Then there is the middle ground, where the GM tells the player; "that no he can't write his background as he is the unknown son of Iomede."
There is plenty of control that the GM has to have over the PCs. The GM sets up what classes, races, alignments, characteristics, etc. that the PCs start with. What sort of backgrounds the PCs can have, where they can come from, etc. If the GM doesn't have this control, then the players may as well not have the GM there, and do whatever they want.
That's not a "middle ground." That's "I'm the GM and it's my story and you four other people are incidental and might as well not even be here."
If at one end we have "all players are equal and there's no DM," and at the other we have "DM decides all story stuff, including the PCs' classes, races, backgrounds and motivations" (and, yes, that's a very extreme position), then the middle ground is "the DM comes up with a broad story outline and the NPCs, and the PCs are up to the players." That middle ground is generally considered the default.
If the story isn't collaborative to any extent, then why have players at all? Just sit down and write your story the way you so clearly want it.
I left a word out there, it should have ended CAN start with. Although I have played in campaigns where the GM did dictate what the starting race/class/possible alignments/and 2 or 3 starting stat blocks were, those campaigns were just as fun as the completely open ended ones.
Good question, dork! err RD :). This from the Sorcerer bloodline (Celestial) sums up my view.
Celestial
Your bloodline is blessed by a celestial power, either from a celestial ancestor or through divine intervention. Although this power drives you along the path of good, your fate (and alignment) is your own to determine.
Just because you have "good blood" doesn't really mean anything for your fate. Just like a Red Dragon blooded sorcerer could be Lawful Good and help orphans, so too can a Celestial Blooded sorcerer defile places of worship and beat up the elderly.
However, I have encountered GMs that don't seem to get that your bloodline doesn't have to influence your character. Just because my ancestors are ____ doesn't mean I am. I am an individual. Hopefully, the GM will embrace my character in their world.
Good question, dork! err RD :). This from the Sorcerer bloodline (Celestial) sums up my view.
Celestial
Your bloodline is blessed by a celestial power, either from a celestial ancestor or through divine intervention. Although this power drives you along the path of good, your fate (and alignment) is your own to determine.Just because you have "good blood" doesn't really mean anything for your fate. Just like a Red Dragon blooded sorcerer could be Lawful Good and help orphans, so too can a Celestial Blooded sorcerer defile places of worship and beat up the elderly.
However, I have encountered GMs that don't seem to get that your bloodline doesn't have to influence your character. Just because my ancestors are ____ doesn't mean I am. I am an individual. Hopefully, the GM will embrace my character in their world.
It wasn't the source of the Bloodline, but the actions afterwards that are causing the problems.
Why do you assume a player is supposed to "pay the price" for one of their class features anyway?
If you don't dance to the tune of the celestial courts, or adhere to the path of "good" someone may come down, scan you and remove you from the celestial inventory.
Price check in Isger. Price check in Isger!
What actions afterwards might you referring to, Vod? The whole point of celestial betrayal was to GET THE CELESTIAL POWERS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
I think a good example of something like this from a real game (Sorcerer and all) comes from what happened to our first Sorcerer, a cool little Neutral Evil Gnome named Arkanis. I would like to preface this with "I like my GM and he's a pretty cool guy" first off, so don't go badmouthin'.
He was an Infernal Bloodline Sorcerer who claimed he was the son of Asmodeus.
Cool little thing he just threw out there.
However, the GM got it into his head that this would cause problems, that Arkanis should have more, stronger powers because of that fact, and that it didn't make sense for him not to.
Not wanting to give him more, stronger powers, Asmodeus showed up out of the blue one day and said "You. You're coming home. Hop along now." and Arkanis went *POOF*, never to be seen again.
Now, while the player was informed of this beforehand, he wasn't really given a choice in the matter. He was just told "Yeah, I don't think this thing is going to work because it doesn't make sense to me, so Arkanis needs to go away", essentially, and Arkanis went away.
This is the kind of thing I personally don't think a GM should be able to do, and while the player enjoys his new character (an Elven Ranger), there was a lot of potential for there to be a bit of righteous indignation there, I think.
Why do you assume a player is supposed to "pay the price" for one of their class features anyway?If you don't dance to the tune of the celestial courts, or adhere to the path of "good" someone may come down, scan you and remove you from the celestial inventory.
Price check in Isger. Price check in Isger!
I'd really like to see this for some of the other Bloodlines.
"Look, we know you're descended from a Blue Dragon, but you're using an awful lot of Fire magic, so what we're gonna do is strap you to this table here, pull out all your blood, and replace it with RED Dragon blood, okay punkin?"
And then he was a Red Dragon in the Dragon Bloodline.
Could have solved that by making Asmodeus more like Asmodeus. I'll explain. While he is all mighty and powerful, the big dude could be smart enough to not just throw out his... juice, leading to all his spawn being powerful from the get-go. The power of his progeny is therefore constrained by magic "rules", bindings, contracts or whatever so that junior doesn't come with free magic hoo-ha, doesn't sap from the power source, drink from the fire hose. Then they have to struggle (level) and perhaps de-throne Azzy to get more of the barbeque sauce.
The bloodline is part of the parcel, but thanks to the sensible magical restrictions Asmodeus places over his children they don't pop out capable of unleashing a wish or hellfire. Diviners and such can work out, hmmm, your magical energy is in chains, you are only using the tiniest bit of it that seeps out.
Or the encounter of the bland explanation. Azzy felt like slumming it, he bedded a village girl who was the most normal human out. Almost a paragon of bland and un-exceptionality (Azz might have been temporarily bored of the high charisma succubi). Bonus points if the dm puts in the bland mother figure who is a wonderfully "typical mom" character. So his simple human white picket fence background is fighting his son of the king of evil laws background. Making him capable of magic, but not a big players for many many levels.
What do you think Rynjin?
I think a good example of something like this from a real game (Sorcerer and all) comes from what happened to our first Sorcerer, a cool little Neutral Evil Gnome named Arkanis. I would like to preface this with "I like my GM and he's a pretty cool guy" first off, so don't go badmouthin'.
He was an Infernal Bloodline Sorcerer who claimed he was the son of Asmodeus.
Cool little thing he just threw out there.
However, the GM got it into his head that this would cause problems, that Arkanis should have more, stronger powers because of that fact, and that it didn't make sense for him not to.
Not wanting to give him more, stronger powers, Asmodeus showed up out of the blue one day and said "You. You're coming home. Hop along now." and Arkanis went *POOF*, never to be seen again.
Now, while the player was informed of this beforehand, he wasn't really given a choice in the matter. He was just told "Yeah, I don't think this thing is going to work because it doesn't make sense to me, so Arkanis needs to go away", essentially, and Arkanis went away.
This is the kind of thing I personally don't think a GM should be able to do, and while the player enjoys his new character (an Elven Ranger), there was a lot of potential for there to be a bit of righteous indignation there, I think.
Why do you assume a player is supposed to "pay the price" for one of their class features anyway?If you don't dance to the tune of the celestial courts, or adhere to the path of "good" someone may come down, scan you and remove you from the celestial inventory.
Price check in Isger. Price check in Isger!
I'd really like to see this for some of the other Bloodlines.
"Look, we know you're descended from a Blue Dragon, but you're using an awful lot of Fire magic, so what we're gonna do is strap you to this table here, pull out all your blood, and replace it with RED Dragon blood, okay punkin?"
And then he was a Red Dragon in the Dragon Bloodline.
Blood for the blood god!
Yeah, that first bit was my attempted explanation.
No-go, sadly. I tried my damnedest (...heh) to keep Arkanis around (Sun Xiao liked his evil butt monkey), but it was no use.
I think a good example of something like this from a real game (Sorcerer and all) comes from what happened to our first Sorcerer, a cool little Neutral Evil Gnome named Arkanis. I would like to preface this with "I like my GM and he's a pretty cool guy" first off, so don't go badmouthin'.
He was an Infernal Bloodline Sorcerer who claimed he was the son of Asmodeus.
Cool little thing he just threw out there.
However, the GM got it into his head that this would cause problems, that Arkanis should have more, stronger powers because of that fact, and that it didn't make sense for him not to.
Not wanting to give him more, stronger powers, Asmodeus showed up out of the blue one day and said "You. You're coming home. Hop along now." and Arkanis went *POOF*, never to be seen again.
Now, while the player was informed of this beforehand, he wasn't really given a choice in the matter. He was just told "Yeah, I don't think this thing is going to work because it doesn't make sense to me, so Arkanis needs to go away", essentially, and Arkanis went away.
This is the kind of thing I personally don't think a GM should be able to do, and while the player enjoys his new character (an Elven Ranger), there was a lot of potential for there to be a bit of righteous indignation there, I think.
Why do you assume a player is supposed to "pay the price" for one of their class features anyway?If you don't dance to the tune of the celestial courts, or adhere to the path of "good" someone may come down, scan you and remove you from the celestial inventory.
Price check in Isger. Price check in Isger!
I'd really like to see this for some of the other Bloodlines.
"Look, we know you're descended from a Blue Dragon, but you're using an awful lot of Fire magic, so what we're gonna do is strap you to this table here, pull out all your blood, and replace it with RED Dragon blood, okay punkin?"
And then he was a Red Dragon in the Dragon Bloodline.
Respect to your GM and not going to badmouth him. I would have handled it a little different during character creation, but might have ended up with the same end result - can't play that character, at least exactly as envisioned. I would have said he couldn't be the son of Asmodeus, as that would not be a gnome, but a half-devil, which has a completely different template and powers, and probably more appropriate for a higher level game. I would allow him to have Asmodeus as an ancestor several generatons back, however, but would have a talk with him about repercussions that might have for roleplaying and plot hooks. If he was OK with that, character good to go. If not, same result as your GM, try again.
Of course, full confession, I don't allow evil characters at all in games I GM, for a wide variety of reasons that boil down to the main one that it just isn't fun for me to GM evil or partially evil parties, based on long experience.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Funnily enough, the large majority of our party is Neutral or Evil.
I have two I swap back and forth, a Lawful Evil pair of Monk Sun Xiao and Sorcerer Rusigari Rashiska.
There was Arkanis, the Neutral Evil Sorcerer, followed by Caecilius Root, the Lawful Neutral Ranger.
A Chaotic Evil Magus.
A Chaotic Neutral Barbarian.
A Chaotic Neutral Bard.
A True Neutral (...I think, I don't have his sheet) Cleric.
A Chaotic Neutral Rogue. Who got the stuffing beat out of him by Spriggans, which is why we now have a Paladin.
New player, a Lawful Evil Red Mantis Assassin.
IN THIS PARTY.
Serpent's Skull seems like a good AP for it. We're contracted with the Aspis and allied with the Red Mantis.
Should be fun since Sun Xiao's backstory is about how the Red Mantis killed his family and everyone in his household and left him for dead. Though he was more jealous of their power that he couldn't match, rather than angry at them (after a while anyway).
And that was the second idea we chucked around, but the Asmodeus thing was already "set", so oh well. It was this GMs first time GMing, so he didn't think to veto anything besides saying Core Races/Classes only (though Feats and everything else were fair game). He didn't catch it until it was too late by his estimation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would be great for random encounters. A celestial hit-team rocks up to kill you... again.
Brian: neutral leaning to evil makes for a great and memorable rogue.
What actions afterwards might you referring to, Vod? The whole point of celestial betrayal was to GET THE CELESTIAL POWERS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
We very much agree here RD. Actions afterward are of no import, this is not a paladin or cleric. How you chose to play your character "and their alignment" (as it says in the text) doesn't factor into it.
It would be great for random encounters. A celestial hit-team rocks up to kill you... again.
Brian: neutral leaning to evil makes for a great and memorable rogue.
I understand why people enjoy it, and have discussed it at length in a couple of threads in the past. I've enjoyed doing it myself over the years for one off, quick adventures.
Just not my cup of tea. I deal with a lot of pretty grim reality in my every day life and career, so that's not what I'm looking for in my precious free time. I play RPG to be a hero, or to help the PCs create their own heroic story when I'm GMing. I realize that bores some people and/or gets old for some. It doesn't for me.
There are other reasons as well, based on many bad experiences with evil characters and the players who like to play them over the years, but the reason above is the main one.
There are other reasons as well, based on many bad experiences with evil characters and the players who like to play them over the years, but the reason above is the main one.
I am assuming the GM ok'd the play of an evil character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are other reasons as well, based on many bad experiences with evil characters and the players who like to play them over the years, but the reason above is the main one.I am assuming the GM ok'd the play of an evil character.
Yep.
3.5L and I were just having a brief side conversation about an earlier post of mine in which I commented that I didn't allow evil characters in my games. Nothing to do with the OP's game.
Although...I would note that if RD's GM had taken the same approach, the problem likely would not have arisen. Another probably would have, however. My take is that RD likes to test the edge of the envelope with his character creation and probably with his gameplay, based on previous threads he has started or participated in, which would keep any GM on his toes. I would probably enjoy the challenge, but end up slapping him down frequently, and he'd likely be complaining about me on the boards.
If I remember correctly from some of his previous posts, however,he has stated that not every situation he posts comes from actual gameplay. Some are just hypotheticals he throws out to get a conversation started and see how folks come out on the issue.
NPCs do incredible things like that all the time as part of their backstory, thejeff. Why couldn't/shouldn't a PC have something similar as part of its background?
NPCs do incredible things like that all the time as part of their backstory, thejeff. Why couldn't/shouldn't a PC have something similar as part of its background?I've rarely seen an NPC's background include anything incredible like that as the start of the NPC's career. If it's a high level NPC and and it did incredible things when it first came to fame, but not to start with.
Would you accept a backstory that included "And as part of my training, I slew a huge dragon on my own" for a 1st level character?
The problem with that background is that the rules don't support it as being even remotely possible.
Which, incidentally, could be just as easily said about the GM changing a PC's sorcerer bloodline by fiat.
NPCs do incredible things like that all the time as part of their backstory, thejeff. Why couldn't/shouldn't a PC have something similar as part of its background?I've rarely seen an NPC's background include anything incredible like that as the start of the NPC's career. If it's a high level NPC and and it did incredible things when it first came to fame, but not to start with.
Would you accept a backstory that included "And as part of my training, I slew a huge dragon on my own" for a 1st level character?
In dragon magazine, I believe it was issue 100, there was a cartoon that had a box with air holes, and it said "contents one minotaur" and another sign right by a slot in the side of the box that said "insert sword here for 1,379 experience points"
Maybe they have dragons in a box somewhere?...of course he wouldnt be 1st level anymore then, would he?
Or, as I said, about a zero level character summoning and tricking celestials in the first place. The rules don't support it as being even remotely possible.NPCs do incredible things like that all the time as part of their backstory, thejeff. Why couldn't/shouldn't a PC have something similar as part of its background?I've rarely seen an NPC's background include anything incredible like that as the start of the NPC's career. If it's a high level NPC and and it did incredible things when it first came to fame, but not to start with.
Would you accept a backstory that included "And as part of my training, I slew a huge dragon on my own" for a 1st level character?
The problem with that background is that the rules don't support it as being even remotely possible.
Which, incidentally, could be just as easily said about the GM changing a PC's sorcerer bloodline by fiat.
After all this time I can barely remember the original story....
Well, I guess both allowing that backstory, and the messing with a player's chosen class features mid-game, demonstrate to me the GM's inexperience. Certainly, I think changing the bloodline of a PC without warning or consultation is a greater crime than allowing a wacky backstory.
NPCs do incredible things like that all the time as part of their backstory, thejeff. Why couldn't/shouldn't a PC have something similar as part of its background?I've rarely seen an NPC's background include anything incredible like that as the start of the NPC's career. If it's a high level NPC and and it did incredible things when it first came to fame, but not to start with.
Would you accept a backstory that included "And as part of my training, I slew a huge dragon on my own" for a 1st level character?
I've actually seen this done before. Clever players slaying powerful monsters WAY BEYOND them. In the example of your dragon, a low level character might lure it into a canyon and cause a landslide to bury it alive. I personally once took out a golem by tying it to a lightning rod in a massive electrical storm, causing a lightning bolt to strike and destroy it.
On a cheesier note, I've seen a player bet that his 1st-level commoner could slay a group of tenth level optimized fighters. When someone took him up on his bet, he spent all of his starting funds on a heard of cows, which then stampeded the fighters dealing several times the damage needed to kill them all.
NEVER underestimate the creativity of players.
GMs regularly give their NPCs effectively infinite wealth and resources and nonstandard access to great power to explain away their abilities and make their goals/back story plausible.
Though I am not advocating giving PCs infinite resources, I think they should absolutely be able to make their characters stand out, even at low levels.
Hell, Hercules was killing things as an infant. That's the fun thing about storytelling and the imagination: unlike video games and the like, they have no limits.
Your question doesn't apply in this instance rending any answer I gave moot.
Betraying powerful celestial beings to their deaths has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with a character's ability or inability to be able to take them on in one-on-one combat. Cersy Lanister from Game of Thrones probably could not hope to kill the lowliest of her enemies in combat. Yet she is responsible for the deaths of THOUSANDS of her enemies. Why? Because she is a clever little snake who finds betrayal and deception easy.
Even a non-combatant character with no stats could plausibly lure powerful celestial beings into an ambush against powerful fiends whom she made a deal with. She may need powerful allies or resources to pull it off, but if said allies/reousrces were killed/consumed in the endeavor, who really cares? In the end, you're left with an evil celestial-bloodline sorcerer with a great back story and lots of potential for future plot hooks.
I just don't see why so many GMs would be willing to trash such a great resource for their own egos.
"No, your low level character cannot possibly have had any dealings with powerful creatures because that would imply she is somehow more capable than MY powerful creatures."
To GMs like that I say "get over yourself!"
A GM should never do something like this without the consent of the player. It is a breach of trust and a violation of the standard social contract that the game supposes. The details don't have to be revealed ahead of time but the basic idea that I am going to do something to your background should absolutely be discussed with the player.
As far as having fantastical things in your characters background, as long as it fits the setting I think anything is fair game. If you want to have in your background that you slayed a great dragon as long as you aren't trying to get above normal starting wealth or experience go for it. Doesn't mean that anyone will believe you, but it could lead to some fun situations.
As long as your background isn't an attempt to gain an in game advantage and it fits the setting a characters background should be up to the player and should be safe from major GM machinations unless approved by the player.
Your question doesn't apply in this instance rending any answer I gave moot.
Betraying powerful celestial beings to their deaths has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with a character's ability or inability to be able to take them on in one-on-one combat. Cersy Lanister from Game of Thrones probably could not hope to kill the lowliest of her enemies in combat. Yet she is responsible for the deaths of THOUSANDS of her enemies. Why? Because she is a clever little snake who finds betrayal and deception easy.
Even a non-combatant character with no stats could plausibly lure powerful celestial beings into an ambush against powerful fiends whom she made a deal with. She may need powerful allies or resources to pull it off, but if said allies/reousrces were killed/consumed in the endeavor, who really cares? In the end, you're left with an evil celestial-bloodline sorcerer with a great back story and lots of potential for future plot hooks.
I just don't see why so many GMs would be willing to trash such a great resource for their own egos.
"No, your low level character cannot possibly have had any dealings with powerful creatures because that would imply she is somehow more capable than MY powerful creatures."
To GMs like that I say "get over yourself!"
Depends on the story told, and if/how it violates the mechanics of the game. I had a player that said his lv1 character had killed the captain of a mercenary company in a way that would require nothing but 20s on his part, and the merc captain somehow being completely inept and failing every save/skill/attack horribly. I accepted the character, but made it so that he only was at the right place at the right time to trip his horse so another REAL enemy could finish off the high level warrior. Because, as you say, Cersei cannot defeat the fighting dudes in GoT, and a lv1 anything cannot kill a lv12 mercenary captain.
Y'know, the subtle difference between "I summoned The Devil, beat him and made a pact because he thought I was super cool, like Sephiroth!" vs "I foolishly read a scroll in my master's study and something horrible manifested itself and made me agree to take on an infernal 'gift'." when explaining the backstory of a lv1 infernal bloodline sorc.
Y'know, the subtle difference between "I summoned The Devil, beat him and made a pact because he thought I was super cool, like Sephiroth!" vs "I foolishly read a scroll in my master's study and something horrible manifested itself and made me agree to take on an infernal 'gift'." when explaining the backstory of a lv1 infernal bloodline sorc.
This is what I think some people are getting caught up on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Without bothering to address the specific, seemingly growing and shifting goalpost original point, my take on the general matter is that, yes, a DM can change the player's character, both mechanically and fluffily.
The level of input a GM has vs the level of input a player has is determined by the personalities involved. A headstrong DM and conflict adverse player might have a very different ratio of input than a story-first DM vs a mechanical optimization focused player. There's literally a multitude of different priorities, personalities and playstyles that mesh here to create what ends up being played. Some players might walk if a certain line is crossed, some DMs might throw players if another is. And there's always compromise.
I've taken away things from my players before. I've changed aspects of their characters' fluff, appearance and physiology. Sometimes those changes were welcomed, sometimes they were requested, sometimes they were hated. As a list of things I can recall offhand that I changed:
Changed a rogue/shadowdancer to a shadow bloodline sorcerer.
Chopped off a mage's pinky.
Chopped off a two hand fighter's forearm.
Cut out a single eye from two different players.
Forced a barbarian level on a fighter.
Forced a sorcerer level on a rogue/wizard.
Made a character a father.
Made a character a bereaved father.
Caused a character to constantly be the target for all blood and guts that spill from slain enemies.
*Last two points also include a clause that disallows them from retraining those levels.
Provided a character with extremely powerful magical items which made up an outfit that looked like Aquaman's costume.
Changed a male character to a female.
Turned a character into kraken food.
Turned a character into a mummy.
Turned three characters into gods.
Turned a character into a worm that walks.
Turned a character into a weretiger.
Forced afore mentioned character into a hybrid appearance.
Turned a character's skin to glowing and eyes to black.
*Last two points were unable to be hidden via magic.
Informed players that certain attacks might permanently scar their characters beyond magic's ability to heal.
Docked a character XP and gold, including future rewards. Informed the player that the docked price would come out of any future character they played.
Oh, and I play an awesome DMPC.
So yeah. Lots. The more successful changes were not those that had the most successful justification IC (for instance, failing a save against lycanthropy or putting on a girdle of femininity), but those that had player input. Not player control, but input. For instance, possibly the biggest meltdown caused by the list above was due to the Aquaman costume, which was completely optional for the player to reject if he chose. Giving the player the choice between dressing like Aquaman and leaving the gear for another character, the player chose to use the gear and be furious about it. That's a fairly low level of DM coercion involved, and a 99% negative outcome. The second biggest meltdown came from the loss of the pinky, which scarred the psyche of the player and character alike for months. (Still hasn't been healed, incidentally)
If I was looking at the list without context, I'd definitely peg the forced levels, the change to shadow sorcerer, the DMPC or the docked XP/gold as the big offenses, but they've been fairly tame. Some even welcomed.
For any DMs or players involved in a situation where you find your expectations on control are being challenged, I urge communication between the two parties. Explain where you are coming from, why you want what you want, and approach the conversation from a direction that stems from the fun you get out of the game. For better or worse, some people just don't imagine that X might be that important or fun. Once you have an understanding of why X is important to the other party, work to achieve an agreeable compromise. Sometimes pushing people outside of their comfort zone is good for them. But it's a delicate balance, and best done with transparency.
If anything, I'd think she'd be considered a "hero among fiends"--at least insofar as fiends have heroes.
|
My take on the OP:
Bloodline, as a rule, is a matter of what's in your blood. It's a part of what makes you you. Someone with the celestial bloodline has an angel (or archon, or whatever) as an ancestor, most likely, and that's why he has magical power. It isn't granted by a god, as a rule (though I see that as possible) so it's not so easily changed. Gods can do that...gods can do anything they want to, if you're GM, and decide they can...but it's pretty cheesy.
Ok, the gods are watching...and the character is a failure, in their eyes...so...what to do? Do gods regularly interact with mortals? If so, how? We know they do things like granting clerics their spells, so some level of interaction is there...but how much?
Next, just how important is this guy? In a world with millions of people, just how many celestial bloodline sorcerers are there? If he's one of 10, he's a lot more noticeable than one of 1,000. The point I'm getting at here is - how much does he really matter...is it worth it to do something that truly breaks the accepted normative 'rules'...or is it something that might just call for a visit from a servitor or two?
Heck, in some worlds, some gods might not even approve of the union between one of their angels and a mortal, to begin with. This might make them a lot more critical.
In summation - that's a very dramatic thing to do to a character that is likely not all that significant. I would probably never do it...but...messing up his life by throwing obstacles up right and left? Gods do that sort of petty stuff all the time...
Kain, you must be an incredible DM with awesome communication skills, because, honestly, I will feel fairly angry with some of those changes, but if the players accept them, I suppose there is no problem. But I'm pretty sure a great % of players will not accept something like that.
I wouldn't accept most of it no matter what the coercion would be myself. I've been with several DMs who cross the line and I just have to walk away from the table because it turns into an ultimatum and I'm just not comfortable playing with that.
Kain, you must be an incredible DM with awesome communication skills, because, honestly, I will feel fairly angry with some of those changes, but if the players accept them, I suppose there is no problem. But I'm pretty sure a great % of players will not accept something like that.
Like I said, some of the changes did not go over well. I am a learning DM, like any other. I make mistakes, as do my players. Sometimes I clearly underestimated the importance of X to the player. Other times, I didn't care, because my players can be a stuck in their ways lot, and loosening them up some is good for them.
But this isn't new. Conflicts like this are older than DnD. Ideally though, you deal with it in a spirit of cooperation, which is where both sides tries to make the other happy.
Other times, I didn't care, because my players can be a stuck in their ways lot, and loosening them up some is good for them.
Have to be careful, this is dangerous thinking. Its self justification and its aggressive towards personal opinions and values.
But this isn't new. Conflicts like this are older than DnD. Ideally though, you deal with it in a spirit of cooperation, which is where both sides tries to make the other happy.
This is on the right track though.
Other times, I didn't care, because my players can be a stuck in their ways lot, and loosening them up some is good for them.Have to be careful, this is dangerous thinking. Its self justification and its aggressive towards personal opinions and values.
Yup. Doesn't make it wrong though. And if the players disagree, the option to walk is always there. I'm not entitled to their presence anymore than they are entitled to my game. But in my game, there will probably be some jostling of their expectations and movement out of their comfort zone. Whether that comes from chopped off pinkies or antimagic cells or being knocked unconscious and imprisoned doesn't really matter.
Open communication keeps those instances as smooth as possible though.
Other times, I didn't care, because my players can be a stuck in their ways lot, and loosening them up some is good for them.Have to be careful, this is dangerous thinking. Its self justification and its aggressive towards personal opinions and values.Yup. Doesn't make it wrong though. And if the players disagree, the option to walk is always there. I'm not entitled to their presence anymore than they are entitled to my game. But in my game, there will probably be some jostling of their expectations and movement out of their comfort zone. Whether that comes from chopped off pinkies or antimagic cells or being knocked unconscious and imprisoned doesn't really matter.
Open communication keeps those instances as smooth as possible though.
If you at the start of the game are upfront about these possibilities then the players are implicitly giving you permission when they agree to play in the campaign. As you said it is all about communication and when things like this are surprised onto a character is when people get upset and resentful.
I, as a DM, like to have absolute power over what ultimately befalls my players. Yet I never use it in a manner unjustified, the players should always be aware of the fact that their decisions have consequences.
Ive inflicted many a harm on a bad or ill-thought player decision, such as:
The halfling who contacted filth fever in a goblin dungeon after he hastily decided his mediocre stealth skill would conceal him from an army of over 200 goblins marching right on top of him.
The Paladin who was claimed by Vampires, his last words were "Go, Ill be right behind you!"
The player who decided to climb the mast of a flying pirate ship and promptly gets tripped, he was lucky enough to land on the deck.
I've also often modified player characters in game, including:
Giving a player a combat scar, telling him only "You got a big scar on your cheek in that last fight", and not telling him that it would give him +1 on intimidate checks and -1 on diplomacy checks.
Putting a magical ring in the loot pile of a slain NPC, the players did not attempt any knowledge tests despite my urging to do so, so without their knowledge one member has ever since borne an emblem allying him with a certain noble house.
Serious class feature or character body/psyche modifying events however, should ALWAYS come about in a manner agreed to by the player or some type of "You had it coming"/"I told you so"/"What did you expect" manner.
"You had it coming" meaning events transpiring in reaction to a characters behaviour, such as a thief loosing his hand.
"I told you so" meaning events that transpire as a reaction to a player playing the odds, such as a freedom fighter being captured and beheaded by the tyrant king.
"What did you expect" meaning events transpiring as a reaction to a player blatantly ignoring (or accepting) the consequence, such as by stealing a dragons clutch of eggs.
Forcibly modifying character abilities, such as by switching bloodlines, is in my book of GM tricks a big bad no-no. If you are going to do such a thing, do it with elegantly subtle manipulation, not blatant bloodline swapping. If I were the one in that situation as a GM, I would have conferred with the player, modifying the looks or effects of each bloodline ability, not taking the bloodline away, but making it more thematically fitting.
A: Heavenly fire would heal evil creatures, or heal only himself, while damaging Good creatures.
B: His wings would be oily black.
Then: Exchange every effect or spell that affects/defends from evil and swap it to good.
One important part of player behaviour is their knowledge of what you, as Gm, are capable off, every now and then I inflict Ritual disembowelment or humiliating slavery upon characters, both for thematic effect and to instil the fear of consequence in my fearless gamers.
There are multiple categories in here.
Requires Fiat, and is generally poor form:
Changed a rogue/shadowdancer to a shadow bloodline sorcerer.
Forced a barbarian level on a fighter.
Forced a sorcerer level on a rogue/wizard.
In these cases, you are fundamentally screwing with a PCs build. THere is no reason you should ever force a player to take a level he does not wish to, ESPECIALLY that first one, in effectively rebuilding his entire freakin' character without his input. At that point it's not his character anymore, it's yours. I'd tell you to keep it and roll up a new one for myself (or leave, depending on how much I liked you).
Things that can easily happen over the course of a game if everyone agreed they wanted these things to be possible, and I find completely acceptable:
Chopped off a mage's pinky.
Chopped off a two hand fighter's forearm.
Cut out a single eye from two different players.
Changed a male character to a female.
Turned a character into kraken food.
Turned a character into a weretiger.
Informed players that certain attacks might permanently scar their characters beyond magic's ability to heal.
Things that entirely depend on context. Mostly "Was there a reason because 'I felt like it'?". I get that urge too sometimes but I generally give the player in question a choice in the matter ("Well we can bring you back as a Mummy, but we don't have any other Raise Dead type stuff. Stay dead or go Mummy?"). Though this also has the potential to create an inherent power disparity between players, which I try to avoid.:
Turned a character into a mummy.
Turned three characters into gods.
Turned a character into a worm that walks.
Forced aforementioned (Weretiger) character into a hybrid appearance.
Turned a character's skin to glowing and eyes to black.
Have potential to piss people off if not handled properly. Whether they were informed of this and it didn't change already established details of their backstory plays a big factor in it:
Made a character a father.
Made a character a bereaved father.
While strange, ultimately harmless:
Caused a character to constantly be the target for all blood and guts that spill from slain enemies.
Strange, but possibly harmful (how powerful are we talking? More powerful than the other PCs by a significant amount?):
Provided a character with extremely powerful magical items which made up an outfit that looked like Aquaman's costume.
Smells strongly of punishing a player for something you don't approve of instead of handling it in a more mature manner:
Docked a character XP and gold, including future rewards. Informed the player that the docked price would come out of any future character they played.
Is perfectly okay as long as it's an actual DMPC and not a "Walking Deus Ex Machina":
Oh, and I play an awesome DMPC.
Just my two cents on all these scenarios.
If you at the start of the game are upfront about these possibilities then the players are implicitly giving you permission when they agree to play in the campaign. As you said it is all about communication and when things like this are surprised onto a character is when people get upset and resentful.Yup. Doesn't make it wrong though. And if the players disagree, the option to walk is always there. I'm not entitled to their presence anymore than they are entitled to my game. But in my game, there will probably be some jostling of their expectations and movement out of their comfort zone. Whether that comes from chopped off pinkies or antimagic cells or being knocked unconscious and imprisoned doesn't really matter.
Open communication keeps those instances as smooth as possible though.
See, that sounds ok, but sometimes people have assumptions, and going into detail about every single one of those assumptions is too time consuming for the beginning of the game. Especially when people don't always consider their assumptions.
For instance, animal intelligence. I've been a big proponent of animals having Int scores over 2 for years now. (Rats have 14 and dolphins 12, thank you Hitchhiker's Guide) Whether you disagree or not is not the point. The point is that I assumed, based on my vocal expression of such and frequent messageboard posts to that effect, that my players would understand that's how I was running things. I was wrong.
Tangentially related, my player, who I was wrong about, also has assumed that eating anything with an Int > 2 is wrong, cannibalism, morally evil in all cases, etc. When he was confronted by my assumption on animal int being a given, his own assumption caused him to feel that he had been tricked into betraying his own moral code.
I can safely say that neither one of us would have brought up feelings on animal intelligence and cannibalism during a pre-game sharing session. It is something that arose within the game, and needed to be dealt with in the game.
When you agree to play a game with people, you are implicitly agreeing to deal with each others' own assumptions in a mature and mutually beneficial manner, rife with social compromise. It's just the way things work.
NPCs do incredible things like that all the time as part of their backstory, thejeff. Why couldn't/shouldn't a PC have something similar as part of its background?I've rarely seen an NPC's background include anything incredible like that as the start of the NPC's career. If it's a high level NPC and and it did incredible things when it first came to fame, but not to start with.
Would you accept a backstory that included "And as part of my training, I slew a huge dragon on my own" for a 1st level character?
The problem with that background is that the rules don't support it as being even remotely possible.
Which, incidentally, could be just as easily said about the GM changing a PC's sorcerer bloodline by fiat.
Yeah it bothers me a bit if someone pushes the mighty heroic background, and they just wouldn't have made it.
It is a problem making backstories for level 1s, you aren't that good.
I don't see why people have to make the grand and epic backstory from the get-go when starting at level 1.
Most of my characters have humble beginnings, if only to contrast with the achievements they can later brag about.
|
If your trying to tell a story, part of the GM's job is to supply plot twists. Some of those plot twists may occasionally have a profound impact on a character. How the character reacts is the next part of the story.Some stories are actually very casual and not life or death or end of the world. Most don't involve god shooting a death ray at you or a close member of the party with no save. Thats a twist no one saw coming! That said, players are different and take things differently. Just be sure its a story they're okay with being a part of.
Most don't involve shooting a death ray at a player. Some do. I once ran a plot in Shadowrun that revolved around the party traversing the astral planes on a quest to raise a character who was assassinated. Of course, that involved a sniper killing the character as part of a contract. Tracking down the sniper and backtracking the contract were entirely different plot lines though.
I've also taken a beloved family member and given them a dark secret or two. Who suspected your aunt had a thing for necromancy? She was always such a sweet old lady.
|
|
I don't see why people have to make the grand and epic backstory from the get-go when starting at level 1.
Most of my characters have humble beginnings, if only to contrast with the achievements they can later brag about.
This.
An 'epic' backstory for me would be something like killing an orc in a raid...at 12...and deciding he just has to master weapons, as he has a natural talent...or maybe failing to learn magic, even when apprenticed to a wizard, only to have it happen spontaneously when his sister gets caught up in the river current. That's all pretty freakin' epic when you're surrounded by commoners, most level 1 or 2.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see why people have to make the grand and epic backstory from the get-go when starting at level 1.
Most of my characters have humble beginnings, if only to contrast with the achievements they can later brag about.
Yes. Most of us seem to be in agreeance with this point - a small but positive step!
I don't see why people have to make the grand and epic backstory from the get-go when starting at level 1.
Most of my characters have humble beginnings, if only to contrast with the achievements they can later brag about.
This.
An 'epic' backstory for me would be something like killing an orc in a raid...at 12...and deciding he just has to master weapons, as he has a natural talent...or maybe failing to learn magic, even when apprenticed to a wizard, only to have it happen spontaneously when his sister gets caught up in the river current. That's all pretty freakin' epic when you're surrounded by commoners, most level 1 or 2.
The Ranger of my current Kingmaker group hung around with a mercenary group in the River Kingdoms long enough to gain a bit of reputation (Level 1 Ranger still beats level 1 Commoners and Warriors) and eventually left off to hunt bandits on her own. Considering the average bandit is a Rogue with pathetic stats and equipment (by contrast, the Ranger had rolled some crazy good stats), the fact that she was known in that one area as a bane to all bandits wasn't too much glorifying on her part.