Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Hmmm...contentious thread...gone on for 6 pages...first time tuning in...
Yup, it's time for a contribution!
My pet peeve in terms of DM control is having story elements forced on me as a player. I hate epic. Hate it, hate it, hate it. I play infrequently, and when I do, my characters are recovering alcoholics, dwarven rednecks who use alchemy to brew moonshine and alchemist's fire, and other variations on that theme. What drives me batty is when I make my street level character, and the campaign turns out to have the epic dial set to 11, and the character is supposed to be the long lost avatar of some diety.
When I game, I want to be R2-D2 or Gimli, not Luke Skywalker/Han Solo or Frodo/Aragorn.
Personally, if I have a character concept, I try to build said concept within the "laws" of the campaign.
I think there's many ways, with fluff or crunch, to make most concepts viable in most settings. It's simply a matter of having the GM and player have a civil discussion about what each other wants. I think that if people treat each other with respect and actually listen to what the other is saying, a compromise is not impossible.
Of course, some concepts are just way too out-of-synch to mesh with the campaign. For example, what if somebody wants to play a gunslinger in a middle-ages setting? Or, what if somebody wants to play a (WoD-style) werewolf mystic in a Pathfinder setting--starting at first level? There are some concepts that may not work for some settings; that seems plain to me. But if I really wanted my concept to work, I might try to make it happen, as closely as possible, with the "laws" that exist in the campaign's "reality".
I suppose what I just don't understand is some of the general obtuseness present in arguements such as this. Why does anybody "have" to be right? Why do some people feel it necessary to hold onto whatever view they may have, regardless of the fact that it just makes them appear obstinate and combative?
I generally like to accommodate my players, because I have found that the best play comes from when they can really cut their creativity loose, but sometimes you have to have limits too. I have some campaign ideas that only work certain ways, and as you rightly point out above, some concepts do not go and cannot go. Some ideas are just plain bad, period, compared to the campaign world and it's background, no matter how you mix it up, and some are just not practicable because of the adventure and what you have planned as background.
The best way is to get the player characters in first, then design the adventure and background events around that, but that isn't always possible to do.
Somebody set up us the smurf.
DM's must use their power to the betterment of the game.
I think every DM tries to do this, but some just fail at it. This theoretical DM is an example of that.
but the DM gets to set the terms OF creation. It's in the GMG, I'm not making this up :)
The DM can make any rules he wants, but a good DM stays within certain limits, and a good DM for one group is bad for another group, but there are still things that can cross boundaries with any group.
*As for the "my players never leave argument", some people would rather play in a bad game, than no game at all.*PS: That was not aimed at anyone, but the "I must be a good DM because my players never leave", argument normally follows an argument stating a DM can't do anything he wants. Well he/she(the DM) can, but you guys know what I am trying to say.
The DM is certainly entitled to have fun too, but again if the only way he can achieve that is by controlling who/what the players can be, then I think he has issues...as in control issues. I mean why stop there? Why not tell the players what their characters do during the game too? Better yet, don't invite the players over at all. Just put up cardboard figures in their place.I have a problem with this way of thinking and frankly if you came to my game table and immediately took this strong of an aggressive anti-GM posture, I'd rather you leave anyway.
GMs need to be careful what they control in the campaign, but if the campaign elements and GM expectations are outlined ahead of time in order to make a cohesive story world and prevent surprises, I really don't have a problem with them, and I don't believe the GM is having control issues.
For example, let's say you're running Council of Thieves AP (or any AP for that matter). It's pretty clear what the expectations of how the players will operate are laid out. If somebody comes in and says, "I want to be a member of the House of Thrune" or "I want to be an Order of the Rack Hellknight" you're going to have some major story breaking problems, to the point that nobody at the table is going to have fun. The same holds true for Organized Play; as much as you want, you cannot play the evil backstabber, or you'll be kicked out of OP environment. In both cases, ground rules are laid out which everybody understands and strengthens the play environment, and both are perfectly reasonable GM expectations. Saying "I'm not going to listen the ground rule and I'm going to play X" is not only puerile but it really indicates a lack of appreciation to the amount of work a GM has to put into their job to make something everybody can enjoy.
I'm not advocating for the heavy-handed control that the OP indicated his GM partook in, but rather for a participatory attitude by all involved.
It is no about being anti-GM. It is anti over control. I don't think a DM is beyond being questioned. There is a time and a place for it, but to say "do as I say because I spent 458945489840 hours making this world" sucks as an excuse. I would just reply next time spend a few minutes asking players what they want so your 458945489840 hours wont be wasted on rebelling players.
On the other hand sometimes a campaign needs restrictions, and trying to get around them is a good reason to be uninvited from a group.
Spes' & Madcap's latest posts are giving me Flashbacks of TheAceMu.
Don't worry, the inanity is not wholy mine.
We've been using http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/ for the text of our "arguments". I assure you, I am not so nearly bad a writer that I am unable to properly express myself.
(Plus my name looks really bad this way)
-Madcap Storm King
Slightly off topic, sorry.
...kicked out of heaven and lost most of his/her powers, being demoted to a mortal. Now, they must earn the right to re-ascend.We had an Aasamir Paladin with that same basic plot (the player's design), he(we) received minor assistance from both good and evil emmisaries that only he could see. (information, channel energies, etc.) The evil emmisary was doing the 'wolf in sheep's clothing' routine, while the good emmisary was more militant(kinda angry) and straight to the point... which to listen too?! (both were female) I actually got to help the DM with reference material and such. It was really awesome to see in action, but then the game fell apart. :(
I was that player....really wanted to see where that was going,
It is no about being anti-GM. It is anti over control. I don't think a DM is beyond being questioned. There is a time and a place for it, but to say "do as I say because I spent 458945489840 hours making this world" sucks as an excuse. I would just reply next time spend a few minutes asking players what they want so your 458945489840 hours wont be wasted on rebelling players.
On the other hand sometimes a campaign needs restrictions, and trying to get around them is a good reason to be uninvited from a group.
First let me preface this by saying that none of this is directed at you, wraithstrike. Mostly this is about the things argued in this thread, in particular the GM control issue.
The problem is that a reasonable solution has yet to be suggested. The solution is to "walk" in such a situation, which has a number of problems.
1. Having already drawn attention to yourself, and leaving in response to a stated rule, you are disrupting the rest of the group and disrespecting the GM. I would call you back and ask you what the f*** your deal was, ask you to explain why you acted so childishly, and then either listen to your rational terms, straighten out what was misheard, or simply embarrass you and send you away. Excusing yourself from a social function: Fail.
2. No attempt at negotiation is even attempted. Talking with the other players to see if THEY even want what you want never happens/is never mentioned. Obviously the GM, who is able to remake any aspect of the setting, cannot change these rules or see the problem with them if the issue is explained. But wait! We would never know that because the option was never explored, was it? Begging the question: Fail.
3. Assuming that the GM can do whatever he wants. That's not true. The GM is restricted already by societal norms and the expectations of the group. A GM can run a dark political intrigue game, but if the players play it as a kick in the door dungeon crawl there's not much he can do other than penalize them on occasion and weep at the cool conversations and character interactions he will never get to play out. Because of this perceived ability to do anything, the player is assumed to have an equivalent place in the game and is also given the power to do anything. Either can do anything, but due to societal circumstances some of it may not be appropriate, or in terms of the enjoyment of the other players (Including the GM) being disregarded. Not only does this also beg the question but this is also a fallacy of false cause (or non sequitir): D-D-D-Double Fail.
You and I have clearly not been reading the same thread because I know of Boone who said that a player should just walk away while negotiation is possible.
He wasn't listened to, in that case. I should've said a reasonable solution was not heeded. Sorry, I haven't read the entire thread.
Damn it.
>Spinkles Troll Flakes (tm)<
Sorry Mr. Fishy went somewhere today. Sooo...fighting a Munchkin or...beating a dead horse.
A DM has the "right" to run a game as he/she sees fit. Players have the "right" to not play.
What one person considers a "reasonable solution" another won't. That's why I don't like to use such vapid platitudes in this kind of discussion. It's better, in my opinion to not base the process of negotiation on such subjective concepts.You and I have clearly not been reading the same thread because I know of Boone who said that a player should just walk away while negotiation is possible.He wasn't listened to, in that case. I should've said a reasonable solution was not heeded. Sorry, I haven't read the entire thread.
The only thing the solution can be is subjective because the result of the negotiations depends on the group. The solution can be considered reasonable when all parties involved agree to abide by it. Since we cannot know every problem, this simple guideline serves a better purpose than a completely fixed problem, which could produce the wrong idea about how the negotiations should take place. Since so many completely different examples have been used in this page alone (And since assuming that different groups will want the same thing out of a different situation), I felt it best to use a more malleable solution that could be adapted to the situation however the negotiators see fit.
|
Concepts.
So wait, are you saying the dm shouldnt limit concepts or options?What.Spes Magna Mark wrote:
If one of the players had showed up insisting on running a gnome artificer from Cormyr, we'd have all looked at him like he was stupid and then laughed.
Likewise, our group wouldn't tolerate a DM who restricted our character options.
We wouldn't tolerate a DM restricting options re: class, race, background, etc. We do tolerate him restricting options re: what books we can use, if a certain feat is overpowered, etc. The former is more important and belongs to the player.
|
|
Actually that's completely false. The DM HAS to use your backstory and character's personality to guide your character or hook him.
There's a difference between using the backstory I created and informing me of my character's backstory as there is a difference between letting me choose my character's race and class and informing me what I'll be playing.
That completely limits his work. The only reason you're using this angle of argument is because you like using whatever source material you want, not what would be appropriate. I think my previous post really says a lot about what your motivation is. See, the DM's role is also to prevent broken mechanical aspects from taking control of the game. You say that this is wrong because it infringes on your character concept.Well, let me put it this way: Just play the paladin as a holy fighter. After all, if your character CONCEPT is the only problem, than using slightly different crunch shouldn't be an issue. Certainly, nothing to mount a complaint about.
My complaint isn't crunch.
We wouldn't tolerate a DM restricting options re: class, race, background, etc. We do tolerate him restricting options re: what books we can use, if a certain feat is overpowered, etc. The former is more important and belongs to the player.
So, you'll accept a DM excluding Races of Stone but not elves? What about races in the excluded books? I'm trying to figure out where you draw your lines and I'm getting conflicting impressions.
There's a difference between using the backstory I created and informing me of my character's backstory as there is a difference between letting me choose my character's race and class and informing me what I'll be playing.
So how is winnowing down the choices (as in the case "no elves or monks" but still leaving numerous combinations on the table) "informing you what you'll be playing"?
|
|
I don't hand the DM a list of things and say "Please don't include these in your world as they would violate the flavor and theme of my character." I accept his world as-is.
But if the DM rejects a character concept because it violates the flavors and themes of the campaign, there is no trampling. Only realistic checks and balances against a sense of entitlement.Oh really?
And then I add, "Since you're new and we're kind of in a crunch here, make sure we encounter these NPCs in the following order" as I hand him my demands. I'd say we're equally nice.At least make me go back a page next time.
The 2nd quote was sarcastic.
So the DM can run the game as long as he clears it with you? Restricting books restricts options. Classes and races are in some of the splat books.
Feats are OK? That falls under player option doesn't it?
(see the "Sokal Affair").
The Sokal Hoax - and the whole topic of Postmodern crits of all sorts of things (especially science) is ten times more complex than that summation. As someone who spent a lot of time trying to breach the gap, I'm mystified by the amount of people on both sides who seem determined to spend as much time shouting "nah nah, I can't hear you!" as possible.
However, to take a page from the pomo page book, let's address this question (or at least where the question has turned), in the sense of different ways of knowing.(1) A GM is not a trained monkey. A GM is not a sex worker. A GM comes to the table much like any other player does, looking for a shared experience that's fun.
To have fun, there's a certain thing a Referee wants to do, and that viewpoint is just as valid as that of a player. I believe, however, we enter this whole situation armed with a sense of equity because, to go back to the origin point, the Referee has total and absolute control in ways that are weird and scary, but the Referee agrees to exercise that absolute control only in ways that make things more fun for everyone.
Therefore, a player, "cater to me, damn it!" sense of entitlement is the functional equal to the railroading GM. However, in both instances, we have some sense that there will be some give and take on the whole thing...which is exactly why the issue as originally raised about the Axe is so petty and odd. Make it a sword and everyone's happy. There's no reason to stick on that point outside of being a jerk.
It's a mutual agreement that everyone profits from, a Contract, if you will, and perfectly sensible.
- - -
1 - This footnote exists because I can't be a post modernist without a footnote.
|
|
Except that you don't accept his world unless it specifically allows your character concept.
Does the DM control my character, or does that belong to me? In order to accept his world must I also allow him to control every action my character takes? The DM can do anything he wants right? He's the DM. I'll just show up to watch him do cool things with my character.
What?
|
|
if the dm cant set ANY limits, then the player run amok in the dm's gaming world.
DM: so i wanna run a no magic setting in my campaign
Player: awesome, i'm gonna be a wizard who goes arcane trickster
DM: umm.. no magic
Player: i know, so I'll beat everyone since they cant use magic
see how stupid and childish that sounds?
Now if it goes
DM: so i wanna run a no magic setting in my campaign
Player: awesome, but i wanna be a wizard who goes arcane trickster
DM: umm.. no magic
Player: ok, doesn't sound like my kinda campaign. maybe next time.
not every game a dm wants to run is a game everyone wants to play. but if a player wants to play the game they do have to deal with a dm's world and its laws. if the DM rules all humans are born with bunny ears and polka-dots, then they are.
now once a dm allows stuff, the player gets free reign of it. but DM's arent obligated to use splat books or every variant a player asks for either
Like I said, I'd walk, and my issue isn't splat books.
|
|
I really must ask. What World? The one handed to you by WotC or Paizo, written real live human beings imposing their ideas on you, not Gaming Gods (although I suspect Lisa to be one of these)? By only having classes X and races Y in the PHB(s) by definition they ARE limiting your character choices. But you are willing to accept "control" from people you don't know rather than accept a few limitations from what I would guess be your friends?Not saying this isn't a valid way to live your life, but I personally couldn't be so righteous.
S.
In our games we use all sorts of books, so we have loads of classes and races to choose from. What I want to play conceptually, I can play, I just take a small level adjustment. Didn't the 3.5 DMG have advice for creating your own race and/or class? Basically, D&D/PF allows you to be anything you want. It's the fun-inhibiting, controlling DM that can get in the way.
|
|
How long is the longest time you've been in one campaign run by a single GM,
We have going on now that's been going on for a few years.
how big was the table (how many other players were there),
At that game, there's 5 of us.
and how much time would you say, as a percentage, was generally spent metagaming (for example, looking up rules in books during game time).
10%?
The DMG has advice for creating your own race and/or class. DMG? Dungeon Masters Guide? So The guy running the game has to create a new class or race to placate you? Whining players that throw tantums inhibit more games than a "controlling" DM.
|
|
First let me preface this by saying that none of this is directed at you, wraithstrike. Mostly this is about the things argued in this thread, in particular the GM control issue.
The problem is that a reasonable solution has yet to be suggested. The solution is to "walk" in such a situation, which has a number of problems.
1. Having already drawn attention to yourself, and leaving in response to a stated rule, you are disrupting the rest of the group and disrespecting the GM. I would call you back and ask you what the f*** your deal was, ask you to explain why you acted so childishly, and then either listen to your rational terms, straighten out what was misheard, or simply embarrass you and send you away. Excusing yourself from a social function: Fail.
2. No attempt at negotiation is even attempted. Talking with the other players to see if THEY even want what you want never happens/is never mentioned. Obviously the GM, who is able to remake any aspect of the setting, cannot change these rules or see the problem with them if the issue is explained. But wait! We would never know that because the option was never explored, was it? Begging the question: Fail.
If I'm thinking about playing with a group, the first thing I do is ask the DM what restrictions he puts on characters re: backstory, race, class, etc. If they inhibit my concept, I pass. This is done ahead of the first session.
If a player came into a game of Pathfinder (or D&D) and wanted to play a Modern-based character (such as from the rules of d20 Modern), no one would bat an eye at the DM saying no.
And yet, when the DM wants to create changes in his world (whether that restricts choices, or changes what some choices might have made), the entitlement kicks in and people cry foul?
Just because it's written in the Core Rules, the player must be given the option to use it? What about house rules? Has the idea of Campaign Specifics never been broached?
.
Honestly, at this point the "player" isn't even a player yet. This is still in the negotiation phase.
The DM is going to run a game. Perhaps it's very specific (I've had friends run horror/ravenloft games that he asked his players to follow certain restrictions, up to the point of not being silly... he runs silly games already, this was going to be a special game).
If a person says "You are too restricting, I want to play X class/race/gamestyle", then the person has effectively declined playing in that game. He literally isn't a player.
And that's exactly what I was talking about. Everyone playing the game, including the DM, is there to have fun.
Clearly, if the game the DM is running isn't to the taste of the person, then why should he insist on playing and demanding others change?
I'm all for making accommodations and compromises where it's appropriate (see the Paladin turned Samurai with Smite reference earlier), however if a player is so far out of synch with the rest of the group, then he's trying to play a different game.
I mean.. the reverse is true as well. The DM isn't forced to have someone play in his game any more than the Player is forced to play in anyone's game.
Ultimately, this would be a conflict in taste.
If I'm thinking about playing with a group, the first thing I do is ask the DM what restrictions he puts on characters re: backstory, race, class, etc. If they inhibit my concept, I pass. This is done ahead of the first session.
What I don't understand is why this is considered a bad thing though. This is simply a matter of wanting a different game than being offered.
The DM shouldn't be considered "bad" for not offering you the choices.
Your previous posts sounded like the DM was a bad gamer for not bending to any new player's desires.
.
Plus, I find that a singularly odd way of gaming.
You decide what type of character you want to play, and then decide to look for a game that will let you play it?
Like... you have a hankering to play a Gnome Artificer, so you go from game group to game group until you find a DM that lets you play one?
I wish I was that lucky to be surrounded in games. Perhaps its the fact that I'm usually limited in the people I game with (where not gaming with them means no gaming at all)... but I tend to decide who I want to enjoy a game with first, and then decide what to play based on the game they are playing.
If I'm in on the ground floor, I put in my input on what type of game I'd like, but yeah... I still come into it thinking "what type of character can I play now".
If I have any specific character concepts I want to try, if they don't fit, I leave that concept for next time.
Gaming with my friends is more important than playing a specific concept right now.
|
|
So, you'll accept a DM excluding Races of Stone but not elves?
Correct.
What about races in the excluded books? I'm trying to figure out where you draw your lines and I'm getting conflicting impressions.
If that race fits my concept, I could just create my own race that mimics the one in the excluded book. Since it's my creation, if the DM tweaks it, and I'm okay with the changes, then I'll play. Otherwise, I won't.
So how is winnowing down the choices (as in the case "no elves or monks" but still leaving numerous combinations on the table) "informing you what you'll be playing"?
If there are multiple options left, then my comment is an exaggeration. But maybe he narrowed my options to one class, one race, one background.
The only thing the solution can be is subjective because the result of the negotiations depends on the group. The solution can be considered reasonable when all parties involved agree to abide by it. Since we cannot know every problem, this simple guideline serves a better purpose than a completely fixed problem, which could produce the wrong idea about how the negotiations should take place. Since so many completely different examples have been used in this page alone (And since assuming that different groups will want the same thing out of a different situation), I felt it best to use a more malleable solution that could be adapted to the situation however the negotiators see fit.What one person considers a "reasonable solution" another won't. That's why I don't like to use such vapid platitudes in this kind of discussion. It's better, in my opinion to not base the process of negotiation on such subjective concepts.You and I have clearly not been reading the same thread because I know of Boone who said that a player should just walk away while negotiation is possible.He wasn't listened to, in that case. I should've said a reasonable solution was not heeded. Sorry, I haven't read the entire thread.Clearly, I said the process shouldn't be based on anything on a platitude such as "reasonable suggestion", not that the result shouldn't be a reasonable suggestion.
You know, this discussion would actually be worthwhile if you read the thread before commenting. Since you've decided not to (your prerogative, I guess). I'm just wasting my time replying to you. so I won't.
And as you have yet to provide anything that you would like to discuss, I fail to see how a conversation could have taken place.
I went back and read the other 100 posts I hadn't read. Nothing of real importance to this conversation. Thank you for wasting my time.
|
|
So the DM can run the game as long as he clears it with you?
He can do whatever he wants. I don't necessarily have to play.
Restricting books restricts options. Classes and races are in some of the splat books.
If the DM won't allow me to play the character I have in mind, I won't play, regardless of what books are allowed. I really do feel like I'm playing a video game when my options are only a handful of races and classes.
Feats are OK? That falls under player option doesn't it?
I'm not worried about feats.
If I'm thinking about playing with a group, the first thing I do is ask the DM what restrictions he puts on characters re: backstory, race, class, etc. If they inhibit my concept, I pass. This is done ahead of the first session.
This is the first I'd heard mention of this. Why wouldn't you just choose a character concept from your list of them available to you that works with the game and setting instead of quitting because what you want to play right now isn't available?
If that race fits my concept, I could just create my own race that mimics the one in the excluded book. Since it's my creation, if the DM tweaks it, and I'm okay with the changes, then I'll play. Otherwise, I won't.
Would you perhaps try to bargain with the DM to reach a goal that would work for the whole group? Or does this question assume all deliberation has already been attempted?
|
|
What I don't understand is why this is considered a bad thing though. This is simply a matter of wanting a different game than being offered.The DM shouldn't be considered "bad" for not offering you the choices.
Your previous posts sounded like the DM was a bad gamer for not bending to any new player's desires.
The only desire I have is to play what I conceptually have in mind. I don't think that's asking too much. It's my character, my character sheet, I control what he does. Why does the DM get to say who or what he is? That's the most essential part of my character. That's my call.
Plus, I find that a singularly odd way of gaming.You decide what type of character you want to play, and then decide to look for a game that will let you play it?
It hasn't really been an issue. Fortunately, I've always played with friends that agree we should be able to play what we want.
Snobi:
So if a DM said you could play any official class in D&D from Pathfinder Core + 3.5 Completes (anything more must be debated), but you must be a Core race: would that make you walk or would that be okay?
Is the restriction transparent issue (you accidently make up a concept that can't fit restrictions) or do you try to tweak your concept within the restrictions if possible?
|
|
Why wouldn't you just choose a character concept from your list of them available to you that works with the game and setting instead of quitting because what you want to play right now isn't available?
I don't think it's the DM's call to make. He can of course make it, but I'll pass if I can't play the concept I have in mind.
Would you perhaps try to bargain with the DM to reach a goal that would work for the whole group?
I might. It depends on how much I want to play in that group and what modifications he wants to make to my character. But I think your sentence should end with "that would work for him". He's the only one restricting what I can play.
|
|
Snobi:
So if a DM said you could play any official class in D&D from Pathfinder Core + 3.5 Completes (anything more must be debated), but you must be a Core race: would that make you walk or would that be okay?
It would depend on what I wanted to play. If I didn't want to play a core race, I would ask if 'X' was okay. If not, then I wouldn't play.
Is the restriction transparent issue (you accidently make up a concept that can't fit restrictions) or do you try to tweak your concept within the restrictions if possible?
I approach the DM with a concept in mind, not knowing his restrictions. Like I said, if I want to play badly enough and I'm okay with his minor tweaks, then I might play.
|
In our games we use all sorts of books, so we have loads of classes and races to choose from. What I want to play conceptually, I can play, I just take a small level adjustment. Didn't the 3.5 DMG have advice for creating your own race and/or class? Basically, D&D/PF allows you to be anything you want. It's the fun-inhibiting, controlling DM that can get in the way.
I really must ask. What World? The one handed to you by WotC or Paizo, written real live human beings imposing their ideas on you, not Gaming Gods (although I suspect Lisa to be one of these)? By only having classes X and races Y in the PHB(s) by definition they ARE limiting your character choices. But you are willing to accept "control" from people you don't know rather than accept a few limitations from what I would guess be your friends?Not saying this isn't a valid way to live your life, but I personally couldn't be so righteous.
S.
Not quite factual. The rules allow for selections to be made from a defined, by the game designer(s), set of choices. You again imply that because it's "in print" that the class/race/idea is better than your DM's. This may not actually be the case. Your "complete freedom" is nothing but an illusion. What your really saying is, I want all the options in book A, or B, or whatever. I guess I have trouble understanding is how your RPG game seem like isolated silos. The DM and Players turn up and just play whatever they like in a game the DM made with no thought of the PC's. Seriously, this is fun for you? My life isn't so black and white that I can afford to be so zealous and uncompromising.
S.
|
|
Not quite factual. The rules allow for selections to be made from a defined, by the game designer(s), set of choices. You again imply that because it's "in print" that the class/race/idea is better than your DM's. This may not actually be the case. Your "complete freedom" is nothing but an illusion. What your really saying is, I want all the options in book A, or B, or whatever.
Like I said, I'm not sure if it's the DMG or whatever, but the defined set of choices includes creating your own race and/or class. Plus ultimately, there is rule zero, so the DM can allow anything he wants. I'm not saying I'm expecting him to allow what I want, I just think it's weird/unreasonable for him to limit players' concepts, especially when that equates to no fun for the players.
I guess I have trouble understanding is how your RPG game seem like isolated silos. The DM and Players turn up and just play whatever they like in a game the DM made with no thought of the PC's.
The DM can think of the PC I chose, including the race, class, and background that I chose. He can then choose to intertwine that with the campaign if he wants to. The silo or boundary only exists in that it is my character, just as the world and NPCs are his.
I told my other players and GM that if I didn't like something enough about a game I simply wouldn't play in it. After all, playing in a game that is no fun is self-defeating.
They almost laughed me away from my own table.
Worse, they took it as a threat rather than a statement of fact. As far as I can tell, they were laughing because they THOUGHT I was implying that my leaving would be a major loss for them (which if their laughter is any indication, it wouldn't be much of a loss at all).
What a kick to the nethers that was!
...And I do so much for those bastards...
with my saturday group, i had to wait for almost 4 years and my dm finally allowed a swordsage and a psion. he went almost as long without allowing oriental pcs. and a lot of my books are wasted money anyway. such as my 4th edition mini archive that takes half a row on my shelf, i used it as a means to study the syste mto find that i disliked it. i also have a few splats that no dm near my local area will allow. such as unearthed arcana, a few splats by 3rd party companies, and stuff like dungeonscape. i know certain concepts i cannot get approved. none of my dms seem to like the idea of chaste slightly underage female characters. mainly reasonable things like wizard apprentices, street urchins, acolytes, or even monastery trainees. i found this out by proposing these characters.
Why wouldn't you just choose a character concept from your list of them available to you that works with the game and setting instead of quitting because what you want to play right now isn't available?I don't think it's the DM's call to make. He can of course make it, but I'll pass if I can't play the concept I have in mind.
What if the DM provides you with no information as to the campaign setting? Do you just have a backlog of unplayed characters that you play no matter what or are you typically inspired to a character by the setting and overaching plot?
Would you perhaps try to bargain with the DM to reach a goal that would work for the whole group?quote="snobi"]
I might. It depends on how much I want to play in that group and what modifications he wants to make to my character. But I think your sentence should end with "that would work for him". He's the only one restricting what I can play.
That's not true, actually.
Would you play a bard in a party with another bard?
How about a second monk?
Most players I have spoken to would not unless we're talking day and night bards with different abilities.