The system is full of options, some more powerful than others. So, yes, there are some domains that are more powerful than others, and some subdomains that are. However, as far as I am concerned, subdomains are not necessarily more powerful than their parent domains, or vice versa. For me, the only impact on disallowing the pick of two subdomains is a reduction of options, not power.
This having been said: Your GM is pretty inconsistent in his strictures. If he allowed 'all Paizo sources', I see little merit in revoking that statement. Still, being the GM, he will have the final word in what he does, or does not allow.
Oh, and Milani is not a third party deity. Your GM might want to have a look at Faiths of Purity (a Paizo source), and at the second adventure of the current Reign of Winter AP (which features an article about Milani)
Did your DM sit down and tell you what was allowed in the game before you made the characters?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well the fact that you were required to make a cleric because the cleric was leaving is a big warning sign of an overbearing dm to me. You might get used to his house rules and play style you might not. But the one thing that is key to this kind of gaming is it is not a console game. You dont have an unemotional computer to play against. You have a thinking, breating and feeling gm. His opinions, beliefs and biases will impact the game you are playing. Either those will mostly line up with yours or they wont. If they dont you might not enjoy playing with him. He isnt likely to change his behavior. He obviously has a group that is fairly set in their ways and beliefs about the game, so think long and hard about if you can have fun in that kind of game.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here we go again...
How about this. How about you are the new guy in a perfectly happy group that is trying to politely tell you not to rock the boat and that they care about flavor.
Either join in with a working game or don't.
EDIT: Also the rug doesn't get pulled out from under you very often if you run ideas by the GM before you actually build out.
It sounds to me like you tried to optimize in a party that puts emphaisis on flavor and fluff.
|
|
Ask them to build you a PC.
It is what they want.
Or run your ideas by your GM and talk to them before you actually stat everything out.
And maybe...and I know this is crazy talk to some people but hear me out...ask what is going on in the setting and try to make a character that fits in rather than just trying to crunch up something to "win" the game.
I limit my players to the Core Rule Book and Advanced Players Guide.
Reason: There is something called "power creep", where as a company like paizo creates more and more, they step outside the bounds and create more powerful classes/powers/spells to attract people into buying their books.
That is a cynical, over simplified view of it, but there is is. whatever. It is what it is.
Generally, I use books like Ultimate "Anything" etc as representing more powerful, lost magic that the players can find throughout the journey... often rewarding them with spells from those books if they find them in game.
Fact is, some books and encounters were created around whether or not a player has invisibility at level 1 or level 3. So spells like Vanish might become problematic from a DM standpoint.
ALSO, this:
If a cleric is not devoted to a particular deity, she still selects two domains to represent her spiritual inclinations and abilities (subject to GM approval). The restriction on alignment domains still applies.
Ummmm, just so we're clear, Milani isn't 3rd party. She's Paizo peripheral. If all Paizo stuff is allowed Milani's domains and subdomains should be allowed.
That said, I'm going to echo ciretose here. You are an outsider coming into an established game. Of course they are going to want you to fit into their preexisting system. Coming into a campaign in the middle is never easy anyway, but, as a GM, it adds the difficulty of them having to go over ground rules with you that the rest of the group probably decided on before the campaign began. Some GMs are better at this than others. If you didn't get a good "sit down" about this particular game's preferences and houserules you might want to ask for just such a meeting. It will help you realize just how you can fit into this group the way they need you too. If you begin to realize this group doesn't fit your playstyle, then perhaps it's time to find a different group.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm facing difficulties as a player interacting with my DM, what should I do to facilitate freedom and fun for me and peace with him?
This is the crux of it all, I would think. You've been pigeonholed into a single class and then refused the options that would make playing that class enjoyable for you.
Firstly, there is no fundamental need for a cleric in a party, no matter the circumstances. Many classes can facilitate healing/condition removal effectively, which I'm willing to bet is what they require of you.
Secondly, it sounds like he makes a lot of his altered/banned decisions arbitrarily based on his perceived power-levels. This is a prejudice I've seen frequently. Once something is established as a mechanically strong option, using that option automatically labels you as a min-maxer.
I would sit down with him privately (don't do this in front of the group), and tell him this is not the character you wish to play. Ask him if it would be possible to bring in a new character of a class of your own choosing. If he agrees, ask him to give you the list of available resources from which to create your character. If it is still "any Paizo", try to gently remind him to stick with that ruling after you submit your character for approval.
Otherwise, I think you'll probably spend the remainder of the campaign playing the character he wants, rather than the one you want.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm facing difficulties as a player interacting with my DM, what should I do to facilitate freedom and fun for me and peace with him?This is the crux of it all, I would think.
Yes, for completely different reasons.
It isn't about you. You have joined a group that was happy before you got there and if you keep this up will be even happier when you leave.
You don't come in as the new person and dictate. You come in and watch and learn from them, and then decide if it is worth sticking around or not.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Instead of judging your GM (which is my instinct) I will just try to provide helpful answers to your questions that will hopefully let you and your GM find common ground.
1. Are non-core deities (namely - Milani) more powerful than core?
From a strictly mechanical standpoint Milani is less powerful than Iomede (her sister) or Serenrae. Note:
Both of these Gods offer a martial weapon proficiency to their Clerics (Long sword and scimitar) while Milan offers only a simple, and thus less powerful, weapon (morningstar). All three have 5 domains from the core rule book. Debatable the most powerful domains any of these deities have are sun and glory and Milani doesn't have either of these.
2. What is the impact of restricting a cleric to having (at most) one subdomain?
This can be done for flavor or for power. Flavor wise sub-domains may be considered less connected to the deity than domains and thus you must have one true domain at least.
Power wise some of the subdomains are much stronger than their original domains. This is usually looked at gratefully as some of the domains are truly week but if a DM believed that the gods are balanced by their domains (I don't think they are) I could see where this concern could come from.
3. There are Dwarf only spells, and (fluff restricted) spells from race books... Are they over-powered?
This is a very common ban by DMs. race only spells are often restricted to race. Some of them are over powered, some under powered and some average but they are all dwarf.
3x. Summon Ancestral Guardian, Ancestral Gift, Blood Rage - are they too powerful for their level and need banned or adjusted?
Ancestral guardian I would call about average. Maybe just above average but not by much. By following the rules of Spiritual weapon but dealing physical damage it has much less use but granting two weapons that you can pick gives it versatility. I would say just right for its level. I would say ancestral gift is very underpowered and Bloodrage is over powered. those are both from experience.
4. I'm facing difficulties as a player interacting with my DM, what should I do to facilitate freedom and fun for me and peace with him?
I would sit down with him and tell him your vision for your character. Motivations, background desires. Show him you are more interested in the character than the sheet. Then (if you already know him) ask him to trust you not to abuse the system. Then listen to his concerns and find a middle ground where you have the character you want and he is not afraid of you breaking the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Matthias DM
In Golarion there are no clerics without a deity.
@OP
1. Not by default, sure there might some that are better to pick for a cleric, but then again even the core deities are unbalanced against each other.
2. None that i can think of (ok there might be one or two combinations that when combined with other stuff like spells and items from other books create really disgusting things)
3. Yes and no. Race books (and generally the companion line) has a huge variety of things, most of the time they aren't game breaking, a few times they are useless, a couple of times something truly bad creeps in.
3x. Blood rage isn't (it's just a good 3rd level spell), Ancestral gift isn't, Summon Ancestral Guardian also doesn't strike me as overpowered.
About the rulings:
- i can't understand why limit to only subdomain, but then again it doesn't really unbalances anything by doing so
- Ok either i am really missing something about the spell or... i have no idea why your DM finds it so powerful (i am very intrigued to know his reasoning about why he thinks it unbalnced)
- No i don't think that they are all overpowered, there might be a few of them that are just plain better than the core weapons but that's it. Keep in mind that also ban eastern weapons and armor in my games because of asthetics, so maybe the DM does the same thing just says that he does it for different reason
On the spells issue, keep in mind that while the spells you mentioned aren't restrictive on the race of the user but if your DM wants to have them accessible to certain races i agree with him, it's not a balance issue rather than a flavor reason.
For example i wouldn't let you access any of those 3 spells if you weren't a dwarf and you being a cleric of Milani, but as i said above i do it for asthetic reasons, i would allow you for example access to blood rage if you were a cleric of Gorum.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, for completely different reasons.
It isn't about you. You have joined a group that was happy before you got there and if you keep this up will be even happier when you leave.
You don't come in as the new person and dictate. You come in and watch and learn from them, and then decide if it is worth sticking around or not.
I think there should be a little more give and take than that, however. Sure, the rest of the group doesn't want to turn their game on its head to welcome in the new guy, but the new guy shouldn't play a character he doesn't want to play, wondering when his next spell is going to be diallowed and be put down in the front of the group. The group owes this guy a clear set of rules, rather than "Now that you've chosen this, which follows the guidelines I gave you, I'm going to change my mind." The group should also allow him to try to fulfill the role the party needs filled with alternative classes. I'm going to be my party's main healer, and I"m playing a paladin. She's all about Charisma, Lay on Hands, Mercies, and leadership (diplomacy AND intimidate - what do you want? She's a Viking!), and when she's not smiting is only a mediocre fighter.
I think compromise on both sides is required here. If the group is dictating the new player's class, giving the player some resonable leeway in massaging the class to fit what he wants to do is only polite.
I second the suggestion of talking first with the GM. Talk about how you feel about things, and ask for a sit down character creation time with the rest of the party. Then you can work out a backstory with other party members' buy in, and talk about what parts of the game you're most likely to want to experience with your character - this will help them understand and sympathize with where you're coming from, instead of just labelling everything you do a min-max munchkin optimizer choice.
Good luck!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, for completely different reasons.
It isn't about you. You have joined a group that was happy before you got there and if you keep this up will be even happier when you leave.
You don't come in as the new person and dictate. You come in and watch and learn from them, and then decide if it is worth sticking around or not.
A group that does not adopt the uniqueness that comes from every player is not a group I would want to join. It isn't about just the GM either. It's about the group. If they want to let him play they should consider what he wants. He in no means tried to "dictate." He was given his boundaries and tried to work within them and got his idea torn apart. The GM is fickle in this case. If this were done to me I would ask for them to clarify their rules a bit more and then I would build another character were I still interested after seeing the revised rules.
1. Are non-core deities (namely - Milani) more powerful than core?
The Deities themselves not - Core Gods are the "big boys and girls" of the Gods, and the others are lesser ones. Though players who go "god shopping" may find one that precisely meets their needs among these lesser deities, simply because there's more of them.
2. What is the impact of restricting a cleric to having (at most) one subdomain?
Apart from the obvious mechanical effects of losing access to the Domain spells and abilities, it also forces the Clerics to focus on whatever goodies that one Domain grants. It makes the class more "cookie cutter" and makes the choice of God to worship less mechanically relevant.
3. There are Dwarf only spells, and (fluff restricted) spells from race books... Are they over-powered?
As a rule they aren't; their usefulness is often rather restricted. Though a crafty powergamer can make anything work.
3x. Summon Ancestral Guardian, Ancestral Gift, Blood Rage - are they too powerful for their level and need banned or adjusted?
They don't look problematic to me.
4. I'm facing difficulties as a player interacting with my DM, what should I do to facilitate freedom and fun for me and peace with him?
Openness. Analyse and explain what might be "overpowered" about your wishes, so that your GM know you're "on their side" and aren't seeking to imbalance the game. At the same time, explain why your wishes would enhance the roleplaying of your character and your enjoyment of the game - as well as be fun for the other players and possibly even the GM.
Miani is a 3rd party deity that is more powerful because it was added after core
Milani isn't not "3rd party", and besides: the God that allows the most potent Clerics is Desna, who is Core.
-Ancestral Gift is more powerful than any other 4th lvl spell*snort*
...and (was modified, now...) is disallowed because I'm not a dwarf.
That could be a Gm stepping in to preserve the "purity" of the Setting: Dwarves should have stuff that is "dwarven" and exclusive to them, no matter how useful it would be to others. So -while it's a house rule- I'd agree with this ruling.
-no eastern weapons from ultimate combat (or was it equipment?) Because they're all over-powered.
There's some definite "power creep" in them, though a blanket statement of "all over-powered" is a bit over the top. Still: they're Eastern Weapons, and what makes them Eastern is the fact that they're not Western, Southern or Northern. So, again: preserving the "purity" of the setting could be the main motivation here.
...I'm having trouble dealing with having the rug pulled out from under me (there are other issues, but I plan or expect something to work within the rules - then he changes them), it is becoming less fun to play because of this.
You seem to have started out with different assumptions than the GM, and now the real problem may just be one of perception: you perceive the GM as unfair and needlessly restrictive, while the GM sees you as a powergaming minmaxer. It may be time to step back from the details of your character, and just talk about what the overall guidelines for this game are.
I don't know what to do (besides manipulating the DM to personally like me more, which I can do but find unethical), please help.
Manipulating people into liking you is called social interaction. As a basic rule I would advice you to do this all the time, with as many people as possible. Life's good when you're liked.
One of your options would be to toss aside what you have crafted so far, and create a Cleric using nothing but the Core book. But that probably won't be much fun for you, since you're too aware of what you'd miss out on. Another option is for your GM to just allow everything you asked for, even though that may damage the game's setting, campaign and even open the floodgate to PCs that are "builds" rather than "people". That's not good either.
So: talk. Sit down with the GM (and maybe the other players) and talk about what will - in the end and for everyone - be the most fun. Minmaxing the Fun is what any game should be about.
|
|
I think you will waste less time (both yours and the GM) by asking him what he allows (rather than show him things you like only to discover that he does not want it).
Your stance on no need for a deity would fit very well with an Oracle IMO. Ask the GM if he would be okay if you play and Oracle rather than a Cleric. Be aware though that he maybe a 3.5 conservative who will never allow anything other than the classes in the CRB.
In any case, accept his rulings kindly, but do not hesitate to explain to him what kind of character you would like to play and ask him if he can help you create one that fits the group and his playstyle.
Also
4. I'm facing difficulties as a player interacting with my DM, what should I do to facilitate freedom and fun for me and peace with him?
I would sit down with him and tell him your vision for your character. Motivations, background desires. Show him you are more interested in the character than the sheet. Then (if you already know him) ask him to trust you not to abuse the system. Then listen to his concerns and find a middle ground where you have the character you want and he is not afraid of you breaking the game.
THIS. THIS. THIS. A thousand times THIS.
Take your enthusiasm and creativity about your character and infect the GM with it so that you can both have fun co-creating a fitting and fun character that you will enjoy playing and he will enjoy having at his table.
Call or e-mail the DM and ask if you and he can have a sit down and chat about it.
Sit down with him, and get his input as you build the character. Tell him what your direction is and let him help you with it. This avoids the "wellI built X and he said no" while allowing him to see your thought process. "This is really neat because it fits my character's backstory" rather than "this is really neat because it lets me splatter the badguys brains all over the cavern wall in really awesome patterns" and such.
Especially as the new guy in an on-going campaign it can be difficult to walk in and try to fit in. They are wary of you, you are wanting to fit in. Let the DM help you with it and in doing so he'll also get to know you.
And also- talk to him about the possibility of allowing some things on a temporary basis. "Hey, this may be over powered but it may not.. can we try it out for a session or three? If it turns out to be as bad as you think then I can just exchange it out for this other thing". That gives you both the option to see it in game while also giving an out if it Does happen to be as strong as he thinks.
In short. Talk to the DM. Work it out with him in person as you build the character rather then doing a full-build and then submitting it to him.
-S
It sounds to me like you took your computer gaming experience and applied the same "build" ideas to a tabletop game. Specifcally, looking for the best, ultimate, uber combos to maximize your DPS and/or other abilities.
Many tabletop gamers don't like that. These gamers call it "power gaming" or "min-maxing", etc. These gamers are often offended when someone at their table takes this approach.
It sounds like your DM, and maybe his players too, fall into this category. When a DM is offended by what a player is doing, it's his natural inclination to disallow such things and rule against that player. In fact, many DMs assume that a player who is doing this is competing against the DM - he's trying to find ways to "beat" the DM.
While it's OK to "beat" the system in World of Warcraft or Everquest or Diablo or whatever, it's usually a bad idea to "beat" the DM at a tabletop game. Mainly because you can't - the DM always has monsters, bad guys, and other tools he can use to "beat" any character at any time.
It's also a bad idea to give the DM the impression that you're trying to "beat" him, even if that wasn't your intention.
The solution?
Talk to the DM about it. Find out what he will allow. When you find an interesting "combo" ask him what he thinks about it. Asking him about it in advance won't ruin the surprise, won't give him some advantage against you, won't undermine your chances of "beating" him, because that's not what you're doing right?
You're not trying to "beat" the DM, right?
So work with him. Let him know what you want to do and get his feedback.
It will solve all your problems.
|
|
A group that does not adopt the uniqueness that comes from every player is not a group I would want to join.Yes, for completely different reasons.
It isn't about you. You have joined a group that was happy before you got there and if you keep this up will be even happier when you leave.
You don't come in as the new person and dictate. You come in and watch and learn from them, and then decide if it is worth sticking around or not.
Then don't.
But if the group is happy with how they play, leave them alone to be happy until you can find a "special" group for your little snowflake...
What I am reading is a player who didn't bother to ask any questions during the creation process now shocked, SHOCKED! that his attempt at mechanical manipulation wasn't accepted.
And I say that because at no point was the discussion of deities about the character, but rather the mechanics.
Heaven forbid a group actually want to have a player create a concept rather than an equation.
We must hunt down this group. They are playing wrongbadfun. They must be shunned.
Happiness is not the goal...
Sounds like you may need to keep looking for a group to play with. The fact that the one player that left was the healer and your options are healer or you can't play throws up a whole bunch of red flags for me.
Your options are basically see if you have fun running the groups heal-b***h, or not playing with them. I,m already not having fun with that group.
I guess you could sit through one game and see how it goes.
Sounds like you may need to keep looking for a group to play with. The fact that the one player that left was the healer and your options are healer or you can't play throws up a whole bunch of red flags for me.
Your options are basically see if you have fun running the groups heal-b***h, or not playing with them. I,m already not having fun with that group.
I guess you could sit through one game and see how it goes.
If I were to look at this situation (a healer left, and now you have to play a healer)I would look at it less as "them requiring you to do whatever the group wants", and more "them needing someone to fill a crucial roll that made their party work" for the duration of the campaign. The Barbarian having low AC, for example, seems very indicative of the Barbarian being built knowing there would be a healer.
|
This seems to be a very popular topic on the boards recently (player entitlement, GM vs. Player, GM squashing characters, ect). It's always been on here, of course, but it's been a hot topic that seems to be getting more attention lately. I'm not exactly sure why either.
But, I have to agree with ciretose on this one, based upon what I've read. The GM should be judge, jury, and executioner, but needs to be consistent with his rulings. At least that's how we play in our group and we like it like that.
Had a GM once a long time ago that allowed whatever, never said no, had houserules but never enforced them, one of the players acted like he was the GM and bossed the actual GM around all night, half the players didn't showed up with a sheet and just wanted to 'act', the other half literally brought their calculators with them....and that was the absolute worst game I've ever played. I shudder just thinking about it.
What I am reading is a player who didn't bother to ask any questions during the creation process now shocked, SHOCKED! that his attempt at mechanical manipulation wasn't accepted.
Why would he?
The rules for my creating a character were that it be a Cleric, must have deity, can use any Paizo source.
Given this I would have used any spell, race, etc combination the rules allowed as well. As I said, the GM is fickle in this case and is why I would have them refine their rules before I wasted time conceptualizing a new character.
|
|
What I am reading is a player who didn't bother to ask any questions during the creation process now shocked, SHOCKED! that his attempt at mechanical manipulation wasn't accepted.Why would he?
Ask questions about how to fit into the setting or the group?
Why would anyone do that? It is much better to just show up with something that doesn't fit and irritate everyone involved.
@OP - I am being direct, because I find it to be the shortest route.
You are not a bad person, but IMHO you are approaching this from the exact wrong angle.
If your backstory is weak, and that is something that is important to the party, fix that. Ask questions, find out. Inquire. If you really want to focus on the mechanics, fine, but at least make an effort to attach some concept to the numbers.
Don't run in like a bull in a china shop. Being "well read" includes reading up on the setting.
I am sorry if you came to the messageboard looking for affirmation from everyone that you, as the new person to a working group, should be the one who makes everyone else change to accomodate what you want...as a new player.
It sounds like you put zero effort into the character part because you were focused completely on the numbers. That is great for you trying to win at combat, and sucks for everyone you are playing with trying to role play a game.
Is your GM technically wrong. Yes. Are you going to get anywhere by posting about it on the messageboard and viewing basic social skills as, and I quote "besides manipulating the DM to personally like me more"
No.
Maybe you should just actually try to make a character that other people would enjoy playing with. Crazy...
Dude, read my entire friggin' post. You encountered the first thing you disagreed with and went on a tangent. I explain myself plenty adequately.
|
|
Dude, read my entire friggin' post. You encountered the first thing you disagreed with and went on a tangent. I explain myself plenty adequately.
I read your post. It was very short. I think you are wrong.
Because you lack the basic courtesy of checking concept before you show up with a character doesn't mean others should, in the same way that just because you don't wipe your feet when you come in from outside doesn't mean others should.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So it's cool if the GM establishes a set of boundaries, you follow them, and upon review he starts picking apart your character? You did your part by working within the rules they set out. They need to make up their mind on what they actually want in their games. Don't waste my time and I won't waste yours. That is basic courtesy as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am one who believes that the races need to have spells and archetypes and other things that are unique to and for them.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the OP's lack of characterization for his PC stems from two issues :
1) having trouble with "pure roleplaying ideas". It's okay. Not everyone is a born storyteller, just as not everyone has a gift for crunching numbers and juggling rulebooks.
2) an experience that showed that not-optimized PCs die before you can tell any meaningful story with them.
Both things are not something the OP can really act on. By my reading, the OP is definitely not a jerk, seems quite respectful of the GM's authority and does not deserve the kind of bashing he is receiving here.
Some posters have a very strong opinion against what they see as entitled players and have voiced it time and again on the boards. However, taking it out on the OP is not fair IMO.
I'm facing difficulties as a player interacting with my DM, what should I do to facilitate freedom and fun for me and peace with him?This is the crux of it all, I would think.Yes, for completely different reasons.
It isn't about you. You have joined a group that was happy before you got there and if you keep this up will be even happier when you leave.
You don't come in as the new person and dictate. You come in and watch and learn from them, and then decide if it is worth sticking around or not.
I find it somewhat astonishing that anyone would hold this opinion. (Yes, I am still astonished by things I read on the internet. I'll get bitter and jaded later in life, I'm sure.)
This is a new player. The first thing he should be learning is how to have fun playing a game. They should be encouraging creativity. Not stifling it. They should be working with him to develop his role playing, especially since he seems to have a fairly strong grasp of the mechanics. Instead they have cornered him into a single class, and strike down the ideas he brings to make the character his own.
Now, he says he is fine with playing a cleric. Great! That makes everything easier. But, it should still be his cleric. Not the group's. And not the DM's.
There are houserules? Fine. Enumerate them, and then stick to them. Don't create a new one every session, or arbitrarily change them on a whim.
In the end, this is a seven hour a week investment of time for this person, which they are using for recreation and enjoyment. If they're not enjoying themselves, it's a waste of everyone's time. And the group/DM should be prepared to never gain another new player. Who would make the effort?
The Barbarian that exists now was not there when I joined, but was made with the feat that has the mechanic of "every time you power attack you intimidate" (paraphrasing) - which was shot down at the table because the DM claims it would be burdensome (looking up will saves and extra dice rolls every attack). I see this as somewhat plausible (i don't know the specifics), but a substitute suggestion was not made - just a no.
Character Creation is a game within a game for me. I strive to be as broken as possible. If there are house rules, please state them at the start, and I will follow them. After that, leave me alone.
If Character Creation is really Mother, May I, then I'll give the GM a rough idea of what I want and he can build it himself.
|
|
So it's cool if the GM establishes a set of boundaries, you follow them, and upon review he starts picking apart your character? You did your part by working within the rules they set out. They need to make up their mind on what they actually want in their games. Don't waste my time and I won't waste yours. That is basic courtesy as well.
If you didn't run any of your plans by the GM or the rest of the before you showed up at the game? Is basic courtesy foreign to the people on here?
You don't just pop up with a fully formed character sheet you haven't run by the GM first. Basic common sense etiquette.
Not to mention you should at least make a half assed effort to find out about setting first and create some kind of backstory if it is the kind of game that backstory matters.
I find it somewhat astonishing that anyone would hold this opinion. (Yes, I am still astonished by things I read on the internet. I'll get bitter and jaded later in life, I'm sure.)Yes, for completely different reasons.
It isn't about you. You have joined a group that was happy before you got there and if you keep this up will be even happier when you leave.
You don't come in as the new person and dictate. You come in and watch and learn from them, and then decide if it is worth sticking around or not.
It's ciretose. You get used to that sort of thing, but I wouldn't worry too much about rebutting him.
To the OP: I would wait for your next session to finalize your character; ask the DM if you can sit down with them to do character generation together. That way you can work together to get something you're both satisfied with.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So it's cool if the GM establishes a set of boundaries, you follow them, and upon review he starts picking apart your character? You did your part by working within the rules they set out. They need to make up their mind on what they actually want in their games. Don't waste my time and I won't waste yours. That is basic courtesy as well.If you didn't run any of your plans by the GM or the rest of the before you showed up at the game? Is basic courtesy foreign to the people on here?
You don't just pop up with a fully formed character sheet you haven't run by the GM first. Basic common sense etiquette.
Not to mention you should at least make a half assed effort to find out about setting first and create some kind of backstory if it is the kind of game that backstory matters.
Its not basic courtesy, it is a personal practice. I've played at tables where the expectation is that people show up with fully formed characters and the dm doesnt want to be involved in creation (has enough to worry about). I have been at tables that have specific character creation sessions, and I have been at tables that have long email chains that help hammer out characters between players and dm before games.
If the dm wants that kind of interaction thats cool, but he should have said to a new player 'hey i'd like to see what you have in mind from your character ahead of time so we can make sure he fits the game we have here, drop me an email at blah@blah.com'. That is basic courtesy, telling people about your expectations. Especially if they are new to roleplaying and have no idea about the potential pitfalls.