DM doesn't get it. 3.5

[Tyndmyr]

That wasn't a group of people acting like idiots, that was a group of people each with different splats, well the first 3 anyway, that they wanted to play in the game that weren't in the DM's original plans. This happens a lot. It really does. The majority of DMs, in my experience, do not have every splatbook memorized and/or don't intend to use every splatbook with variant classes in their campaign. The gunman does pop up every so often, and of course the wookie is very silly.

Yup, it does, in my experience. Basically, the people need to have a chat about sort of game they're going to play. No one person should demand the rest concede to his demands, they all have to come to a conclusion about what they'll enjoy.

[Viletta Vadim]

Rights? Is the player the only one with rights? Does the DM have any? Is the DM automatically in the wrong for challenging a player about anything? Does the DM have the same right to have fun at the table as the players do, or is he only there as a facilitator of the players having a good time?
Yes, the DM has rights. Those rights to not include the right to stomp all over everyone else's rights.

The DM is allowed to have fun. However, if the DM's idea of 'fun' is, "You will play my characters in my way and adhere to these archetypes as I see fit," then the DM's idea of 'fun' involves stomping all over the players' right to have fun, and that DM needs to either step down or seriously reassess his idea if 'fun,' because he is a total tyrannical control freak at that point. The DM has no right to stomp all over everyone else's fun.

If I ended up running a game that wasn't really fun for me, where the players overruled every decision I made that they didn't like, and in which no one had any respect or interest in the campaign world I was trying to create, I wouldn't even bother DMing.
You didn't ask how to make every single decision in the campaign. You asked how to best resolve that one specific conflict between two people that they couldn't resolve on their own.

And if it's the DM trying to make the campaign rather than the group trying to make the campaign, odds are there's a problem. A problem that's often caused by the DM creating a campaign without player input in which the players have no investment and then expecting the players to spontaneously become invested in some world and game and story that they had nothing to do with.

It's not mob rule. It's acknowledging that everybody sitting at the table, every single individual without exception, is important. They are your friends, who you want to be happy, and you want to be happy as well. Everyone's happiness matters. To roll over and sacrifice your fun is the wrong thing to do, because you are important, and for one person to stomp all over someone else's fun is wrong because that person is important, too. And when a DM's control freak tendencies are ruining the fun? That's a bad thing. "Grin and bear it" is not the right thing to do, and the DM should not just continue along his current course stomping on everyone else's fun and using DM authority like a sledgehammer to beat everyone else into compliance that he, and only he may have fun.

[Thurbane]

Yup, it does, in my experience. Basically, the people need to have a chat about sort of game they're going to play. No one person should demand the rest concede to his demands, they all have to come to a conclusion about what they'll enjoy.
This...very much, this. :smallsmile:

[Thurbane]

Yes, the DM has rights. Those rights to not include the right to stomp all over everyone else's rights.
Can you give an example where I have endorsed this kind of behaviour from the DM?

The DM is allowed to have fun. However, if the DM's idea of 'fun' is, "You will play my characters in my way and adhere to these archetypes as I see fit," then the DM's idea of 'fun' involves stomping all over the players' right to have fun, and that DM needs to either step down or seriously reassess his idea if 'fun,' because he is a total tyrannical control freak at that point. The DM has no right to stomp all over everyone else's fun.
Agree 100%. Again, have I ever said the DM has these kinds of rights?

You didn't ask how to make every single decision in the campaign. You asked how to best resolve that one specific conflict between two people that they couldn't resolve on their own.
Yes, I was extrapolating a possible outcome. Admittedly, my example was at the far end of the spectrum.

And if it's the DM trying to make the campaign rather than the group trying to make the campaign, odds are there's a problem. A problem that's often caused by the DM creating a campaign without player input in which the players have no investment and then expecting the players to spontaneously become invested in some world and game and story that they had nothing to do with.
OK, I think the communication problem we are having may be due in large part to play styles. You seem to be used to a sandbox type game, whereas most of my gaming has been more along the lines of a DM having a grand idea of his world and overall story arc, and the players interact within that framework.

Neither is inherently better or worse than the other, just different.

It's not mob rule. It's acknowledging that everybody sitting at the table, every single individual without exception, is important. They are your friends, who you want to be happy, and you want to be happy as well. Everyone's happiness matters. To roll over and sacrifice your fun is the wrong thing to do, because you are important, and for one person to stomp all over someone else's fun is wrong because that person is important, too. And when a DM's control freak tendencies are ruining the fun? That's a bad thing. "Grin and bear it" is not the right thing to do, and the DM should not just continue along his current course stomping on everyone else's fun and using DM authority like a sledgehammer to beat everyone else into compliance that he, and only he may have fun.
Again, agree 100% that everyone at the table is important.

...but I would question that a player that has a specific build concept rejected by the DM is automatically unable to have fun. If you go back a page or so, you can see this with my own example of the Binder and the Dragon Shaman.

Anyway, I think we agree on a lot more than you realize. I don't think that a DM should just throw character concepts out the window willy-nilly, or be completely inflexible about what he will allow in his game. By the same token, I think that players also need to show a little flexibility and adaptability in return. Two way street and all that. If you trust (and respect) your DM to run the game, to roll random encounters, to decide what challenges your party will face, and all the others things the DM does so that you can indeed play D&D, you should extend that trust to sometimes being told "no" on a character concept.

[Sliver]

I don't understand how it is possible to drag such a discussion for so long..

A DM has the right to ban stuff in a case by case basis by what he sees as fitting his game and what not. He does not need to give you a list of what is specifically not allowed, only general guidelines. Because you are supposed to give a character concept before you are attached to it and before you invested a lot of your time in it, so you won't be bothered if he doesn't allow it. You have the right to disagree. He might not be reasonable, but if you can't convince him, that should be enough. The only things you are entitled in his game are those options that he agrees to allow. If he is banning all the things you consider fun, then you are also entitled to leave the game. No more, no less.

The DM can do anything he wants in his game. The players input what they consider more or less fun to change the game's direction. The DM considers it and can decide either way. The players either agree and live with either decision, try again at a later date with new reasons, or leave. The players aren't puppets, nor is the DM.

[Iceforge]

I keep seeing people saying that the game is everybodies game.

I agree.

But I do not think some people really understands that there is still a difference between the GM and the players and they are not equal in deciding what goes and what does not go in the game.

Now, as I said earlier, I am lucky with my roleplaying options, but part of that is also that I am a GM, which gives some credit with other GMs to let me in on their teams, because at least I am also one of the providers and not just someone getting in on as many teams as possible without running anything.

There are many people playing in my local club who never has and probarly never will GM a game; They are not interested in investing the time, the energi or taking the responsibility of running a game for other players and they might not enjoy the experience of being a GM.

Part of the fun things of GM'ing, at least for me, is making decisions on world design, which makes the responsibilities and extra time worth it.

Now, if a player comes to a game I am running and using vastly more time on than any of the players (and sometimes all the players combined if I estimate right), and wants to impose on my world design and want to enforce their changes on my world design, citing rule books, trying to make a "vote amongst all at the table" or any of that crap, I will simply tell them to find another game.

I am reasonable, I have only once in my entire GMing career had to ask a player not to return to game sessions (and that was after all the other players asked me me to get rid of the troublesome player as his presence limited their fun), and I rarely shoot down someones build, because I have reasonable players in my opinion and they are a lovely bunch.

But that doesn't change my opinion, so if someone presented a new character idea that would go totally against the game world I had designed (such a simply wanting to be a half-orc, halfling or gnome in my current campaign, as while not really something I barred in the beginning, they no longer fit into the game world) I would say no, and the reason I would give would be "they do not fit the current game world, so no way to get your character into the game", and that would be all the explanation I would feel I had to give for the decisions (if it was an entirely new player, I might explain why they do not fit into the current game world, if they asked)

[Oslecamo]

The DM can do anything he wants in his game. The players input what they consider more or less fun to change the game's direction. The DM considers it and can decide either way. The players either agree and live with either decision, try again at a later date with new reasons, or leave. The players aren't puppets, nor is the DM.

This is the optimization boards. The DM is expected to be the player's slave and agree with them in all rules interpretations while not customizing anything. Even something like playing monsters smartly and not just throwing slow dumb caster-fooder in every ecounter is considered HERESY!

[Sliver]

This is the optimization boards. The DM is expected to be the player's slave and agree with them in all rules interpretations while not customizing anything. Even something like playing monsters smartly and not just throwing slow dumb caster-fooder in every ecounter is considered HERESY!

And oddly, every time a DM asks about how to challenge his players in his game, people don't tell him to dumb it down and shut up, right? :smallconfused:

[Kylarra]

I can't say we were doing great beforehand, but really Oslecamo, do you have to come in here with that same tired old chip on your shoulder and just randomly interject it?

[Viletta Vadim]

The DM can do anything he wants in his game. The players input what they consider more or less fun to change the game's direction. The DM considers it and can decide either way. The players either agree and live with either decision, try again at a later date with new reasons, or leave. The players aren't puppets, nor is the DM.
You go on about DM power, but say nothing of DM responsibility. The way you frame it, the DM has zero responsibility to the players, and the only possible method for dealing with your friend mistreating you is to run away and refuse to play with him anymore. That's the height of childish.

DMs have responsibilities to their players as well. Players have the right to insist that these responsibilities be upheld. Players are every bit as deserving of respect as the DM, after all, and the DM has no right to just stomp all over the players' fun any more than they have a right to stomp all over the players' fun.

The best solution to a situation is not to roll over and die, it's not to run away and hide from the problem. It is to work out your differences as intelligent adults. And sometimes, that requires you to stand your ground against someone who is disrespecting, exploiting, and abusing you. Like, say, a tyrant DM. That's not some evil thing that only bad players do to disrupt the game; it's a basic aspect of maintaining human dignity. And the thing is, if you're having major problems with a DM, you may be the only one voicing 'em, but odds are pretty damn good that you're not the only one having those problems.

Part of the fun things of GM'ing, at least for me, is making decisions on world design, which makes the responsibilities and extra time worth it.

Now, if a player comes to a game I am running and using vastly more time on than any of the players (and sometimes all the players combined if I estimate right), and wants to impose on my world design and want to enforce their changes on my world design, citing rule books, trying to make a "vote amongst all at the table" or any of that crap, I will simply tell them to find another game.
At the same time, you must understand that if you create a world, you still have to keep respect for the players in mind.

A DM has direct control of the entire world and every NPC in it.

A player has control of one and only one thing; her character.

When a DM starts taking away control of a player's character, he's taking away the only thing they have in the world. As such, a DM must respect the player's rights and the player's character every step of the way. That includes world creation. A world made without player input and a campaign spawned purely from one person's imagination without anyone else's buy-in or creative contribution is already throwing out all sorts of red flags, but the trap a lot of DMs fall into is to get so involved in their world and define it so tightly that there isn't any room left for players or player creativity or player characters.

There comes a point in world creation where it gets so detailed and invasive that a DM either has to bring in players to contribute or just forget about running a game and write fiction instead, because when you get so far into world creation that you effectively start writing the players' characters for them, you've gone beyond what you as a DM have any right to create and have started encroaching on player territory.

A lot of DMs take that world that violates players' rights, that writes PCs for the players, that takes away the one thing the players have in the world, and try and force it down the players' throat, using all that work that they really did put into their world as a justification of why the players should be forced to accept it without reservation when in reality, no matter how much the world stomps all over their fun.

And in a case like that? The player who actually tries to make their own character and force their place in the world is right, because the world is unplayable unless someone comes in and shakes it up, frees up some space for more than one person's imagination.

It's just as wrong when a DM's idea of fun is to stomp all over everyone else's fun as it is when anyone else does it. An overly oppressive world is as much a problem as ye olde crazy powergamer who destroys everything. It's the exact same problem, just from opposing sides of the screen, and that one person is abusing the group's trust in wielding unlimited authority like a sledgehammer to pull it off doesn't make it any less wrong, and it's every bit as much in need of addressing. The proper response to someone stomping on someone else's fun is to resist the stomping.

Also, a DM who is completely out of line needs to be dealt with as swiftly and harshly as any player, because the entire group needs to police itself in its entirety, with no one being above the demands of human decency.

[Asgardian]

If you have questions about his house rules.. just flat out ask him

No jokes, no arguing, no trying to be clever just.."I'm looking to do make use of ( whatever class or spells), is theres anything not in the rulebook that i should be aware of in your game?" And let him have time to actually CONSIDER his response as you intent to hold him to it.

Its your DM's world so if you can live within his guidelines,great.

If not, theres no reason to screw up everyone else potential enjoyment by attempt to "break the game". Just walk away



I have read the replies and some of them are a little damaging to my ego. And I can certainly see why people would think I am being a bit of a douche in planning on playing a cleric-zilla for not getting my way. There are a few points I wish to address though.

1. Nerfing of the Natural Spell. If the DM was going to cherry pick the spells that would work in animal form, then I wouldn't be surprised if the only spells I could walk away with would be Goodberry and Speak With Animals. Either ban the feat or don't. I can see the cheese inherent in it and I wouldn't question, but if this guy is going to say that entering a grapple will damage fingers, then there is no telling where he would have went with this feat. Considering as we would start out at 1st level, when I could take Natural Spell would be mid-game and I didn't want to go down a road that could have me playing a character who has an ability, but is unable to use it properly.

I opted out of a druid build because there are so many things he could pick apart with it. He could dis-allow X animal companion or possibly nerf the wildshape feature.

[Viletta Vadim]

If not, theres no reason to screw up everyone else potential enjoyment by attempt to "break the game". Just walk away
And what if the DM is already screwing up everyone else's potential enjoyment?

When someone's having major problems with a DM, they're usually not the only one with problems. They're just the only one with the guts to voice them.

[Kylarra]

I ... really don't think you're going to find much disagreement from Thurbane or myself over the fact that the DM shouldn't be a jerk and if he is being a jerk, the players should call him on it.

[Iceforge]

At the same time, you must understand that if you create a world, you still have to keep respect for the players in mind.

A DM has direct control of the entire world and every NPC in it.

A player has control of one and only one thing; her character.

I respect my players, and they have almost full control over their characters (can only say almost full, as dreams and such are something I will impose on, but if they had absolutely full control, they should control that as well)


When a DM starts taking away control of a player's character, he's taking away the only thing they have in the world.

I agree

But that is completely and utterly irrevelant to anything being discussed here.

The GM imposed restrictions on CHARACTER CREATION, not during game, not after the build had been made and finalized, he ruled directly against the idea before it was put into play. He did not take away control of the character from the player.

If you think this qualifies as taking away control of a character from the player, then how do you suppose the GM can say no to any build ideas?


As such, a DM must respect the player's rights and the player's character every step of the way.

Agree, but in the case of debate, there was on "the player's character", as it was not yet a character in the campaign, but merely a character idea.


That includes world creation. A world made without player input and a campaign spawned purely from one person's imagination without anyone else's buy-in or creative contribution is already throwing out all sorts of red flags, but the trap a lot of DMs fall into is to get so involved in their world and define it so tightly that there isn't any room left for players or player creativity or player characters.

If you can get me a group of players willing to sit down and brainstorm ideas, draw sketches of landscapes, spend time making detailed maps, make up background stories of kingdoms, timelines of wars and former conflicts which helped shape the land and it's inhabitants, and so on, all of which is a part of world creation, I would love for those players to sit in on the process.

As of yet, I had no player offer to help with world building. Ever.


There comes a point in world creation where it gets so detailed and invasive that a DM either has to bring in players to contribute or just forget about running a game and write fiction instead, because when you get so far into world creation that you effectively start writing the players' characters for them, you've gone beyond what you as a DM have any right to create and have started encroaching on player territory.

Agree, that if your world creation goes so far as to actually dictate what the players must play, then you have crossed a line you are not supposed to cross (unless you are playing a single-session game, I make all the characters myself when I run one-shot horror games, which the players appreciate as we the don't have to spend the first few hours of a single nights play on making characters and getting them to fit with the plot and each other)

But again, that has not happened in the case we are discussing, so it is entirely irrelevant to any discussion going on here. The GM was not dictating what the player must play, he just ruled against a specific character concept which was not yet make into an actual character.
He took no control from the player of a character, but enforced a (argueably stupid) restriction, which was he could not make a wizard designed for grappling his opponents.


A lot of DMs take that world that violates players' rights, that writes PCs for the players, that takes away the one thing the players have in the world, and try and force it down the players' throat, using all that work that they really did put into their world as a justification of why the players should be forced to accept it without reservation when in reality, no matter how much the world stomps all over their fun.

Really? I never encountered any such GM's, except for during events (like con's) or games that are meant to only last a single night, never elsewhere have I encountered GMs who wants to write the PCs for the players.


And in a case like that? The player who actually tries to make their own character and force their place in the world is right, because the world is unplayable unless someone comes in and shakes it up, frees up some space for more than one person's imagination.

So you disagree with this specific GM in question, and I can truthfully say that I disagree with this particular GM as well and would have no interest in playing with someone who enforced such a restriction, but he did not take control of a players character; Maybe in the group you are playing in, the players love to pitch in and help design the world; That is lovely and I am jealous if your GM for having such dedicated players, but I see no indication in the OP's post to indicate that he nor anyone else in his playgroup helped out the GM with creating the world which they are going to be playing in, instead I see him coming up with crazy build ideas to challenge his GM and then get furious when the GM turns down his character build ideas.


It's just as wrong when a DM's idea of fun is to stomp all over everyone else's fun as it is when anyone else does it.

Agree, but I do not see how the GM in this particular case was stomping on everyone else's fun, I only see a single player who get anoyed that he is not allowed to play excatly what he wants, even if it breaks the GMs visions for the game world.

What I see was a player who basicly said the following to the GM:

Player: I want to play A.
GM: Okay, I will allow A...
Player: Nevermind, I want to play B
GM: No, I will not allow B as that will ruin my fun
Player: Okay, then I want to play C
GM: No, I will not allow C as that will ruin my fun

And then we have the player coming here to whine that he can't play a build C (even tho he says himself that build A was allowed) and that you are not saying that the GM is the one trying to ruin someone elses fun.

I suspect the player actually wanted to screw with his GM, I see no real reason for him to ask for A, get A allowed by the GM, and then discard that idea anyway.


An overly oppressive world is as much a problem as ye olde crazy powergamer who destroys everything. It's the exact same problem, just from opposing sides of the screen, and that one person is abusing the group's trust in wielding unlimited authority like a sledgehammer to pull it off doesn't make it any less wrong, and it's every bit as much in need of addressing. The proper response to someone stomping on someone else's fun is to resist the stomping.

I agree, and the GM was resisting the players stomping. I think you fail to realise who was actually trying to ruins who's fun here.


Also, a DM who is completely out of line needs to be dealt with as swiftly and harshly as any player, because the entire group needs to police itself in its entirety, with no one being above the demands of human decency.

Once again, I agree. I don't see how that is applicable in the current situation being discussed, but I agree that if the GM is out of line, the players should say something. If I step over the line of what my players consider fun, I sure hope they will adress the issue with me, as one of my key goals when GM'ing is to make sure that everybody else at the table is having fun with the game, anything else is a secondary priority

[Zincorium]

But that is completely and utterly irrevelant to anything being discussed here.

The GM imposed restrictions on CHARACTER CREATION, not during game, not after the build had been made and finalized, he ruled directly against the idea before it was put into play. He did not take away control of the character from the player.

Incorrect.

The player has not been denied the ability to play a wizard, nor have any of the things that compose the build been banned.

The player has been told that they cannot initiate grapples, due to fear of breaking fingers.

SO...

The DM is stating in advance they will prevent the character from performing certain actions in game despite the rules saying that this is okay.

[Kylarra]

I'd negate it because I don't want to deal with grappling, but maybe that's just me. :smallbiggrin:

[KellKheraptis]

Oh, no, that's a good thing. All DMs capable of growing a mustache should include mustache-twirling and maniacal laughter.

Other than looking like my Romanian ancestor of infamy, I have a goatee for this very reason. And boy does it feel evil :D

[Viletta Vadim]

I agree

But that is completely and utterly irrevelant to anything being discussed here.

The GM imposed restrictions on CHARACTER CREATION, not during game, not after the build had been made and finalized, he ruled directly against the idea before it was put into play. He did not take away control of the character from the player.
"I reject your idea because your character would be afraid of breaking his fingers," is writing the player's character for him. Character creation is a part of the game. An important part. The DM isn't the one writing the PCs, the players are.

And character creation restrictions can indeed become so tremendously constraining that it becomes DM usurpation of the players' right to actually devise their own characters from their own imagination.

Yes, there needs to be some back-and-forth, and some constraints relative to the story and the game as a whole. However, it must be a shared vision. "You're not playing your character the way I want you to," is not a valid reason to shoot a character down because it isn't the DM's domain.

Agree, but in the case of debate, there was on "the player's character", as it was not yet a character in the campaign, but merely a character idea.
And in creation, it's still the player's character, for the player to write. A DM who, for character creation, comes in with four envelopes and hands them to the players saying, "These are your characters, their stats, and their histories. Let's go," and hasn't gotten explicit permission to do so is wrong. You can argue that it's not the player's character until the game starts, but that's ignoring the fact that character creation is a major part of the game.

If you can get me a group of players willing to sit down and brainstorm ideas, draw sketches of landscapes, spend time making detailed maps, make up background stories of kingdoms, timelines of wars and former conflicts which helped shape the land and it's inhabitants, and so on, all of which is a part of world creation, I would love for those players to sit in on the process.
Except most of that isn't where the problems lie. The problems lie where you start saying, "Element X that is a significant portion of the system does not exist," or, "All mages belong to Order Y, which has this set of very harsh constraints that will be imposed on all mage characters," or, "Wizards cannot choose to wrassle," you're writing the players' characters for them, and they must have input.

As of yet, I had no player offer to help with world building. Ever.
Have you ever asked?

But again, that has not happened in the case we are discussing, so it is entirely irrelevant to any discussion going on here. The GM was not dictating what the player must play, he just ruled against a specific character concept which was not yet make into an actual character.
He took no control from the player of a character, but enforced a (argueably stupid) restriction, which was he could not make a wizard designed for grappling his opponents.
Actually, it has. "Your character is terrified of breaking his fingers and wouldn't possibly choose to wrestle," is writing the player's character for him. "No wizards can be anything more than this rigidly defined stereotypical archetype," is far, far into the realm of writing a player's character for him.

I agree, and the GM was resisting the players stomping. I think you fail to realise who was actually trying to ruins who's fun here.
A grappling wizard isn't stomping. Actually having a character isn't stomping. Devising your own character from your own imagination rather than adhering to stereotypes isn't stomping. "You must adhere to archetypes rigidly even when I don't," is absolutely stomping. Getting worked up when someone actually creates a character instead of a cliche is stomping.

And from what Demented's said, the DM has already developed a reputation as a rigid and oppressive sort who has already stomped on many, many peoples' fun time and time again with his arbitrary fiat, and sorely needs someone to stand up to him before everyone gets fed up with him and he runs out of friends.

I'd negate it because I don't want to deal with grappling, but maybe that's just me. :smallbiggrin:
Now, see? This is a valid reason. "Grappling rules are annoyingly cumbersome," is a valid reason to disallow a grappling character. Preferably as a soft ban rather than hard.

[Thurbane]

The best solution to a situation is not to roll over and die, it's not to run away and hide from the problem. It is to work out your differences as intelligent adults. And sometimes, that requires you to stand your ground against someone who is disrespecting, exploiting, and abusing you. Like, say, a tyrant DM. That's not some evil thing that only bad players do to disrupt the game; it's a basic aspect of maintaining human dignity. And the thing is, if you're having major problems with a DM, you may be the only one voicing 'em, but odds are pretty damn good that you're not the only one having those problems.
That is pure speculation. It is entirely possible that a personality clash of the player and the DM is the root of the problem, and that no other player at the table is having problems with the DM. Try to remember, in the case of the OP, we are only getting one side of the story. While I have no reason to think that he is lying, if you were to ask the DM his point of view of what happened, it may be entirely different. In my experience, I've encountered a lot more problematic players than I have problematic DMs.

Also, a DM who is completely out of line needs to be dealt with as swiftly and harshly as any player, because the entire group needs to police itself in its entirety, with no one being above the demands of human decency.
Wow, it sounds like some DM really burned you in the past. Also, really? You really equate saying no to a build request to robbing someone of their human decency? For crying out loud, it's a game! :smallamused:

If the DM is, in fact, a jerk who can't be reasoned with, why oh why would you waste your time and effort trying to get into his game? Odds are that if the DM is this horrible person, even if you get him to change his mind on your build through sheer stubbornness and inciting a people's player's revolution against him, the game he runs really isn't likely to be one you will enjoy anyhow.

Finally, on the term "tyrant":

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/6/8/128889640032558044.jpg

I ... really don't think you're going to find much disagreement from Thurbane or myself over the fact that the DM shouldn't be a jerk and if he is being a jerk, the players should call him on it.
Indeed...

So, basically you are saying if the DM is being a giant **** and shooting down every player concept out of sheer pettiness and stubbornness, that he isn't worthy of respect?

It may shock you to know...I agree! :smallwink:

[Thurbane]

Incorrect.

The player has not been denied the ability to play a wizard, nor have any of the things that compose the build been banned.

The player has been told that they cannot initiate grapples, due to fear of breaking fingers.

SO...

The DM is stating in advance they will prevent the character from performing certain actions in game despite the rules saying that this is okay.
...so, creating a house rule that the players know about up front, before the game starts?

Yes, indeed this DM is some kind of monster. :smallamused:

[Koury]

...so, creating a house rule that the players know about up front, before the game starts?

Yes, indeed this DM is some kind of monster. :smallamused:

The problem here isn't that the houserule was created. It's honestly not even that it was a kneejerk reaction. Its that it applies only to Wizards.

IMO, of course :smallbiggrin:

[Viletta Vadim]

If the DM is, in fact, a jerk who can't be reasoned with, why oh why would you waste your time and effort trying to get into his game? Odds are that if the DM is this horrible person, even if you get him to change his mind on your build through sheer stubbornness and inciting a people's player's revolution against him, the game he runs really isn't likely to be one you will enjoy anyhow.
Or, it's entirely possible and even likely that he's your friend and an otherwise decent human being who doesn't realize how much of a prick he's being because no one's ever actually stood up to him before and instead just let the problem fester. (Hint: That's not something friends do.)

...so, creating a house rule that the players know about up front, before the game starts?

Yes, indeed this DM is some kind of monster. :smallamused:
Decreeing that his character automatically experiences an insurmountable fear of breaking his fingers in grapple and is thus by no means allowed to be a grappler is a lot mroe than just 'a houserule.'

Demented keeps getting burned for expressing the temptation to make a revenge character, yet this DM is doing the very thing Demented keeps getting burned for. He made a revenge ruling, using DM authority like a sledgehammer to punish the player for daring to come up with an idea that didn't conform to his very harsh notions of archetypes.

[Iceforge]

"I reject your idea because your character would be afraid of breaking his fingers," is writing the player's character for him. Character creation is a part of the game. An important part. The DM isn't the one writing the PCs, the players are.

Hmm, no, as I saw it, he said wizards would not be doing it due to the high risk associated with it, because they would break their fingers. Again, I personally think that is a stupid limitation, but I do not agree that he is writing the players character for him.


And character creation restrictions can indeed become so tremendously constraining that it becomes DM usurpation of the players' right to actually devise their own characters from their own imagination.

I get the impression that you think players should always be allowed to play anything from any rulebook no matter what the GM thinks about it, because if he puts any restrictions AT ALL on them, then he is imposing on their ability to make characters from their own imagination.

I do not think that is really your intent, but the point you made there applies equally to the one making a gestalt character for a non-gestalt game, as that was a character devised from the players own imagination.


Yes, there needs to be some back-and-forth, and some constraints relative to the story and the game as a whole. However, it must be a shared vision. "You're not playing your character the way I want you to," is not a valid reason to shoot a character down because it isn't the DM's domain.

So, in this case the GM had one point of view and the player another.
You clearly siding with the player here, which I can understand because we can both agree that the GMs decision was stupid and his abilities to reason for his decision was, according to the information from the OP, not very good.

But he didnt use the reason you say he was. There is a vast difference between not allowing a player to play his character the way the player wants to play his character and upfront stating you do not want him to build a character designed specifically for doing a specific action.

The player had the choise to make another build, and going by how this was the 3rd build he suggested to the GM, he had no problems making up builds rapidly and thus it would be fair for the GM to assume there was no real investment into the idea for the player in the first place

Also, I am strongly disagreeing with your "it must be a shared vision" retroric. Basicly that allows a loophole where any player can just oppose a specific limitation, thus making it a "not shared vision" and then default, by your logic, to it being allowed and the GM must give in and allow it


And in creation, it's still the player's character, for the player to write. A DM who, for character creation, comes in with four envelopes and hands them to the players saying, "These are your characters, their stats, and their histories. Let's go," and hasn't gotten explicit permission to do so is wrong. You can argue that it's not the player's character until the game starts, but that's ignoring the fact that character creation is a major part of the game.

Yes, but again, irrelevant, as the GM of this game did not come in with four envelopes and hand them out to the player, the player was clearly allowed to make build suggestions himself; Trying to demonise the GM by making him worse in your stories about him than he actual is/was, is just petty.

And I do think the player's character is his the moment he has the idea, but disallowing a build is not the same as dictating what the player must play.

There is a HUGE freaking difference between saying "you must play this" and saying "you can't play that".

It is not like the GM said "no, you cannot play a grapling wizard, but now that you mentioned wizard, you have to play a wizard, even through you cannot play it in the way you first imagined, and by the way, now that you are a wizard, here are the spells you know, your stats, your equpiment and your skill allocation, which is what you must have, besides that, you must have X type of relationship with your parents, has Y number and types of siblings and you must be adventuring for reason Z", he simply said that "no, if you are playing a wizard, you cannot play one designed for grapling, as a wizard would not graple, as that carries a huge risk of breaking fingers and thus disappeling your ability to cast spells". Poor and uncalled for reasoning, but nowhere nearly as bad as you are trying to make it out to be.


Except most of that isn't where the problems lie. The problems lie where you start saying, "Element X that is a significant portion of the system does not exist," or, "All mages belong to Order Y, which has this set of very harsh constraints that will be imposed on all mage characters," or, "Wizards cannot choose to wrassle," you're writing the players' characters for them, and they must have input.

All of those you mentioned are fine; You sound like a real rule-lawyer who cannot have it be any other way than by the book, which would really anoy me a lot at the table.

"Element X that is a significant portion of the system does not exist" Is absolutely fine for the GM to do in any game.

I have lead and played in games tons of times that includes such limitations; As I said earlier, half-orcs, halfings and gnomes are currently disallowed in my current 3.5 campaign, and I am pretty sure anyone could tell you, those 3 races are pretty much a significant part of the system

"All mages belong to Order Y, which has this set of very harsh constraints that will be imposed on all mage characters," is also quite fine a restriction to put into the game, at least if the "mages" part is changed into "trained spellcasters", as it makes absolutely no sense for sorcerers having to belong to anything, as they are natural spellcasters, but saying that all wizards, who has to receive training to learn their art, has to belong to Order Y, or at least be deflectors of Order Y (which can cause a world of trouble) is quite fine.

I am currently playing in a campaign world in which most magic is viewed as dangerous and most non-cleric magic users are banned (not from being playable, but inside the game), which is quite the same as what you are saying, except "Order Y" is simply "outcasts of society" and it does impose hard restrictions on how I play my Wizard in that game, as I have to mage sure nobody finds out about my magic abilities, or I will become a haunted man. That "nobody can find out" did for most parts of the game include the groups cleric (the player actually thought I played a quite incompetent rogue for quite a while) which meant I spend many hours being close to useless (except for the magic I did in secret by passing notes to the GM when my character was some place alone), but I still had tremendous fun with the character and in no way do I think such restrictions are universally bad, like you say they are.


Have you ever asked?

Honestly, I cannot remember if I have specifically asked if my players wanted to sit down and be part of world creation, but I have asked for input, if they had any ideas, but that was quite unproductive, and I sort of figure that if they cannot even be arsed to write an email or txt message to me with their ideas, they would most likely not be up to spending a few days working on it.


Actually, it has. "Your character is terrified of breaking his fingers and wouldn't possibly choose to wrestle," is writing the player's character for him. "No wizards can be anything more than this rigidly defined stereotypical archetype," is far, far into the realm of writing a player's character for him.

No, not really, it is a restriction to what type of character a player can write, but as long as you are not forcing the player to play something specific, you are not writing his character for him.

Is it "writing a player's character for him" if I impose the limit that they have to be humans in a campaign?

Is it "writing a player's character for him" if I disallow certain alignments in the game? -Which is argueably equally, if not more, imposing on how a player can play his character




A grappling wizard isn't stomping. Actually having a character isn't stomping. Devising your own character from your own imagination rather than adhering to stereotypes isn't stomping. "You must adhere to archetypes rigidly even when I don't," is absolutely stomping. Getting worked up when someone actually creates a character instead of a cliche is stomping.

This part is just weird. The second sentence especially. I have no idea what you meant by the one, and I am going to give you the benifit of the doubt and assume you did not mean that no characters could possibly be stomping.

And I gladly agree that breaking stereotypes is not usually stomping, but breaking a stereotype in a specific way might be stomping. Like "I want to play a 7ft tall dwarf/halfling/gnome" is quite stupid or the "I want to play a lawfully evil paladin" would be quite stomping.

And getting worked up about a character idea is not automatically stomping, just because the character was not a cliche. The GM had problems with a specific character idea based on a specific class which broke a specific stereotype the GM had. Was it a bad call? Argueably, but fom it being a bad call to generalizing that all calls in the same catagory is automatically stomping is pretty far out.


And from what Demented's said, the DM has already developed a reputation as a rigid and oppressive sort who has already stomped on many, many peoples' fun time and time again with his arbitrary fiat, and sorely needs someone to stand up to him before everyone gets fed up with him and he runs out of friends.

Really? As I see it, I get the feeling he is someone not familiar with all the rules from all the various sourcebooks, and he got players who come up with builds using various feats and classes he might not be familiar with and thus sceptical of those feats and abilities, as he might previously have allowed something and experienced it being game breaking, and thus he is trying to assure that nobody introduce something game breaking, by putting restrictions on new things, like what he did with the druid idea.

What should really be worrisome is that Demented talked about the GM's fighter at one point, which indicates a GMPC, which would be a real absolut danger sign, and not something that could be written of as a GM who is insecure about some of the rules

EDIT: Viletta Vadim, I hope you do not take it personal that I am replying to you this much with such strong disagreements at times; I just think that there is reason to give some benifits of the doubt to the GM in question, who is not here to defend himself (from what I know, anyway) and I think people are being overly harsh on him solely on a single players perspective of him.

As I said a few times, my personal opinion and reaction to a GM acting like this would most likely had been to leave the group, as it would not have been fitting my desires (but neither would i have had the desires to play what the OP wanted to play)

And if I formulate myself a bit harshly towards you in my post, let me assure that it is not intentional, I have previously been told that on forums I can come across as hostile/harsh towards people, I do not intend to be like that, but apperently I do some times and has before made people angry at me for that, so let me just point out that I do not think you are a bad or troublesome player, actually I think you might be quite interesting to play with as you give the impression of someone who likes to make unique character concepts; I am merely being the advocate for the GM here, as I felt someone should do it, and as such, I am trying to argue back against some of your points

[Thurbane]

<snip>
FWIW, I agree with EVERY point that Iceforge raises in this post.

I think Viletta Vadim has a bit of a problem accepting that other groups have different playstyles and different dynamics to the one(s) he plays in. I've played D&D (and on occasion other systems) on and off for about 25 years. I've been involved in around half a dozen or so groups in this time. One thing this taught me, is that every group can have radically different playstyles and dynamics. There is NO right and wrong way to play D&D (or any other RPG), only what is fun and works for the group in question. No universal truths, I'm afraid.

Collaborative campaigns are but one way to play. In all honesty, they are fairly rare from my personal experience. Games where the creative process of generating a campaign is the sole province of the DM are by far more common. Again, not better or worse game styles, just different.

Also, having a truly democratic group where each player gets exactly as much say in how the game is run as the DM does is simply one group dynamic, and is not THE definitve model.

Basing your arguments around the assumption that every group should play like yours in order to maximize enjoyment is setting yourself up for a fall. No two groups, or people, are going to have precisely the same notion of exactly what makes for a good game. Sure, there are some common assumptions about courtesy and treating each other with respect within the group, but as for other variables, they are, well, variables.

[KellKheraptis]

From what I've read over the sprawling 10 pages of this thread, Viletta isn't in the least advocating one playstyle over another. Rather she is stating that regardless of playstyle, a closed-minded DM is ubiquitously a bad thing, and that players have every right to call bull**** when they see it. I'm 100% of this opinion, to a rather extreme degree, as any who have seen my posts on the matter will attest, and further see such DM's as power-hungry and ultimately weak-willed. It's the principle that's the problem, and that transcends any game. If they're on that big of a trip when they get behind that screen that they turn into <cencored several times>, they have no business being there.

And as an aside to the OP, I do still want to hear the DM's argument when attempting to break a finger the size of a tree trunk with a Str 18 warrior in a grapple :P

[Thurbane]

From what I've read over the sprawling 10 pages of this thread, Viletta isn't in the least advocating one playstyle over another.
Really? I strongly disagree:

And if it's the DM trying to make the campaign rather than the group trying to make the campaign, odds are there's a problem. A problem that's often caused by the DM creating a campaign without player input in which the players have no investment and then expecting the players to spontaneously become invested in some world and game and story that they had nothing to do with.

When a DM starts taking away control of a player's character, he's taking away the only thing they have in the world. As such, a DM must respect the player's rights and the player's character every step of the way. That includes world creation. A world made without player input and a campaign spawned purely from one person's imagination without anyone else's buy-in or creative contribution is already throwing out all sorts of red flags, but the trap a lot of DMs fall into is to get so involved in their world and define it so tightly that there isn't any room left for players or player creativity or player characters.

And in a case like that? The player who actually tries to make their own character and force their place in the world is right, because the world is unplayable unless someone comes in and shakes it up, frees up some space for more than one person's imagination.

Yes, there needs to be some back-and-forth, and some constraints relative to the story and the game as a whole. However, it must be a shared vision. "You're not playing your character the way I want you to," is not a valid reason to shoot a character down because it isn't the DM's domain.

And in creation, it's still the player's character, for the player to write. A DM who, for character creation, comes in with four envelopes and hands them to the players saying, "These are your characters, their stats, and their histories. Let's go," and hasn't gotten explicit permission to do so is wrong. You can argue that it's not the player's character until the game starts, but that's ignoring the fact that character creation is a major part of the game.
That sure sounds a lot like advocating a particular play style to me.

[Sinfire Titan]

Really? I strongly disagree:





That sure sounds a lot like advocating a particular play style to me.

I'll agree that the DM does play a part in character creation, but the concept is up to the player. The DM's approval should be based more heavily on mechanical issues than flavor ones, something that the OP's DM did not display (based on the information the OP provided).

Yes, there is a time when thematics should override mechanics. But flat-out saying "I don't want you to play this concept because I'll incorporate X nerf that I feel is realistic" is a lot different than saying "I honestly don't like the idea, and want you to justify it for me".


Because a Wizard so uses his hands to grapple while Polymorph into a Mind Flayer.

[Knaight]

...so, creating a house rule that the players know about up front, before the game starts?

Yes, indeed this DM is some kind of monster. :smallamused:

Creating a house rule and claiming that it isn't a house rule and is in fact the rules, then later clarifying that it doesn't fit in his setting. Which apparently doesn't extend beyond archetypes, as there was nothing there indicating any real reason other than "it seems weird". If it was a created house rule, if a reasonable explanation was given, if any of that had happened there wouldn't be an issue, but it didn't. He claimed a rule that didn't exist did so he could shoot down a character concept he had no good reason to remove.

Looking at the general, there are plenty of reasons one should restrict characters, it comes with the setting. The wizard class is inappropriate for any historical game for instance. Maybe a grappler wizard would have some sort of attached baggage, as it implies either a breaking of some vow that is taken by all those who learn magic, or a method of learning that circumvented that and is probably illegal. Maybe he actually makes a house rule, acknowledges it as such, and it renders the grappler wizard a bad idea. But "it is odd" is not a legitimate reason to shoot down a character concept. "It doesn't fit within the setting, tone, mood, etc." is, but that needs to be backed up. I usually GM. I've shot down character concepts before, but I don't weasel my way out of real explanations. I would expect the same of any good GM.

[Zombimode]

Really? I never encountered any such GM's, except for during events (like con's) or games that are meant to only last a single night, never elsewhere have I encountered GMs who wants to write the PCs for the players.

Interestingly my current campaign operates with DM-created characters with likewise DM-created backround information. Think of them as the main characters of a tv-show. It has some advantages.

Of course before we started the campaign, I presented my players the idea and asked if they have interesst in this style of play. They all voiced positive reactions and even excitement. So it was mutually agreed upon.
And so far, it works out great :)

Im presenting this anecdote to illustrate that DM-created characters arent necessarily bad.
In the same vain, "silly" characters arent necessarily bad either.
It all depends on the style of gaming.

[Iceforge]

Interestingly my current campaign operates with DM-created characters with likewise DM-created backround information. Think of them as the main characters of a tv-show. It has some advantages.

Of course before we started the campaign, I presented my players the idea and asked if they have interesst in this style of play. They all voiced positive reactions and even excitement. So it was mutually agreed upon.
And so far, it works out great :)

Im presenting this anecdote to illustrate that DM-created characters arent necessarily bad.
In the same vain, "silly" characters arent necessarily bad either.
It all depends on the style of gaming.

I honestly also ran a campaign where I had made the characters for everybody, but I did not intend to do so, which I thought excused me from it, but glad to hear that it can be done where it is intended and people still have fun.

My "unintended" one was actually supposed to be a one-time session with some friends, where at the end, the players (who had chosen their concepts, just not their background stories, stats and so on) liked their characters so much, that they asked if I could continue the story with them.

Seeing as they asked to continue, I figured it didn't really count as imposing on their rights to accept their request anyway, in the context of this debate.

[martyrX]

Demented,

The burning question: Any luck? Did you try suggesting the character concept first, and discuss specifics after?

[Viletta Vadim]

Hmm, no, as I saw it, he said wizards would not be doing it due to the high risk associated with it, because they would break their fingers. Again, I personally think that is a stupid limitation, but I do not agree that he is writing the players character for him.
The process advanced as follows.

Step 1: "Your character possesses a crippling fear of consequence X within the rules that would prevent him from doing that which you wish him to do."

After it was established that consequence X did not exist within the rules, it advanced to...

Step 2: "I pass a houserule to explicitly screw your concept."

Even if you accept this as reasonable, once the player expressed a desire to actually know what the houserule is and a desire to play the character anyways, it advanced to...

Step 3: "As DM, I say no to grappling wizards. End of discussion."

The douchebag quotient inherent in the DM's treatment of the situation is immense and indefensible. This wasn't simply passing a houserule that inconvenienced a play. It was progressively escalating the situation to explicitly screw the player more and more until, when it was clear the player was quite willing to live with the situation, the DM revealed that all the terms and conditions he just laid out were, in fact, a lie, and he was just stringing him along, trying to get him to quit. That's called a Bad Thing.

I get the impression that you think players should always be allowed to play anything from any rulebook no matter what the GM thinks about it, because if he puts any restrictions AT ALL on them, then he is imposing on their ability to make characters from their own imagination.

I do not think that is really your intent, but the point you made there applies equally to the one making a gestalt character for a non-gestalt game, as that was a character devised from the players own imagination.
I will now say one true thing, one of the most important among good gamemastering practices:

The default answer is always yes.

Note the word 'default.' Saying 'no' outright is a big deal, not to be done flippantly. It must always have a good and solid and substantial reason. Not something petty or irrational. If at all possible, the answer is "yes, and..." or "yes, but..." Sometimes, a "no, but..." is required. Very rarely, and only in the most extreme cases is a flat "no" appropriate. A DM should work with the players if at all possible.

After all, players have needs. They have desires. They have things they want to get out of the game, too, and simply shutting them down outright is a Bad Thing.

If the DM had simply passed a houserule that incorporated a risk of the Wizard damaging his hands and taking penalties to casting, then (depending on the quality of the houserule itself), it would have been fine, a "yes, but..." Instead, the DM pretended it was a "yes, but..." when in reality, he was trying to wear the player down because his real answer was, "Hell no, that defies my narrowly defined archetypes." That's called 'lying,' and it's a bad thing.

The player had the choise to make another build, and going by how this was the 3rd build he suggested to the GM, he had no problems making up builds rapidly and thus it would be fair for the GM to assume there was no real investment into the idea for the player in the first place
No, that wouldn't be fair.

There are many people who throw out a lot of ideas until one sticks. That idea six of eight is the one that sticks does not mean the player is not invested in that idea. In fact, in all likelihood, the player is even more invested in that idea than the person who just came up with one idea and decided that was good enough.

And do note, when the player starts actively defending an idea, that tends to be a rather blatant sign of investment.

Also, I am strongly disagreeing with your "it must be a shared vision" retroric. Basicly that allows a loophole where any player can just oppose a specific limitation, thus making it a "not shared vision" and then default, by your logic, to it being allowed and the GM must give in and allow it
You have a very strange definition of 'share.' The word does go both ways, y'know.

And if it isn't a shared vision, why even have players? At that point, the DM may as well just sit down and write a novel.

Yes, but again, irrelevant, as the GM of this game did not come in with four envelopes and hand them out to the player, the player was clearly allowed to make build suggestions himself; Trying to demonise the GM by making him worse in your stories about him than he actual is/was, is just petty.
Suggestions?! It's the DM who's supposed to be making the suggestions. It's the player's place to actually build the character. When the player has to dance and sway to try and find the one idea that appeases almighty DM, there's a problem.

And I'm not trying to demonize the guy. He is committing a great many horrible, disrespectful, and tyrannical DM practices. It's not demonizing a shoplifter to convict her of shoplifting.

Honestly, I cannot remember if I have specifically asked if my players wanted to sit down and be part of world creation, but I have asked for input, if they had any ideas, but that was quite unproductive, and I sort of figure that if they cannot even be arsed to write an email or txt message to me with their ideas, they would most likely not be up to spending a few days working on it.
Asking, "Anyone have any ideas?" is not asking for help. It's a vague and hollow question doomed to yield little to nothing, save by the wildest stroke of luck. It's not, "They can't be arsed." It's, "I never tried."

I think Viletta Vadim has a bit of a problem accepting that other groups have different playstyles and different dynamics to the one(s) he plays in. I've played D&D (and on occasion other systems) on and off for about 25 years. I've been involved in around half a dozen or so groups in this time. One thing this taught me, is that every group can have radically different playstyles and dynamics. There is NO right and wrong way to play D&D (or any other RPG), only what is fun and works for the group in question. No universal truths, I'm afraid.
A DM should not treat his players like crap. Period.

A DM who treats his players like crap is wrong. Period.

This exists independently of individual groups' play styles. Play style is not an excuse for treating your players like crap.

Also, having a truly democratic group where each player gets exactly as much say in how the game is run as the DM does is simply one group dynamic, and is not THE definitve model.
It's also not remotely what I'm espousing.

From what I've read over the sprawling 10 pages of this thread, Viletta isn't in the least advocating one playstyle over another. Rather she is stating that regardless of playstyle, a closed-minded DM is ubiquitously a bad thing, and that players have every right to call bull**** when they see it. I'm 100% of this opinion, to a rather extreme degree, as any who have seen my posts on the matter will attest, and further see such DM's as power-hungry and ultimately weak-willed. It's the principle that's the problem, and that transcends any game. If they're on that big of a trip when they get behind that screen that they turn into <cencored several times>, they have no business being there.
Precisely. Thank you kindly. You put it so eloquently. :P

Interestingly my current campaign operates with DM-created characters with likewise DM-created backround information. Think of them as the main characters of a tv-show. It has some advantages.

Of course before we started the campaign, I presented my players the idea and asked if they have interesst in this style of play. They all voiced positive reactions and even excitement. So it was mutually agreed upon.
And so far, it works out great :)

Im presenting this anecdote to illustrate that DM-created characters arent necessarily bad.
Oh, I've DMed the envelope game myself. I never said DM-created characters were necessarily bad, but the key with something like that is, the players have to agree to it first and everyone has to accept the implications. It's not something you just spring on the players and expect them to go along with.

If the players agree to give up certain freedoms of their own accord, that's an entirely different story than the DM just swooping in and taking them away by fiat.

[Iceforge]

The process advanced as follows.

Step 1: "Your character possesses a crippling fear of consequence X within the rules that would prevent him from doing that which you wish him to do."

After it was established that consequence X did not exist within the rules, it advanced to...

Step 2: "I pass a houserule to explicitly screw your concept."

Even if you accept this as reasonable, once the player expressed a desire to actually know what the houserule is and a desire to play the character anyways, it advanced to...

Step 3: "As DM, I say no to grappling wizards. End of discussion."

The douchebag quotient inherent in the DM's treatment of the situation is immense and indefensible. This wasn't simply passing a houserule that inconvenienced a play. It was progressively escalating the situation to explicitly screw the player more and more until, when it was clear the player was quite willing to live with the situation, the DM revealed that all the terms and conditions he just laid out were, in fact, a lie, and he was just stringing him along, trying to get him to quit. That's called a Bad Thing.

Okay, so you assuming ill will on the GM here.

I have tried after I moved and started playing with new people who I never played with before to experience that something I was convinced was a ground hard rule was actually a houserule.
I will say I am better at defending my judgements through, but I have tried the exchange that goes something in the same style, a recent one was poison

Player: Well, hasn't it been around a minut now since that spider injected it's poison?
Me: Yeah.. so?
Player: Secondary Save?
Me: No? He passed his first save
Player: He should still take a secondary save tho?
Me: No, he only needs to take secondary save if he fails his first save
Player: what?
Me: Thats what the rules say
Player 2: Ehm, no, thats not what the rules say
Me: Really <check rules> Hmm, I guess you are right, but thats not how I use it
Player: So should I take secondary save or not?
Me: Not, I houserule it in, and sorry, I thought it was how it officially worked

-players seemed okay with that, I re-read in entirety between then and next session, realised my old way of using it (which my old group used) was stupid and next session I started by explaining I realise I was wrong and changed it to from then on and forward to work as the rules said (i.e. removed my houserule)

Now, given the same sort of misunderstanding, the GM could have assumed from previous experiences that it was actually a rule, then he finds out it is not and houserules it in. He then doesn't change his mind or feel like he has to justify his houserule.

I will admit it is a problem that he won't justify his houserules, but I see no reason to assume that he from the off-set knew that it wasn't an actual rule; That he assumed it was an actual rule does, in my eyes, excuse him somewhat, as that indicates that he in the past has also seen this as an "illegal build" and is not just trying to penalize this specific player.


I will now say one true thing, one of the most important among good gamemastering practices:

The default answer is always yes.

Note the word 'default.' Saying 'no' outright is a big deal, not to be done flippantly. It must always have a good and solid and substantial reason. Not something petty or irrational. If at all possible, the answer is "yes, and..." or "yes, but..." Sometimes, a "no, but..." is required. Very rarely, and only in the most extreme cases is a flat "no" appropriate. A DM should work with the players if at all possible.

After all, players have needs. They have desires. They have things they want to get out of the game, too, and simply shutting them down outright is a Bad Thing.

If the DM had simply passed a houserule that incorporated a risk of the Wizard damaging his hands and taking penalties to casting, then (depending on the quality of the houserule itself), it would have been fine, a "yes, but..." Instead, the DM pretended it was a "yes, but..." when in reality, he was trying to wear the player down because his real answer was, "Hell no, that defies my narrowly defined archetypes." That's called 'lying,' and it's a bad thing.

I wholeheartedly agree.

I think I pointed out several times during this that I would never myself make a ruling like this GM did, but I do also realise that people are different, and while neither you nor I might feel that it was stomping on our fun to have a grappling wizard, then this GM might actually feel that it would demolish his fun of running a game if someone was playing a grappling wizard, and who are we to say OUR preference for what is fun is worth more than his preference for fun?

Are we really able to objectively evaluate if our feeling of what is fun is more right and correct than his sense of what is fun? Does people with better argumental abilities to justify and explain their reasons more justified in their senses of entertainment?

He is in my eyes making a weird call and not justifying it well, but if he is bad at argumenting and it would ruin his fun, how is it then any different from if someone able to argument their position bans half-orcs as a playable race in a game set in a world in which orcs doesn't exist?


No, that wouldn't be fair.

There are many people who throw out a lot of ideas until one sticks. That idea six of eight is the one that sticks does not mean the player is not invested in that idea. In fact, in all likelihood, the player is even more invested in that idea than the person who just came up with one idea and decided that was good enough.

And do note, when the player starts actively defending an idea, that tends to be a rather blatant sign of investment.

Sure, that is quite a valid point, if someone is bothered enough to actively argue about something, then they care about it.

For the player, this is a sign of investment into the idea.

For the GM, this is a sign that the idea bothers him.

But for some reason, it seems only be the concern for the player that is important to you, just because you disagree with this specific GM.


You have a very strange definition of 'share.' The word does go both ways, y'know.

And if it isn't a shared vision, why even have players? At that point, the DM may as well just sit down and write a novel.

Sorry, but you was the one who said that UNLESS it was a shared vision, something should be allowed.

You didn't say it should be a shared vision to be either allow or disallow.

I was attacking YOUR defintion of share, which was the entire point, but I guess you missed that since you attacked my sarcastic display of your own logic.


Suggestions?! It's the DM who's supposed to be making the suggestions. It's the player's place to actually build the character. When the player has to dance and sway to try and find the one idea that appeases almighty DM, there's a problem.

And I'm not trying to demonize the guy. He is committing a great many horrible, disrespectful, and tyrannical DM practices. It's not demonizing a shoplifter to convict her of shoplifting.

No, it is not demonizing a shoplifter to convict the person of shoplifting.

It is, however, demonizing, when you accuse someone of a crime or motive for a crime which is worse than the one they commited or had, if they commited any.

Saying a shoplifter was a greedy terror to society if all they did was steal bread to support their starving children, would be demonizing


Asking, "Anyone have any ideas?" is not asking for help. It's a vague and hollow question doomed to yield little to nothing, save by the wildest stroke of luck. It's not, "They can't be arsed." It's, "I never tried."

Uh, I said I asked for input, and you assume that all I did was ask "Anyone have any ideas?".

I said that if anyone had anything they would like to see in the game world, they was more than welcome to write to me so they could influence the game world.

No, not specificly asking for help, but I am not cheating the players of anything.

From your previous posts, you make it out as if the GM is at fault and wrong if the players aren't allowed to influence world creation.

I ask how can it be the GMs fault, UNLESS he refuses their ideas or offers of help?

[Pluto]

This argument isn't exactly an unusual discrepancy.

The DM sees classes as a profession, as descriptions of what a character does.
In the Wizard's case, this means cast spells.
This is pretty common. It describes 8/9 people I game with.
I have a feeling that if Demented had Monk or Fighter levels on his character sheet, the DM wouldn't mind: the actions descriped by the class would jibe with the actions the player meant to do.

Demented sees classes as mechanical packages that can be used to make a character.
In this case, the Wizard is a package of grappling goodies.

This is the same conflict that you might have if you bring a Crusader/Wu Jen/Spellsword/Abjurant Champion/Sacred Exorcist/Jade Phoenix Mage to the table of a beer & pretzels group.
It breaks the expectations of a class system, where the packages of abilities, fluff, flavor text, etc. of a character's class are meant to define the character.


It probably doesn't help that Demented makes a habit of presenting ridiculous builds to his DM.
In fact, that'll probably ruin the first impression most of his builds produce.

[Viletta Vadim]

I will admit it is a problem that he won't justify his houserules, but I see no reason to assume that he from the off-set knew that it wasn't an actual rule; That he assumed it was an actual rule does, in my eyes, excuse him somewhat, as that indicates that he in the past has also seen this as an "illegal build" and is not just trying to penalize this specific player.
The problem here isn't just a houserule. The situation is not, "Yes, but houserule." It's that he started with a hoserule, then advanced all the way to, "As a DM, no grappling wizards." The DM lied when bringing in the houserule, as he wasn't about to let a grapple wizard in the game at all. It's deceptive, disrespectful, abusive, manipulative, and the trigger was petty.

I think I pointed out several times during this that I would never myself make a ruling like this GM did, but I do also realise that people are different, and while neither you nor I might feel that it was stomping on our fun to have a grappling wizard, then this GM might actually feel that it would demolish his fun of running a game if someone was playing a grappling wizard, and who are we to say OUR preference for what is fun is worth more than his preference for fun?
There is a point at which something gets so tremendously petty that one has to step back and reassess. If a grappling wizard is all it takes to destroy your fun, it's time for that step back, because someone who comes to the table with a laundry list of petty quibbles that 'ruin his fun' is going to ruin everyone else's fun in short order.

Uh, I said I asked for input, and you assume that all I did was ask "Anyone have any ideas?".

I said that if anyone had anything they would like to see in the game world, they was more than welcome to write to me so they could influence the game world.

No, not specificly asking for help, but I am not cheating the players of anything.
I never said you were cheating the players. I said that as you framed it, you'd never tried to get them involved. The way you're framing it right now is still little more than, "Anyone have any ideas?" And when players are conditioned by years of being beaten down by habitual DM abuse, they're not exactly prone to just pop up and spring to life as fully-developed and contributing aides.

From your previous posts, you make it out as if the GM is at fault and wrong if the players aren't allowed to influence world creation.
If they're not allowed? Then yes, the DM is absolutely at fault. "You aren't allowed to play your character because of this world you were denied any input into says so," is a Bad Thing.

[aboyd]

::waves hand::

Hi. I'm one of those DMs-at-fault because I do not allow players to influence world creation. I make the campaign, I spend the time on it, it's how I want it to be. If players dislike that, they are excused.

Of course, characters certainly influence the world after creation -- they might kill off major NPCs, change the shape of politics, etc.

Just thought I'd put this out there so that all those players in the world can be warned not to join my apparently awful game. Thanks!

[Iceforge]

The problem here isn't just a houserule. The situation is not, "Yes, but houserule." It's that he started with a hoserule, then advanced all the way to, "As a DM, no grappling wizards." The DM lied when bringing in the houserule, as he wasn't about to let a grapple wizard in the game at all. It's deceptive, disrespectful, abusive, manipulative, and the trigger was petty.

Yeah, I can see how that is a problem, but then again, the player himself admits that he suggested it because it was outlandish, which implies to me that he was just trying to get a reaction from his GM more than anything else.

I know we talked about how defending it would imply investment on Demented's behalf, but re-reading his first entry, I am convinced his investment wasn't to the character, but to screwing with the GM, which could equally well explain his need to keep asking the GM to explain his reasons.

[QUOTE=Viletta Vadim;7841918][QUOTE=Viletta Vadim;7841918]There is a point at which something gets so tremendously petty that one has to step back and reassess. If a grappling wizard is all it takes to destroy your fun, it's time for that step back, because someone who comes to the table with a laundry list of petty quibbles that 'ruin his fun' is going to ruin everyone else's fun in short order.

Sure, you make a point there, an excellent one as well.

It does indeed indicate some problems if that really ruins the fun for that particular GM, but still, if it does ruin his fun, he has a right to actively do something about it in order to protect his fun. Nobody is forcing anybody here to play together and if the other players in the group is not having their fun ruined by his restrictions, why can't they just be left alone to have fun, even if we wouldn't enjoy it?


I never said you were cheating the players. I said that as you framed it, you'd never tried to get them involved. The way you're framing it right now is still little more than, "Anyone have any ideas?" And when players are conditioned by years of being beaten down by habitual DM abuse, they're not exactly prone to just pop up and spring to life as fully-developed and contributing aides.

Maybe, I haven't done GM abuse on my players, at least not since the very early days of GMing when myself and everybody else I was playing with was quite clueless about it compared to now (i.e. during early teen years)

So embarrasing to think back on those early times of roleplaying and all the obviously bad calls made then.

I do not know if my current players have any abuse in their packages from previous GMs, they might, at least next time we start over, they have gotten to know me better (I actively encourage feedback and they have all, but 1, started to use that and said they were happy with some of the feedback I have implemented, hopefully that could develop eonugh trust that they won't think I will shoot down their ideas without reason)


If they're not allowed? Then yes, the DM is absolutely at fault. "You aren't allowed to play your character because of this world you were denied any input into says so," is a Bad Thing.

Yeah, that has to be one of the worst errors I made in typing, lol :)

English is not my primary langauge and sometimes I write the wrong words, even if they aren't that simuliar.

I am not sure excatly which word I intended to write, but I know the meaning I intended to get across and in that meaning "involved in making the world" would have been much better than "not allowed to influence", which I seemed to have written. Sorry about that



This argument isn't exactly an unusual discrepancy.

The DM sees classes as a profession, as descriptions of what a character does.
In the Wizard's case, this means cast spells.
This is pretty common. It describes 8/9 people I game with.
I have a feeling that if Demented had Monk or Fighter levels on his character sheet, the DM wouldn't mind: the actions descriped by the class would jibe with the actions the player meant to do.

Demented sees classes as mechanical packages that can be used to make a character.
In this case, the Wizard is a package of grappling goodies.

This is the same conflict that you might have if you bring a Crusader/Wu Jen/Spellsword/Abjurant Champion/Sacred Exorcist/Jade Phoenix Mage to the table of a beer & pretzels group.
It breaks the expectations of a class system, where the packages of abilities, fluff, flavor text, etc. of a character's class are meant to define the character.


It probably doesn't help that Demented makes a habit of presenting ridiculous builds to his DM.
In fact, that'll probably ruin the first impression most of his builds produce.

Excellent point :)

[Starbuck_II]

Would you tell a player a false rule about something and when wrong still disallow it?
This is the issue. The DM didn't realize there were no "grappling can prevent future spell casting", grappling only prevents it while grappling.

When shown wrong about his assumption he disallows it anyway.

[Iceforge]

Would you tell a player a false rule about something and when wrong still disallow it?
This is the issue. The DM didn't realize there were no "grappling can prevent future spell casting", grappling only prevents it while grappling.

When shown wrong about his assumption he disallows it anyway.

So a GM is not allowed to change the rules at all, if you are going to be playing with him?

[Sinfire Titan]

So a GM is not allowed to change the rules at all, if you are going to be playing with him?

Only if he announces it properly. Hell, the OP's DM didn't even change any rules, he just said "I don't want you doing that because it goes against what I envision". That's where the OP's DM is being faulted.

[Starbuck_II]

So a GM is not allowed to change the rules at all, if you are going to be playing with him?

Not unless he declares his is houseruling.

When it happens due to a knee-jerk reaction, that is bad DMing (because rules never fit his picture). The house rule was only to punish the player.

[Iceforge]

Not unless he declares his is houseruling.

When it happens due to a knee-jerk reaction, that is bad DMing (because rules never fit his picture). The house rule was only to punish the player.

I must disagree.

If the houserule was only to punish that specific player, the GM would never had thought it was actually an official rule, but he would then from the start had known that there was no such rule in the system.

Seeing as the GM actually thought it was an official rule, he was not just making it up to punish the player.

Furthermore, as he thought it was an official rule, he thought the player had received warning prior to him bringing it up as a response to the build idea, as he could rightfully have assumed the player knew the rule, seeing as the GM himself thought it was an official rule

[JoshuaZ]

So a GM is not allowed to change the rules at all, if you are going to be playing with him?

No, but changing rules midstream without serious discussion is a problem.

In general, humans switching from "X is against the rules" to "X is against the rules because I said so" is a common sign (not just in D&D) of people who are stubborn and egotistical. Both are bad traits in a DM.

Having such a rule that only effects a specific class? And then not even providing a minimal mechanic for the possible damage from the grappling? Not good.

[Viletta Vadim]

*Sigh.*

One Bad Thing does not necessarily make an overall horrible experience. However, that does not make it stop being a Bad Thing. A world and a campaign born entirely of a single person's imagination without room for the input of the other four people at the table is a major red flag precisely because it's only one person's vision being brought to bear.

Sure, you make a point there, an excellent one as well.

It does indeed indicate some problems if that really ruins the fun for that particular GM, but still, if it does ruin his fun, he has a right to actively do something about it in order to protect his fun. Nobody is forcing anybody here to play together and if the other players in the group is not having their fun ruined by his restrictions, why can't they just be left alone to have fun, even if we wouldn't enjoy it?
Because not everyone is in your situation, and not every group is half so impersonal as your own. For some people, leaving the group amounts to leaving the hobby altogether and even leaving your circle of friends if gaming is their primary gathering. That is a Big Deal. And working differences out is a valuable life skill.

I am not sure excatly which word I intended to write, but I know the meaning I intended to get across and in that meaning "involved in making the world" would have been much better than "not allowed to influence", which I seemed to have written. Sorry about that
Here's the thing. A campaign and a world that has no player input, that comes completely from one person's imagination, that expresses only one person's vision? That does nothing at all for player buy-in and, in fact, actively opposes it.

In such a scenario, it becomes critical to provide the players a great deal of latitude during character creation in order to allow for that buy-in. If the players have no input into the campaign, or into the world, and then character creation is a mine-field of rules and restrictions, half of which are unspoken points of the DM's half-baked notions of what the PCs 'should' be, it can easily become impossible for the players to even become invested or get into the game at all, at which point the DM may as well go write a novel because there's no point in having players at all.

[Iceforge]

No, but changing rules midstream without serious discussion is a problem.

In general, humans switching from "X is against the rules" to "X is against the rules because I said so" is a common sign (not just in D&D) of people who are stubborn and egotistical. Both are bad traits in a DM.

Having such a rule that only effects a specific class? And then not even providing a minimal mechanic for the possible damage from the grappling? Not good.

He didn't change the rules midstream!

I do not even begin to understand how it can be qualified as midstream to rule against something the moment it is presented to you.

And he changed his argument, but not quite like you said he did, at least not according to Demented, according to who he changed it from "X is against the rules" to "I will not allow X", which just means he was honest enough to not keep saying it was against the rules when he found out it wasn't actually against the rules.

But I agree that it is wrong to make a rule against a specific class using a standard ability that anyone else can use.
And I also agree that if he had a problem with grappling, it was better if he had made a mechanical rule which made breaking your fingers a risk that anyone doing a grapple would have to fear, which wizards would fear more than others due to how much it would effect them.

I never said differently.

But the one I quoted in the post you quoted by me, said specifically that it was wrong BECAUSE it was a change of the rule. He didn't say because that rule change was bad or that it was a bad rule change because it was targetted at wizards only, he said that the judgement was bad BECAUSE it was a rule-change, implying that ANY SINGLE RULECHANGE AT ALL would be equally bad, because the same reasoning would apply to any rulechange possible.

[Sinfire Titan]

He didn't change the rules midstream!

I do not even begin to understand how it can be qualified as midstream to rule against something the moment it is presented to you.

And he changed his argument, but not quite like you said he did, at least not according to Demented, according to who he changed it from "X is against the rules" to "I will not allow X", which just means he was honest enough to not keep saying it was against the rules when he found out it wasn't actually against the rules.

But I agree that it is wrong to make a rule against a specific class using a standard ability that anyone else can use.
And I also agree that if he had a problem with grappling, it was better if he had made a mechanical rule which made breaking your fingers a risk that anyone doing a grapple would have to fear, which wizards would fear more than others due to how much it would effect them.

I never said differently.

But the one I quoted in the post you quoted by me, said specifically that it was wrong BECAUSE it was a change of the rule. He didn't say because that rule change was bad or that it was a bad rule change because it was targetted at wizards only, he said that the judgement was bad BECAUSE it was a rule-change, implying that ANY SINGLE RULECHANGE AT ALL would be equally bad, because the same reasoning would apply to any rulechange possible.

The OP's character died. The OP wanted to make a Truenamer, which the DM approved. The OP then made a joke about a Werebear. The DM shot it down without realizing it was a joke. The OP then made a joke about a Grappler Wizard, which the DM also shot down by citing a rule that didn't exist. When the topic was pressed by the OP, the DM made an arbitrary statement to deny the OP's idea, over a freaking joke.


I don't care what you say, that last part is bad DMing.

[Iceforge]

*Sigh.*

One Bad Thing does not necessarily make an overall horrible experience. However, that does not make it stop being a Bad Thing. A world and a campaign born entirely of a single person's imagination without room for the input of the other four people at the table is a major red flag precisely because it's only one person's vision being brought to bear.

Well, I do not make my worlds so there is absolutely no room for input from the players, I often adapt my world during play to fit in things from the session that comes from the players, if at all possible without breaking consistency

But I find the idea of getting the players more involved in developing the world intriguing and I think that next time I make a campaign world, I will actively push for more player involvement to see if I can't push them to help out, so it can become more of a shared vision, which could be quite neat.

It has to be done carefully through, as the players being to involved will ruin part of the 4th wall, in which if they help design everything, then the game will not hold as many surprises and that will remove some of the fun from the players of finding out things about the world.


Because not everyone is in your situation, and not every group is half so impersonal as your own. For some people, leaving the group amounts to leaving the hobby altogether and even leaving your circle of friends if gaming is their primary gathering. That is a Big Deal. And working differences out is a valuable life skill.

So because their situation is different, then the group in it's entirety has to change and morph to what could be just a single player within the groups perspective, just because that single players perspective happens to be like our perspective on the problem?

If the rest of the group is fine with the GM's rulings (including the ruling against grappling wizards), wouldn't it be more appropriate that the problem-solving happened by Demented simply accepting that as a condition to play, rather than forcing all the other players to consider it as a problem and make the GM change his style so it fits with some universal standard?


Here's the thing. A campaign and a world that has no player input, that comes completely from one person's imagination, that expresses only one person's vision? That does nothing at all for player buy-in and, in fact, actively opposes it.

In such a scenario, it becomes critical to provide the players a great deal of latitude during character creation in order to allow for that buy-in. If the players have no input into the campaign, or into the world, and then character creation is a mine-field of rules and restrictions, half of which are unspoken points of the DM's half-baked notions of what the PCs 'should' be, it can easily become impossible for the players to even become invested or get into the game at all, at which point the DM may as well go write a novel because there's no point in having players at all.

I agree, and I rarely put any limits on character creation, except in background stories, which I want to approve, so they don't create contradictory conflicts (which I usually solve by making small suggestions for alterations, such as someone saying they was born in a city in the south of the world, but then describes their hometown as barbaric, while the barbarians are supposed to live in the north, then I inform them of that and suggest they instead say they come from the north)

[Iceforge]

The OP's character died. The OP wanted to make a Truenamer, which the DM approved. The OP then made a joke about a Werebear. The DM shot it down without realizing it was a joke. The OP then made a joke about a Grappler Wizard, which the DM also shot down by citing a rule that didn't exist. When the topic was pressed by the OP, the DM made an arbitrary statement to deny the OP's idea, over a freaking joke.


I don't care what you say, that last part is bad DMing.

First line from OP's first post:


Okay, so for a while this one guy I've known for a while has been talking about starting up a campaign.


You are making up the stuff about his character died.

All of this happened BEFORE a campaign started, and they was talking about the upcoming campaign, which is where a GM is supposed to tell players about his adaptions to the rules and changes to the system that will be in effect in a campaign he is going to be running.

Nothing midstream about it at all

[aboyd]

A world and a campaign born entirely of a single person's imagination without room for the input of the other four people at the table is a major red flag precisely because it's only one person's vision being brought to bear.
I know, right? Experiencing one person's vision is terrible! Who would want that?

God, please don't tell the people at my table that they are supposed to hate experiencing my vision. I'll surely lose them!

[Sinfire Titan]

First line from OP's first post:



You are making up the stuff about his character died.

All of this happened BEFORE a campaign started, and they was talking about the upcoming campaign, which is where a GM is supposed to tell players about his adaptions to the rules and changes to the system that will be in effect in a campaign he is going to be running.

Nothing midstream about it at all

OK, so I misread that part. My bad.

[Viletta Vadim]

But I find the idea of getting the players more involved in developing the world intriguing and I think that next time I make a campaign world, I will actively push for more player involvement to see if I can't push them to help out, so it can become more of a shared vision, which could be quite neat.
You may want to look into Burning Empire's world-burning system for something that works well for ground-up group world generation.

So because their situation is different, then the group in it's entirety has to change and morph to what could be just a single player within the groups perspective, just because that single players perspective happens to be like our perspective on the problem?

If the rest of the group is fine with the GM's rulings (including the ruling against grappling wizards), wouldn't it be more appropriate that the problem-solving happened by Demented simply accepting that as a condition to play, rather than forcing all the other players to consider it as a problem and make the GM change his style so it fits with some universal standard?
You are assuming the rest of the group is actually fine, rather than just too shy to say anything. You're assuming the entire group would have to change rather than just one person realizing he's being a douche.

Even if the rest of the group doesn't mind the grappling-wizard decree, that doesn't mean it has the backing of the group, nor that they actually support it, when it can just as easily mean they don't care one way or another. Using three people who don't care as support for a position is... fallacious, at best. Deceitful at worst. Saying three people don't have a problem with Specific Thing X is not an endorsement in any capacity, nor evidence that they don't have real, underlying problems with what's going on, either.

And a single player matters. Everyone at the table is important. Demented is important. The DM is important. Those other three players are important. For Demented to sacrifice his own happiness by leaving the group because of these differences is not automatically the best thing for the group because he is a part of the group, and an important part at that. The fun of twenty percent of the gaming group has just been utterly annihilated, and twenty percent of the contribution to the remainder's fun has been removed as well. The group is utterly devastated, and everyone's experience is diminished when they could have worked out their differences so that everyone could be happy. Too many people seem to forget that the individual is part of the group, not some island sitting off to the side that can be sacrificed without consequence. "Be miserable," is not a solution. "Give in," is not a solution. "Run away," is not a solution. They are all a failure to solve the problem at all.

The thing is, the DM here has a track record. And this clearly isn't the first half-baked, ill-defined, arbitrary, hazy decree that has been passed down. His unclear, imprecise, undefined Natural Spell nerfs that remain a mystery within the void are a testament to that. This isn't merely about grappling wizards. It's a problem that the entire group must contend with as a whole.

[Iceforge]

OK, so I misread that part. My bad.

Yeah, I guessed that was the problem.

Thats is sort of why I am slightly vigilant in defending this GM here, because a lot of the things depends on interpretation and what is read into the OP's post.

For instance, besides the "character died" vs "starting a campaign" thing, you also made the assumptions that the GM didn't realise the OP was joking.

The OP himself just says the GM shoot the ideas down.

He might fully have realised the build was meant as a joke and simply not have been in the mood for joke builds or he might have laughed a bit and smiled as he said "no, no you can't play that"; It isn't really clear from the OP's post and even if the OP had said "he didn't get that it was a joke", then again, we do not know if he actually did, but wasn't in the mood and the OP didn't sense that he got it, but wasn't in the mood or maybe the OP wasn't really making it clear in any way that he was joking.

And most people here who are replying seem hellbent on assuming the GM in question is a bad GM who makes horrible mistakes and his players are suffering due to him, because the interpretations of OP's post is made that way, and if it had been the other way around, I might have choosen to defend the player, as I don't think it is really fair to judge someone on a subjectively presented snippet of a conversation between two people.

We don't know how their conversations usually go when they are talking about roleplaying (maybe OP often plays very silly joke'ish builds, which would make it very hard for the GM to know if he was joking or not), and without knowing all of such things, judging either one is a bit harsh

[Thurbane]

Creating a house rule and claiming that it isn't a house rule and is in fact the rules, then later clarifying that it doesn't fit in his setting. Which apparently doesn't extend beyond archetypes, as there was nothing there indicating any real reason other than "it seems weird". If it was a created house rule, if a reasonable explanation was given, if any of that had happened there wouldn't be an issue, but it didn't. He claimed a rule that didn't exist did so he could shoot down a character concept he had no good reason to remove.
You're not going to get any argument from me that the DM in the OP's example handled the situation exceedingly poorly. But the fundamental fact remains, that despite his lack of good grace and initially trying to palm it off as not being a houserule, the end result was that it was a houserule that was announced before play began.


You are a horrible person - I will be around at your house to revoke your DMs license, posthaste! :smalltongue: [joke, in case anyone needed it to be clarified]

[Thurbane]

The douchebag quotient inherent in the DM's treatment of the situation is immense and indefensible. This wasn't simply passing a houserule that inconvenienced a play. It was progressively escalating the situation to explicitly screw the player more and more until, when it was clear the player was quite willing to live with the situation, the DM revealed that all the terms and conditions he just laid out were, in fact, a lie, and he was just stringing him along, trying to get him to quit. That's called a Bad Thing.
And the player deliberately baiting the DM with silly character builds that he had no intention of playing is called a Good Thing? Two wrongs don't make a right - it's an old saying that rings true in this case.

I will now say one true thing, one of the most important among good gamemastering practices:

The default answer is always yes.

Note the word 'default.' Saying 'no' outright is a big deal, not to be done flippantly. It must always have a good and solid and substantial reason. Not something petty or irrational. If at all possible, the answer is "yes, and..." or "yes, but..." Sometimes, a "no, but..." is required. Very rarely, and only in the most extreme cases is a flat "no" appropriate. A DM should work with the players if at all possible.
In your humble opinion? Again, you are assuming that your play style and group dynamic is the One True Way. I've played in plenty of games where the DMs word was law, end of story. If it had bothered me, I would have left the game. That simple.

Sure, DMs have made rulings that I have (strongly) disagreed with. Heck, I've argued points with plenty of DMs. In the end, though, if the DM put his foot down, I had two realistic options: accept his ruling and get on with the game; or refuse to accept his ruling, and leave the game. Staying in the game, being grumpy and miserable, and plotting revenge with broken builds never even crossed my mind. Nor did rallying other players to my flag in order to overthrow the DMs decision. If this is something that you, or the OP, cannot do, then I'm afraid any advise I might give is of no use to either of you.

After all, players have needs. They have desires. They have things they want to get out of the game, too, and simply shutting them down outright is a Bad Thing.
Of course it is. Over and over again, myself and others on "my side" of this debate have agreed with this point. No one is advocating that a DM be a jackass and be totally dismissive of a character build that a player brings to him. I'm not sure how this point is even still part of the debate?

If the DM had simply passed a houserule that incorporated a risk of the Wizard damaging his hands and taking penalties to casting, then (depending on the quality of the houserule itself), it would have been fine, a "yes, but..." Instead, the DM pretended it was a "yes, but..." when in reality, he was trying to wear the player down because his real answer was, "Hell no, that defies my narrowly defined archetypes." That's called 'lying,' and it's a bad thing.
Again, yes, the OP's DM handled the situation quite badly. Nearly all of us are in agreement on that point.

You have a very strange definition of 'share.' The word does go both ways, y'know.
It sure does - the only sticking point seems to be that we disagree on one fundamental fact: I believe that the DMs "vote" carries more weight than a single player's due to the fact the he generally invests more each session into making the game fun and playable for everyone than any other individual does. You seem to equate this position with "it's OK for the DM to be a giant jack*** and strongarm everyone into playing the exact characters that he wants them too", which is just plain wrong.

And if it isn't a shared vision, why even have players? At that point, the DM may as well just sit down and write a novel.
Here again you are taking a quite extreme view that any group that doesn't follow the same creative process that your group does is "doing it wrong". I just don't know how to respond to that.

And I'm not trying to demonize the guy. He is committing a great many horrible, disrespectful, and tyrannical DM practices. It's not demonizing a shoplifter to convict her of shoplifting.
It's also not cool for the shopkeep to respond with excessive force and beat the shoplifter bloody. Again, two wrong's don't make a right. The DM was wrong for the immature way he dealt with a build he wasn't happy with; and the player was wrong for baiting the DM with builds he knew the DM probably wasn't OK with, and then plotting a "revenge character" (which in all likelihood would not only aggrivate the DM, but all the other players as well).

A DM should not treat his players like crap. Period.
Agreed. And also true of players.

A DM who treats his players like crap is wrong. Period.
Agreed, and also true of players.

[Iceforge]

You may want to look into Burning Empire's world-burning system for something that works well for ground-up group world generation.

Thanks for the tip


You are assuming the rest of the group is actually fine, rather than just too shy to say anything. You're assuming the entire group would have to change rather than just one person realizing he's being a douche.

No, I am not making any such assumptions, I start my sentence with "IF", which is the magic keyword to not assuming it is like that, but saying that it might be like that.



Even if the rest of the group doesn't mind the grappling-wizard decree, that doesn't mean it has the backing of the group, nor that they actually support it, when it can just as easily mean they don't care one way or another. Using three people who don't care as support for a position is... fallacious, at best. Deceitful at worst. Saying three people don't have a problem with Specific Thing X is not an endorsement in any capacity, nor evidence that they don't have real, underlying problems with what's going on, either.

Yes, that is possible, but I never said I know how the group was, I postulated a single possibility, I never suggested it couldn't be another situation all together.


And a single player matters. Everyone at the table is important. Demented is important. The DM is important. Those other three players are important. For Demented to sacrifice his own happiness by leaving the group because of these differences is not automatically the best thing for the group because he is a part of the group, and an important part at that. The fun of twenty percent of the gaming group has just been utterly annihilated, and twenty percent of the contribution to the remainder's fun has been removed as well. The group is utterly devastated, and everyone's experience is diminished when they could have worked out their differences so that everyone could be happy. Too many people seem to forget that the individual is part of the group, not some island sitting off to the side that can be sacrificed without consequence. "Be miserable," is not a solution. "Give in," is not a solution. "Run away," is not a solution. They are all a failure to solve the problem at all.

Meet Ron.

Ron is a GM.

He does not have any fun at all if his group has a grappling wizard.

Now, we might think that is an odd thing for him to be anoyed about, but it really bothers him, it is such that it destroyes his fun if his group includes that.

A player from the group, who tends to suggest outlandish builds has become deadset on playing a grappling wizard.

Thankfully, Ron doesn't have to allow it, because he just learned that

1) "Be miserable" is not a solution
2) "Give in" is not a solution
3) "Run away" is not a solution

As those would all be failures to solve the problem at all.

Sorry for the heavy usage of irony, but you are being extremely subjective here, where because you share the views of the player, you are assuming his position is the RIGHT position to take.

Remember, the entire debate we had about how world building should happen was between you and I, and not something the OP talked about; This GM might actually allow his players to be part of creating the world for the game he is going to run and they thus have other ways to influence the vision of the game world than just their characters.

Even if he hasn't done that, then why is the players need more important than the GM's need?

You continue to make the judgement call that the player is absolutely the one in the right in this situation, and the GM is the troublesome element due to his preferences being different from those of the player.



The thing is, the DM here has a track record. And this clearly isn't the first half-baked, ill-defined, arbitrary, hazy decree that has been passed down. His unclear, imprecise, undefined Natural Spell nerfs that remain a mystery within the void are a testament to that. This isn't merely about grappling wizards. It's a problem that the entire group must contend with as a whole.

He has some changes to some rules and abilities found within source material, and so what?

This boils back to the question I asked a few times, maybe not directly to you, but at least to some others here: Is any change of the rules something you oppose?

And I do not know (and I assume you don't actually know either) if the limitation to natural Spell is a mystery to the players, and if it is a mystery to the players, then we do not know if that is because none of them bothered for further clearification on which spells he would allow and which he wouldn't or because he refused to tell them.

If he thinks something within the rules does not work in an acceptable way, I would expect him to make alterations (be those limitation or expansions) to make them more acceptable according to his visions of the game.

Isn't that what houserules is all about? Making changes to the system as it is written?

So maybe you and I do not think his houserules are the smartest houserules ever, but none your argument against them until now, at least as far as I can tell, had any substance which could not as easily be applied to any other houserule ever, except that you do not like his specific houserules.

Someone making a houserule that says that, in their game, clerics has to be devoted to a deity and not just to an ideal, is equally imposing on a character concept of a cleric devouted to an ideal as this houserule is to a grappling wizard, as both concepts are disallowed by a houserule.

Fine, he didn't back up his houserule with perfect reasoning, and basicly just said "it is not allowed because it is not allowed", but countering that with "That is stupid because it is stupid" isn't really much better

[Iceforge]

Just for when I have time to look it up, Viletta, is it actually called Burning Empire's world-burning system or should that have been Burning Empire's world-building system?

[Thurbane]

And a single player matters. Everyone at the table is important. Demented is important. The DM is important. Those other three players are important. For Demented to sacrifice his own happiness by leaving the group because of these differences is not automatically the best thing for the group because he is a part of the group, and an important part at that. The fun of twenty percent of the gaming group has just been utterly annihilated, and twenty percent of the contribution to the remainder's fun has been removed as well. The group is utterly devastated, and everyone's experience is diminished when they could have worked out their differences so that everyone could be happy. Too many people seem to forget that the individual is part of the group, not some island sitting off to the side that can be sacrificed without consequence. "Be miserable," is not a solution. "Give in," is not a solution. "Run away," is not a solution. They are all a failure to solve the problem at all.
You know, there is one other option you haven't presented, besides "give in" or "run away". You guessed it, it's that dirty word that you don't like - compromise. It's just as reasonable to say that the player could change his build concept so that the DM doesn't have a problem with it, as it is to say that the DM should change his viewpoint and accept the character he was presented with. I also have an incredibly hard time believing that a player who throws three character concepts at his DM in a short period of time (one of which was accepted, and one that was admitted to be a joke) couldn't come up with another character that he could have fun with, and the DM would approve of.

Just as it might diminish and hurt the group to have a player leave, it might also diminish and hurt the group if the DM isn't really happy with the character, and isn't running the game as well as he could be because he feels upset or annoyed that he was forced to accept the character in the first place.

[Viletta Vadim]

In your humble opinion? Again, you are assuming that your play style and group dynamic is the One True Way. I've played in plenty of games where the DMs word was law, end of story. If it had bothered me, I would have left the game. That simple.
Please stop bringing the 'mere opinion' fallacy into this.

The default answer to a player's request is yes. What that means is that a DM turning down player requests for absolutely no reason is a Bad Thing. If you're going to call random vetoes for no reason with no explanation a good and valid and reasonable DMing style... I just don't know what to say.

And that you're able to live with something or even enjoy a situation in spite of something does not make it stop being a Bad Thing, it doesn't make it right, it doesn't mean it isn't abuse.

Sure, DMs have made rulings that I have (strongly) disagreed with. Heck, I've argued points with plenty of DMs. In the end, though, if the DM put his foot down, I had two realistic options: accept his ruling and get on with the game; or refuse to accept his ruling, and leave the game. Staying in the game, being grumpy and miserable, and plotting revenge with broken builds never even crossed my mind. Nor did rallying other players to my flag in order to overthrow the DMs decision. If this is something that you, or the OP, cannot do, then I'm afraid any advise I might give is of no use to either of you.
Overthrowing a DM is perfectly valid. The DM's power comes from the players, and if you talk to the players and enough of them are upset enough to stop giving the DM that power, you are well within your rights.

Of course it is. Over and over again, myself and others on "my side" of this debate have agreed with this point. No one is advocating that a DM be a jackass and be totally dismissive of a character build that a player brings to him. I'm not sure how this point is even still part of the debate?
It's coming up again because the DM is being a jackass and being totally dismissive of said build with no logical reason.

Meet Ron.

Ron is a GM.

He does not have any fun at all if his group has a grappling wizard.

Now, we might think that is an odd thing for him to be anoyed about, but it really bothers him, it is such that it destroyes his fun if his group includes that.

A player from the group, who tends to suggest outlandish builds has become deadset on playing a grappling wizard.

Thankfully, Ron doesn't have to allow it, because he just learned that

1) "Be miserable" is not a solution
2) "Give in" is not a solution
3) "Run away" is not a solution

As those would all be failures to solve the problem at all.
I contend that Ron has misdiagnosed the problem and does not, in fact, have a problem with grappling wizards, and the issue is something else entirely. I contend that Ron needs to search his feelings (a vital life skill for every human) and try to discern what it is that really gets to him. It may be that Ron realizes that he's just being silly and nitpicky and overcomes the situation through introspection alone. A true solution. Or it could be the more general notion that he's not comfortable with the grappling rules, which is a horse of a different color. It's almost absurd to suggest that it's merely the notion of a grappling wizard at all that ruins his fun.

And trampling all over someone else's fun isn't a solution, either.

He has some changes to some rules and abilities found within source material, and so what?
It's not that he changes rules. It's that he removes them, but then doesn't let the players know what those rules are, that he turns rules into pure, unadulterated DM discretionary calls. Demented doesn't even know what 'certain spells' means with regards to the Natural Spell houserule. Passing houserules is one thing. Refusing to let your players to even know that those houserules are is quite another.

And again with the grappling wizard 'houserule,' the issue there is that even after all that, the houserule was a lie. The DM's final word on the matter was, "As a DM, no grappling wizard," after all that non-rule to houserule business.

This boils back to the question I asked a few times, maybe not directly to you, but at least to some others here: Is any change of the rules something you oppose?
No. My houserule list is a beast.

However, houserules that aren't laid out in advance, that are devised strictly to shoot down a player's build? Houserules born out of ignorance of the system? Houserules that you don't actually tell your players the details of? These are all Bad Things.

If he thinks something within the rules does not work in an acceptable way, I would expect him to make alterations (be those limitation or expansions) to make them more acceptable according to his visions of the game.

If he doesn't understand the system, I would expect him to learn and understand the system before trying to adapt a system he doesn't understand into 2e.

Someone making a houserule that says that, in their game, clerics has to be devoted to a deity and not just to an ideal, is equally imposing on a character concept of a cleric devouted to an ideal as this houserule is to a grappling wizard, as both concepts are disallowed by a houserule.
Except that one can easily have rational basis in the world, while the other is nigh impossible to justify, particularly in a world with readily available healing magic, and particularly in a game where a mid-level character can tap dance on lava, only suffer hit point damage, walk away, and be perfectly fine within a few days' rest with no magical intervention whatsoever. To apply injury rules in such a pointed manner as, "Wizards can break their fingers while grappling," when there are no such limb-breakage risks associated with being viciously bludgeoned with a club the size of a tree? That's irrational and inconsistent as well as imposing, and only serves to punish the player who wants a grappling wizard.

Just for when I have time to look it up, Viletta, is it actually called Burning Empire's world-burning system or should that have been Burning Empire's world-building system?
The process is called world burning (or alternately the world burner), and it's a part of the Burning Empires system, though I've been trying to Google a good rundown to no avail. The World Burning worksheet is available for download (http://www.burningempires.com/wiki/index.php?title=Category:Downloads), though a three-page worksheet doesn't really do a sixty-page chapter justice. Note that Burning Empires is sci fi, though the fundamental theory is completely transferable.

Basically, in Burning Empires, the first session of play is typically the burning of a planet. It's designed to take about two hours, and essentially involves going down a list of questions and elements and the group hashes out what kind of world this is. This can include things like the major players, the major threats, the place of magic in the world, the campaign scope (global, national, city), and so on, and at the end of the process, you have a fully-developed planet with its own general attitudes, factions, traits, conflicts, all sorts of things that can be used as hooks, that can be brought in and out of focus as the characters move about.

Disclaimer: I'm not saying anyone who doesn't do the process of world burning is Doing It Wrong, and in fact it's a rather massive step of its own, but the players need some input into the campaign design, it needs to be more than just one person's vision.

You know, there is one other option you haven't presented, besides "give in" or "run away". You guessed it, it's that dirty word that you don't like - compromise. It's just as reasonable to say that the player could change his build concept so that the DM doesn't have a problem with it, as it is to say that the DM should change his viewpoint and accept the character he was presented with. I also have an incredibly hard time believing that a player who throws three character concepts at his DM in a short period of time (one of which was accepted, and one that was admitted to be a joke) couldn't come up with another character that he could have fun with, and the DM would approve of.
"Change the build concept" in this case is not "compromise." It's surrender. And until the DM can give a coherent reason for the ban in the first place, it becomes counterproductive to back down as there are major issues that need to be addressed within the group. Habitually giving in to irrational and flippant constraints only exacerbates the problem.

And again, the rapid-fire character concept approach is one of finding that one idea that resonates. That one could try throwing out twenty more ideas does not change the fact that of the three, only one truly resonated.

[aboyd]

And that you're able to live with something or even enjoy a situation in spite of something does not make it stop being a Bad Thing, it doesn't make it right, it doesn't mean it isn't abuse.
Actually, yeah, it does.


Overthrowing a DM is perfectly valid. The DM's power comes from the players, and if you talk to the players and enough of them are upset enough to stop giving the DM that power, you are well within your rights.
This is the most antagonistic and bizarro thing I've heard. The very idea that one would "overthrow" a DM is utterly sad and pathetic. If players "banded together" against me, I'd excuse them all from the game just for envisioning our relationship as being that stupid.


"Change the build concept" in this case is not "compromise." It's surrender. And until the DM can give a coherent reason for the ban in the first place, it becomes counterproductive to back down as there are major issues that need to be addressed within the group. Habitually giving in to irrational and flippant constraints only exacerbates the problem.
The only problem that I see is that we have a player who uses loaded terms such as "surrender" and "overthrow" to describe the relationship with the DM. That is far too adversarial for a game. That player's proper response is not to refuse to "back down" -- it is to go away.

[Thurbane]

Thanks *****, Viletta is so adamant about his (her?) position, it was starting to make me wonder if I was a lone voice in the wilderness. :smallbiggrin:


Please stop bringing the 'mere opinion' fallacy into this.
If you can prove that it is in fact fallacy, I will happily do so. To date, you've yet to convince me that this is the case. The viewpoint your are espousing with such vehemence is...well...a viewpoint. It isn't a universal truth, a scientific fact or anything else other than your own opinion of what is to be considered "right" and "wrong" in a DM/player relationship.

The default answer to a player's request is yes. What that means is that a DM turning down player requests for absolutely no reason is a Bad Thing. If you're going to call random vetoes for no reason with no explanation a good and valid and reasonable DMing style... I just don't know what to say.
...and here we have a problem. What YOU consider turning something down for "no reason" is going to be different to what I (or the DM in question) consider to be "no reason". You cannot claim to know the DMs motives based on a second hand account from someone with a vested interest in you (and others) agreeing with him. (Again I stress that I am not accusing the OP of lying...just that people tend to have different recollections of events based on which side of an argument they are on).

And that you're able to live with something or even enjoy a situation in spite of something does not make it stop being a Bad Thing, it doesn't make it right, it doesn't mean it isn't abuse.
Of course not...but at least I am able to differentiate between my own person views and some sort of universal truth. You can call it a Bad Thing from now until the end of time, and all that does is prove that it's a Bad Thing in your opinion.

You seem to be either unable or unwilling to grasp the fact that I have stated numerous times I do not defend the actions of the OPs DM. What I do say is that you are vastly exaggerating the severity of his actions, while simultaneously excusing any potentially game ruining actions that the OP takes in "revenge".

Overthrowing a DM is perfectly valid. The DM's power comes from the players, and if you talk to the players and enough of them are upset enough to stop giving the DM that power, you are well within your rights.
Different strokes for different folks. I've seen my share of DMs in my time: the good, the bad and the ugly. I've never encountered a DM so bad that the players need to rise up in revolution to topple him. Most bad DMs end up running one of two courses: the end up improving, and becoming good DMs; or they drive everyone away from their games and stop DMing. I acknowledge your group's right to vote out a DM, but don't expect that to be the best thing (or even the right thing) to happen in all groups.

I don't acknowledge that any player has some sovereign right to sit at the table, even if he is causing disruptions and loss of enjoyment for the DM and/or other players.

You go on and on about dealing with problem DMs, but unless I've missed something, you don't even acknowledge the possibility of a player being a problem.

Question: lets say the OP does go to the other players with his problem. What if they side with the DM? What if they say "for crying out loud, just come up with another build so we can play already!". Should he then abide by the group decision? Or does his inalienable right to whatever build he feels like at the moment supersede this?


It's coming up again because the DM is being a jackass and being totally dismissive of said build with no logical reason.
You don't say...and here I've been saying what a great decision the DM made all along. Oh no, wait, I haven't been saying that at all... :smallamused:

"Change the build concept" in this case is not "compromise." It's surrender. And until the DM can give a coherent reason for the ban in the first place, it becomes counterproductive to back down as there are major issues that need to be addressed within the group. Habitually giving in to irrational and flippant constraints only exacerbates the problem.

And again, the rapid-fire character concept approach is one of finding that one idea that resonates. That one could try throwing out twenty more ideas does not change the fact that of the three, only one truly resonated.
So, changing the build concept is surrender, but the DMing having to accept what the player wants is a "Good Thing"? OK, I think I finally see your point of view. The DM never has a right to say no to a player without sort of iron clad, scientifically proven reason, while anything the player puts forward is automatically good for the game.

Uh huh. :smallconfused:

This really, really makes me glad for the wonderful, reasonable players and DMs I've gamed with for a quarter of a century. I would say "each to their own" except you don't seem to want to extend that courtesy to others.

[Iceforge]

I think the situation boils down to Viletta thinks that the default positions to a conflict resolve between the GM and a player should be that the player is right.

You say that the player should not "give in", "surrender", "be miserable" or "run awway", but those are then the only options left for the GM to do.

The conflict in question is basicly that a player wants to play a grappling wizard and the GM does not want his game to include a grappling wizard.

Two sides. Two different goals.

If the player gets his way, then he will play a grappling wizard
If the GM gets his way, then the player will not play a grappling wizard.

You say it is not comprise unless the player get to play a grappling wizard.

I will say you have a pretty poor idea about what a comprimise actually is.

A real comprimise in this situation would be for the player to play another arcane caster which the GM has no problem allowing to grapple.

Because as I see it, the player misunderstands his own build concept.
Yeah, you heard me, the player is misunderstanding himself, however absurd you'll think that is.
The concept is actually a grappling wizard; The grappling wizard is a build to fill a concept, in which the concept would be a spellcaster who engage in close combat where he tries to pin down his foes by grappling them, for instance, where the grappling wizard build is but one of the ways the system supports making a character which furfills this concept.

Only the actual build, not the concept, was shoot down, as fara s I can tell.

We can then justify that the GM is an ass if he won't allow the player to reach the desire through another mechinical build.

You did finally give some specifics against his specific houserule with this:



Except that one can easily have rational basis in the world, while the other is nigh impossible to justify, particularly in a world with readily available healing magic, and particularly in a game where a mid-level character can tap dance on lava, only suffer hit point damage, walk away, and be perfectly fine within a few days' rest with no magical intervention whatsoever. To apply injury rules in such a pointed manner as, "Wizards can break their fingers while grappling," when there are no such limb-breakage risks associated with being viciously bludgeoned with a club the size of a tree? That's irrational and inconsistent as well as imposing, and only serves to punish the player who wants a grappling wizard.

Which is fine, and you to the point of the specifics of the GMs call, and this makes a stronger point against the GMs decision than mot of what I have seen until now.

But you said somethings that I think are wrong for this specific situation however:



It's almost absurd to suggest that it's merely the notion of a grappling wizard at all that ruins his fun.

Keyword being "almost absurd", which is absolutely right; It is ALMOST absurd that is truly the cause, but put aside your dead set idea that it is something else that is actually wrong.

What if, even tho it is seemingly absurd, really the nition of a grappling wizard which is ruining his fun?


It's not that he changes rules. It's that he removes them, but then doesn't let the players know what those rules are, that he turns rules into pure, unadulterated DM discretionary calls. Demented doesn't even know what 'certain spells' means with regards to the Natural Spell houserule. Passing houserules is one thing. Refusing to let your players to even know that those houserules are is quite another.

I haven't seen Demented say that he asked the GM to tell him which spells would be allowed with Natural Spell. Maybe the situation in which the limit was imposed included the GM being introduced to the concept and the GM saying that "Okay, I can allow that, but I need to approve which spells you can cast with that" and then Demented didn't push that one further for specifics. I don't know if that is the case, but I see nothing to indicate that it isn't.

And he is not refusing his players to know the houserules; He was unaware they was houserules.

As I mentioned earlier, I had tried myself to play with new people after having played most of my roleplaying with the same gorup, which resulted in quite a few things turning out to be houserules, which I had used for such a long time, that I simply assumed them to be standard rules.

Much like how many VtM games play initiative like DnD, while the actual mechanic of the system is vastly different and more original than standard initiative rules.

I wasn't told so upfront, but I didn't really whine about it, even through it did hurt my character a lot, but I also realised the GM didn't intend harm with not telling me it was a houserule: He simply assumed it was how the standard system worked.


If he doesn't understand the system, I would expect him to learn and understand the system before trying to adapt a system he doesn't understand into 2e.

I think this part is closely related to what I said earlier, which is sometimes you are not aware of what is houserules you have yourself and what is actually in the system.

Sure, in a perfect world, the GM should know all the standard rules by heart without fail. Some people simply don't have the capacity to know something that complex by heart. Should those then not be allowed to GM?

[martyrX]

*****: how dare you make up your own campaign world with no one else's input! Don't you know that the ONLY way to create a world properly is to get the input of your PCs? :rollseyes:

Viletta: Seriously, one day, perhaps faaaaar into the future, you are (hopefully) going to learn that the world, roleplaying included, does not conform to your absolutes:

"Compromise is ALWAYS bad thing." - I hope for your sake you learn how wrong you are about this. Soon.

"'You aren't allowed to play your character because of this world you were denied any input into says so,' is a Bad Thing." - Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

"And I'm not trying to demonize the guy. He is committing a great many horrible, disrespectful, and tyrannical DM practices." - You say this with such conviction, yet you and the rest of us know about 3 facts in this case, and only ONE side of the story to boot. Innocent until proven guilty, I say.

"A DM who treats his players like crap is wrong. Period. This exists independently of individual groups' play styles. Play style is not an excuse for treating your players like crap." - Unless the style is some sort of sadomasochistic roleplaying, where the players request such treatment (ok, perhaps i went over the top with this one. :smalltongue:).

Now, back to what is actually important here: OP, I highly recommend that you don't approach your DM with demands, espousing that a bunch of people on some internet forum agree with you, attempting some sort of 'player uprising'. Everyone has their strengths and weaknesses, and somehow I imagine that if you were already considering playing with this DM, he/she has some good qualities. Focus on those, try to be kind, and I'll bet you have a great time playing together. In the end, that is what you really want, isn't it?

[Foryn Gilnith]

Thanks *****, Viletta is so adamant about his (her?) position, it was starting to make me wonder if I was a lone voice in the wilderness. :smallbiggrin:

you don't seem to want to extend that courtesy to others.

I think the situation boils down to Viletta thinks that the default positions to a conflict resolve between the GM and a player should be that the player is right.

Viletta: Seriously, one day, perhaps faaaaar into the future, you are (hopefully) going to learn that the world, roleplaying included, does not conform to your absolutes:

As an outsider to this thread, I can only say that I think the argument seems far more personal than is healthy. On both sides - I just can't find an appropriate soundbite from Viletta.


Now, back to what is actually important here: OP, I highly recommend that you don't approach your DM with demands, espousing that a bunch of people on some internet forum agree with you, attempting some sort of 'player uprising'.

I agree with this. If the last page of this thread is any indication, listening to either side of this argument may not be the most prudent course of action.

[Viletta Vadim]

No, it doesn't. Just because Thurbane doesn't mind, say, the DM writing all the characters doesn't mean that it isn't abusive for a DM to force that on players.

The game belongs to the group. Not to the DM. The DM only has power because the players choose to give him that power. They have every right to choose to stop giving him that power. The DM is in no way entitled to their support. It is no crime nor betrayal to remove that support.

If a DM is ruining everyone else's fun, if a DM is treating the players like crap, then the players have every right to revoke DM authority and put someone else in the DM's seat.

If you then claim the DM's seat is yours by divine right and dismiss everyone from the game? Well, that's quite simply impossible since, without players, a DM doesn't have a game to dismiss anyone from. You can dismiss everyone from your home if you're the host, but you hold no power over the players beyond what they choose to relinquish. Never take that for granted.

This doesn't mean a violent overthrow, involving torches, pitchforks, and the storming of at least one Bastille. It can be as simple as, "Hey, Fred has this really neat idea for a Star Wars campaign he wants to run." It can be gentle, it can be kind, but in the end, if the players choose to give someone else the DM's seat (and that 'someone' accepts), it is their right.

(her?)
Her.

If you can prove that it is in fact fallacy, I will happily do so. To date, you've yet to convince me that this is the case. The viewpoint your are espousing with such vehemence is...well...a viewpoint. It isn't a universal truth, a scientific fact or anything else other than your own opinion of what is to be considered "right" and "wrong" in a DM/player relationship.
There is no such thing as a scientific fact. There are generally accepted explanations for observed phenomena, but ultimately, these are highly informed opinions. And that is why 'mere opinion' is a fallacy.

An opinion is nothing more than a belief held without sufficient evidence to produce complete certainty. In the absolute sense, we don't truly know that the universe around us exists.

For that reason, dismissing a position as mere opinion is fallacious, because everything is ultimately an opinion. You don't attack a position on the grounds that it is an opinion. You attack the logic behind that position. In policy debate, that both sides are opinions is an assumed element of the debate structure.

And not all opinions are created equal. If one opinion has a volume of solid evidence and logic behind it, while the other only has, "Because that's how I feel," behind it, the first is the better opinion, it holds more weight in logical discourse, and it would be illogical to put the two on even ground.

You seem to be either unable or unwilling to grasp the fact that I have stated numerous times I do not defend the actions of the OPs DM. What I do say is that you are vastly exaggerating the severity of his actions, while simultaneously excusing any potentially game ruining actions that the OP takes in "revenge".
I haven't endorsed any of the revenge actions. I've advocated standing up to the DM and dealing with the situation, but that isn't revenge. That's dealing with issues that need to be dealt with.

You go on and on about dealing with problem DMs, but unless I've missed something, you don't even acknowledge the possibility of a player being a problem.
I acknowledge the possibility, however, whether or not Demented is being a problem, the DM in this case is being a major problem himself. And whether or not Demented is being a problem, this group has major problems to deal with.

Question: lets say the OP does go to the other players with his problem. What if they side with the DM? What if they say "for crying out loud, just come up with another build so we can play already!". Should he then abide by the group decision? Or does his inalienable right to whatever build he feels like at the moment supersede this?
That quote is not an endorsement of the DM, but rather an expression of annoyance with the entire situation, equally applicable to both DM and player.

However, there may come a point where it may be necessary to drop the issue and move on, but if this comes up again and again with the DM making arbitrary oppressive call after arbitrary oppressive call, it becomes impossible to just get on with it because the situation must be addressed or it is impossible to actually play.

So, changing the build concept is surrender, but the DMing having to accept what the player wants is a "Good Thing"? OK, I think I finally see your point of view. The DM never has a right to say no to a player without sort of iron clad, scientifically proven reason, while anything the player puts forward is automatically good for the game.
Not it at all, chief.

Flippant and irrational decrees are a Bad Thing. Treating your players like crap is a Bad Thing. Using DM authority like a sledgehammer to force flippant and irrational decrees down players throats while treating them like crap are several Bad Things. The DM forcibly opposing every vision but her own is a Bad Thing.

Logical and coherent rulings are a Good Thing. Treating your players firmly but respectfully is a Good Thing. Working with your players to help fulfill everyone's vision so that everyone at the table can contribute to the game and meet their needs is a Good Thing.

I think the situation boils down to Viletta thinks that the default positions to a conflict resolve between the GM and a player should be that the player is right.
That's not it at all. DM authority shouldn't be wielded like a sledgehammer, and DMs shouldn't treat their players like crap. If the DM is doing either, he is in the wrong. That does not, however, mean the player is in the right.

The conflict in question is basicly that a player wants to play a grappling wizard and the GM does not want his game to include a grappling wizard.
If that's all you see the conflict as, then of course it's irresolvable. Thankfully, that's not what the actual conflict is. That's what the apparent conflict is. The actual conflict is, in fact, of little significance. A large portion of such problem solving is getting past the apparent problem in order to address the actual problem. In this case, it's matters of gaming philosophy, vision, archetypes, and the like that need to be discussed.

The reason why just going along with the DM doesn't resolve the situation is that, while bringing in another character does ostensibly get the group past the apparent problem of grappling wizards, it does not resolve the actual problems that plague the group. The ultimate outcome of whether or not the player ends up getting to play that grappling wizard is ultimately trivia next to the real issues at hand.

Keyword being "almost absurd", which is absolutely right; It is ALMOST absurd that is truly the cause, but put aside your dead set idea that it is something else that is actually wrong.

What if, even tho it is seemingly absurd, really the nition of a grappling wizard which is ruining his fun?
Then you're reaching the level of excluding clowns from the game because one person has intense Coulrophobia. You're reaching the level of a psychological disorder, and an exceedingly rare one at that, a tremendously abnormal and improbable situation.

Particularly since a grappling wizard is, in fact, iconic. A mage who transforms into a giant monster and wrestles a dragon to the ground is a fairly traditional image. (Which is important considering this is likely an archetype issue.)

And he is not refusing his players to know the houserules; He was unaware they was houserules.
He originally wasn't aware that they were houserules. However, when corrected, he declared a houserule, but didn't lay it out. He didn't put down, "Alright, but there will be a risk of bone-breakage, and here's how it works." He decreed that there would be a bone-breakage houserule, didn't lay out what the rule would be, and then when Demented was still interested, he instead flat vetoed the very notion of a grappling wizard.

Sure, in a perfect world, the GM should know all the standard rules by heart without fail. Some people simply don't have the capacity to know something that complex by heart. Should those then not be allowed to GM?
Fundamental understanding is not the same as encyclopedic knowledge. I suspect that this DM has never put forth the effort to actually understand 3.5 as a system and instead treats it as 'should-be-2e,' preventing that fundamental understanding.

"Compromise is ALWAYS bad thing." - I hope for your sake you learn how wrong you are about this. Soon.
Compromise is mutual sacrifice. Both sides lose. Both sides losing is a Bad Thing and should be a last resort of extreme necessity. And even then, it is not a good thing, but rather a necessary thing (assuming, of course, that it was actually necessary, which is unlikely).

The superior solution is one where everyone wins, where everyone can understand and communicate everyone else's fundamental needs and everyone so that everyone can work towards them together on mutually desirable (not simply tolerable) terms.

Everyone losing is bad. Everyone winning is good. That simple.

[Volthawk]

Compromise is mutual sacrifice. Both sides lose. Both sides losing is a Bad Thing and should be a last resort of extreme necessity. And even then, it is not a good thing, but rather a necessary thing (assuming, of course, that it was actually necessary, which is unlikely).

The superior solution is one where everyone wins, where everyone can understand and communicate everyone else's fundamental needs and everyone so that everyone can work towards them together on mutually desirable (not simply tolerable) terms.

Everyone losing is bad. Everyone winning is good. That simple.

Really, I personally think compromise is a win-win situation. Everyone gets at least some of what they want.:smallsmile:

[aboyd]

No, it doesn't. Just because Thurbane doesn't mind, say, the DM writing all the characters doesn't mean that it isn't abusive for a DM to force that on players.
Yes, it does. You seem to think that gameplay is some absolute, and that even if people are happy, playing the way that makes them happy is wrongbadfun. This is foolish.

Look, all we're doing at this point is asserting the opposite to each other. You clearly are set in your thinking, and I am never going to adopt your antagonistic, hostile approach to interacting with a DM. So I'm going to bow out of the thread. Nothing good will come of interacting with you.

If you like, you may think of my bowing out as an overthrow.

[martyrX]

Everyone losing is bad. Everyone winning is good. That simple.

Except that it is not usually so simple. Sometimes, you need to lose a little to win a lot. In my opinion, winning big > losing small. If Demented has to play a monk/wizard instead of pure wizard, but still gets to play his character concept and has tonnes of fun, has he really lost? I don't think so, especially when you consider the alternative (not playing at all and having no fun).

[Viletta Vadim]

No, I don't, and I never said this. And do note that the situation is one where people aren't enjoying themselves and people aren't happy.

And just because three people are okay with DM Action X, then when a fourth person comes in who isn't okay with it, it doesn't mean DM Action X isn't horribly abusive to Player 4 and isn't automatically not treating Player 4 like crap. The player in this case is not automatically wrong, and it is entirely possible that the DM is being a complete prick.

I'm neither antagonistic nor hostile to my DMs. I'm honest. I do not lie to the DM, neither by commission nor omission. I am open and honest about my feelings and ask the same of those around me, and I do not accept being treated like an inferior being. Those who treat me with respect and consideration are given the same in return. Those who try to use the authority I choose to give them in order to beat me find that they lack that power if I choose not to give it to them.

I've only had to unseat a DM twice. Both times, every player at the table agreed with me. Once, even the DM agreed with me by the end.

Except that it is not usually so simple. Sometimes, you need to lose a little to win a lot. In my opinion, winning big > losing small. If Demented has to play a monk/wizard instead of pure wizard, but still gets to play his character concept and has tonnes of fun, has he really lost? I don't think so, especially when you consider the alternative (not playing at all and having no fun).
You're still focused on the apparent problem, not the actual problem. And who said any little change is a loss or a sacrifice? Part of coming to a mutually agreeable solution is realizing which aspects one's position are utterly irrelevant trivia. Realizing what you and your fellows do and do not care about. Realizing your and your friends' actual wants and needs on a fundamental level, rather than your and your friends' knee-jerk reactions. After all, in the immortal words of Socrates, the unexamined game is not worth playing.

[Roog]

Compromise is mutual sacrifice. Both sides lose. Both sides losing is a Bad Thing and should be a last resort of extreme necessity. And even then, it is not a good thing, but rather a necessary thing (assuming, of course, that it was actually necessary, which is unlikely).

In a compromise, all that either side looses is something that they never actually had. On the other hand, what they gain is real.

Compromise looks bad if you compare its result to what you wanted, but neither side ever had what they wanted.

If you compare a compromise solution to both sides starting situation, you will find that they have both gained.

[Kylarra]

I posit that compromise is not a Bad Thing.

Furthermore, I posit that a good game is built on compromises, and that inherently by choosing a system you are already unilaterally denying many character concepts, and that this is not a bad thing.

Yes, it's rather pointless to choose a system no one will play, but I posit that while some people will want to play other systems, most are fine with playing things that are not their first choice, and the latter can be applied to characters as well.

[DementedFellow]

Hello all!

I felt the need to give an update. And well there isn't any update to give.

The DM works 3rd shift and on alternating weekends. He also has a small toddler that keeps him busy. I work dayshift and frankly I had plans outside of gaming this weekend, so I wasn't home for most of it to talk to him.

There have been assumptions made that I wish to set straight. The DM had talked about starting a campaign way back in December. Towards the end of December, I had talked him into playing a Truenamer. Considering everyone's schedule, the campaign still hadn't started and I had asked him if he was still interested in DMing for it. He responded that indeed he was. I had grown tired of the Truenamer suggestion, as it had been some time and I wished to try something new. I see multiple inspiring builds on this website every time I come online to read it. And one was funny (the bear one) and the other was actually interesting to do mechanically (the grapplizard, LOVE that name by the way)

I am saying this because some people took my original post to mean that I bothered the DM until he gave in on the Truenamer then immediately went for the other builds. Some time had past between these two events.

I am willing to wager the monk/wizard idea is out. He is a stickler for multiclass penalties and I don't believe he is one who prescribes to the notion of "You're a lower level, so you get more XP." XP is divided evenly among the participants, and then you're given the penalty. In an earlier build that I gave him last year, he even tried to argue that multiclass penalties apply to PrCs as well. This is forgivable, since I had shown him a build that used three PrCs in a build and basically the PrCs were dips. I don't have a problem with this ruling as afterward I understood it wasn't the PrCs he had a problem with, but rather the dips in multiple ones.

I would still be open to the idea of another build, but really I think the lynchpin at level 1 is the octopus familiar, as without that, monks really have it better.

He typically allows the complete series and the Spell compendium. Along with cherry picked FR books, as he loves FR for some weird reason. Personal tastes aside, this hasn't been a big issue and he wasn't unreasonable in allowing a class from Tome of Magic. For clerics, he does prefer them worship a deity from the FR setting, instead of an ideal, so that's not a big deal either.

He's not a bad guy, but he just handles thing like he is God and his word is law. If he had said, "I don't like grappling." or "I just don't want to get bogged down in all the small bonuses involved in grappling.", then I wouldn't have had a problem, but it was the heavy-handed execution of this concept that still froths the hair on my heinie. I am of the opinion that a grappling wizard is still squishy until level 7 and incapacitating a single enemy for a combat built for 5 or more isn't my idea of ruining the game.

I agree with both sides of the argument. Yes, the DM is ultimately responsible for the game, and the energy and time it takes to create a world is immense. But on the other side of the coin, if you allow certain things in your game, such as the complete series, then you should also be prepared for things that the players can throw your way. Also the DM also has to provide a world that the players want to participate in. In essence, they are selling a product. If you have a product that no one wants to buy, then you just have wasted time and energy.

And the players should respect the DM's decision, but that doesn't mean he is beyond reproach. If there is a BS call, then someone should call BS.

Also, the DM and I aren't friends. We are acquaintances and I'm perfectly fine with that. The idea we have been best of buddies for ages is simply not the case. Were it not for the game, I wouldn't talk to him at all. In the area where I live, there isn't a big gaming community, so it's a necessary evil.

[Iceforge]

I would still be open to the idea of another build, but really I think the lynchpin at level 1 is the octopus familiar, as without that, monks really have it better.

The lynchpin for your interest in the build or for his dislike of the build?

I assume that seeing how many other things seems to have been simplified in some of the other posts (including what you considered to be the essense at that point), that the conversation about the grappling wizard might have been more than you just saying "what about a wizard designed for grappling?", am I correct?
Was it explained in more detail to him, like telling that it worked due to the octopus familiar and such?

Because if you did, then I am going to start sideing with the GM and not just merely defending him, as I wouldn't allow a build including an octopus familiar. If someone asked why, I would say such a familiar is suitable for an aquantic character and as I am not currently running (or planning to run) a aquantic campaign, it wouldn't fit. Pretty hard to run a game where one player is an aquantic and the others live on land

[DementedFellow]

The grapplizard build pretty much needs that +3 untyped bonus to grapple. I hope that clarifies your question.

To be fair, the non-aquatic setting wasn't a reason why he nixed it. If that was a reason, I wouldn't have minded. He didn't even go near that reason. He just laughed at the idea of an octopus familiar. I don't even know if he will be running a non-aquatic setting, as nothing he has mentioned has even suggested otherwise. Our last dungeon run was in a semi-underwater dungeon, so aquatic isn't outrageous.

Was the build described in detail, as such no. I told him about what would be necessary and how I would build it. I told him about how two human feats and an octopus familar can give me +9 to grapple. He asked why I would want to do that and I told him there were a number of spells that would aid a grapple. This was the point where he said, (paraphrasing) "Why would a wizard do something that would endanger his ability to cast spells?" We then came to a consensus that spells without somatic components could still be cast in a grapple and then he started in with the finger breaking malarkey. That's right, malarkey.

[Typewriter]

Malarkey!!!

[Iceforge]

The grapplizard build pretty much needs that +3 untyped bonus to grapple. I hope that clarifies your question.

To be fair, the non-aquatic setting wasn't a reason why he nixed it. If that was a reason, I wouldn't have minded. He didn't even go near that reason. He just laughed at the idea of an octopus familiar. I don't even know if he will be running a non-aquatic setting, as nothing he has mentioned has even suggested otherwise. Our last dungeon run was in a semi-underwater dungeon, so aquatic isn't outrageous.

Was the build described in detail, as such no. I told him about what would be necessary and how I would build it. I told him about how two human feats and an octopus familar can give me +9 to grapple. He asked why I would want to do that and I told him there were a number of spells that would aid a grapple. This was the point where he said, (paraphrasing) "Why would a wizard do something that would endanger his ability to cast spells?" We then came to a consensus that spells without somatic components could still be cast in a grapple and then he started in with the finger breaking malarkey. That's right, malarkey.


Okay, well, that clearifies a few things.

I can see how octopus familiars might be fitting if the new campaign is going to be anything like your previous one, but maybe it doesn't fit.

Anyway, I would have ruled the same way he did, as in against the build (or at least it including the octopus), but only because I would be running an overland campaign, and I would have given that as the reason and not started on the whole breaking fingers

[Jayabalard]

Of course it is. Over and over again, myself and others on "my side" of this debate have agreed with this point. No one is advocating that a DM be a jackass and be totally dismissive of a character build that a player brings to him. I'm not sure how this point is even still part of the debate?Its because it's much easier to argue against a straw man like this than to respond to what people are actually saying.

[Starbuck_II]

Okay, well, that clearifies a few things.

I can see how octopus familiars might be fitting if the new campaign is going to be anything like your previous one, but maybe it doesn't fit.

Anyway, I would have ruled the same way he did, as in against the build (or at least it including the octopus), but only because I would be running an overland campaign, and I would have given that as the reason and not started on the whole breaking fingers

But Stormwrack allows octopus to be a land breather (Air breathing).

[Britter]

I have followed this thread with interest, because there are quite a few good discussions about the how's and why's of good and bad gaming happening here. Thanks for that guys.

In regards to the OPs precise situation, may I make a suggestion? Rather than presenting him with a build, present the GM with a concept. Ask the GM if he has suggestions or ideas for how to make the mechanical concept work in the game-world. It was suggested earlier that PCs who have invested their time and ideas into a setting are more likely to enjoy the setting. As a corollary arguement, I have found that as a GM I have more investment in character concepts that the players have asked me for help in actuallizing.

I realize that the "grapplizard" may be dead-on-arrival and entirely unworkable for this GM, but to use it as an example, I would have asked the GM something along the lines of:

"I had this idea for a strong, intelligent wizard who spends his spare time participating in folk wrestling, you know, traveling around to competitons and such, making his living by winning in small villages, beating the locals, that sort of thing. He always enjoyed wrestling as a kid and as an adult he enjoys being able to beat guys who think that no "puny wizard" could be manly enough to pin or throw them. Because of how much he likes wrestling, he has focused his wizardly education on ways to harness his magic and use it in combat as a grappler. I was thinking about investing in these feats to show that he has trained in grappling. I was going to buy higher physical stats to show that he works out, keeps in good health, and is a brawny, physical guy. Here are some other mechanics and ideas I was thinking about using to actualize the character. What do you think? Do you have any ideas that would make this kind of character fit into the world?"

(Please note that I understand that this is not necessarily the character you would make, but I was trying to come up with a concept that sounded like it might fly to the GM in question)

As a GM, this approach gives you some interesting points to work with. It is a distinctive character and you get an immediate feel for certain aspects of the personality. It shows a desire to mesh mechanics and backstory. It helps flesh out the world. After all, if Bigby can make a bunch of spells that generate a magical hand, why can't The Macho-Wizard have his own series of spells based around his interest in grappling?

This approach also allows the GM to work with you to figure out how the character fits into the world and what mechanics you are considering using. If the GM feels something won't work, he can say so here and offer an alternative or an option.

Now, some GMs will be ok with you presenting a mechanical build, and if that is the way they work, great! For me, and I suspect for many other GMs, presenting the basic character skeleton alongside the mechanics you want to use gives me an idea what I am getting into from the start along with your reasoning for the choices you made. This allows me to envision the character in my game as something more than a collection of numbers, and I, as an accomdating GM who WANTS to say yes to the player, will be more likely to find a way to make it work.

I do realize that this approach will fail in the face of arbitrary and biased reactions on the part of the GM, but I think that it might be easier to convince a more moderate GM to allow off-beat concepts even when they don't fit precisely into the imagined world.

[Iceforge]

But Stormwrack allows octopus to be a land breather (Air breathing).

Which is why I also always include the rule that any sourcemateiral besides core (PHB1, MM1 and DMG1) is approved on a "case by case" basis

[Jayabalard]

But Stormwrack allows octopus to be a land breather (Air breathing).And D20 modern lets characters use fully automatic assault rifles.

I don't think either book is on the DM's approved list though.


In regards to the OPs precise situation, may I make a suggestion? Rather than presenting him with a build, present the GM with a concept. Ask the GM if he has suggestions or ideas for how to make the mechanical concept work in the game-world.While I think this is a great idea, the way the OP writes about character creation makes me to believe that he does not use this type of character creation.

[Britter]

That is exactly why I proposed he consider it. Every gaming group I have played in had it's own sub-culture surrounding player/dm interaction, character creation, and rules use. Being able to create characters and address mechanics in more then one way and from more then one perspective has helped me gain acsess to these diverse groups and fit in more quickly. Yes, it does require a little compromise, and yes sometimes the game won't be exacly what you want, but generally, if you can address the GM in a manner to which he is receptive, you will make better progress and create a better game for everyone.

[Jayabalard]

One Bad Thing does not necessarily make an overall horrible experience. However, that does not make it stop being a Bad Thing. A world and a campaign born entirely of a single person's imagination without room for the input of the other four people at the table is a major red flag precisely because it's only one person's vision being brought to bear.I strongly disagree; as a player I quite enjoy playing in a world and campaign that are conceived, designed, and fleshed out by an experienced GM with no input from any of the players involved.

This isn't a bad thing, it's just something you don't like.

[Iceforge]

I strongly disagree; as a player I quite enjoy playing in campaign worlds that are conceived, designed, and fleshed out by an experienced GM with no input from any of the players involved.

This isn't a bad thing, it's just something you don't like.

That made me happy to read.

I wouldn't say it, as I am almost always in the GMs chair, so figured my view my be flawed by that, but glad to know that some players at least enjoy worlds created like that, so I at least haven't been completely hopeless until now

[martyrX]

That is exactly why I proposed he consider it. Every gaming group I have played in had it's own sub-culture surrounding player/dm interaction, character creation, and rules use. Being able to create characters and address mechanics in more then one way and from more then one perspective has helped me gain acsess to these diverse groups and fit in more quickly. Yes, it does require a little compromise, and yes sometimes the game won't be exacly what you want, but generally, if you can address the GM in a manner to which he is receptive, you will make better progress and create a better game for everyone.

Agree completely. Try presenting your concept first, Demented, and you will most likely find the DM much more agreeable if you present it that way.

[DementedFellow]

Agree completely. Try presenting your concept first, Demented, and you will most likely find the DM much more agreeable if you present it that way.

The way I create a character, is that I choose the character concept, build according to that concept and then apply a backstory that will both satisfy why the build takes class X and then PrC Y.

To go to the DM and get a character approved by concept only is foreign to me, and to build the backstory as anything but an afterthought is odd as well. I ask myself, "What do I want this character to do?" And then I look at how I can get there and then how to make it seem feasible.

The one time I asked his opinion of what I should play, he suggested the Dragon Disciple and Mystic Theurge classes. I attempted the Dragon Disciple in the last game and I was way behind the power curve of the group. I'm better off making my own builds.

[Britter]

I am not suggesting you let him make the build. I am suggesting that you present to him the build alongside the concept. Let him see how the build and the concept mesh, and see what mechanics you want to use. That way he can approve the things that he is comfortable with and you and he can compromise on the areas he may not be comfortable with. Get his buy in on the concept, and the mechanics may become less of a sticking point.

[Viletta Vadim]

I strongly disagree; as a player I quite enjoy playing in campaign worlds that are conceived, designed, and fleshed out by an experienced GM with no input from any of the players involved.

This isn't a bad thing, it's just something you don't like.
'World and campaign' is not the same as 'world, period.' Input into the world is less important than input into the campaign. Vastly so. After all, pre-made campaign worlds like Eberron or Forgotten Realms are standard fare.

However, denying the players both world input and campaign input and then turning character creation into a minefield, however, is a swift way to actively sabotage player investment, and if a DM is doing so and players start objecting, it's the DM who's fault at that point.

[Kylarra]

'World and campaign' is not the same as 'world, period.' Input into the world is less important than input into the campaign. Vastly so. After all, pre-made campaign worlds like Eberron or Forgotten Realms are standard fare.

However, denying the players both world input and campaign input and then turning character creation into a minefield, however, is a swift way to actively sabotage player investment, and if a DM is doing so and players start objecting, it's the DM who's fault at that point.I... can't really read that in what happened here.

I see that the DM in question made a rather poorly reasoned decision regarding grappling and wizards. Yes this was badly handled, and possibly an "abuse" of powers to rationalize it the way he did. Overall though? One build concept down out of the multitude possible in 3.X, even just out of core and completes. Might it have far reaching consequences if someone tried to abuse it? Maybe, but I don't see grappling a lot in my games, so unless people are specifically drawing attention to it, not a big deal. It is a slippery slope, I'll grant, and not one I'd touch with an 11' pole, but in the big picture, the actual effect is minor outside of this one wizard concept. Given the gigantic time lag that we now know exists between sessions, and Demented's predilection for character creation, he could easily come up with a half-dozen other character ideas that amuse him, if he weren't so concerned with the way this one issue was handled.

Re: Natural Spell, no attempt was even made to find out what spells would or would not have been allowed, just a paranoid suspicion that dropped it immediately. Frankly, for all we know, he could've planned on limiting natural spell to say, self buffs, healing and summoning. Not outrageously micromanaging, but still a nerf of sorts, in terms of reduced versatility.

@OP
Worth pointing out is that even if the DM enforces multiclassing penalties, if you're human (or anything with favored class wizard), you can still have that level or two of monk with no issues.

Also worth pointing out on the same lines as my not a big deal spiel above, I don't see grappling wizards as something worth getting upset about, except as a symptom of your frustration with arbitrary unilateral rulings. I suggest conceding that point for this particular campaign, but talk about your issues in general.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
@Viletta Vadim
I'm having a really hard time connecting your absolutist player importance stuff with my actual game experience or even player expectations of GMs in my GMing experience.

I think we can all, or the majority anyway, agree that the GM shouldn't be a jerk and such.

One part I disagree with is when you talk about shooting down player concepts as infringing on some sort of player rights. I do it all the time. Generally I have a better reason than the situation in question, but let's move beyond that except as an example of how things can be badly handled.

When I GM, I feel that it is my "right" to define for the most part what you can or cannot play. I will try to define these as clearly as possible from the outset, but I'm human and thus fallible and have every expectation that someone will find a loophole or something similarly undesirable if they try hard enough. I feel it is my right to crush their fragile dreams and hear the lamentations of their wom--- oops, sorry was thinking of Conan for a moment. As I was saying, I feel that if such a thing occurs, I'm well within my "rights" to deny them. I will, of course, hear out one argument from the player regarding why they should be allowed to play that character, do such a thing, and suggest compromises (that Bad Thing (tm)) about how their concept could fit into the game world, but ultimately as the GM, I have final say, and my players are okay with that. (We round robin GM for several different campaigns and we've always followed the rule that the GM is final arbiter).

When I am the player, I'm fully aware that anything I create needs to be pushed past the GM first. In our 4e game whenever there's new material out, I always ask first before planning on using it, despite it being official and published material and whatnot.

[Viletta Vadim]

I... can't really read that in what happened here.
Not saying this has. The discussion has gone in a more general direction.

One part I disagree with is when you talk about shooting down player concepts as infringing on some sort of player rights. I do it all the time. Generally I have a better reason than the situation in question, but let's move beyond that except as an example of how things can be badly handled.
I never said shooting down player concepts was a violation of player's rights. Shooting them down without reason or explanation, without an attempt to work with the player? That's a violation, but shooting something down is not inherently a violation and is sometimes necessary.

When I am the player, I'm fully aware that anything I create needs to be pushed past the GM first. In our 4e game whenever there's new material out, I always ask first before planning on using it, despite it being official and published material and whatnot.
As you should. But it is still wrong for the DM to shoot something down without a decent explanation.

My point is that while the DM may have the authority to ban whatever she wants, she also has the responsibility to not use that authority like a sledgehammer and not pile on bizarre and arbitrary bans left and right.

[Thurbane]

I have a question for Viletta - how often do you GM in your group(s)?

[Kylarra]

Not saying this has. The discussion has gone in a more general direction. I was going to write a long post about this, but about halfway through I realized, I've never encountered the type of worst-case scenario DM you seem to be alluding to, and am thankful for that. So sure, in worstcase scenarios with terribad DMs, terribad things can happen. The majority of the supposed entitlement you seem to be saying DM's don't deserve? I see a far greater amount of "entitlement" from players, on internet boards and otherwise.



My point is that while the DM may have the authority to ban whatever she wants, she also has the responsibility to not use that authority like a sledgehammer and not pile on bizarre and arbitrary bans left and right.Similarly a player has a responsibility to not be a jerk to other players and the DM, and should not get overly worked up when told "no".

I am, and always will be, an advocate of player-GM communication, and with proper communication the majority of worst-case scenarios that you seem to be outlining are easily avoided.

[DementedFellow]

Finally talked to the DM

Here goes with how the conversation went.


ME: well, going back to the grappler. is there anyway to find a spellcaster who specializes in grappling spells?
HIM: no, not in my games

Rather than press it, I did follow it up with what I wanted and all he could really offer as a caster who could wade into battle was a duskblade. Considering as how I don't have a PHBII and I haven't really been impressed with the class as a whole, I opted out of that.

Instead he told me what he considers core. He considers the complete series as a part of core since other classes are just variants of core classes, in his mind.

Using this new knowledge, I've decided to change builds entirely.

[Killer Angel]

Instead he told me what he considers core. He considers the complete series as a part of core since other classes are just variants of core classes, in his mind.


:smalleek:
this is... weird.
Anyway, he's the DM, so he can give a free pass to all the books he wants, but the fact that he seems not aware that those manuals are not Core, is strange.

[Jayabalard]

'World and campaign' is not the same as 'world, period.' Input into the world is less important than input into the campaign. Vastly so. After all, pre-made campaign worlds like Eberron or Forgotten Realms are standard fare.I have no problem with "world and campaign" or "world, period"... up to and including handing me a pre-made character.


if a DM is doing so and players start objecting, it's the DM who's fault at that point.And if a DM is doing so, and the players aren't objecting, then it's not a "bad thingtm" ... it's just something you don't like.

[Viletta Vadim]

I have a question for Viletta - how often do you GM in your group(s)?
Overall? About one 'session' in three, counting online activity.

Similarly a player has a responsibility to not be a jerk to other players and the DM, and should not get overly worked up when told "no".
A player should not get worked up when told 'no' and provided at least a decent reason. However, a player has a right to an explanation on any veto, and if none is provided, or when the reason is bizarre and irrational, the player has every right to get worked up over it because they have the right to a decent explanation.

I have no problem with "world and campaign" or "world, period"... up to and including handing me a pre-made character.
I very much doubt this. For this to be accurate, one of two things must be true.

1) You apply to the shot gun theory, going through a lot of games that aren't to your tastes in order to find one that, by pure chance, happens to appeal.

2) You're in an extremely well-established group where the DM already knows the players' tastes and thus you already have a vast amount of input into both world and campaign.

Or, alternately, there are less charitable and more bizarre possibilities. However, I cannot believe that you would enjoy a DM handing you a character you can't relate to in a campaign consisting of everything you hate in a system you despise.

And if a DM is doing so, and the players aren't objecting, then it's not a "bad thingtm" ... it's just something you don't like.
Still not valid. Despite being one of the most social hobbies out there, gamers are still one of the shyest lots out there. It's actually quite common for players to say nothing on a matter that's really getting 'em bent out of shape out of courtesy even though it's really grating 'em and making 'em miserable, often because they think it's somehow wrong to criticize the DM, who's oblivious to the whole problem.

[martyrX]

Finally talked to the DM

Here goes with how the conversation went.

Rather than press it, I did follow it up with what I wanted and all he could really offer as a caster who could wade into battle was a duskblade. Considering as how I don't have a PHBII and I haven't really been impressed with the class as a whole, I opted out of that.

Instead he told me what he considers core. He considers the complete series as a part of core since other classes are just variants of core classes, in his mind.

Using this new knowledge, I've decided to change builds entirely.

It is strange that he didn't offer a multiclass character option as well as duskblade, but so be it. You asked, you got your answer, you made your decision. Don't forget that he did offer SOMETHING which is much better than nothing. For next time, try wording your request a little better, "I want to create a character who can cast spells AND fight, and in particular, grapple."

Let me suggest you don't waste your time "building" too much. Tell him what you are thinking of creating, so that he can make whatever rulings clear ahead of time. It seems to me that your DM is trying to avoid PCs who are potentially 'too good' at a single thing (like, game-breaking 'too good') - I would avoid such builds/ideas as you pretty much already know he will say no. I am not saying I would rule the same as your DM as personally I feel there are very few game-breaking ideas, but he is your DM, not I. You know the old adage - "know your audience".

I am sure it is upsetting to go through all the work of fleshing out a complete character, only to have it nixed. Don't let that happen to yourself.

[martyrX]

However, a player has a right to an explanation on any veto, and if none is provided, or when the reason is bizarre and irrational, the player has every right to get worked up over it because they have the right to a decent explanation.

So every single ruling made by a DM must have a complete explanation, or it can't be made? This could make for some very long sessions of rules discussion, rather than role playing. Play time is play time, not argue/demand explanation time.



I very much doubt this. For this to be accurate, one of two things must be true.

Once again with the absolutes. You presume far too much, especially when it comes to other people.


Still not valid. Despite being one of the most social hobbies out there, gamers are still one of the shyest lots out there.

Another presumption. Not a single person I play with is shy AT ALL. Are you going to call me a liar now too? Is my group from bizzaro-world, where gamers are outgoing? Craaaaazy!

[Kylarra]

Still not valid. Despite being one of the most social hobbies out there, gamers are still one of the shyest lots out there. It's actually quite common for players to say nothing on a matter that's really getting 'em bent out of shape out of courtesy even though it's really grating 'em and making 'em miserable, often because they think it's somehow wrong to criticize the DM, who's oblivious to the whole problem.The problem I have with this is the inherent assumption that either they are objecting and thus it is a Bad Thing (tm), or they aren't objecting, and thus they're shy and it's still a Bad Thing (tm).

That's really circular and stacking the deck in favor of your own interpretation, which doesn't seem to be shared among at least two other posters that I can see.


So every single ruling made by a DM must have a complete explanation, or it can't be made? This could make for some very long sessions of rules discussion, rather than role playing. Play time is play time, not argue/demand explanation time.What we do is have the DM arbitrate, and then look it up/talk about it after/between sessions.

[Iceforge]

So every single ruling made by a DM must have a complete explanation, or it can't be made? This could make for some very long sessions of rules discussion, rather than role playing. Play time is play time, not argue/demand explanation time.

That is a very good point.

I am always ready to explain and justify my rulings, but I rarely do so during play. If some seems anoyed by a ruling or does not agree, I will ask them to ask me about it between sessions.

It serves nobody to take a break in the middle of play to meet a consensus about a subject.

Doesn't really apply in this specific situation through, as the disagreement didnt happen during play

[Starbuck_II]

So every single ruling made by a DM must have a complete explanation, or it can't be made? This could make for some very long sessions of rules discussion, rather than role playing. Play time is play time, not argue/demand explanation time.


So, then write down your house rulings with a short reason/explainatiom why and hand it to every player.
Then tell them to ask you after the session if the ruling was bad or unfairly penalizes them.

[RagnaroksChosen]

DementedFellow:

Couple of questions is your GM some one who played/GMed 2nd ed or 1st ed?

Sounds to me like he leans more simulationist. My Gming style tends to be that way so i can understand, however i have a few players that are gamists and a few that are dramatisits i know some of the desputes we get into.

In my group we had a situation where a wizard was grappled and had his fingers deliberately broken to prevent casting.. its actually pretty common in literature to do.

I know when we would play 2nd ed Ad&d when ever we took archers or casters we broke there fingers to prevent casting. (and we would gag casters too ususaly).

In 3.5 we do this still (my players do it as well). though in my games we use the pinning rules in grapple to break fingers heh rather then some odd ball chance...

[martyrX]

So, then write down your house rulings with a short reason/explainatiom why and hand it to every player.
Then tell them to ask you after the session if the ruling was bad or unfairly penalizes them.

This works for all-encompassing house rules. For instance, in my campaign there is no spellcraft, spellcraft is rolled into knowledge (arcane, religion, nature) checks. My reason? I believe the three types of magic are in need of more differentiation.

What about the rulings I forget to write down? Or the rulings during play? What if i have 1000 little extra rules? What if, gods forbid, there are multiple DMs in my group? Now we ALL need to provide not only each ruling on paper, but also provide a 'good reason' for each? Suddenly, DMing just got a lot less fun. Personally, I can think of better ways to spend my time and my players' time.

I'd say my players trust me to make good judgements 95% of the time. The other 5% is usually them pointing out I made a mistake, or we just go with my ruling and discuss later if anyone actually cares that much, which they almost never do. One of my better judgements is to care less about rules, especially the discussion of rules, and more about creation, gameplay, and amusement.

What bothers me about Villetta's point is her constant harping that "this is the way it is," like there is one 'true way' to roleplay, interact with each other, make rules, etc. You know there isn't. I know there isn't. She knows there isn't. Why do we keep arguing about it? (uhoh - I guess I am at fault here as well!) :smalltongue:

[Jayabalard]

I very much doubt this. For this to be accurate, one of two things must be true.Ah, so I must be lying, eh?

Neither of those are really accurate; I'll leave a game if I don't like it, and I have indeed played in established groups for a while (it's hard to be a gamer for as long as I have been without being in an established group at some time). But the specific examples I'm thinking of was with a new GM that I had never met, who had existing campaigns going where I jumped in given a pre-generated character (I jumped into 2 campaigns of his, a D&D one and some sci-fi based one, I think it was a palladium variant). They were both quite enjoyable even though I had no input on the setting or game world.


Still not valid.You don't actually say how this means that this sort of GMing is badwrongfuntm instead of just being something you don't personally like.

lets go back to the point - you said "A world and a campaign born entirely of a single person's imagination without room for the input of the other four people at the table is a major red flag precisely because it's only one person's vision being brought to bear." and say that it is a bad thing. You disagreed when told that this was your preference, not some sort of objective fact, even when you are being presented with counter examples of people who like this style of game.

So, you have yet to show that this is some sort of objective fact rather than just your opinion.


Despite being one of the most social hobbies out there, gamers are still one of the shyest lots out there. This is not actually my experience; while there are certainly some shy gamers, the vast majority of the gamers I have been around were quite the opposite.

[Viletta Vadim]

{Scrubbed}

[Kylarra]

You're using very strong language to simply be pointing out "possibilities".

I think I'll leave it at that.

[Viletta Vadim]

I don't mince words.

[Kylarra]

I don't mince words.Sigh, I don't like being made a liar.

I guess I have one more thing to say, or rather reiterate. No one is arguing that GMs shouldn't have a responsibility to their players and shouldn't be jerks. The part I see most people holding objections to is your choice of absolutist language when presenting your so-called "possibilities".

[Jayabalard]

The part I see most people holding objections to is your choice of absolutist language when presenting your so-called "possibilities".Well, that and all of the vitriol.

[Viletta Vadim]

{Scrubbed}

[Jayabalard]

deleted references to scrubbed posts.

[Zombimode]

Luck is luck, chief. I never said it's impossible to enjoy a game you had no input into. I said it's bad policy. That you got lucky doesn't make it good policy to create games without consideration for nor input from the players.


The mistake you make here is, that you assume that player input automaticly leads to a better gaming experience in contrast to a DM-only created setting, that can or can not create a good gaming experience.
This is where you are wrong and most of your arguments fall with it.

You talk so much about possibilities, so let me show you this possible scenario for illustration:

The DM has created the setting. Its not to say, that he cant like other settings, but he is very proud of his creation and for the campaign he has planned this setting is required in its current state.

Player I is exicted of what he has learned and seen from the setting. He very much likes to play in this setting like it is.

Player II would rather see aspect A of the setting to be change to A', otherwise a chacter concept couldnt be realized.

Player III doesnt like A as well, but thinks that A' is EVEN WORSE.

Player IV is contend with A, but doesnt like B and C. But IF he would know everything about the campaign the DM knows, he would understand B much better and would see that without B the campaing would be not possible.
And he doenst like C only because his ex-girlfriend betrayed him with another DM who also had C in his setting.


Humans have different preferences. I think you acknowledge this.
Whenever SOMEONE, be it the DM, a player, or a third party like WotC (with a published setting), makes a decision in the establishment of the setting, chances are the someone else in the group doesnt like this decision.
I dont understand why you make such a big difference between DMs and players.

[Lin Bayaseda]

There can be many passengers on a plane, but only one pilot. Now, I'm not saying passengers' needs do not matter. They matter and they should be catered to. Passengers need to arrive at their destination safely and on time, they should have ample selection of food, drink and duty free, they should have comfortable seats, air-condition and toilet facilities. And while it's the duty of the pilot to make sure all passengers are traveling safely and in comfort, the responsibility for the control of the plane is his, and his alone. The passenger, with all respect to his needs, is not the pilot. He doesn't get to drive the plane.

[Thurbane]

Overall? About one 'session' in three, counting online activity.
OK, thanks for that.

Just a couple of follow up questions, if I may:

How many different groups have you gamed with?
How much of your gaming is online, and how much is sitting around the table?

...I'm just trying to get a feel of how your gaming experiences may differ from mine.

Thanks - T

[martyrX]

I'm not talking about you. I'm not talking about your group. I'm talking about policy. And acknowledging a possibility (and, in fact, a common problem) is not the same as assuming it to be the case in your specific group.

Didn't say you were. What I am saying is when you said this:



Despite being one of the most social hobbies out there, gamers are still one of the shyest lots out there. It's actually quite common for players to say nothing ...

that you presume too much. My group was merely an example.

[DementedFellow]

I have to point out a few things.

It is strange that he didn't offer a multiclass character option as well as duskblade, but so be it. You asked, you got your answer, you made your decision. Don't forget that he did offer SOMETHING which is much better than nothing. For next time, try wording your request a little better, "I want to create a character who can cast spells AND fight, and in particular, grapple."

1) Offering up an option that doesn't fulfill what I need or doesn't appeal to me at all isn't much of a "something". Paraphrasing an Ellen Degeneres joke: "It's like going to a music store and asking if they have any French horns. And they say they are out of French horns, but they have plenty of shoe horns." It's still not what I was looking for.

2) As far as the suggestion at the end, maybe it is just the mood I am in, but I don't think I should dance around what I want to say to the DM in explaining what I am eager to play. I shouldn't have to work my words in such a way that I find his verbal G-spot in order to play a character that is TOTALLY legal by RAW.


Let me suggest you don't waste your time "building" too much. Tell him what you are thinking of creating, so that he can make whatever rulings clear ahead of time. It seems to me that your DM is trying to avoid PCs who are potentially 'too good' at a single thing (like, game-breaking 'too good') - I would avoid such builds/ideas as you pretty much already know he will say no. I am not saying I would rule the same as your DM as personally I feel there are very few game-breaking ideas, but he is your DM, not I. You know the old adage - "know your
audience".

3) I don't build that way as I've explained in an earlier response. Character creation starts by idea, then execution then backstory to fit the character classes and feat selection.

4) In earlier games, one player (and surprisingly enough *not me*) managed to get a level 7 character with an AC of 53. To me, this is more game breaking than any grapplizard, as suddenly we (the group) now have to face enemies who can hit that AC regularly. This is part of the reason why I have issues with the seeming arbitrary nature of his gaming style. He seems to think I know ways to bend the rules to do magical things, and that just doesn't float in his bowl, so he feels the need to remind me that he is DM and is word is Law. He does this a lot now that I think about it in retrospect.

5) Know my audience? I think that should apply more aptly to the DM. You know, by maybe not keeping asinine holdover ideas from 2e into a 3.x game. Crazy idea, I know.


I am sure it is upsetting to go through all the work of fleshing out a complete character, only to have it nixed. Don't let that happen to yourself.

6) I am disappointed at that a character who no doubt would have been made of god and win got nixed, but I am ashamed at the DM's behavior. It was handled very poorly was at the least arbitrary and at the most dickish.

7) Don't go through the idea of creating a complete character? This I find troubling. I can understand asking your DM for help in creating a character that is unusual to build for, like say a half-orc barbarian who focuses more on "face" time interaction than battle. But some things shouldn't have to go through a DM approval, especially when it is legal in CORE. Frankly, the other DMs I've been with have asked to see what build I have and where I am going with it along with the character's backstory. I guess I don't like the idea that the very notion of a character's build being beyond my purview.

[Alejandro]

So my rogue should never grapple anyone (maybe to strangle them relatively quietly?) because he might break his fingers and thus be unable to do Sleight of Hand?

[Kylarra]

So my rogue should never grapple anyone (maybe to strangle them relatively quietly?) because he might break his fingers and thus be unable to do Sleight of Hand?I really don't think we need to harp on the fact that this particular ruling was a very poor one.

[Viletta Vadim]

{Scrubbed}

[Jayabalard]

3) I don't build that way as I've explained in an earlier response. Character creation starts by idea, then execution then backstory to fit the character classes and feat selection. Yes, they're suggesting that you don't do that: instead, do: idea, backstory, talk it over with the gm, refine the backstory, talk with the gm again, build, talk it over with the gm.

just from what you've said about the gm, I think that if you go to him with a backstory, you're going to be much better received than if you go to him with a build.

[Thurbane]

<snip>
OK, I have to ask some questions here (sorry if these have already been answered in this now massive topic).

1.) Assuming you can't convince the DM to change his mind, and you won't "back down" by taking a different character, what is your next step?

2.) Have you actually asked the other players in this game of what they think of the DMs attitude? If they are like minded to yourself, has anyone other than you approached the DM with concerns?

3.) I believe you mentioned that you are more or less stuck with this DM/group due to a lack of other gamers in your area. If you and the DM can't reach a resolution that leaves both of you happy, is playing in a game where you and/or the DM is generally unhappy better than not gaming at all?

I ask these questions in all seriousness.

Thanks - T

Reading back, I found the post where you have said you are going to go with an entirely different build, so scratch question 1.

[Jayabalard]

Those are a good set of followup questions.


3.) I believe you mentioned that you are more or less stuck with this DM/group due to a lack of other gamers in your area. If you and the DM can't reach a resolution that leaves both of you happy, is playing in a game where you and/or the DM is generally unhappy better than not gaming at all?I would suggest that the answer to this is almost always "no gaming is better than bad gaming"* ... if you try playing with them and find that can't be happy gaming with them, you are probably far better off not gaming rather than going to the sessions and being unhappy (and possibly ruining the game for other people, since unhappy gamers tend to do that).

*Note: I'm not saying that no gaming is better than the risk of bad gaming... I'm saying that if you're a game that is clearly not something that you enjoy, that you're better off not playing, even if that means you'll be without gaming for a while.

And really, there's the internet. I mean, even in the 80s we had play by post BBS games, and now it's just ridiculously easy to find like minded gamers to play with.

[Viletta Vadim]

Noone has suggested that you rely on sheer luck; a gm that designs a game world with no input from players is relying on his own skill as a GM. Much like a building designer would rely on his skill, rather than on luck, or even the input from some committee who may or may not have any building design experience.
The greatest engineer who designs a beam without knowing the design loads is relying on sheer luck that those loads will be less than what the beam can take, no matter how well-designed that beam might be.

The greatest DM in the world who does not seek player input is relying on sheer luck that the campaign will conform to player tastes, no matter how well-designed that campaign might be. Even the greatest DM in the world isn't gonna make a campaign about dwarven politics that will be loved by a group that hates both dwarves and politics.

Skill only gets you so far when you're willfully ignorant of design parameters.

[Jayabalard]

The greatest engineer who designs a beam without knowing the design loads is relying on sheer luck that those loads will be less than what the beam can take, no matter how well-designed that beam might be.That's not a valid analogy. You don't need input from the homeowner to know the design loads. And if you do the entire design/build, then you know all of the forces that are involved.

[Viletta Vadim]

That's not a valid analogy. You don't need input from the homeowner to know the design loads. And if you do the entire design/build, then you know all of the forces that are involved.
Except the design loads in this case are the tastes of the individual players. Like the fact that the entire group hates both dwarves and politics. If you don't know that, then the dwarven politics campaign is going to fail no matter how well-crafted it may be.

And you can't get design loads without consulting the client on building purpose and floorplans anyways.

[Kylarra]

We're delving into really weird analogies here. :smallfrown:

I'm glad that you're against DMs that willfully flaunt their powers in front of players and design things that are only for their own amusement. I believe the majority of DMs are not like this, and as such, we shouldn't need to be debating back and forth for a half dozen pages saying that such DMs are bad.

[Jayabalard]

Except the design loads in this case are the tastes of the individual players.No, they're not. The design loads are all of the details of the game world and the campaign, and how well they fit together, and how able they are to stand up to whatever the players do.

Tastes of the players don't need to be involved in the design/build process... only in the use part of the game, you know, once the game starts.


Like the fact that the entire group hates both dwarves and politics. If you don't know that, then the dwarven politics campaign is going to fail no matter how well-crafted it may be.Not really; I played in a game where most of the group loathed gnomes, and the campaign was initially set out to be very gnome centric; we started in a gnomish village, all of the initial pot hooks where gnomish, etc. The gm put some real effort into the game world and campaign design, and had done a really good job at creating a believable and immersive world. As a result, everyone enjoyed it, even the people who loathed gnomes; I seem to recall that one of the former gnome haters wound up making several gnomish characters after that.

And seriously... if you can sum up the totality of a GM's design in 2 words like "dwarven politics" and that's all there is to the game world and the campaign, then you are not talking about the same situation as I am when I'm talking about a GM really taking an interest and building a good game world/campaign with no input from the players.

A well designed game world and campaign can stand up to the players looking at the initial plot hook, saying "meh" and going in a totally unexpected direction.

[Thurbane]

We're delving into really weird analogies here. :smallfrown:

I'm glad that you're against DMs that willfully flaunt their powers in front of players and design things that are only for their own amusement. I believe the majority of DMs are not like this, and as such, we shouldn't need to be debating back and forth for a half dozen pages saying that such DMs are bad.
I can totally agree with that.

The broad points now are what makes for a good DM, good player, and good game. Also, the related topics of how much input a player should have in the game/world creation process, and what the relative rights and responisibilities of DMs and players are.

[Viletta Vadim]

We're delving into really weird analogies here. :smallfrown:
*Engineering student.*

I'm glad that you're against DMs that willfully flaunt their powers in front of players and design things that are only for their own amusement. I believe the majority of DMs are not like this, and as such, we shouldn't need to be debating back and forth for a half dozen pages saying that such DMs are bad.
I wouldn't be debating it if people weren't repeatedly coming to the defense of those very modes and mindsets.

No, they're not. The design loads are all of the details of the game world and the campaign, and how well they fit together, and how able they are to stand up to whatever the players do.
If the players hate a campaign with the white-hot intensity of a thousand suns, the campaign has failed. That simple. If the players decide the campaign tastes terrible, then the campaign is a flop.

[Thurbane]

7) Don't go through the idea of creating a complete character? This I find troubling. I can understand asking your DM for help in creating a character that is unusual to build for, like say a half-orc barbarian who focuses more on "face" time interaction than battle. But some things shouldn't have to go through a DM approval, especially when it is legal in CORE. Frankly, the other DMs I've been with have asked to see what build I have and where I am going with it along with the character's backstory. I guess I don't like the idea that the very notion of a character's build being beyond my purview.
FWIW, I strongly disagree with the bolded part. This implies an uderlying assumption that anything that is in core should be beyond the DMs power to modify or veto. In my mind, core or non-core is largely irrelevant to whether something can or should be allowed or excluded by the DM. Of course, non-core is sometimes more likely to be excluded as the DM may not have access to (or be familiar with) the book(s) in question.

To rehash an earlier example of mine, I once ran a homebrew campaign where gnomes and halflings did not exist. In my mind (and I say with great confidence, in the player's minds) this did not make me a poor DM. As another example, one DM in my current group disallows defensive casting, and heavily modifies the 5-foot-step rules (interestingly enough, due in large part to his 1E and 2E background). This also does not make him a bad DM. It simply means that when we play in his games, we are aware that casters (both PC and NPC) will have some limitations that they would not have in most games.

[Demons_eye]

FWIW, I strongly disagree with the bolded part. This implies an uderlying assumption that anything that is in core should be beyond the DMs power to modify or veto. In my mind, core or non-core is largely irrelevant to whether something can or should be allowed or excluded by the DM. Of course, non-core is sometimes more likely to be excluded as the DM may not have access to (or be familiar with) the book(s) in question.

To rehash an earlier example of mine, I once ran a homebrew campaign where gnomes and halflings did not exist. In my mind (and I say with great confidence, in the player's minds) this did not make me a poor DM. As another example, one DM in my current group disallows defensive casting, and heavily modifies the 5-foot-step rules (interestingly enough, due in large part to his 1E and 2E background). This also does not make him a bad DM. It simply means that when we play in his games, we are aware that casters (both PC and NPC) will have some limitations that they would not have in most games.

But I would assume that most groups use core and have set down house rules before hand. The DM in this case has been DMing for the group for a while so when they have been using core rules and no home brew its safe to assume you can make a core character. Sure the DM could ban hammer some thing but in this specific case I think he was begin a jackass and demented had a right to react as he did.

More however I think the Demented is stuck between a rock and a hard place and should pick up the DM screen himself or let some one else do it.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: Please keep it civil in here. That includes avoiding insults, however subtle or implied, and avoiding sophistry, however erudite you think it is.

[Britter]

I am going to ignore the side discussion, though it is interesting.

OP, since your approach to gaming diverges so much from this DM, the only real solution is to say "Thanks but no thanks" and not game with him. It will only end in frustration for you, and perhaps for the group. Just my opinion. As was mentioned earlier, no gaming is better than bad gaming.

[Thurbane]

But I would assume that most groups use core and have set down house rules before hand. The DM in this case has been DMing for the group for a while so when they have been using core rules and no home brew its safe to asasume you can make a core character. Sure the DM could ban hammer some thing but in this specific case I think he was begin a jackass and demented had a right to react as he did.
Please note: most of my more recent posts don't apply to the specific example of the OP and his DM. I have said, possibly a dozen times or so now in the course of this thread, that I believe the OP's DM handled the situation very poorly. The post of mine that you replied to was more general in nature, even though it was a direct reply to the OP.

I strongly agree with you that houserules and changes to the core of the game need to be made clear to the players before the game begins, wherever possible.

More however I think the Demented is stuck between a rock and a hard place and should pick up the DM screen himself or let some one else do it.
I don't know that I'd agree with that conclusion myself, but I do believe that Demented, his DM and the rest of the group should have a frank discussion about what they each want from the game, and discuss any problems they are having as a group.

[Iceforge]

But I would assume that most groups use core and have set down house rules before hand. The DM in this case has been DMing for the group for a while so when they have been using core rules and no home brew its safe to assume you can make a core character. Sure the DM could ban hammer some thing but in this specific case I think he was begin a jackass and demented had a right to react as he did.

More however I think the Demented is stuck between a rock and a hard place and should pick up the DM screen himself or let some one else do it.

Where is it implied or said by Demented that the GM he is talking about has been GMing for the group for a while?

The first line of the first post of this thread has Demented say that his friend has been talking about starting up a campaign for a while.

That, to me, strongly implies that the person in question, is not currently running a campaign, and if he is running a game currently, it seems to suggest that the character creation they are doing, is related to a new game, in which case the GM should be allowed to change some rules.

I tend to adapt rules slightly between different campaigns, specially with new players, as I learn along the way that some things worked well, other things did not work out so well, and some things are just not fair to adjust in the middle of a game (as you pointed out), so you have to wait and change those things prior to your next campaign, which seem to be what this GM is doing.

[Zombimode]

If the players hate a campaign with the white-hot intensity of a thousand suns, the campaign has failed. That simple. If the players decide the campaign tastes terrible, then the campaign is a flop.

Yeah, you see, NOBODY is claiming otherwise.
But YOU failed to provide an argument WHY a setting created with player input has more chance suiting to the tastes of all people on the table than a DM-created. See my posting on the beginning of this site of the thread that you conviniently ignored so far.

[Amphetryon]

Yeah, you see, NOBODY is claiming otherwise.
But YOU failed to provide an argument WHY a setting created with player input has more chance suiting to the tastes of all people on the table than a DM-created. See my posting on the beginning of this site of the thread that you conviniently ignored so far.

The argument that a player or players with input in the setting will be more to the tastes of that player or players is simple, and goes to the investment that people are putting into the game. In general, people are going to be more interested in a group activity like gaming when they've invested in its shape, because there will be familiar elements and an overall 'feel' to the game which more closely mirrors what they hoped to get out of the gaming experience. This is less likely and more difficult if only the DM gets to shape the world.

As an example from a campaign I was in during the early days of 3.0, one of our players was (almost obsessively) interested in getting an animal companion for her Rogue. Wild Cohort was still in some designer's rough draft stages, and a CG alignment made a Druid dip unwieldy. Additionally, the DM's universe had people less comfortable with animal companions cavorting through the metropolises. When it became clear that her enjoyment of the campaign was being diminished, though, he worked with her to get a clockwork monkey. It fit her desire to have a 'pet', while staying within the flavor that the DM was trying to create. Satisfied players all around.

A DM that had simply said 'NO! Only Druids can have animal companions and they never bring them to the cities, end of discussion!' is not, in this instance, working to keep the players emotionally and intellectually invested in the world.

[Zombimode]

The argument that a player or players with input in the setting will be more to the tastes of that player or players is simple, and goes to the investment that people are putting into the game. In general, people are going to be more interested in a group activity like gaming when they've invested in its shape, because there will be familiar elements and an overall 'feel' to the game which more closely mirrors what they hoped to get out of the gaming experience. This is less likely and more difficult if only the DM gets to shape the world.

This is a claim, not an argument.
And your example is missing the point:


As an example from a campaign I was in during the early days of 3.0, one of our players was (almost obsessively) interested in getting an animal companion for her Rogue. Wild Cohort was still in some designer's rough draft stages, and a CG alignment made a Druid dip unwieldy. Additionally, the DM's universe had people less comfortable with animal companions cavorting through the metropolises. When it became clear that her enjoyment of the campaign was being diminished, though, he worked with her to get a clockwork monkey. It fit her desire to have a 'pet', while staying within the flavor that the DM was trying to create. Satisfied players all around.

A DM that had simply said 'NO! Only Druids can have animal companions and they never bring them to the cities, end of discussion!' is not, in this instance, working to keep the players emotionally and intellectually invested in the world.

In this example, the world HAS NOT CHANGED because of an players input. There was no player input at all.
What has happened here is that word that Viletta doesnt like to here: a compromise.
The DM analised what the players desire in its core was and suggested a solution that fits in the world like he envisioned it.
The world didnt change. There was no player input. This world remains DM-only created.

[Jayabalard]

FWIW, I strongly disagree with the bolded part. This implies an uderlying assumption that anything that is in core should be beyond the DMs power to modify or veto. In my mind, core or non-core is largely irrelevant to whether something can or should be allowed or excluded by the DM. Of course, non-core is sometimes more likely to be excluded as the DM may not have access to (or be familiar with) the book(s) in question.Indeed; rules from the game books, whether core or not, are nothing more than guidelines. Assuming that these are things that are not changeable by the GM is a bad idea.


The argument that a player or players with input in the setting will be more to the tastes of that player or players is simple, and goes to the investment that people are putting into the game. I don't think that this is universally true; I would say that a setting designed by a single talented individual can usually wind up being more engaging than one designed by committee.


As an example from a campaign I was in during the early days of 3.0, one of our players was (almost obsessively) interested in getting an animal companion for her Rogue. This example is not a change to the design of setting; it's an example of a GM working with the player during gameplay, which isn't the same thing at all.

If you follow this little side discussion over the last few pages, you'll note that this is all about whether having the DM create the game setting with no player input is a "Bad Thing" and that people who enjoy it are having wrongbadfuntm.

[Demons_eye]

Where is it implied or said by Demented that the GM he is talking about has been GMing for the group for a while?

The first line of the first post of this thread has Demented say that his friend has been talking about starting up a campaign for a while.





I misread the question. I've played in more serious games, such as Call of Cthulhu. There's very little to laugh about, but it is still very enjoyable. The tone of the game comes down to the subject matter. When you're doing a typical dungeon crawl (which is what my DM loves) you have to make your own fun.



4) In earlier games, one player (and surprisingly enough *not me*) managed to get a level 7 character with an AC of 53. To me, this is more game breaking than any grapplizard, as suddenly we (the group) now have to face enemies who can hit that AC regularly. This is part of the reason why I have issues with the seeming arbitrary nature of his gaming style. He seems to think I know ways to bend the rules to do magical things, and that just doesn't float in his bowl, so he feels the need to remind me that he is DM and is word is Law. He does this a lot now that I think about it in retrospect.



To me his referral to "my DM" means this DM is the one that DM's the most, otherwise he would have used "this DM". This DM also has DMed before so what I get out of it is that this DM has dungeoned mastered the most in the group. I could be wrong but that's what I got.

Edit: trieed to make it clearer

[Viletta Vadim]

{Scrubbed}

[Jayabalard]

To me his referral to my DM means this DM is the one that DM's the most otherwise he would have used this DM. He also has DMed before so what I get out of it is that this DM DM's the most in the group. I could be wrong but that's what I got.I think you're not being terribly clear here (too many "DM" references)


Not only did I never say you had to design by committee, I said that you don't have to do full design by committee. I said group world burning is unnecessary, and simply an option at the far extreme. "Get input" means "get input." Nothing more, nothing less. "Input" has many, many levels.I fail to see a differences.

Just as a polite note, I would think that you probably want to check your PM's before you continue posting the way that you're posting. There may be a rather pertinent piece of information there.

[SpikeFightwicky]

I have explained. Multiple times. A game that gets player input has a greater chance of suiting the players' tastes because you're bothering to actually figure those tastes out. Knowing that the target is on the east wall of Marty's Pub yields dramatically greater odds of actually hitting the target than running around town with a blindfold and a bunch of darts.

There are many kinds of input. There are many levels of input. There are many ways to get input. However, if there isn't input, then the entire campaign creation process is just firing blind into the unknown.

Is it not possible that a DM that knows their players can calibrate his campaign to their tastes without a Q&A session?

[Kylarra]

Is it not possible that a DM that knows their players can calibrate his campaign to their tastes without a Q&A session?I wish to acknowledge this possibility, much as the efforts of Viletta are all to point out the possibility of DM abuse and Bad Things (tm). I suspect that the counter will be that by taking the players' tastes into account, the DM is letting them have input into the world indirectly.

[Viletta Vadim]

I wish to acknowledge this possibility, much as the efforts of Viletta are all to point out the possibility of DM abuse and Bad Things (tm). I suspect that the counter will be that by taking the players' tastes into account, the DM is letting them have input into the world indirectly.
Precisely. It's generally good to update the data regularly, but if you're going off of knowledge of the players developed through months and years of gaming with them, that's absolutely input. Not my preferred type, but input all the same.

[Kylarra]

Precisely. It's generally good to update the data regularly, but if you're going off of knowledge of the players developed through months and years of gaming with them, that's absolutely input. Not my preferred type, but input all the same.I wish to hypothesize that the majority of DMs with existing gaming groups do this already, even without actively trying to. IME, I do it all the time, but I also get active input into the campaign, so I know I don't fall into your Bad Things (tm) category, at least not on that point.

[SpikeFightwicky]

I wish to acknowledge this possibility, much as the efforts of Viletta are all to point out the possibility of DM abuse and Bad Things (tm). I suspect that the counter will be that by taking the players' tastes into account, the DM is letting them have input into the world indirectly.

With this, 0.3% of my posts actually contain some kind of wisdom/insight :smallbiggrin:


Precisely. It's generally good to update the data regularly, but if you're going off of knowledge of the players developed through months and years of gaming with them, that's absolutely input. Not my preferred type, but input all the same.

That's how I run most of my games (D&D games, at least). In this case, I have years of gaming experience with them. I know how to push the right buttons on every player. Also, any plot (though seperate from setting creation) I use will be changed according to PC characters and backgrounds, and the fact that they tend to do the opposite of what I expect, so any campaign ideas I have are usually VERY different than what I had prepared.

I find that for modern setting games (CoC, AFMBE, ConX, etc...), I usually don't do any kind of campaign creation until I have background input from the players.

Also, as an aside, I'd prefer that my players have white-hot rage over my setting than no feelings at all. I can change my setting and everything in it to better suit the PCs, but if the PCs are all more interested in killing anything that's not a race in the PHB than going through 'troubling and time-consuming' interactions with the world, I'll be miserable while my players have all the fun.

[Doc Roc]

This is a claim, not an argument.
And your example is missing the point:



In this example, the world HAS NOT CHANGED because of an players input. There was no player input at all.
What has happened here is that word that Viletta doesnt like to here: a compromise.
The DM analised what the players desire in its core was and suggested a solution that fits in the world like he envisioned it.
The world didnt change. There was no player input. This world remains DM-only created.

I disagree completely.
For one thing, I'm pretty sure the player didn't get his or her desire analised, though I think that's a typo. I hope...
That's pretty much the definition of player input, though perhaps on a smaller scale than you would desire your example to be on.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: I hate to let one person bring down a whole thread, but this thread's pretty much run its course anyway. Thread locked.