
You're assuming a lot by the way. For example, smite evil has no visual effect, but leaves a reverberation of the paladin's anger in the hearts of his enemies. Holy Might looks a hell of a lot different, and an 8 int commoner can tell you "Hey, I don't think those two guys are doing the same thing there." If that's metagaming, then sue me. Giving the players absolute control over everything their characters do is BORING.
No, you're just drawing unsound conclusions and blaming the distinction on assumptions on my part that ultimately don't hold.
Smite Evil can have many visual effects. Maybe it's all glowy for the traditional paladin of justice, or just the imprinted anger version. That doesn't mean that's the only visual effect it could possibly have. When the spirit vessel Paladin smites evil, she could well be engulfed by a cloak of wailing spirits that lash out at the impure and rip the flesh from their bones.
The visual effects are fluff. They can be anything that makes sense. To the eyes of that exact same 8 int commoner, an ordinary-looking sword strike is a lot different than calling forth an army of angry ghosts that eat people, even if mechanically, they're the exact same Smite Evil.
To decree that Smite Evil or Righteous Might or what have you can look one way and only one way and always look the same way is the essence of the unnecessary restrictions that are a Bad Thing.
A: This is technically a house rule. Meaning that it has mechanical presence.
It's a houserule that contributes nothing to the game and imposes on player territory without return. That's the entire point. I can pass a houserule that says the DM writes up all character sheets and backstories, but that doesn't make it stop being an abusive and unreasonable houserule.
B: The paladin's oath must be kept if he is to maintain his class abilities.
That can be applied to anything, chief.
C: If you want to be part of a class you take the whole package. The horrible restrictions I've put on the class to help the player find a place in the world are far less destructive rules-wise than telling him he has to be lawful good, and if he commits an evil act (vague) he falls. Evil could be something like snubbing your annoying neighbor when he's in need for all the rules help out.
"It's less imposing than one of the most poorly-written and ill-conceived clauses in the core rulebook if you interpret it in the most ridiculous, jerkbag way possible," is not a defense. And you can make codes and creeds and mantras and pacts all you want to replace the code of conduct if you want to change it. It's still no reason to shackle it to one and only one object in the world.
D:Through a select, worthy few shines the power of the divine. Called paladins, these noble souls dedicate their swords and lives to the battle against evil. Knights, crusaders, and law-bringers, paladins seek not just to spread divine justice but to embody the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve. (from the Paladin entry)
This is an extremely specialized class. You play this class if you want to be a holy warrior of the church. There are not a lot of you. You should be cool with your deity. Oh, and JUSTICE.
You're adding rules that aren't there. Starting with the fluff. Fluff is not rules. Mechanics are rules. The code of conduct is part of the mechanics, sure (and an ill-conceived one at that). But 'called paladins' is not.
By the logic you present, it would take a house rule to have a world where the members of an order of Paladins are called 'templars' instead of 'paladins' due to the 'called paladins' clause in the class description. By the logic you present, all paladins must specifically have a sword that they dedicate to the battle against evil. Axes and hammers need not apply. By your logic, their goals must be lofty or they are in violation of the rules. That's a lot of constraints.
Your interpretation that fluff as rules rather than flavor text starts drawing you into the realm of a game where you're not allowed to create anything by default, where eleven classes mean eleven characters because so much is pinned down.
My interpretation is that the fluff is only what the designers had in mind for that class, what they intended it to be used for, and their intentions mean nothing in the face of a spectacular new use. It's not a violation of the rules to use these sacks of mechanics in new and interesting ways. No houserules are required. You're allowed to create your own character, and then it's just a matter of using the mechanics that best represent that character. If those mechanics happen to be Paladin, then Paladin is the most beneficial class to use for the sake of the game as a whole, and if Paladin is already shackled to some other object in the world, the best thing for the game is to unshackle it and use the class for both.
So you're saying I can play a wizard who doesn't use magic and instead uses wacky inventions for his spells (less irritating example: takes magic potions that fuel chemical reactions in the air that he uses to create magical effects) when the GM has already outlined that wizards in his game should use magic?
If the character being discussed is not a wizard, but only using the Wizard class to represent another valid character type such as an alchemist or a tinker? Yes, that's perfectly acceptable. There are probably better classes for that concept than Wizard that would be easier to shape to the needs of the character, but if Wizard is what's decided on, it's fully functional (assuming the game allows the Wizard class).
The big conflation you're coming up here is that all wizards must be Wizards and all Wizards must be wizards, when in reality, you don't need the Wizard class to make a wizard character and vice versa. You can have a Wizard alchemist, or an Alchemist wizard.
The GM has every right to tell you he doesn't think your ideas fit the theme of his game. And he has the right to bend his world if he wants to. Not respecting your fellow players or GM by throwing a concept into the mix that deliberately violates pre-established fluff that you agreed to follow is something a truly selfish player would do. It detracts from the fun of the game. If I have to bend my world to your every stray whim, then why should I have come up with anything in the first place? Why should I run a game that lets the players do whatever they want? Maybe that's fun for you, but it breaks the tone of the game for me.
And if the concept doesn't violate the pre-established fluff? If the Psion is indeed a spectacular wizard in a world full of wizards? If the Bard really does make for a spectacular priestess of Lliira? If the Warforged Warlock whose eldritch blast and various invocations are assorted technological bits built into the Warforged really does fit into Eberron?
In that case, it's detracting from the game to deny all of those. Which is what shackling the mechanics does. This isn't about letting the players do whatever they want. However, it's the group's game, not just the DM's. The players have their rights, too. You don't have to allow everything, but you need that infinite flexibility to allow for those spectacular and wholly appropriate ideas to come through.
And if you're worried about the players ruining your precious world or your precious story, it's about time to reassess your DMing style because that's extremely selfish DMing.
Sure, their feelings matter, but you shouldn't just let them do whatever they want. Their character should bend to fit the setting as well, because as you said everyone participating has an equal say. If I lay down the ground rules of my sandbox, and you agree to them and then break them in the same sentence, suddenly I have to bend my rules? Just because you want to break up the fluff you agreed was going to flow for you? These things should inter-connect. A compromise on both ends is necessary.
Except no fluff is being broken.
The Paladin class can be used to represent the vessel of wronged spirits seeking vengeance while not being a paladin and never violating the presented fluff in any way, shape, or form; the character conforms to all fluff, and has various abilities that make sense for the given backstory. These abilities, while having similar effects to the paladins' (healing stuff and killing stuff), are completely different in their nature from the paladins in-world despite having identical mechanics.
Really? That's what you're trying to say? That the mechanics and fluff should have NO connection? Maybe I do want them to have some connection. Maybe, in this case, it's something special that only the paladin can do, like how only an assassin can have a chance to drop a target in one hit with a sneak attack. Maybe the characters should bend to the world in this case, and it'll do its share of bending later when they're in-game.
The mechanics are a toolbox. Nothing more. They come with no fluff at all. Then, a character is born, and the appropriate mechanics are fitted to that character. The classes come with default fluff that can be used for inspiration, however it isn't in any way obligatory, nor is it in any way a part of the rules.
And assassins don't necessarily have any special ability that deals one-hit kills. A Monk 10 can be an assassin, but doesn't necessarily have such an ability.. Now, if you're talking about the Assassin PrC, their ability isn't even unique. Quivering Palm is a one-hit kill. Touch of Death is a one-hit kill. X+10 damage is a one-hit kill. That the Assassin version is keyed off of Sneak Attack is a petty detail. To then isolate and shackle the singular, trivial mechanic of Death Attack is so pathetically meaningless that to declare it a Big Deal mechanic is just silly. Particularly in the face of another character concept for which Death Attack is suited.
You have to learn how to do things in my setting, you don't just get born knowing them because you have no ties to the world.
Who says the character born knowing stuff has no ties? If you want attachments, require attachments, don't pass overly imposing houserules that only tangentially have anything at all to do with what you actually want. You can learn and still have no connections in the world.
You can have the character who bears the soul of a saint/swordmaster and knows swordplay by birthright, but he has a wife, he has children, he's the captain of the guard in some city, he runs a school of swordplay, he has students, he has all these myriad ties, but he just never had to learn swordplay.
Meanwhile, you can have the guy who grew up in a swamp with his dad and learned swordplay from him, then his father died of natural causes, and now he's got just about squat left for ties.
Having no ties to the world means I'm going to have nothing for you to get attached to besides Princess Snowflake, your voodoo priestess who's actually a barbarian, and god is SHE boring.
Accusing me of making boring characters is so valid in the face of Miss Clair Ick and her Fighter friend Dwarfy Dwarfington the dwarf who dwarfs.
You can always make crappy and inappropriate and bad and boring characters who have no friends and no family. That's irrelevant. To bring it up is about as relevant as saying, "The sky is blue."
It doesn't have to be. If I decide that Fighters are trained warriors who practice with their weapons daily, and that all Fighters should do this because it makes sense, you're telling me I can't decide to tie that fluff together with that crunch, just to make the game more interesting, because it's infringing on the player's rights?
I'm not saying you can't, I'm saying that to do so is wrong. It's stealing your players' tools without contribution to the game. It doesn't make the game more interesting and only serves to reduce the supply of good tools without enriching the world.
To say that there is an order of highly skilled warriors enriches the world. To represent that order as a bunch of Fighters is standard fare. To then say that the Fighter class can only be that order of highly skilled warriors is a ridiculous and absurd constraint that contributes nothing.
Since when did the players have any actual control beyond their intent with what happens to their characters?
If you work under the assumption that the DM has absolute power over the game, then you must also accept that the DM is obligated to use that power responsibly. Even if the DM has the authority to be a tyrant, that does not mean that the DM is right to do so.
However, the players have their rights, too. They have their stake in the game, and all DM authority ultimately comes from the players.
The DM can just decide that, mechanically, wizard is inappropriate for the wizard, like you've done in your example.
The Wizard class (do mind the proper nouns) is perfectly and completely appropriate for representing wizard characters. That's what it's designed for, and it does so fabulously. At no point have I ever denied this.
However the Wizard class is inappropriate for the game because its power is too vast and sweeping. It is mechanically broken, and therefore disallowed. It's a bad tool in the toolbox, therefore it is removed from that same toolbox.
And why is that character inappropriate or stupid? Because the class mechanics pertain to the fluff, by your own admission. Unless the classes are, in fact, just a bunch of mechanics like you said earlier.
The character is stupid because it is nonsensical in and of itself.
"I can do powerful stuff just because I waggle my fingers," is an inherently stupid character concept, regardless of class. "I can do powerful stuff because I have all this alchemic training," is a perfectly valid valid character concept (or piece thereof) on its own merits. It remains a valid character concept whether it's the Wizard class or the Warlock class or the Warmage class or the Alchemist class or the Artificer class that's ultimately used to represent it.
The class mechanics are fitted to the character not in any locked, predefined way. They are fit to the character as is appropriate to that particular character.
Yes, but you're not knitting the warmage fluff together at all, unless your alchemist trained at a school devoted to magic.
No, I'm not. That's because the Warmage fluff is no more a part of the Warmage class than a wrapper is a part of a piece of cheese. The chef/alchemist is the character. The Warmage class is the sack of mechanics best suited to representing that chef/alchemist. The prepackaged fluff associated with the Warmage class holds no sway, nor should it so long as the character is well-represented and appropriate to the world as a whole.
If the GM allows it, it's fine. If he says "Hey, warmages have to go to this school, but however you use your powers is up to you", why not use it? Is your character deathly afraid of warmage school?
At the same time, why should the DM pass such a suggestion in the first place.
The first step in the process is to create a character who is appropriate to the world. If you have that in a character who never went to the Warmage's academy, yet the most accurate tool for representing that character is the Warmage class, then while the character may not be a warmage, they should be allowed as a Warmage, regardless of the academy's existence. There is neither any reason to include time at the academy nor any reason to disallow use of the Warmage class.
I could also represent the alchemist chef (which I think we can both agree is awesome) with a cleric with craft(cooking), and incorporate all my potions into tiny tarts with liquid in them, otherwise identical to a potion, which does not even have to have a container.
Ah, the joys of a cake of Reverse Gender (best spell ever). :P
And yes, indeed you could make magical confections based on the mechanics of potions. They would be most excellent addition to some worlds. And they would have interesting tactical applications. Ah, the things you could do with a plate full of crumpets of Suggestion.
In addition, these classes are like jobs. What do you have skill in? I'm a game designer. All my abilities are based around game design. I had to go to school for it. If a fighter ain't a fighter, then maybe you shouldn't class him as one.
These classes are labeled like jobs. However, they're nothing more than packets. Those job titles are nothing more than suggestions with no weight as rule. That they're intended for one function does not mean they're only capable of serving one function. The label, 'Fighter,' is only a label. It has no in-game effect. Likewise, the label, 'Cleric,' is just a label. Clerics are quite explicitly allowed to be non-clergy, with neither god nor church. That doesn't mean the non-cleric Cleric who casts divine magic through, say, a devotion to generic goodness should not use the Cleric class. Rather, the label of 'Cleric' was just a general header for the sake of giving it a handle, not a constraint that the character actually be clergy. Just as Bards don't have to be bards, and Barbarians don't have to be barbarians, and Psions don't have to be psions.
The wandering vagabond sounds a lot like a cleric to me, personally, but if he wants to play a paladin, is it so wrong to ask that he at least try and integrate my ideas like I'm trying to integrate the player's personalities, back stories and actions into the background I made while keeping suspension of disbelief?
If the request is logical and has good reason? Yes. If it's just trying to shackle a class and credit the shackles for unrelated world elements? Absolutely not.
If the character already makes sense within the context of the world as possessing the powers of the Paladin class, why would you ask this of the player other than some bizarre cosmic metagaming on the part of the universe? And who says the ideas aren't integrated? The vessel of wronged souls Paladin could well be directly linked to a significant world element already and molded around the world itself in a deep and meaningful way. The character just doesn't have any direct ties to the goddess of justice, as they have nothing to do with the character to whom the Paladin class was found to be appropriate.
If those character concepts aren't supported by the setting and don't fit the tone of the game, they'll get thrown out. If the DM says he's going to run a dark low-fantasy game then both of those character concepts would a be cool, but they would have to bend to the game. Maybe the fighter would have been distrusted as a child and eventually the duke would have had him thrown out of the city for his supernatural powers. Maybe the faithless cleric has, instead, discovered that the gods are but simple masks on a store of infinite power, and he has slowly learned how to take that power, or has indeed bargained with the demon and must at some point offer up his soul in exchange. These are ways that, as GM, I can give them a hook right from the beginning that ties them to the setting unless they provide me with something that fits the tone. Otherwise they could be playing in any setting, using any other game. Why not give them something unique, a twist for them to react to that's beyond their control while character creation is going on? It's as much a part of the game as rolling dice is. Giving their character requirements can change them a bit, but they can choose to embrace or resent the requirements which makes the character even more well-developed. It doesn't depreciate their input at all. Just because your character is unique and special doesn't mean I can't have any input on him, because as you said my opinion matters just as much as anyone else's, and guess what, the other players really don't care that much about your character.
And these are not things I'm arguing against except that last part if you're still talking about shackling the Paladin class to that single wing of that single church of that single deity. The particular quirks and aspects of the character are what determines the corresponding baggage. And there is a very fine line between tossing out twists beyond the player's control and flat stealing control of the player's character. It is their character, after all. Such things should be collaborative, not, "And I the DM decree that this happened to your character. Deal with it."
Now, as for the quirks and baggage? They should be appropriate to the character, rather than being a maze of constraints on the various classes tying them up in a bunch of different world objects. You figure out the implications as the creation process goes along. Okay, the child was born with the soul of a saint/swordmaster. Now work out what that means and how that affect's the character's life together, keeping in mind that it's the player's character and keeping the decrees to a minimum.
Actually, in my own personal experience, most of the people who I play with first find out what the game is about (Epic Fantasy, core D&D only, dark and serious mystery/intrigue, cthulu, kick-down-the-door, etc), and THEN come up with a character for that game.
Find out? Try discuss. If the DM is decreeing what the game will be about rather than discussing it with the group as a whole, there's a problem.
On the other side of this, if you let your GM design his world and give no feedback or impute into what kind of world you want , you have no right to complain when it's to restrictive or has elements you didn't want.
Except this isn't about restrictive worlds. This is about starting with a world and then shackling classes in ways that have no contribution to said world or the game as a whole.
** spoiler omitted **
Heh. Very nice. Definitely trumps Clair Ick and Dwarfy Dwarfington.
VV what you describe works great for free range games, but not all games are free range. As a GM, I have any right to make rules regarding my game world as I see fit. You can always leave the table if you don't want to play, it doesn't mean I will change my world for you. If I want to run a game with traditions, you can bet that my traditions will be consistent and violating them will not get you power, because as a GM I have defined it such. Likewise, playing something outside those traditions will be very difficult, unless you come up with a good reason that fits into my world.
If I say only this group knows how to do this thing, and you must learn it from them, then you must learn it from them. And so does everyone else with that power in that world.
Honestly, I would rather play in a well thought out game with hard and fast rules I can count on, like SoS's, than the world that you describe. In his world, I'm building something in that has a home and a connection to the world arround him. In yours, my character can fit anywhere and everywhere, and therefore fits nowhere, because anything goes.