GM control over character creation. [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

MukkTB

2012-03-03, 02:35 PM

How much control should a GM have over PC creation?

Let me give an example of what I would do as DM:
Ok we're starting a new game. Rules are 3.P. We're doing Pathfinder but you can use any official 3.5 material that you want to. If you want to be a high noble you're going to have to start lvl 1 as the Aristocrat class. If you want basic nobility you need to take the rich parents trait. You can just declare that you're a squire or a low ranking knight. I've already figured out the King's family so you can't be a direct member of that unless you want to be a royal bastard.

There is no magic guild here. The people in this zone really don't like magic users. They treat them like people treated witches. So if you want to be a Wizard you were probably trained in secrecy or you come from another land. There are other places with strong magic users. If you want to know about the fortress cities of... The good gods here know the people don't like magic users so they mostly create Paladins. They grant paladins magic in a pretty subtle way so it doesn't look like they're waiving magic around.

Its mostly Humans here. There are a few Elves and some Kobolds. If you want to be something else you need to come from distant lands. Guys if you want to be a Monk or a Samurai its fiiiiine (/whiney voice) but if you are you come from the far east.

They have a really strong tradition of sailing. A lot of the nobility own small shipping fleets and they like to send their children off as sailors. The land is kind of crappy especially inland and there isn't as much wealth there. The people living inland tend to pretty backward.

Is this typical? How do people feel about it?

Shadowknight12

2012-03-03, 02:43 PM

Hiro Protagonest

2012-03-03, 02:45 PM

Seems mostly okay, except for the "class=profession" thing he's got going. high-ranking nobility could easily be rogues, or at least ones with archetypes like swashbuckler and bravado, and ones that are known for military might can be martial classes. Samurai and monk are just a set of skills, there are unarmed fighters and mounted warriors everywhere, and it's easy to refluff most class features (Stunning Fist can easily be a kick to the groin).

kamikasei

2012-03-03, 02:46 PM

I don't know about "typical" but it looks perfectly reasonable to me. The bit about magic users is a red flag because such elements smack of a half-assed attempt to balance casters by making playing them aggravating and unfun, but that aside... pretty much every game I've enjoyed has included some vision on the GM's part of what kind of game it was supposed to be - without that the players wouldn't have been drawn to it in the first place - and an element of back-and-forth between players and GM (and between players themselves) as to whether a character concept worked, whether powers were suitable, whether backstory elements made sense, etc. I'm aware in the abstract that games where people make characters in isolation and bring them to the table ready to roll exist, but they seem very strange to me.

dsmiles

2012-03-03, 02:48 PM

I usually ask the players what type of campaign they want. After they respond, I tell them which books they are allowed to draw from for character creation. After a week or two, when they have their characters' backgrounds together, we get together and roll stats and finish the characters.

kamikasei

2012-03-03, 02:52 PM

If the character the player has created bothers you too much, find yourself another player. If not, deal with it.
How tremendously wasteful. So unless the issue is large enough for you to drop the player entirely, you shouldn't say anything? "Hey, this aspect of your character would be a problem, but if you change it then the rest is fine" is out of the question?

Players have to put up with your NPCs (which, most of the time, they have no input over) all the time, so it's only fair for you to suck it up as well.
That's a pretty extreme bit of false equivalence. The players don't have to try to run a game that accommodates the NPCs.

Shadowknight12

2012-03-03, 03:09 PM

How tremendously wasteful. So unless the issue is large enough for you to drop the player entirely, you shouldn't say anything? "Hey, this aspect of your character would be a problem, but if you change it then the rest is fine" is out of the question?

Of course it's utterly out of the question (for me). The DM controls absolutely every other aspect of the game BUT the player's character. The DM having any sort of say over any aspect of the player's character (other than merely expressing his opinions on the character, of course, as per Freedom of Speech and all that) is frankly ludicrous to me. That's like having two cooks, one of which is in charge of arranging the cherries on top of the cake, and the one that's in charge of everything else, and the latter criticising the former on his choice of cherries and their arrangement. Frankly ludicrous.

That's a pretty extreme bit of false equivalence. The players don't have to try to run a game that accommodates the NPCs.

No, but they have to play in a game that accommodates the NPCs and every other aspect that falls under the DM's control.

ahenobarbi

2012-03-03, 03:10 PM

DM pre-stating rules of character creation is one of valid ways to set those limits. There are others and it's up to the group to find way that suits them best (this way may be restrictive for players, but on the other hand it's simple.... you could all sit and debate how to create PCs for "perfect" creation rules, but it would take a lot of time).

ahenobarbi

2012-03-03, 03:17 PM

Of course it's utterly out of the question (for me). The DM controls absolutely every other aspect of the game BUT the player's character. The DM having any sort of say over any aspect of the player's character (other than merely expressing his opinions on the character, of course, as per Freedom of Speech and all that) is frankly ludicrous to me. That's like having two cooks, one of which is in charge of arranging the cherries on top of the cake, and the one that's in charge of everything else, and the latter criticising the former on his choice of cherries and their arrangement. Frankly ludicrous.

I don't think I ever played game where DM did not control PCs to some extent. Like telling "we start at level 1" is already controlling a pretty significant aspect of PC.

To use your example: there are two cooks. One creates whole cake, the other decorates it. The main cook can say "no cherries this time, use something else" (because cook #1 knows cherries will not work this time for some reason).

Tengu_temp

2012-03-03, 03:17 PM

kamikasei

2012-03-03, 03:20 PM

That's like having two cooks, one of which is in charge of arranging the cherries on top of the cake, and the one that's in charge of everything else, and the latter criticising the former on his choice of cherries and their arrangement. Frankly ludicrous.
Or like the chef preparing the backbone of the meal pointing out that the dish one of his co-hosts plans to bring is good, but includes an ingredient that will clash horribly with the rest. Or that the dish simply won't work because of diners' allergies. To which the mature response is to accommodate the feedback, not insist on your idea being included as-is or not at all.

No, but they have to play in a game that accommodates the NPCs and every other aspect that falls under the DM's control.
And so it'd probably be a good idea for the DM to let them know up front what those things they're going to have to accommodate will be, no? Especially if apparently the only recourse if your character and the game don't match is to walk, rather than compromise.

Ur-Quan

2012-03-03, 03:20 PM

DM should limit and organize the PCs on their chargen, otherwise you'd get a team of fighters in a magical campaign, or something similarly absurd. This is a game where the DM and the players COOPERATE (hint, hint, Shadowknight). Any pretenses on *freedom for the PCs* and similar **** are basically saying that the DM is playing AGAINST the players, which should never be true. I'd either re-fluff requested classes or just ban them outright, if they don't supplement the vision of the campaign, all while remembering that the DM is the Arbitrator, not the Enemy.

I've used the "scary magic" setting before, but not the standard one. You should have a faction which hunts mages, whether it would be for recruitment, execution or education, they don't have to be hostile, just oppressive on the careless mages.

Voyager_I

2012-03-03, 03:21 PM

Of course it's utterly out of the question (for me). The DM controls absolutely every other aspect of the game BUT the player's character. The DM having any sort of say over any aspect of the player's character (other than merely expressing his opinions on the character, of course, as per Freedom of Speech and all that) is frankly ludicrous to me. That's like having two cooks, one of which is in charge of arranging the cherries on top of the cake, and the one that's in charge of everything else, and the latter criticising the former on his choice of cherries and their arrangement. Frankly ludicrous.

Part of the DM's job is creating the framework for the campaign. This often involves letting the players know what kind of characters he is looking for and any restrictions on how they will be allowed to interact with each other.

If the DM is trying to create a world that plays closer to traditional western fantasy and he wants the party to be a band of cooperative heroes, he has every right to disallow your Chaotic Evil Kitsune Psionic Warrior riding a Dinosaur.

Ur-Quan

2012-03-03, 03:23 PM

Or like the chef preparing the backbone of the meal pointing out that the dish one of his co-hosts plans to bring is good, but includes an ingredient that will clash horribly with the rest. Or that the dish simply won't work because of diners' allergies. To which the mature response is to accommodate the feedback, not insist on your idea being included as-is or not at all.

And so it'd probably be a good idea for the DM to let them know up front what those things they're going to have to accommodate will be, no? Especially if apparently the only recourse if your character and the game don't match is to walk, rather than compromise.

Exactly. The DM has to form a world himself, he has every right to tell his players that the world won't work if they're playing a Psion, especially if there're no Psions in the setting.

tensai_oni

2012-03-03, 03:27 PM

@Shadowknight:

Gaming is a cooperative experience, not a game master vs players war. The game master does not create NPCs to show how much control over everything he has. He does it to make a better story. Likewise, a setting creates a story. And players should be informed what characters fit and what do not into the setting.

And on the other side, players create characters not to show how much FREEDOM do they have, this act the only tiny nook free from the GM's tyrannical grasp. They do it because they want to have fun in a setting given by the GM. Without guidelines, what they make will be out of place. It's like painting in the dark.

To think there are, or should not be, any options between extremes of "let players do everything they want" and "kick them if you don't like their character" is ridiculous. Your stance hurts both game masters and players and I cannot see a game ran with this attitude ending in nothing but disaster.

kamikasei

2012-03-03, 03:28 PM

Exactly. The DM has to form a world himself, he has every right to tell his players that the world won't work if they're playing a Psion, especially if there're no Psions in the setting.
Or if I'm understanding Shadowknight12 correctly ze'd agree the GM can say a character won't work... the problem being that I'd say then the GM should say "that character won't work and here's why", or even "this aspect of that character", whereas ze seems to allow for no feedback up until the point where the GM has to tell the player ze won't work in the group. Which just seems like a recipe for less gaming and worse gaming, breaking down all the sooner.

Talakeal

2012-03-03, 03:28 PM

Oh, what a marvellously easy question to answer!

None at all.

If the character the player has created bothers you too much, find yourself another player. If not, deal with it. Players have to put up with your NPCs (which, most of the time, they have no input over) all the time, so it's only fair for you to suck it up as well.

Obviously if the DM and the Player cannot agree on the character, the player will leave the game. However, are you trying to say that by setting limits BEFORE character creation the DM is overstepping their bounds?

Like if am making a Harry Potter campaign and I say "All players must be human child magic users attending Hogwarts," then I am being unreasonable? Are you saying the only theme campaigns that should ever occur are when you get a miraculous accident where everyone just happens to create characters that match the campaign idea the GM had in mind?"

But as for the original question, your campaign rules seem fine to me, although I think you could be a bit more accommodating. If someone wants to play a prince, is there any reason why you couldn't slightly alter the royal family tree, or if someone really wanted to play a native monk couldn't you say they are the student of a wanderer from the far east?

hex0

2012-03-03, 03:33 PM

I mean if a PC wants to play a Neraph Spelltheif (which is always fun), they can just say he or she was gated in by an evil wizard and escaped, now seeking to use a mages magic against them. Weird, but workable in any campaign setting.

Book restrictions are all well and good, as are case by case PRC or feat banning, but let the Players make something fun.

Shadowknight12

2012-03-03, 03:37 PM

Gavinfoxx

2012-03-03, 03:39 PM

Nobles can be represented by TONS of classes.

Like Aristocrat, Noble, Bard, Savant, or Factotum. I would point that out to the DM...

Bastian Weaver

2012-03-03, 03:43 PM

If the GM controls all of the game except for the PCs, then it's a "GM vs the players" situation, which might be fun but isn't exactly my favorite. Personally, I usually ask the GM "I want to be a magical immortal mermaid princess ninja, is that okay?", and if it's my game, then I tell the players "it's ten years into the future, the X-Men are either dead or in hiding (and right now your characters don't know which is which), Sentinels are hunting and destroying the mutants. So your characters are either really good at hiding, or you start in a prison".
Didn't have any problems with that so far.

horngeek

2012-03-03, 03:48 PM

Nobles can be represented by TONS of classes.

Like Aristocrat, Noble, Bard, Savant, or Factotum. I would point that out to the DM...

I think he's trying to balance social status as well.

hex0

2012-03-03, 04:01 PM

I think he's trying to balance social status as well.

Well...there are feats, flaws, and skills that can be spent to gain or lose character background. For example you could have a character burn skill point in Knowledge: Nobility and Royalty (useless, really) to have a bit more starting gold.

Hiro Protagonest

2012-03-03, 04:01 PM

I think he's trying to balance social status as well.

It should just be that you're obligated to take Rich Parents, just like other nobles. Seriously, if a high-ranking noble is adventuring, he's either doing it for his family and has to answer to them, or he's an outcast or runaway.

Voyager_I

2012-03-03, 04:10 PM

I was going to reply to the first couple of posts, but the usual "let's mob anyone with a different opinion than the majority" effect kicked in, so I'm going to save myself some time and effort and be like "whatever." I stated my opinion and I don't really feel inclined to defend myself in every single thread I post in.

We're not mobbing you. We've thought about it and have all separately reached a conclusion other than yours. There's a reason for it.

Or perhaps we just aren't understanding what you're trying to say. What it sounds like is that you think players should have an inviolate right to create whatever kind of character they want, with any attempt on his part to shape or limit the characters to fit the proposed campaign world being an overreaching of power on his part.

hex0

2012-03-03, 04:11 PM

or he's an outcast or runaway.

And this is just the best option for story time. Someone who shuns their high brow upbringing to go out into the ugly world and get dirty.

tensai_oni

2012-03-03, 04:11 PM

I was going to reply to the first couple of posts, but the usual "let's mob anyone with a different opinion than the majority" effect kicked in, so I'm going to save myself some time and effort and be like "whatever." I stated my opinion and I don't really feel inclined to defend myself in every single thread I post in.

Many people argued against you because they disagreed with your opinion, not because it was unpopular and "thus wrong". Although you seem to work on the opposite assumption, that a popular opinion is wrong and arguing against it is what cool rebels do.

Shadowknight12

2012-03-03, 04:15 PM

We're not mobbing you. We've thought about it and have all separately reached a conclusion other than yours. There's a reason for it.

Or perhaps we just aren't understanding what you're trying to say. What it sounds like is that you think players should have an inviolate right to create whatever kind of character they want, with any attempt on his part to shape or limit the characters to fit the proposed campaign world being an overreaching of power on his part.

Ironic, you say that and a couple of posts later, someone says something similar.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. The DM does not usually accept player input when creating the campaign setting or shaping the adventure, so why should the players accept DM input? Compromising just ensures everyone is miserable.

kamikasei

2012-03-03, 04:24 PM

The DM does not usually accept player input when creating the campaign setting or shaping the adventure,
Frequently false.

so why should the players accept DM input?
So that everyone involved will have a more enjoyable game?

Compromising just ensures everyone is miserable.
If you apply that philosophy more generally than just gaming then I can really only laugh.

jindra34

2012-03-03, 04:30 PM

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. The DM does not usually accept player input when creating the campaign setting or shaping the adventure, so why should the players accept DM input? Compromising just ensures everyone is miserable.
If the compromise is making everyone miserable its a bad compromise and yes someone should probably have left before hand. But as a DM/GM when I sit down and offer input its generally to figure out how to work your character in with minimal disruption to both your intent and the world. And I suspect most players would get upset if you throw them out of the group because their PC doesn't match the setting without even attempting to work things out.

MukkTB

2012-03-03, 04:36 PM

This set of rules was made up by me on the spot. Not for a campaign I'm running. I find it kind of weird that people feel this is too restrictive given that I have allowed all class/race combinations anyone could want. This set of rules does allow the "Chaotic Evil Kitsune Psionic Warrior riding a Dinosaur." All it says is that your Chaotic Evil Kitsune Psionic Warrior riding a Dinosaur has to be from somewhere outside the zone the campaign is starting in. Because my zone doesn't have native Chaotic Evil Kitsune Psionic Warriors riding Dinosaurs by god!

The 'magic is hated' thing is not an attempt to balance tiers. If I wanted to balance tiers I would say Tier 1 and 2 classes don't exist, and be done with it. I expect enemy spellcasters to be the biggest bads in the region. I expect that the party to choose tier 1 classes if raw power is all they care about. It isn't like angry peasants are a big problem anyway. Or people could just play along and stay covert. I wouldn't tell the players this but in my mind the Fortress Cities are Tippyverse city states and this theoretical zone is a backwards land full of barbarians that only exists because active gods protect it.

Specifically not allowing people to be in the King's immediate family? Why can't I have a plot in mind that depends on that family as major NPCs?
Edit - This is baffling to me. You can't be the King does not seem to be DM overreaching to me. Maybe next time I join a game I will ask if I can be the King. I will report what results from this.

As for the nobility thing its a personal preference. I would agree that there are other mechanical ways as starting of in the nobility. The Knight class is a good example. But it comes to this. I have no interest in PCs ordering people around, taxing them, raising large personal armies at lvl 1 because they declared that they were a Baron or whatever. I'll let them do it but in exchange they have to take 1 level in a crappy class. That way at lvl 1 Baron Fufu may have wealth and political power, but at least fighter Joe can beat him in a duel.

tensai_oni

2012-03-03, 04:37 PM

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. The DM does not usually accept player input when creating the campaign setting or shaping the adventure, so why should the players accept DM input? Compromising just ensures everyone is miserable.

Hey, it looks like Captain Haddock wants to say something!

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/059/143/Ohwow.jpg

And he's done.

Hiro Protagonest

2012-03-03, 04:49 PM

As for the nobility thing its a personal preference. I would agree that there are other mechanical ways as starting of in the nobility. The Knight class is a good example. But it comes to this. I have no interest in PCs ordering people around, taxing them, raising large personal armies at lvl 1 because they declared that they were a Baron or whatever. I'll let them do it but in exchange they have to take 1 level in a crappy class. That way at lvl 1 Baron Fufu may have wealth and political power, but at least fighter Joe can beat him in a duel.

Like I said, any nobles that are PCs either have to deal with politics or are outcasts/runaways. Going around declaring your nobility and using it to press-gang people into an army is going to have as many ramifications as if a wizard or fighter did it, if not more because of your expected actions or a bounty on your head. If you really know so little about how nobility works, set your game in the middle of the wilderness with a loose tribal hierarchy for your humans (leader, clan shaman, potential contenders for next leader, any spellcasters other than shaman, warriors/hunters, mundane healers).

And what if I don't want to be a chaotic evil psychic warrior riding a dinosaur? What if I want to be a Martial Artist Master of Many Styles monk? Can't I be a brawler from the streets or practice in a western-style school of unarmed combat? In both medieval Europe and modern America, the military teaches unarmed combat along with guns/swords, so there could easily be a group focused on it.

Larkas

2012-03-03, 05:10 PM

@OP: I think those are fairly reasonable guidelines. In fact, I'm usually WAY more restrictive (i.e.: Only assume that the PHB is in. If you want to use something outside of that, ask me). I just think that the noble=aristocrat restriction is a little silly, as has been already pointed out. Aristocrat is a class for "basic" nobles, meaning that they have a little war training (as nobles are generally from warrior families) and a great number of learned skills. A noble could easily be from other classes though: the diligent war student (fighter), the lover of the arts (bard), the son who was destined to be a priest in some powerful church (cleric), the heir who abandoned his house because he heard the call (paladin), etc. The trait + a few ranks in knowledge (nobility) is good enough, maybe a few ranks in profession (sailor) too in case the child stayed with his family most of his life. Then again, it IS your world, so if you think it's really appropriate, go ahead.

@Shadowknight12: I just hope you're NOT a chef :smallsmile:

MukkTB

2012-03-03, 05:13 PM

Know how little about how nobility works? Are you trying to tell me that nobles don't have power? Are we talking about nobility from 800 AD or 1850? Do you really think they are the same? Do you think the Vikings had the same kind of nobility that existed in the middle east? You do understand that in many times at many places a noble could raise a standing army? The people who owed fealty generally owed x amount of military service per year. You do realize nobles got to tax things right? Of course there are consequences to player actions. A baron raising troops might seem like a rebellion to a king. But that doesn't change the basic fact that it is good to be in the nobility.

All I have stated is that if you want to be able to do these things you have to take 1 level in aristocrat. If you don't want to be able to do these things just take rich parents as a trait or some other mechanical thing that gives you basic social standing.
Edit#2 - If you become High Lord of Bonbon over the course of your adventuring then you do not need to take an aristocrat level. If you want to start at level 1 as High Lord of Bonbon OR Heir to the Bonbonate you need that class.

And if you want to be a monk that isn't flavored like a monk, fine. Work out a back story and get rid of the Asian fluff in exchange for some pseudo-medieval European fluff.

prufock

2012-03-03, 05:29 PM

Hiro Protagonest

2012-03-03, 05:29 PM

Know how little about how nobility works? Are you trying to tell me that nobles don't have power? Are we talking about nobility from 800 AD or 1850? Do you really think they are the same? Do you think the Vikings had the same kind of nobility that existed in the middle east? You do understand that in many times at many places a noble could raise a standing army? The people who owed fealty generally owed x amount of military service per year. You do realize nobles got to tax things right? Of course there are consequences to player actions. A baron raising troops might seem like a rebellion to a king. But that doesn't change the basic fact that it is good to be in the nobility.

And with nobility comes politics. Knights, nobles, kings, rebels, any and all of those are factors. Sure, maybe not much more than most characters, but the nobles that gather armies ally with others that agree with their cause. The army isn't so useful when everyone turns on you. Sure, you can make all the unwilling ones cannon fodder commoners, but those aren't worth the effort of getting them. People that raise armies usually take Leadership, a feat often banned, so that they can get skilled, loyal people to do stuff they don't have time to, like managing the less loyal troops. Rome didn't have many rebellions among the slaves in the heart of their empire because they were so successful, but the tale of Spartacus is known throughout the world and defeated full legions with a band of a few hundred.

All PCs have the potential to raise armies. High-ranking nobles might have it easier, but it'll probably never show, since low-ranking nobles and knights still outrank the standard soldiers and masons and loggers and blacksmiths and minor spellcasters, and anyone with personal charisma can motivate people.

Shadowknight12

2012-03-03, 05:46 PM

Aaaaand I'm done here. Good night, folks.

Ur-Quan

2012-03-03, 05:52 PM

A person having a wrong opinion hiding behind the "mob mentality" that "attacked" him. Bro, you're just wrong, you're wanting to take away fun from everyone else. You're having fun the wrong way, basically, because you harm the campaign and group integrity. I'd never get anywhere if I dropped my friends from my games because they wanted to play a Mary Sue. We tried to show you your flaws, but you just walled up in your *wrong* opinion. And I'm done here, there's no point arguing with someone who's decided to be a wall.

Ur-Quan

2012-03-03, 06:11 PM

hex0

2012-03-03, 07:04 PM

And if you want to be a monk that isn't flavored like a monk, fine. Work out a back story and get rid of the Asian fluff in exchange for some pseudo-medieval European fluff.

Remove Slow Fall, Abundant Step, Quivering Palm, Tongue of the Sun and Moon, and Empty Body and replace it with Paladin casting...then your 'Asian' Monk is now Friar Tuck a generic pseudo-medieval Monk.

Lappy9001

2012-03-03, 07:16 PM

hex0

2012-03-03, 07:25 PM

Aristocrat level

Again, this is an NPC class so that should be a red flag.

Hiro Protagonest

2012-03-03, 07:32 PM

Again, this is an NPC class so that should be a red flag.

And the fact that they start at level 1 no matter what level the others are (at first I thought it was just trading out a level of the other class, but the fact that Mukk said they should be weaker in trade for getting an army made me read it again. But there's also the fact that anyone can raise an army and being a high-ranking noble doesn't make it significantly easier than being a baron of only a small amount of land or a peasant hero. If anything, the high-rankers will have an army with worse morale if they force people to join or die).

kardar233

2012-03-03, 07:41 PM

If you want to have solid crunch penalties for having a high socio-political rank, the Guardians of Order Game of Thrones RPG assigns LA to social status. However, the game also has solid crunch bonuses for having a high social status, such as having armies and armsmen at your command, funds to draw upon and similar.

Lappy9001

2012-03-03, 08:11 PM

Again, this is an NPC class so that should be a red flag.I...realize it's an NPC class. What do you mean? :smallconfused:

Averis Vol

2012-03-03, 10:55 PM

i think these rules are fine. it seems to me like there is a setting in place and thats honestly how things in the real world work (i dont need to hear this crap about it being a game and not subject to rules of the norm.) and i totally agree that letting a PC be a member of the royal family is completely asinine, for example i played in a game once that, due to the dm favoring this player, he was the dwarven kings son, and therefore started out with 2x WBL and access to any magical enchantment out there (the rest of us had to use specific sources depending on where we came from.) it just seems that if your going to let one person be noble you might as well make it the same for everybody therefore creating social balance. as for the rest of the stuff, he never said that you couldn't play them, just that they were from other parts of the world, is that really so wrong? and if you'd rather be a street fighting brawler then just play an unarmed fighter.

but yea, these rules seem fine unless the group was a group of tight asses. the whole casters being secrative actually seems fun to roleplay, maybe just use alot of illusions and enchantments, the whole subtlety aspect ya know?

Acanous

2012-03-03, 11:18 PM

I don't have any problem with setting down rules regarding setting, allowed splat material, homebrew rules, or character creation so long as it's done before the game begins. The DM is supposed to adjucate what's allowed in character creation. You could be using 4d6b3 or point buy, it's up to the DM there.

So long as you're willing to talk to your players and modify your rules based on what makes sense in-setting, it's all good.

The tone of your later replies, though, makes me think you might have problems accepting new ideas, criticism, or player interaction. Step back and try to see things from other points of view. You don't need to abandon your opinion, but you also don't need to stand atop the ivory tower.

ericgrau

2012-03-03, 11:54 PM

@1st post: It's not typical of most GM's but it is fairly common. The biggest hiccup seems to be the restriction on playing a caster. The rest seems like reasonable fluff for a campaign setting. Coming from the east or even taking (only) a single level in an NPC class won't ruin anything (skims thread, EDIT: especially with the significant in game benefit aristocrat gives, apparently)

Right now the only thing I might complain about is the restriction on playing a caster. If a PC loves to play them, it makes the game dull for him if he can't. Or even if he can but it's hard to play one. Even if you're gonna say "casters are overpowered", this is a fantasy game and fantastic things keep it interesting. If a PC caster can lay low and practice magic secretly without participating much in the campaign until they leave the city that'd be fine, but it sounds like the PCs are staying in the city for a while.

Rubik

2012-03-04, 12:49 AM

If you want to ensure that nobody plays a noble, don't tell them that you're going to hamstring them if they do; just call a spade a spade and tell them they can't play nobility rather than pretending they can when you put a big enough penalty on them that nobody will. Also don't pretend to allow casters if you're just going to screw them over. Say "we're playing a T4-T5 game" and have done.

Likewise, you can refluff just about anything into anything else, if you're halfway decent at it, so if you don't want anything oriental flavored, just say so, and my monk/swordsage/samurai will still have those classes, but will be redubbed as "assassin who fights" instead. Which is really really easy.

Also, there's a definitely logical issue behind 'treat spellcasters as witches and burn them'. Mainly, spellcasters are the scariest, most powerful sons-of-mothers in the entire game, and anyone who tries to hose them (and isn't a spellcaster himself) will probably die a very public, painful, and messy death. There's no way that a mob of peasants can stand up before a reasonably well-put-together caster of even T3 level after the first, say, 4 or 5 levels, unless you're giving commoners much higher wealth than otherwise. Not to mention that if there are any kind of magical monsters at all (especially high-level ones) you're going to need spellcasters to ward them off, because most beatsticks just can't cut the mustard.

Now, if the reason is because high level casters are in charge and they're keeping potential rivals down and don't care how many peasant sacrifices they have to use Suggestion on to do it, then fine, but expect your Stupid Peasant Population to be rather...

...low.

[edit] Oh, and any caster who works for the public good is going to have a LOT of clout with the populace at large. Do a bunch of good deeds openly and you're likely to have the people you're doing good for be on your side. Feed a town whose granaries were destroyed by some drunken bandits? The town's likely to like you. Heal sick children in a nearby orphanage and cure the town's adult population of very uncomfortable and embarrassing personal diseases? They'll probably LOVE you.

Seerow

2012-03-04, 01:13 AM

In general the way I like it to work is the mechanical crunch of the character is done with minimal limitations. Anything with racial hit dice or LA require approval, anything ported from 3e needs approval, Dragon Magazine and Homebrew with approval. Just about anything else is fair game. Refluffing is encouraged, especially for anything from a setting specific book when we're not playing that setting.

Backstory is also more or less completely open, but collaboration with the DM is encouraged to decide on areas of origin/places where events of interest took place (unless the player is already familiar with the campaign world). Backstory may be used to justify abilities gained mechanically, but may not be used to gain mechanical benefits. So yes, you can call yourself a noble, and given your level you can probably even diplomance others into liking you because of it. But no you're not going to get free stuff out of it. Being a blacksmith in your background justifies you having Craft skill, does not give you free ranks in it. Etc.

bloodtide

2012-03-04, 01:28 AM

The DM has total control over character creation, there is really no other way to do it. The DM has to give out 'The Big 16' or otherwise tell the players about the game and setting.....and then let the players make characters, with DM oversight and approval along the way.

The OP's control is common enough, most DM's give out something like that.

The Role-Play Cheat is an all time classic D&D move. The player innocently says 'I'm the son of someone important' and the DM nods and bam the player jumps up and says-'I'm son of the king and the archwizardess so I have a million gold and two artifacts' and the ever popular 'I just tell everyone in the kingdom what to do and they listen'. It's just as bad as the 'oh my dad was a paladin and left me his holy avenger, even though it's a 1st level character. And so on and so on.

pwykersotz

2012-03-04, 01:35 AM

I actually tend to do it backwards from the OP. I like asking my players if they have concepts they'd like to try, and I encourage them to come up with characters they think will work well together. Currently I have a high-op Duskblade and Sorcerer duo running around, and the campaign was designed with who they wanted to be in mind. It took me about two or three weeks of planning to throw the first few adventures and campaign setting together, and now we're nearing a year in with them being level 7 or so. Worked pretty well.

Ravens_cry

2012-03-04, 02:46 AM

A DM should set tone and optimization levels in my opinion. By tone, I mean, say, the campaign is intended to be a Knights in Shining Armour verses Card Carrying Villain, a grim and grizzled antihero would be a poor fit. By optimization levels, I mean in,say, a game where Weapon Focus is a viable feat, pulling out all the stops with some Uber-Mage is not conducive to group fun.
In both cases the reverse is also almost certainly true, though there could be exceptions.
Other than that, unless the group, DM and player alike have agreed on a particular theme game, for example a campaign where everyone is a goblin or no PC magic users or being set a certain time period or local, I would say the DM is not part of the process beyond the ways already described.

Coidzor

2012-03-04, 03:25 AM

How much control should a GM have over PC creation?

Well, certain sources certainly can be disallowed, for a variety of reasons, though the most pertinent is usually a lack of legitimate access, more particularly, I can definitely sympathize with disallowing some of the more problematic feats and classes if there's no good 3rd party alternative to substitute in for the character concept instead. Spells and items, like the candle of invocation especially, I can understand and agree with banning, since re-doing the entire magic system is such an enormous thing that I've heard of very few people even embarking on it.

I generally prefer a small list of banned or modified content attached to a broader information source on the subject of the game and a general tone that assures me that if I can't work something out with the DM, I'll at least get a fair explanation.

Asking for people to shoot within a certain rough power range or tier wouldn't be amiss either, I figure.

Is this typical? How do people feel about it?

The Gods being against having clerics doesn't really jive with me, nor does bigotry against clerics except in places that are actively anti-deity.

That, and anti-magic bigotry in homebrew settings usually just reminds me of DMs who are still trying to work out how to keep their games from being broken. Other than that though... fairly standard, I think.

Kol Korran

2012-03-04, 05:01 AM

<example of DM's guidelines>

Is this typical? How do people feel about it?
these seem reasonable to me. i like to have some description of the world and how it functions which isn't "you can be everything". As a Dm i give guidance to classes races and roles in the world, but other than that i often work with the player and their vision of their characters.

the goal is to make a character that is fun for the player, and fits the campaign. it may take some effort but the result is definitely worth it.

for example the campaign i'm planning has several cultures where each one has several classes for which they are known, as well as races. the characters are from one culture which limits their options a bit, but they might take classes or races from another, if they work it out well enough.

i hope this helps.

JadePhoenix

2012-03-04, 05:34 AM

I mean if a PC wants to play a Neraph Spelltheif (which is always fun), they can just say he or she was gated in by an evil wizard and escaped, now seeking to use a mages magic against them. Weird, but workable in any campaign setting.

Wrong. This would feel out of place in Ravenloft, Krynn, Westeros and Middle-Earth, just to mention a feel. An antropomorphic frog that steals spells? You really think that fits any setting? :smallconfused:

If you want to have solid crunch penalties for having a high socio-political rank, the Guardians of Order Game of Thrones RPG assigns LA to social status. However, the game also has solid crunch bonuses for having a high social status, such as having armies and armsmen at your command, funds to draw upon and similar.

Isn't it a Green Ronin game? :smallconfused:

Rubik

2012-03-04, 09:11 AM

The DM has total control over character creation, there is really no other way to do it.This is incorrect, though I think you may have the concept, the statement just isn't.

The DM has total control over the GUIDELINES for character creation. There is a great deal of difference there.

Also, I think the DM should set guidelines (desired power level for the party, type of campaign intended, houserules that are in effect [especially unusual houserules for the group in question, or standard houserules when new players are involved], specific genres and types of fluff the game is geared toward, and other building necessities -- such as point buy, availability of flaws, sourcebooks dis/allowed, etc), and after that discuss with the players what kinds of characters they want for the game.

The DM should talk to the players about the game, allow the players to make their characters, and then come to an agreement if the character builds/fluff/backstories are acceptable within the limits already established for the campaign he has in mind. Both parties should be willing to be flexible in regards to the game, and the both need to do what they can to maximize the amount of fun that every player (including the DM) and the group as a whole has. NOBODY should act like a tyrannical despot and dictator. That way lies horrible games where the players don't have fun.

And that in the end is the only way to do it wrong.

Fatebreaker

2012-03-04, 09:55 AM

How much control should a GM have over PC creation?

At the end of the day, the relationship between a DM and a player is one of cooperation. If you as a DM are always suspicious that your players are out to ruin your games, or you as a player are always suspicious that the DM is out to ruin your fun, then you might want to reevaluate the people you play with.

In the game itself, sure, the DM needs to have the ability to make a call on a rule and keep the game going. If Lawyers & Loudmouths is your game, you may be interested to know that it's an election year (ba-dum-cha!). And before both a campaign and any given game, there's a lot of work for a DM to do in world building, plot-plotting, and all that jazz.

But character creation is an awesome chance for a DM to get the players involved in all that.

I usually talk to my potential players and find out the broad themes of a game they want to play. We work out what system would meet those themes, and then I start coming up with plots. After I've got a few vague ideas that I feel I can expand on, I start talking to players about the kind of character they want to play. We start narrowing down mechanical ways to express their ideas in a way that fits with the setting. Along the way, I start planting adventure seeds in their brain and seeing what ideas they have. This makes my task much easier down the road. And at every step of the way, I try to make sure that the player is happy with the character they're creating. If the player wants their character to be something that just doesn't fit the setting, we try to find some other way to achieve that desire in a thematically appropriate fashion. Every decision we make helps me design the world in relation to the players. I've never had a player who felt like they were constrained by the setting, because I was always clear, offered up options and alternatives, and was quite happy to listen and adapt to them, too.

And, as a side bonus, we end up with a party that has in-game reasons to adventure together, a strong connection to the plot, and deep ties to the world around them. And you as a DM know what your players are looking for, so you can tailor rewards and challenges to meet their needs.

So me, I'm a fan of DM involvement. If you, as a player, want to be a positive contribution to the game, you're going to need the DM to set some guidelines.

I do want to run an experiment sometime and just tell a group "Gametime is a week from today, at 20:00 hours sharp. Go!" It'd be fun to see what they arrived with. What system did they pick? What gear? What levels? Might be fun for a one-off.

Hyde

2012-03-04, 10:35 AM

Who says GMs don't ask for input about the world? There was an entire 3.5 written on the subject of collaborative world-building.

Hell, I took it a step further and ran an entire adventure where the characters went to stop a defeated and disgraced deity from influencing the "world-machine" so that the deity could return to power with no one really knowing what had happened, and along the way they were able to change settings (mostly represented by cards from the deck of many things) in the world-machine that ultimately influenced the next campaign world. It was a blast.

Only an amateur DM thinks that the players don't (and/or shouldn't) have any say in the world their playing in. If you want your campaign world to be rigid and "just so" go write a bad fantasy novel and save your players the headache of coping with your inevitably flawed ideas.

Hyde

2012-03-04, 10:37 AM

Oh, and to actually answer the topic question: You can do what you want, but don't expect anyone to like it. There's a reason they're called NPC classes.

My rule when faced with any dilemma is "Will this make the game more or less fun?"

If the answer is less fun, the answer is "no".

Talakeal

2012-03-04, 10:47 AM

Only an amateur DM thinks that the players don't (and/or shouldn't) have any say in the world their playing in. If you want your campaign world to be rigid and "just so" go write a bad fantasy novel and save your players the headache of coping with your inevitably flawed ideas.

That's needlessly insulting, don't you think? Just because someone doesn't take a lot of input doesn't mean that their ideas are inevitably flawed or their fiction will be bad.

jindra34

2012-03-04, 10:55 AM

My rule when faced with any dilemma is "Will this make the game more or less fun?"

If the answer is less fun, the answer is "no".

Honestly the implications of this are bad. It shouldn't be 'no' it should be 'not with out good reason and plenty of thought', playing a 40k space marine might be really fun in a low fantasy setting but I shouldn't allow it simply on for that reason. DM/GM dilemmas really don't go well with quick guidelines because each situation is relatively unique.

Emmerlaus

2012-03-04, 12:09 PM

Gm can create the setting as they want and discuss with the players if thats acceptable. The GM have to offer a setting appealing to him and his players.

With the setting you mentionned, I would be trilled to be a magic user... I would probably be a Druid, with Natural spell, Eshew Material (important this one, as magic component would be harder to find in that setting), Silent spell...

Or maybe a Cleric who have the Travel domain, to represent Im coming from a Far land.

Hell, why not a Dragonborn of Bahamut? I can start as a human, being called by Bahamut itself and became a Dragonborn.

If not, I would try a Beguiler... They got Silent spells and the like and seem like a kind of magician who would be seem as the witches and all.

The possibilities ends where your imagination fails you...

HOWEVER: Note to your DM that if their is no magic-user, theres is no magic items. Or at least harder to find, cost a lot more and everything. Restricting magic users seem like a no-no and I would create at least a city with all the renegates that your GM seem so stubborn to cast out.

After all, D&D 3,5 really is relaying on magic items. Magic users being outcast and feared is ok but not to the point of making them outlaw outright. Magic makes life smoother also by curing people and the like so Im suggesting at least he allow divine magic, so that cleric can be accepted. As for wizards, I can see most items being crafted my halfling wizard, traveleing the lands and hiding, as well as elf, hiding in their forteress. Humans who use magic users could be extremly rare however...

Restricting the races is a no-no however, at least it should have the ones from the Player Handbook. Halflings for exemple should be allowed in the game.

hex0

2012-03-04, 09:42 PM

What about psionics>? :smallamused:

MukkTB

2012-03-04, 11:24 PM

What about psionics>? :smallamused:

Allowed but not native to the zone.

Crasical

2012-03-04, 11:49 PM

I go by the standby of "Pitch Idea, wait, Ask if everyone has character concepts, Work with players to realize concepts in an effective way". However, I did just put a post in another thread about how I worry about being disruptive with my character concepts in other people's games in another thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12839891&postcount=34)...

Coidzor

2012-03-04, 11:58 PM

Wrong. This would feel out of place in Ravenloft

:smallconfused: The Dark Powers have fingers in many planes, the only setting that would have a greater variety of characters from multiple planes plausible would be Planescape itself.

An antropomorphic frog that steals spells? You really think that fits any setting? :smallconfused:
Any setting that has any level of planar travel, really, considering that the flavor for Neraphs is generally planar refugee if they're a PC, or someone who got lost and ended up on the wrong plane or so on and so forth.

The sore spot against mages goes right along with any setting with magic, really.

MukkTB

2012-03-05, 12:41 AM

This also assumes that the players had asked to play in a pseudo medieval fantasy setting. If they'd asked to play a sci-fi game kind of like star trek then we would have agreed on a ruleset D20 or Traveler or whatever and I would spit out some setting with green space babes and some reason for all the PCs to be on a spaceship. I'd be tailoring planets of the week and random space flu that needed a cure only found on planet x.

If they'd asked for starship troopers I'd have a story about how evil the bugs were and what inhabited planets humanity owned. The story would then probably be about how they're members of a military organization.

If they'd asked to play cowboys and Indians you get the picture.

I'd like to stress again that I made up the opening post in about 20 minutes as an example.

olthar

2012-03-05, 12:43 AM

How much control should a GM have over PC creation?

There is no magic guild here. The people in this zone really don't like magic users. They treat them like people treated witches. So if you want to be a Wizard you were probably trained in secrecy or you come from another land. There are other places with strong magic users. If you want to know about the fortress cities of... The good gods here know the people don't like magic users so they mostly create Paladins. They grant paladins magic in a pretty subtle way so it doesn't look like they're waiving magic around.

To the general question? They can have a lot. Restricting books, insane combinations, tiers, whatever, but it should be guidelines rather than specifics. In other words, saying no wizards is ok, saying you can't put an 18 in intelligence is not.

Response to the odd comments about the magic thing in the example.
As far as the magic thing, I'm currently playing in a world that is very like this. There's one city that accepts mages and everywhere else the predominant religion hunts down wizards. It's also wizard specific (though priests often look like wizards and can get caught up in it). The net effect of it was the flash-bangy types of casters (those looked down on on these boards) don't work, but the subtle magic types are fine. Take silent or still spell and a wizard is practically indistinguishable from a peasant who happens to be near magic. In the end it just adds a layer of roleplaying fun without really restricting any but the stupidest casters.

That being said, it especially depends on the fluff of a spell. Does hold person send out a ray of magical energy from the caster to the target or does it just surround the target in magical bindings? This is really important if people are going to pay attention to and target casters. You need to be sure that you're magical fluff stuff is set so that the player who builds an illusionist with the idea that there will never be a connection between the caster and his illusions doesn't get surprised by the "you glow orange while concentrating on a spell" or something like that.

The obvious response to that is in that sort of world casters would try to build spells that aren't visible to others. If casters know they will be targeted, then they'll write a hold person that doesn't have a ray. If the gods don't allow that, then they know to teach people that some spells are dangerous because they can highlight your magic user status.

bloodtide

2012-03-05, 12:52 AM

This is incorrect, though I think you may have the concept, the statement just isn't.

The DM has total control over the GUIDELINES for character creation. There is a great deal of difference there.

Also, I think the DM should set guidelines (desired power level for the party, type of campaign intended, houserules that are in effect [especially unusual houserules for the group in question, or standard houserules when new players are involved], specific genres and types of fluff the game is geared toward, and other building necessities -- such as point buy, availability of flaws, sourcebooks dis/allowed, etc), and after that discuss with the players what kinds of characters they want for the game.

The DM should talk to the players about the game, allow the players to make their characters, and then come to an agreement if the character builds/fluff/backstories are acceptable within the limits already established for the campaign he has in mind. Both parties should be willing to be flexible in regards to the game, and the both need to do what they can to maximize the amount of fun that every player (including the DM) and the group as a whole has. NOBODY should act like a tyrannical despot and dictator. That way lies horrible games where the players don't have fun.

And that in the end is the only way to do it wrong.

While everything you say is mostly true, except for the agreement part. You can all talk until everyone is blue in the face, but then the DM has to lay down law, draw the line and put and end to things. This is not being a tyrant, this is just being in control.

Say you have five players and four of them think it would be fun to 'all be good'(it's not an ironclad statement written in blood, they just say it). But player five wants to be a drow assassin and has great plans to betray and harass his fellow players. The DM can 'talk' to player five all day and night, but he still says 'I will be my drow evil guy'. At this point the DM has to put there foot down('be a tyrant') and say 'no, you can't be that character'.

Knaight

2012-03-05, 12:57 AM

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. The DM does not usually accept player input when creating the campaign setting or shaping the adventure, so why should the players accept DM input? Compromising just ensures everyone is miserable.
That's a sign of terrible GMing. The players can set boundaries on the campaign setting and adventure - for that matter, under the vast majority of play styles the players have at least as much impact on the adventure as the GM does - and to not allow that is a huge red flag.

That's needlessly insulting, don't you think? Just because someone doesn't take a lot of input doesn't mean that their ideas are inevitably flawed or their fiction will be bad.
There's a difference between taking minimal input and taking absolutely no input in any case. The first is a case of a group dynamic where the GM does most of the work, and the players largely participate rather than create, and that's fine. The second is a case where the GM flat out ignores any boundaries the players set. Mostly making the setting is reasonable, ignoring a request to, say, not include a certain element because it really bothers a player is a jerk move. Though, I would consider even minimal player input to the adventure to be problematic, as that turns into railroading - on the other hand there are people who like that sort of thing.

Coidzor

2012-03-05, 01:18 AM

And what does it say about how someone views others if they refuse to even listen to other people's input, much less actually consider it?

MukkTB

2012-03-05, 01:19 AM

Though, I would consider even minimal player input to the adventure to be problematic, as that turns into railroading.

The Players ask for some kind of setting. Generic medieval is the case for the op. The GM then creates a world. The GM creates a handful of story lines within the world. Populates the world with some interesting location, and makes up a garbage history for the world. Then the GM demands that the PC's history before the start of the game match up with the worlds history.

Where is the railroading in that? The players have free reign to effect future events. They can choose where they want to go. Which dungeons to explore, which NPCs to make enemies or allies. They can follow a storyline or let it resolve without them.

This seems weird.
Player - Looks at map -> "I trained at the academy in Korigu swamp."
DM "You can't have trained in an academy at Korigu swamp. There is no academy there. The undead that live in the liche's castle would eat everyone."
Player - "Stop railroading me."

My general experience is more like this.
Player - "I want to have trained in a local academy."
DM - "Well there is an academy at Gorund's Crossing and Johan Academy at the capital. Johan is more expensive. The wealthy send their children there. Unfortunately its kind of a sexist place. Gorunds Crossing doesn't have as many good teachers but there is more equality in how they treat their students."
Player - "I'm male and I come from a wealthy family. I probably went to Johan."

Knaight

2012-03-05, 01:40 AM

The Players ask for some kind of setting. Generic medieval is the case for the op. The GM then creates a world. The GM creates a handful of story lines within the world. Populates the world with some interesting location, and makes up a garbage history for the world. Then the GM demands that the PC's history before the start of the game match up with the worlds history.

Where is the railroading in that? The players have free reign to effect future events. They can choose where they want to go. Which dungeons to explore, which NPCs to make enemies or allies. They can follow a storyline or let it resolve without them.
There is no railroading in that. That isn't what was presented, however, what was presented is a case where the players have absolutely no input in anything the GM does. Which means something more like this:

GM: "[Description of horrible scene part way through the campaign.]"
Player: "Can we please not graphically depict the slaughter of children? It's really not something I want to deal with."
GM: "Screw you, this is my campaign, I'll do what I want with it. [Continued description]."

That is what not being willing to ever take any player input whatsoever entails. Whereas a campaign which takes almost no player input would be more like this:
GM: "[Description of horrible scene part way through the campaign.]"
Player: "Can we please not graphically depict the slaughter of children? It's really not something I want to deal with."
GM: "Yeah, no problem. [Brief overview with limited details, at most]."

I'm all for players making characters within the setting, and I'm more than willing to lay out fairly tight constraints. I just expect the players to have some input as to the world, which includes at the very least hard bans on stuff they really don't want included. That also includes being able to direct things at the adventure level. Again, not allowing that looks like this:

GM: "Then the orcs surround you."
Player: "Lord Gerald attack"
GM: "No you don't, the adventure says you surrender."
Player: "No. It's been previously established that Lord Gerald is prone to explosive outbursts. He attacks."
GM: "Lord Gerald wants to attack, but suddenly feels like surrendering and surrenders instead. The orcs capture the party."

If, instead, the player could have done what they chose to, they would have impacted the adventure, and it wouldn't be a problem with railroading.

Leon

2012-03-05, 02:04 AM

The GM controls the setting, and the characters must exist within that setting. If the GM says there is no such thing as psionics, don't make a psion. If the GM says magic-users are reviled, don't be a magic-user. If you're playing a quasi-medieval game, don't make a cowboy. If you're playing a wild west game, don't make a superhero. If the GM says core rulebooks only, don't use a class from some obscure third party publisher.

This is the core of it and that anything you create within those limitations still should be passed by the GM as allowable.

The players and GM(s) need to work together during Character creation to ensure that everything is workable for the campaign that is going to be played

Again, this is an NPC class so that should be a red flag.

And?
They may well be NPC classes but they are still valid choices for a PC to take and just as many NPCs will have Character classes as NPC classes.

Coidzor

2012-03-05, 02:31 AM

And?
They may well be NPC classes but they are still valid choices for a PC to take and just as many NPCs will have Character classes as NPC classes.

They're not a choice in this instance, and while it's not explicitly forbidden for players to have their characters take levels in NPC classes, I seem to recall it being fairly explicit that NPC classes are on a whole different level below even weak PC classes, which makes arguing that they're valid choices problematic to say the least.

That NPCs will have levels in non-NPC classes is entirely irrelevant.

MukkTB

2012-03-05, 02:38 AM

Lets go over the noble thing again.
High Nobility
The most powerful people in the realm. The Royal Family, the most important lords. People who are in control. In a game this might be a group of 10ish NPCs who can be seen as the political movers and shakers.
Requires - 1 level in aristocrat to start as one of these.

Mid Nobility
Members of the privileged classes. However there are a decent number of them and they don't wield much political power beyond their small areas. The family might own a keep or have lordship over a town or two. In game there would be enough of them that the DM wouldn't bother to keep track of them unless they had some special impact on the story.
Requires - Rich Parents, some other mechanical effect that puts you in the nobility. (Class: Knight for example)

Low Nobility
Squires, knights, and liegemen. These people have no vassals of their own. Well the knight may have 1 squire. They serve a lord or hold a very minor title on their own. Technically they are a part of the peerage and so enjoy a higher social status than commoners. In game those armored guys following Lord Rutledge around fighting for him count as minor nobility. That lone Knight you found on the road searching for glory is low nobility.
Requires - That you declare your character is one of these guys and come up with a story.

Coidzor

2012-03-05, 03:29 AM

Yeah, it still doesn't really jive with me. I'd rather just have dukes and princes and kings be off the table until the player can get that station in-game through merit or cunning or valor anyway though. Or if they are of high station they're not actively living in that high station, they're either incognito, dispossessed, or otherwise outside of wielding that kind of clout until it would become reasonable anyway, as was suggested by someone else upthread whose handle escapes me... Knaight, maybe. Sorry. :smallredface:

I imagine part of it might be because I've read too much Frank and K, and the idea of rulers not needing greater personal power in order to hold onto their realms and not training their heirs to be badasses seems strange to me. Authority should equal asskicking in fantasy sums up the feeling, I suppose.

On the whole, it's a fairly minor point for me though. In that scenario I'd probably go with a scion of a family of merchant princes anyway, so I'd've wanted the rich parents trait anyway unless we were starting at high enough level that it'd be irrelevant in which case I'd see if I could get a different one that was of a similar high society background feel, like extremely fashionable.

Hyde

2012-03-05, 03:51 AM

That's needlessly insulting, don't you think? Just because someone doesn't take a lot of input doesn't mean that their ideas are inevitably flawed or their fiction will be bad.

Hold on there. In attempting a diplomatic answer you have sealed your doom (to be overly dramatic)- That phrase you used, "a lot", is not the same as "some" or "any at all".

I said that DMs you don't allow for any input from their players are the bad ones, I never specified the quantity or quality of that input, or even that the DM in question uses every idea fielded, only that (s)he keeps an open ear.

So no, I think it's exactly the right amount of insulting, to those kinds of DMs (which are far too frequent, just read ninety percept of the "omg, you'll never believe this DM" forum threads) that the comment was directed to.

I do apologize for not being as explicit as I could, the miscommunication was totally my bad.

Hyde

2012-03-05, 03:59 AM

Honestly the implications of this are bad. It shouldn't be 'no' it should be 'not with out good reason and plenty of thought', playing a 40k space marine might be really fun in a low fantasy setting but I shouldn't allow it simply on for that reason. DM/GM dilemmas really don't go well with quick guidelines because each situation is relatively unique.
It might be fun... for one person, I guess?

Maybe a better way of putting it is "Does this increase the mean fun levels experienced by the players as a collective unit, rather than pander to an individual and make the game ridiculous and stupid for the other players?"

The point you're missing is that "fun" is a subjective term that is, at best, situationally applicable. If everyone at the table is wanting to play this low-fantasy whatsit, then introducing the space-marine isn't fun, it's ridiculous and possibly insulting. However, if the plan is to play a band of anachronistic militants coping with how to repair their space doohickey while lacking tools or any means of replenishing their advanced supplies and then having to deal with "Suddenly, Dragons!"....

That sounds like an interesting scenario to me.

Yahzi

2012-03-05, 06:16 AM

None at all.
I once ran a GURPS Modern campaign with such an incredibly powerful adventure hook that I told the players they could come up with any characters they wanted. Anything at all; it didn't matter; by the end of the first session the party would be completely unified and working together to save mankind from an alien invasion that only they could see (think They Live!).

The party was assembled by simply happening to be at the same subway stop at a particular moment in time. The doors open; a man in a white coat gasses everyone on the platform; they pass out. When they wake up, they quickly realize that they, and they alone, can see the aliens wandering around in their midst.

Brilliant! Unbreakable! Except...

by the end of the second session they were throwing dynamite at each other. Apparently drug dealers, crazed Vietnam-era vet taxi drivers, and ecological lawyers can't get along, even to save planet Earth.

So these days I'm a big fan of "you're all from the same village," or even better, "you're all from the same noble family."

I create the clay. What you make of it is up you to.

Yahzi

2012-03-05, 06:27 AM

Only an amateur DM thinks that the players don't (and/or shouldn't) have any say in the world their playing in.
What if the DM uses a computer program to create the campaign world?

Then even HE doesn't have any say in it! :smallbiggrin:

(And yes... I am writing a program to do just that...)

Thiyr

2012-03-05, 07:47 AM

Honestly, I find that while I don't mind, and at times can even appreciate limitations on what choices I can make during character creation, generally I like to know why, in game, this limitation is in place. If, for instance, I'm not allowed to play a wizard, I'm kinda iffy. If I'm not allowed to play a wizard because there was a great purge of knowledge, and those secrets which allowed magic to be truly studied, rather than temporarily stored or passed through blood, well, that I can work with. It's why, in general, I'm not a huge fan of some the stuff laid out in the op. The stuff on being an aristocrat feels kinda arbitrary, and from a metagame standpoint kinda backwards (making a player spend resources in order to represent having more resources). That's where generally I'd say the best solution is to have the player and DM come up with an agreeable solution as to why the player is starting in the same position as everyone else. This should ideally be a part of the start of every game. But in general, I'm of the opinion that most any character concept can be fit into a game, and the answer to "can I play this" should never be "No", but rather "Maybe, let's see how we can make this work".

Coidzor

2012-03-05, 09:03 AM

What if the DM uses a computer program to create the campaign world?

Then even HE doesn't have any say in it! :smallbiggrin:

(And yes... I am writing a program to do just that...)

Then he's somehow managed to get the major class feature of the Paladin class shoved into his body somehow if he can't bear to alter things to make the computer generated word salad palatable to himself and his players. :smallconfused:

Canarr

2012-03-05, 09:23 AM

Personally, I've never had the "player springing his noble birth" thing happen to me. Considering there's a feat (I forget where) that just gives you a couple of hundred gold extra at first level, I feel more than justified in pointing out that having your own duchy doesn't come free. Generally, if any of the players has anything unusual they want for their character, we talk it out in advance. I may lay down some ground rules, though mostly in Shadowrun, for some reason ("Okay, one spellcaster, one phys-ad, one Technomancer; you work out who gets to play it!"), but other than that, I don't feel the need to heavily regulate my players. One reason might be that I tend to play in existing campaign worlds, meaning the tone is pretty much set; the other might be that I've played with most of them for 15 years and we know how we play.

One thing I normally don't allow is psionics; mostly because I never really got into them and don't have the inclination to get into a different(?) rules set that just means a lot of extra work for me to integrate into the game. But mostly, that doesn't go beyond a , "There are no psionics in this world." - "Ah, okay. I'll be a wizard, then." Done.

Occasionally, I feel the need to ban or nerf a spell or feat combo, but that's on a case-by-case basis.

CTrees

2012-03-05, 10:35 AM

In my PF campaign, I gave my players restrictions, but they were largely limited to: first party material only (unless cleared in advance), firearms are very rare and limited to "early" only, drow nobles are hilariously unbalanced and banned, gnomes will be viewed with great suspicion due to an ongoing war, and while I'd rather you not be evil (to limit intraparty fighting), you are not allowed to be secretly evil while pretending to be good (and that rule is solely because of one specific player). Also, I wouldn't allow the level one rogue to be the king (a general? Maybe, but the player would need an excuse for being awol), though he's more than welcome to claim he's the king, regardless of whether he'll be believed...

Do the players have complete free-rein? Nope, but I'm okay with these restrictions. The anti-gnome thing is a little weird, but even then, they're not kill-on-sight, and that's campaign-specific stuff, detailed in advance. Oh, and in the Pathfinder group of level five PCs, I did not allow one guy to play a leonal. Seriously, I got asked. I could work with most things, but that's... a little too far.

Heliomance

2012-03-05, 10:53 AM

That, and anti-magic bigotry in homebrew settings usually just reminds me of DMs who are still trying to work out how to keep their games from being broken. Other than that though... fairly standard, I think.

Not always. I gave my current players a setting full of anti-magic bigotry, then told them all to play casters ^^

The first session was them getting run out of their village with torches and pitchforks.

Rejusu

2012-03-05, 11:03 AM

A DM should be able to able to apply restrictions to PC creation, but shouldn't be allowed to ultimately define every detail of a players character, and they should never decide their class for them. If the DM wants to restrict race choices based on the setting then they should be allowed to do that. Similarly if they want to place restrictions on your characters background (e.g. Samurai's being from the east) then they should also be allowed to do that.

It's the DM's job to create a fun, balanced, and cohesive game for the players. Now railroading is something that should be avoided and the DM should focus more on making the game fun than his vision of what the game is supposed to be. But how do you expect the DM to run a game if the players have shown up to the table with a Chaotic Evil Necromancer, a Lawful Good Paladin, and an Illithid? Or you've got a clearly magical and exotic race running around in a low magic setting where humans are the norm?

Coidzor

2012-03-05, 11:06 AM

Not always. I gave my current players a setting full of anti-magic bigotry, then told them all to play casters ^^

I wasn't aware you were an expert on the subject of what things usually remind me of other things. :smalltongue:

Still, I imagine they had fun with that. Did they go full CEvil on the setting's booty?

Talakeal

2012-03-05, 11:18 AM

Hold on there. In attempting a diplomatic answer you have sealed your doom (to be overly dramatic)- That phrase you used, "a lot", is not the same as "some" or "any at all".

I said that DMs you don't allow for any input from their players are the bad ones, I never specified the quantity or quality of that input, or even that the DM in question uses every idea fielded, only that (s)he keeps an open ear.

So no, I think it's exactly the right amount of insulting, to those kinds of DMs (which are far too frequent, just read ninety percept of the "omg, you'll never believe this DM" forum threads) that the comment was directed to.

I do apologize for not being as explicit as I could, the miscommunication was totally my bad.

It was more the implication that if you aren't a social or compromising person anything you create is going to be bad. A lot of very talented people are arrogant, stubborn, and complete ********s. I can't imagine an anti social recluse like JD Salinger would take any imput at all on his creative works, and he is considerered one of the greatest authors of all time.

by the end of the second session they were throwing dynamite at each other. Apparently drug dealers, crazed Vietnam-era vet taxi drivers, and ecological lawyers can't get along, even to save planet Earth.

So these days I'm a big fan of "you're all from the same village," or even better, "you're all from the same noble family."

I create the clay. What you make of it is up you to.

That sounds exactly like how a lot of my groups campaigns end up. I agree 100% here, I tell my players up front they need to have a very good reason why they are working with the other party members as well as whatever plot relevant NPC allys they might have, but I leave the details up to them. It must also be a willing and emotional bond, not something they will fight against or drop as soon as it is conveniant.

Elfinor

2012-03-05, 11:46 AM

Doug Lampert

2012-03-05, 12:19 PM

How much control should a GM have over PC creation?
[SNIP]
Is this typical? How do people feel about it?

Looks like a set of houserules. The GM determines what ruleset to use, so he can add houserules as part of that rule set.

In the cases of D&D 3rd and pathfinder it's explicit in the rules that the DM can apply houserules.

There's nothing magic about character creation that makes it imune to houserules or the rules for it not part of the rules for the game.

Shadowknight12's statements make no sense at all to me. How can you claim that the GM isn't allowed to write houserules prior to the campaign start and tell the players what they are? It's GMs who keep their houserules secret or make them up on the fly who cause problems in my experience.

The GM assumed power over the player's character creation the instant he said what ruleset he was using! Would Shadowknight12 claim that I should be able to bring an Ars Magica wizard into a D&D game?!

Heliomance

2012-03-05, 12:24 PM

I wasn't aware you were an expert on the subject of what things usually remind me of other things. :smalltongue:

Still, I imagine they had fun with that. Did they go full CEvil on the setting's booty?Not yet. I am fully expecting them to end up ruling the world at higher levels though :P

Talakeal

2012-03-05, 12:27 PM

@MukkTB: Good summary is good. You state what is 'normal' for the campaign area without any tight restrictions. Taking a level of aristocrat seems like a reasonable, maybe even a bit too lenient, trade for the social lubricant + land/army/servants (!) you stated the position provides. Certainly not something I'd scream red flag about. Heck, I'd probably go for that route if I were playing.

I would think the biggest problem would be higher levels. Eventually the benefits of nobility will be negligable, esepcially once you get to the point where you could legitimately conquer your own kingdom or have left you native land behind, however one level of a relatively useless class will be dragging you down for all time.

erikun

2012-03-05, 01:16 PM

I don't see much problem with the opening post.

One really, really big point that I haven't seen mentioned is that there is a large difference between setting up rules for an existing group as a DM, and setting up rules for creating a group as a DM. The first is like getting together with friends, and as such, the DM should listen to the people there and put together a game that everyone is interested in.

The second is more like sitting at an open table in the public, with the sign "Staring a D&D game, here are the restrictions." People who are interested will stop by, and those who aren't, won't. I'm not quite sure why the DM would (or even should) work to accommodate the CE Kitsune Shifter Spellthief Werewolf riding a Dinosaur when they have ten other potential players who are creating characters more in line with the game.

Now if the DM is coming here and asking why they get so few players in their game, a lot of this advise might be useful. Stating that a character can be a noble only if they suck, or yet-another-kill-all-mages setting, can be a turn-off to a lot of players who have had bad experiences with such DMs in the past.

Rubik

2012-03-05, 01:28 PM

While everything you say is mostly true, except for the agreement part. You can all talk until everyone is blue in the face, but then the DM has to lay down law, draw the line and put and end to things. This is not being a tyrant, this is just being in control.

Say you have five players and four of them think it would be fun to 'all be good'(it's not an ironclad statement written in blood, they just say it). But player five wants to be a drow assassin and has great plans to betray and harass his fellow players. The DM can 'talk' to player five all day and night, but he still says 'I will be my drow evil guy'. At this point the DM has to put there foot down('be a tyrant') and say 'no, you can't be that character'.If I, as a player, have an issue with something about the game, I have every right to discuss it with the DM. If the DM tells me to shove it without even listening, he's being an ass, and is someone I wouldn't want to play with regardless.

If the DM discusses it and I find that he has a decent reason for what he's ruling, that's fine, but if he's not even willing to talk about it then why would I want to game with him, or even be his friend?

One thing I normally don't allow is psionics; mostly because I never really got into them and don't have the inclination to get into a different(?) rules set that just means a lot of extra work for me to integrate into the game. But mostly, that doesn't go beyond a , "There are no psionics in this world." - "Ah, okay. I'll be a wizard, then." Done.The only extra work you have to do as a DM to integrate a psionic character is specified in the spoiler below:

Absolutely nada.

There you go.

Telonius

2012-03-05, 01:54 PM

How much control should the DM have over character creation?

Just enough to make it fair and fun for everybody. How much control that means will vary depending on what everybody thinks is fair and fun.

Yeah, helpful, I know. :smallbiggrin: But questions like this are so situational. Do you have one person who's very much more (or less) experienced than the others? Is there a genuine plot-related reason why (race, class, etc) wouldn't exist? Is there a genuine imbalance in the game that caused problems in the past? Does the DM not own a book in question? Is it going to create a significant amount of work for the DM to re-work his encounters to account for (unexpected player power X)? I could go on, but all of that stuff is going to have an effect on how many choices the DM is going to limit.

Whatever the limits are, they should be talked about before the game starts. Personally, I always have a character-building session (assuming it's going to be a multi-session campaign) and hand out the sheet of house rules before starting. The players can work out what exactly they want to play, I can step in and voice concerns if there are any, the players can let me know if any of the house rules don't work for them, and if there's a concept that really won't work (Blackguard in a Paladin party, etc) we can figure that out before the problems start occurring. Put in that situation, most players will self-organize a pretty balanced party with minimal input from me. Plus, I get to see the direction the characters are heading, and have plenty of lead time if I need to alter any of the encounters.

bloodtide

2012-03-05, 02:05 PM

If I, as a player, have an issue with something about the game, I have every right to discuss it with the DM. If the DM tells me to shove it without even listening, he's being an ass, and is someone I wouldn't want to play with regardless.

Well, if the DM sits down with you on the floor mat, lights some incense and you both share a cup of tea and talk.....and then the DM tells you to shove it, then it's OK?

If the DM discusses it and I find that he has a decent reason for what he's ruling, that's fine, but if he's not even willing to talk about it then why would I want to game with him, or even be his friend?

The flaw I see is the 'decent reason'. After all what is 'decent' depends on lots of things. For example: The reason a DM would say no to a character idea is to keep the game fun, balanced and workable for everyone. But a player does not have to accept that reason and can just say 'I want the game to be fun for me'.

For example: I just started a 'Sea Game' of D&D where all the characters were the owners of a privateer. During character creation, one player wanted to be a warforged. I said no, did not tell him why, and he made another character. Now, my game reason was too first keep all the characters as equals; specifically not having one character who did not need to breathe underwater. And second not interfere with plots down the road, such as the third adventure where they would work for a patron that would give them water breathing rings.

Now, while some players might understand the two points, some won't. So there is not much point in telling someone something that they won't understand and won't agree too. After all, when you tell a player something like 'your no breath ability will disrupt the game flow', most players will look you in the eye and lie and say 'oh, well I promise not to use it like that and I'll pretend like I'm human'.

I've found the 'talk' to simply be more trouble then it's worth. All most no one is understanding. You get to pick from two 'no' choices: Say no with no talk and have a normal game or say no with the talk and then have a game where every couple of minutes the player throws your 'no' in your face and says how he does not like your ruling.

Canarr

2012-03-05, 02:56 PM

The only extra work you have to do as a DM to integrate a psionic character is specified in the spoiler below:

Absolutely nada.

There you go.

I disagree.

Even if - for some reason - that PC were the only psion in the whole game world (removing the need for me to create psion NPCs, but not something I particularly like), I'd still have to figure out the rules to see how psionics interact with the rest of the game terms. Not to mention check out the different splatbooks that the player might want to use, to find out how different powers and feats interact with each other and with other game elements. To me, that is a lot of work that I could apply more productively to other parts of the game that benefit all players - and myself.

If the player just wants to play a sorcerer with enchantment and illusion spells and call himself a psion, fine. No problems for me, since no new rules enter the game. If he insists on playing a psion, I'll politely suggest he find a different game to join.

Rubik

2012-03-05, 03:22 PM

I disagree.

Even if - for some reason - that PC were the only psion in the whole game world (removing the need for me to create psion NPCs, but not something I particularly like), I'd still have to figure out the rules to see how psionics interact with the rest of the game terms. Not to mention check out the different splatbooks that the player might want to use, to find out how different powers and feats interact with each other and with other game elements. To me, that is a lot of work that I could apply more productively to other parts of the game that benefit all players - and myself.

If the player just wants to play a sorcerer with enchantment and illusion spells and call himself a psion, fine. No problems for me, since no new rules enter the game. If he insists on playing a psion, I'll politely suggest he find a different game to join.Psionics interacts with the world and with magic just like magic interacts with it, because psionics IS magic. It's just internal magic, using your own mental and physical energies to rearrange things, rather than siphoning off divine power or using chemical calculations.

As far as familiarizing yourself with the system, it shares 95% of its rules with core magic, and the only things that are really different are A.) psionic focus and the feats and abilities that run off of it, and B.) augmentation. That's about it. Everything else is basically fluff. The system itself is waaay closer to 'standard' than MoI, binding, ToB, or truespeech, and it's got way fewer loopholes to break than even core magic does.

Though I suppose it does require a bit of familiarization, albeit not much.

Fatebreaker

2012-03-05, 03:47 PM

Most players will look you in the eye and lie...

Good lord, son, what kind of people do you play with?

And these are your friends?

Seriously, go get another group to play with. Any group based around deception and lies is not a group you want to be a part of.

CTrees

2012-03-05, 03:50 PM

Rubik

2012-03-05, 03:54 PM

So, say an entire adventure revolves around working with the local church of Pelor. The dungeon crawl will actually be within a massive cathedral of Pelor, with traps, constructs, and treacherous construction forming the bulk of the threats. If a player wants to build a necropolitan, what should a DM say, considering that he'd be blasted into oblivion by the very quest givers before he could even approach the dungeon?

Alternatively, a player wants to make a Sneak Attack optimized character, and you, as DM, know that the next two months will be spent in Robotville, population: robot. How should a DM handle that?

Open questions to the Playground, really. Those favoring being extremely permissive... yeah.Those are perfectly fine reasons. But sometimes a DM just doesn't give thought to the request, and sometimes their reasoning is based on false information, or it's based on the DM not having the materials (which can easily be rectified if the player gives him access). If the DM and the player each understand each other it's a lot more likely that an acceptable compromise be reached without ruining anyone's fun or feelings.

And as for bloodtide's objections, I wouldn't want to hang around with liars and cheats, or people that treat me like I'm a liar or a cheat, whether they be gaming acquaintances or actual friends. Those are not the kinds of people I want in my life, so walking away would be the proper response there.

Shadowknight12

2012-03-05, 03:59 PM

Good lord, son, what kind of people do you play with?

And these are your friends?

Seriously, go get another group to play with. Any group based around deception and lies is not a group you want to be a part of.

You know he's completely correct, right? People care only about their own fun and will only make concessions towards others when there is a benefit in it for them, or when they fear the repercussions of not doing so. Furthermore, people will lie and cheat when the benefits for doing so outweigh the disadvantages. It's human nature.

Thiyr

2012-03-05, 05:21 PM

So, say an entire adventure revolves around working with the local church of Pelor. The dungeon crawl will actually be within a massive cathedral of Pelor, with traps, constructs, and treacherous construction forming the bulk of the threats. If a player wants to build a necropolitan, what should a DM say, considering that he'd be blasted into oblivion by the very quest givers before he could even approach the dungeon?

Alternatively, a player wants to make a Sneak Attack optimized character, and you, as DM, know that the next two months will be spent in Robotville, population: robot. How should a DM handle that?

Open questions to the Playground, really. Those favoring being extremely permissive... yeah.

For situation 1, if the player knew about this beforehand, or would find out within the first five minutes, I'd point it out, ask them for a plausible reason why this wouldn't be the case given the nature of the game, and go from there.

For situation 2, I'd either point out that there's a chance he's gonna have trouble and have him deal, or I'd make sure he received something to manage the issue, perhaps after a session of why he's getting it. This one has come up in our group a few times, and generally the player has to suck it up for a bit and then they get something to compensate and it works out.

And on the matter of bloodtide's group, yea, that sounds just a bit more like an immature group than anything. Personal experience with my group has shown that we're more likely to be frustrated and force the talk anyway as players when just told "no", and we're more likely to go "Oh, yea, that works" when given a reason. I expected few troubles when I gave an in-universe reason for "no" as well as an out-of-game reason. That it doubled as hiding a major plot bit whilst preventing said plot-bit from making a party member useless is icing on the cake. Pretty much the exact opposite from what he described in our group.

Rubik

2012-03-05, 05:25 PM

Canarr

2012-03-05, 06:05 PM

Psionics interacts with the world and with magic just like magic interacts with it, because psionics IS magic. It's just internal magic, using your own mental and physical energies to rearrange things, rather than siphoning off divine power or using chemical calculations.

As far as familiarizing yourself with the system, it shares 95% of its rules with core magic, and the only things that are really different are A.) psionic focus and the feats and abilities that run off of it, and B.) augmentation. That's about it. Everything else is basically fluff. The system itself is waaay closer to 'standard' than MoI, binding, ToB, or truespeech, and it's got way fewer loopholes to break than even core magic does.

Though I suppose it does require a bit of familiarization, albeit not much.

So, if it's basically the same, then why not just use regular magic, refluff it as psionics, and call it a day?

Admittedly, the basic problem probably isn't psionics itself as me. I just don't like psionics. Can't even say why. Maybe I would like it, if I familiarized myself with the rules, but I can't be arsed - because I don't like it. Luckily, all of my players except one share my sentiments, and so it really isn't much of a problem.

Hiro Protagonest

2012-03-05, 06:24 PM

So, if it's basically the same, then why not just use regular magic, refluff it as psionics, and call it a day?

That's actually the exact opposite of how people refluff psionics. A lot of people just want to use the system, not the fluff, and call it magic if the DM doesn't like the fluff. Screw duskblade, psychic warrior is the gish-in-a-can for 3.5. Psion is the class that lets you call upon any of your magic until you run out of power, with even less restriction than sorcerer, and is also int-based rather than cha-based.

Rubik

2012-03-05, 06:25 PM

So, if it's basically the same, then why not just use regular magic, refluff it as psionics, and call it a day? Because spell slots are clunky, spell points are broken, psionics does some things well that arcanists don't (such as blasting) without optimizing heavily for it, the system has a number of options available that other types of casting don't, it doesn't have a lot of the seriously abusive things that Core caster classes have, the mechanics present "fantasy spellcaster" better than spell slots do (by a large margin), and things tend to run more smoothly because the system is a lot more fluid and dynamic (especially for spontaneous casters).

Also, psionics is REEEEALLY easy to refluff. Wizards, not so much.

Admittedly, the basic problem probably isn't psionics itself as me. I just don't like psionics. Can't even say why. Maybe I would like it, if I familiarized myself with the rules, but I can't be arsed - because I don't like it. Luckily, all of my players except one share my sentiments, and so it really isn't much of a problem.So, you don't like something that you're unfamiliar with, and you're unfamiliar with it because you don't like it.

I smell a logical fallacy here.

Coidzor

2012-03-05, 06:53 PM

Good lord, son, what kind of people do you play with?

And these are your friends?

Seriously, go get another group to play with. Any group based around deception and lies is not a group you want to be a part of.

It just goes to show, not even Andrew Ryan or Vince Fontaine can resist the siren song of D&D. "Would you kindly take a seat and roll up a barbarian," indeed.

It was more the implication that if you aren't a social or compromising person anything you create is going to be bad. A lot of very talented people are arrogant, stubborn, and complete ********s.

And unless they're Picasso, their work suffers in some way or another from their tragic flaw of being unable to deal with other people or learn to modify their initial vision when they get feedback so that they can better hit their target audience.

Hell, even if someone is a virtuoso and they entirely ignore what their target audience's tastes are, their work should suffer as a result.

Further, hero-worshiping artists for being bad people as if that makes their art more valid is just bad practice, as it encourages people who lack skill or talent to start being arrogant.

As not being able to understand people is kind of a handicap when it comes to producing works to be consumed by them.

It's an especially obvious and crippling flaw when it comes to being the game master of a social pen and paper roleplaying game. In fact, I am honestly flabbergasted how you could legitimately think and argue that being an arrogant [redacted] could be an advantage to being a moderator and having to smooth ruffled feathers, adjudicate fairly, and help ensure that everyone is having fun. Generally that requires empathy, which arrogance counteracts or precludes. :smallconfused:

Well, if the DM sits down with you on the floor mat, lights some incense and you both share a cup of tea and talk.....and then the DM tells you to shove it, then it's OK?

No, then it's just absurd and you're going out of your way to make up a ridiculous and implausible scenario to show what is presumably contempt for some purpose or another.

A DM capable of speaking to a player as a rational adult would be capable of something much more within the bounds of civil conversation in denying a player request as well as provide an explanation beyond something that essentially boils down to "I am on a power trip and shall be rude to you for no real reason."

The second is more like sitting at an open table in the public, with the sign "Staring a D&D game, here are the restrictions." People who are interested will stop by, and those who aren't, won't. I'm not quite sure why the DM would (or even should) work to accommodate the CE Kitsune Shifter Spellthief Werewolf riding a Dinosaur when they have ten other potential players who are creating characters more in line with the game.

That just sounds like such a hilariously bad idea. Why would anyone want to do that without at least some kind of filtration mechanism, such as Pathfinder Society?

Now if the DM is coming here and asking why they get so few players in their game, a lot of this advise might be useful. Stating that a character can be a noble only if they suck, or yet-another-kill-all-mages setting, can be a turn-off to a lot of players who have had bad experiences with such DMs in the past.

If it's a valid concern for if not enough people respond to the initial pitch, it seems like it would be a valid to consider such things when one is crafting one's initial pitch as well.

(removing the need for me to create psion NPCs, but not something I particularly like).

Regardless of the frequency of psionic characters within the population, you have no obligation to create them as a DM unless you intend to use them in some capacity.

Also, reading up on how psionics interacts with the rest of the system takes, at most, 20 to 30 minutes if one is a slow reader and really wants to read through the whole depth of available material. On a free website. There's even psionics guides for dummies if one still feels they need assistance understanding it.

Talakeal

2012-03-05, 07:43 PM

And unless they're Picasso, their work suffers in some way or another from their tragic flaw of being unable to deal with other people or learn to modify their initial vision when they get feedback so that they can better hit their target audience.

Hell, even if someone is a virtuoso and they entirely ignore what their target audience's tastes are, their work should suffer as a result.

Further, hero-worshiping artists for being bad people as if that makes their art more valid is just bad practice, as it encourages people who lack skill or talent to start being arrogant.

As not being able to understand people is kind of a handicap when it comes to producing works to be consumed by them.

It's an especially obvious and crippling flaw when it comes to being the game master of a social pen and paper roleplaying game. In fact, I am honestly flabbergasted how you could legitimately think and argue that being an arrogant [redacted] could be an advantage to being a moderator and having to smooth ruffled feathers, adjudicate fairly, and help ensure that everyone is having fun. Generally that requires empathy, which arrogance counteracts or precludes. :smallconfused:

I never claimed that it was a good thing, or even not a harmful thing.

The quote I was responding to seemed to claim that DMs who don't accept player input when designing their campaign world would come up with inevitably flawed ideas and would be better off simply writing a novel, which would itself be inevitably bad.

I was just saying that ideas which are not subject to group approval are not necessarily flawed or bad.

I didn't say that some ideas weren't bad, or that good ideas couldn't be improved by feedback. I also didn't say that good ideas or good writing skills made for a good DM.

On the flip side, not every idea needs to be shown and modified based on everyone's input. Look at the 5th ed speculation threads, I have seen a lot of people who claim that creating a product by committee is a horrible ideas because of people with conflicting views or who flat out don't know what they want. Likewise, in the numerous balance threads or magic vs. melee threads I see lot of people claim D&Ds problems come from the kitchen sink attitude of trying to include every single fantasy element in a single setting and just hoping it would turn out all right.

bloodtide

2012-03-05, 08:37 PM

You know he's completely correct, right? People care only about their own fun and will only make concessions towards others when there is a benefit in it for them, or when they fear the repercussions of not doing so. Furthermore, people will lie and cheat when the benefits for doing so outweigh the disadvantages. It's human nature.

It would be nice if every game was made of a group of best, best friends. So your whole group is people you have known for 20+ years, you were best man at each others wedding and know each others life stories. It would be nice if every group was like this.

But then we come to reality. Of the five people in one of my games: Two are best friends and saints, two I only know by playing the game and have no contact with them outside the game(so they are not friends, just 'gaming pals') and one is new(he is the friend of a friend that was looking for a game) and we all just met him three weeks ago(and so far he has been that realllllyyyyy annoying type person who is so busy that he has no time to do anything so we sure are not friends or anything like that).

So, as you can see there are three people in the game that I'm not 'best friends' with and that I know very little about. So it's more then possible that any of the three of them might lie or otherwise do something for their fun at the expense of the others in the group.

Knaight

2012-03-06, 02:55 AM

So, as you can see there are three people in the game that I'm not 'best friends' with and that I know very little about. So it's more then possible that any of the three of them might lie or otherwise do something for their fun at the expense of the others in the group.
Most people have this thing called "empathy" that prevents them from engaging in the behavior you describe. Wanting everyone involved in a social function to enjoy it is normal. Deliberately ruining someone else's experiences in a social function for some marginal benefit really isn't - that is the sort of thing people hostile to each other do, at which point they shouldn't be gaming together anyways.

The quote I was responding to seemed to claim that DMs who don't accept player input when designing their campaign world would come up with inevitably flawed ideas and would be better off simply writing a novel, which would itself be inevitably bad.

I was just saying that ideas which are not subject to group approval are not necessarily flawed or bad.

I didn't say that some ideas weren't bad, or that good ideas couldn't be improved by feedback. I also didn't say that good ideas or good writing skills made for a good DM.

On the flip side, not every idea needs to be shown and modified based on everyone's input. Look at the 5th ed speculation threads, I have seen a lot of people who claim that creating a product by committee is a horrible ideas because of people with conflicting views or who flat out don't know what they want. Likewise, in the numerous balance threads or magic vs. melee threads I see lot of people claim D&Ds problems come from the kitchen sink attitude of trying to include every single fantasy element in a single setting and just hoping it would turn out all right.
It's not about the quality of the ideas, it's about the amount the players enjoy them. If you are writing for all of 2-6 people, you take those people's ideas into account. If you are collaborating with those 2-6 people, and ignore them completely, then you are utterly failing at helping their interests, which is the point of gaming.

As for 5th edition - that isn't even remotely similar. One of these situations is a small group of people all collaborating at the same time, the other a small group of people writing for a fanbase. The first is more a social situation than anything else, the other an artistic one - though the actual artists involved still need to work with each other.

Regarding the fantasy kitchen sink - nobody has been advocating anything other than a unified vision. This has absolutely no relation to people taking advice from others, it is instead sloppy design on the part of pretty much one person.

Regarding novel writing - there are authors who just ignore their editors, and refuse to take any advice, at all. It tends to end poorly.

Dsurion

2012-03-06, 03:03 AM

But then we come to reality. Of the five people in one of my games: Two are best friends and saints, two I only know by playing the game and have no contact with them outside the game(so they are not friends, just 'gaming pals') and one is new(he is the friend of a friend that was looking for a game) and we all just met him three weeks ago(and so far he has been that realllllyyyyy annoying type person who is so busy that he has no time to do anything so we sure are not friends or anything like that).

So, as you can see there are three people in the game that I'm not 'best friends' with and that I know very little about. So it's more then possible that any of the three of them might lie or otherwise do something for their fun at the expense of the others in the group.If you hold such contempt for them, why are you gaming together at all?

Suddo

2012-03-06, 03:34 AM

Almost none. They should be able to ban books, though it should be more because they are not familiar with the book and aren't in a learning mood not because its unbalanced (usually); They should be able to limit races as much as they please, I tend to think the standard PHB races are untouchable and then you have to ask from there on out. I also think saying something such as no tier 1 classes is fine, maybe tier 2 but they tend to be much more in line.
Beyond that its requests. Try and play Tier 3 is a nice one; Be a good-ish character this isn't an evil campaign. No Tier 1 characters can fall under this too but I personally am okay with a more blanket ban of them.

Somethings they can tack on are okay too: I'm going to be playing with someone who housed ruled that if you take a level in a Prestige Class you have to finish it rather quickly, like an every other level must be of that class, its not that bad of an idea.

That's my opinion. Of course there are shades of gray.

Leon

2012-03-06, 03:36 AM

They're not a choice in this instance

Except that the opening argument has them as a requirement for playing a character from the top level of society

and while it's not explicitly forbidden for players to have their characters take levels in NPC classes, I seem to recall it being fairly explicit that NPC classes are on a whole different level below even weak PC classes, which makes arguing that they're valid choices problematic to say the least.

If the Class is allowed by a DM it is a valid choice for a player to make.

Fatebreaker

2012-03-06, 05:31 AM

Shadowknight12

2012-03-06, 05:46 AM

If your friends treat you like this, then they are not your friends.

I am baffled as to why anyone would choose to continue gaming with individuals who would treat them this way.

/facepalm

Let me make it as clear as possible: Everyone everywhere is like that.

Canarr

2012-03-06, 05:53 AM

That's actually the exact opposite of how people refluff psionics. A lot of people just want to use the system, not the fluff, and call it magic if the DM doesn't like the fluff. Screw duskblade, psychic warrior is the gish-in-a-can for 3.5. Psion is the class that lets you call upon any of your magic until you run out of power, with even less restriction than sorcerer, and is also int-based rather than cha-based.

That means, it’s better than (more powerful) “regular” magic? Or is it just that you do different things with it, not necessarily more things?

So, you don't like something that you're unfamiliar with, and you're unfamiliar with it because you don't like it.

I smell a logical fallacy here.

To me, that is perfectly logical, albeit not rational; then again, opinions don’t have to be. I just don’t like psionics. This dislike has slowly accumulated over the years, through bits and pieces heard or read or possibly surmised here and there. I’m not even claiming this dislike is entirely justified, but it’s there. Every interaction I’ve had regarding psionics has added to it.

I know it is not rational, and I realize I may very well change my opinion if I ever truly familiarize myself with psionics. However, nobody has yet provided me with enough incentive to interest me in doing that. So, I didn’t.

Or, to put it in game terms: I’m currently Unfriendly towards psionics. Until someone rolls high enough on a Diplomacy check to change that to Friendly, I will remain so.

Regardless of the frequency of psionic characters within the population, you have no obligation to create them as a DM unless you intend to use them in some capacity.

If I included psionics into a game world, I would feel obliged to give it some level of prevalence. Why should the psionic PC be the only one of his kind in the whole world? Not to mention, I like to give each PC an occasional opportunity to shine in their specialty. If the psions specialty doesn’t exist in the rest of the world, that’d kinda suck for him.

I guess my point is: I’d rather not do something at all, than do a half-assed job of it.

TuggyNE

2012-03-06, 06:19 AM

/facepalm

Let me make it as clear as possible: Everyone everywhere is like that.

This is a view of human nature that is (apparently) vehemently disagreed with by several people on the thread. (To be honest, I'm not sure upon which side of this debate I would range myself.) But I think it's safe to say at this point that the difference of opinion is pretty basic, perhaps on the level of key assumptions; therefore, perhaps the discussion should move on to other areas.

dsmiles

2012-03-06, 06:20 AM

/facepalm

Let me make it as clear as possible: Everyone everywhere is like that.

Your experiences have led you astray. No, they're not. I've never gamed with the type of people you're describing, and I've been doing this for going on 28 years across four states and two countries.

sonofzeal

2012-03-06, 07:19 AM

/facepalm

Let me make it as clear as possible: Everyone everywhere is like that.
.......except not all games are zero-sum.

If, purely hypothetically, someone valued the out-of-game social elements of hanging out with friends, over and above whatever in-game shenanigans are going on, you see a completely different dynamic. It turns out, friendship is magicnon-zero-sum, and cooperation and compromise are highly benefitial overall. Indeed, people who play out-of-game friendship in the sort of ruthlessly self-centered manner you describe generally lose at it, badly.

And besides, anyone who values in-game above out-of-game is not someone I want to play with.

Rejusu

2012-03-06, 07:21 AM

That means, it’s better than (more powerful) “regular” magic? Or is it just that you do different things with it, not necessarily more things?

Psionics are generally a more balanced version of core spellcasting. The Psion has the casting (manifesting) progression of a Wizard but the flexibility of a Sorcerer. HOWEVER what keeps it from being a more broken Wizard is the fact their power list simply isn't as good as the Wizards spell list, among other things like the forced specialisation they have to undergo. This is why they're a tier 2 class.

To me, that is perfectly logical, albeit not rational; then again, opinions don’t have to be. I just don’t like psionics. This dislike has slowly accumulated over the years, through bits and pieces heard or read or possibly surmised here and there. I’m not even claiming this dislike is entirely justified, but it’s there. Every interaction I’ve had regarding psionics has added to it.

The problem with going off things you've heard though rather than first hand experience is you tend to get a rather skewed version of what things are like. Psionics got an undeserved reputation for being broken a while ago despite the fact it's more balanced than core is. A lot of the "Psionics is broken" stuff tended to stem from the old 3.0 rules on it (which were kind of broken) and cheating players who'd mess with DM's unfamiliar with the system.

I know it is not rational, and I realize I may very well change my opinion if I ever truly familiarize myself with psionics. However, nobody has yet provided me with enough incentive to interest me in doing that. So, I didn’t.

And you're never going to if every time someone in your game wants to play a psionic you tell them to go play a Wizard instead. You've had plenty of incentives, you're just not interested in taking them.

If I included psionics into a game world, I would feel obliged to give it some level of prevalence. Why should the psionic PC be the only one of his kind in the whole world? Not to mention, I like to give each PC an occasional opportunity to shine in their specialty. If the psions specialty doesn’t exist in the rest of the world, that’d kinda suck for him.

I guess my point is: I’d rather not do something at all, than do a half-assed job of it.

I can understand that but this is why the Psionic/Magic transparency rules exist. You can just refluff Psionics as magic if you wish or just leave it the same and have anything that affects magic also affect psionics (and vice versa) so a null magic field also nullifies psionics. Also what's wrong about a PC having a unique character within the setting? D&D is based around high fantasy, chosen ones and heroes with special powers are a dime a dozen.

And a Psion can shine just as easily as a Wizard can if you use full transparency on magics/psionics. You can just throw anything you'd normally throw at the Wizard at the Psion.

Badgerish

2012-03-06, 07:22 AM

Every human decision is based on perceived cost and perceived gain. - complete irrevocable fact

However human perceptions are wildly, wildly variable. Some people simply don't look ahead at the results of their actions. They see "this will get me an advantage in this game" and assume the downside is "the GM will be a bit annoyed, then forget about it. No long-term consequences", thus they lie and are surprised when the trust is gone and there ARE consequences.

Most moral/social/intelligent people realise that you have more fun when the people around you have fun, thus they encourage people to get involved.

If you are gaming with people who don't see "The GM/other-players feel bad" as a bad thing, then kick them in the nethers to the curb and get new gamers.

sonofzeal

2012-03-06, 07:33 AM

Every human decision is based on perceived cost and perceived gain. - complete irrevocable fact
Hardly. While there is a cost/gain component to most decisions, I think you'll find any theory which presumes that humans are perfectly rational creatures is doomed to failure. In fact, I think you could probably think up half a dozen counterexamples yourself if you bothered. Heck, you've probably made decisions yourself within the last five minutes that weren't ruthlessly tabulated in terms of perceived cost/gain. I'm sure you could attempt to justify them that way in hindsight, but I somehow doubt you run through those calculations every time you decide to post on this very forum. How much is your time worth, in terms of an hourly pay rate? How long does it take you to post here? What else could you do with that time to better your long-term prospects or simply gain some short-term pleasure? Do you really go through all the rationally-conceivable options every time your mouse hovers over the "reply" button?

HunterOfJello

2012-03-06, 07:35 AM

Here's how I feel about a DM/GM's control of a character's creation.

The DM/GM should present all information about what limitations and requirements exist on creating characters at the very beginning of the introductory session (before the first gaming session). Anyone who doesn't like the limitations and requirements can each state their case for why something should be changed, allowed, or disallowed. The DM/GM can then react to that as they feel appropriate.

Once everything is said and done, there should be a final set of master house rules involved for creating characters. This set of master house rules should not be changed over the course of the game, barring the introduction of previously unaddressed or unforeseen elements. (Ex: DM didn't know about Dragonwrought Kobolds and someone wants to play a crazy powerful one.)

When everything is said and done, the players can then look at that set of house rules and decide if they're alright with it or not. If they feel it is too restrictive or that they don't want to play in that game, then they can pass up that game and find a different one. Anyone left can start making characters and things can proceed from there.

~~~~~

The DM/GM has to take the role of the master rulemaker and will usually be forced to implement rules in order for the characters in a game to properly conform and realistically fit into the setting they have developed. This can be done by a short set of very general rules or by a long list of very specific rules that are not to be violated. It depends on how to players work and react to rules. Some players are best being told "No Pun-Puns" while others will just be fine with "Keep the optimization at a maximum of Tier 3 level for base classes and Tier 1 with the inclusion of prestige classes".

dsmiles

2012-03-06, 08:38 AM

If you are gaming with people who don't see "The GM/other-players feel bad" as a bad thing, then kick them in the nethers to the curb and get new gamers.FYI: Kicking jerkasses in the nethers is far mor satisfying than just kicking them out. Jus' sayin'.

On the topic of Psionics:
Psions are not quite as versatile as Wizards, having a limited power selection at any given time. They're closer to Sorcerers in that regard. If I had to pick one thing they do better, it would be blasting. Mostly because they can scale their blasts to the threat, and save their power points for something else. Once a Wizard uses a spell, it's max dice period; and the slot is gone until they can rest and prepare spells again.

"Oh, look, it's a cute little Kobold!" 2pp Mind Thrust.

"Oh, crap, it's a tribe of Mind Flayers!!!" Max pp Cold Burst.

Hiro Protagonest

2012-03-06, 10:14 AM

That means, it’s better than (more powerful) “regular” magic? Or is it just that you do different things with it, not necessarily more things?
Er, better doesn't mean more powerful. It's actually less powerful. Well actually, it depends. Psions are more powerful than Dread Necromancers and Warmages, but weaker than wizards and sorcerers. Of course, it's also dependent on optimization level, and low-op groups might have a kneejerk reaction that the psion can change the damage and side effect of his blasting powers on the fly. Duskblade is probably a bit weaker than psychic warrior, but in practice the difference is so small it doesn't matter. A spellsword, with it's half-casting progression (a bad thing), can easily be more powerful than a psychic warrior (fighter 1/wizard... 4?/spellsword 10 can cast Overland Flight and Haste and such, psychic warrior doesn't get that).

To me, that is perfectly logical, albeit not rational; then again, opinions don’t have to be. I just don’t like psionics. This dislike has slowly accumulated over the years, through bits and pieces heard or read or possibly surmised here and there. I’m not even claiming this dislike is entirely justified, but it’s there. Every interaction I’ve had regarding psionics has added to it.

I know it is not rational, and I realize I may very well change my opinion if I ever truly familiarize myself with psionics. However, nobody has yet provided me with enough incentive to interest me in doing that. So, I didn’t.

Or, to put it in game terms: I’m currently Unfriendly towards psionics. Until someone rolls high enough on a Diplomacy check to change that to Friendly, I will remain so.

Oh god. You've probably been hearing about 3.0 psionics and Complete Psionic. Also, you might've been hearing about how a psion can unleash a supernova beyond his level. Well, he can't, there's a rule saying you can't invest more power points in a power than your manifester level.

Terazul

2012-03-06, 10:52 AM

On Psionics: Yeah, Psion-likes are better blasters than your standard fair arcanists because they can change their energy types on the fly. Psionics are more versatile out-of-the-box than spellcasters, even with their limited power set, as many of their powers (especially in a particularly well-done rewrite) augment into other powers; You don't have to grab Charm Person and Charm Monster separately, they're just Psionic Charm, and you spend a few extra points to hit other creature types. In general, low level powers are still useful later, because you can augment them to higher power levels and effects. Psionics differs/suffers in that it lacks much in the method of buffing/healing others as most of its effects like that are personal/internal, and it doesn't really have any method of duplicating the Illusion school. Psionics is often easier for newbies to understand in that it works basically like an MP system, as opposed to distributing slots and bonus slots about. It is also by default more subtle, as all powers are effectively stilled/silent for manifesting, but they have their own visual, mental, or other kind of display to let you know what's going on. You can still wiggle your fingers if you want though.

However, for all of its versatility, Magic is still more powerful in that basically There's A Spell For That™ for any given psionic power since they've had more support, though there's a few things that can't be duplicated between the two. Spellcasting suffers fewer limitations though, and Psionics cannot do absurd levels of metapower stacking (due to psionic focus requirements) compared to Magic and metamagic. Furthermore, spellcasters get free scaling on all of their spells, whereas psionic-users have to actually shell out for their power; A 1st level Shocking Grasp cast by a 5th level Wizard will deal 5d6 damage at no cost to them other than a first level slot, whereas a Psion using the 1st level power Energy Ray would have to spend a total of 5 power points (effectively a 3rd level power) to achieve the same result.

So yeah. Psionics is kind of like a more balanced form of Magic in that it has inherent limits built-in. Incredibly versatile and powerful, but less shenanigans.

Typewriter

2012-03-06, 10:53 AM

@OP

It depends on the campaign and it depends on the group. If your players trust you you'll probably be fine adding restrictions as long as you go into it with a fair and open mindset. Don't target specific players or classes just because they are that player or class, don't change the rules on the fly. If you say 'no wizards' then have a wizard sitting around every corner the party is going to notice.

As for your example, I'd have to say it's a big 'depends'. The players can give up power to be nobility, but does this do anything for them, or are you forcing them to play specific classes solely for the ability to have the backstory they want? That to me sounds a bit unfair. If, on the other hand, being a noble means I'll be able to bypass certain restrictions in the city, maybe have a bodyguard with me for cheap/free...

Hold on there. In attempting a diplomatic answer you have sealed your doom (to be overly dramatic)- That phrase you used, "a lot", is not the same as "some" or "any at all".

I said that DMs you don't allow for any input from their players are the bad ones, I never specified the quantity or quality of that input, or even that the DM in question uses every idea fielded, only that (s)he keeps an open ear.

So no, I think it's exactly the right amount of insulting, to those kinds of DMs (which are far too frequent, just read ninety percept of the "omg, you'll never believe this DM" forum threads) that the comment was directed to.

I do apologize for not being as explicit as I could, the miscommunication was totally my bad.

To be honest I have to disagree with this. I've run some campaigns that, in order for me to get the right effect, didn't really allow for me to tell the party anything about the campaign ahead of time, and I've had fine results. I do prefer campaigns where I have lots of player input, but that doesn't mean that every single campaign has to be like that.

Truth be told the majority of the campaigns I've played in have been "This is the campaign, go", with no feedback from the players.

You know he's completely correct, right? People care only about their own fun and will only make concessions towards others when there is a benefit in it for them, or when they fear the repercussions of not doing so. Furthermore, people will lie and cheat when the benefits for doing so outweigh the disadvantages. It's human nature.

/facepalm

Let me make it as clear as possible: Everyone everywhere is like that.

I feel like responding to this comment, but seeing as how you've already claimed to be being mobbed, said you were done with this thread, then made the above two posts without actually making an argument, instead opting to do run-by commenting I probably shouldn't. But I make poor decisions.

1. You're attempting to generalize all people into a group that the majority of posters are telling you they haven't experienced. This alone should tell you that maybe your generalizations aren't as 'one size fits all' as you'd like them to be.
2. Even if you think that 'human nature' only feeds one type of signal to the human brain, you have to realize that not everybody feeds into that signal right? A big difference between people and animals is our ability to make decisions and not just listen to primal instincts, which is how you seem to be talking about 'human nature'.
3. It sounds like you're trying to justify your own behavior by saying 'everyone does it'. If that's how you want to justify things to yourself feel fine, but you have to realize that you're talking to people who disagree with you. If I'm playing in someones game and I roll a 1 when I wanted a 20 I'm not going to cheat because that's not the game I want to play, so telling me that everyone lies and cheats just isn't something I, personally, will ever agree with.

Rejusu

2012-03-06, 11:48 AM

A spellsword, with it's half-casting progression (a bad thing), can easily be more powerful than a psychic warrior (fighter 1/wizard... 4?/spellsword 10 can cast Overland Flight and Haste and such, psychic warrior doesn't get that).

A psychic warrior can get psionic fly at 10th level and teleport by 13th level by taking the Mantled Warrior ACF and selecting the Freedom domain. Psionics doesn't have any haste equivalent that I know of but things like flight are easy to get. Plus Spellswords don't get expansion, which is vastly superior to enlarge person simply because you can augment it to go up two size categories.

Oh god. You've probably been hearing about 3.0 psionics and Complete Psionic. Also, you might've been hearing about how a psion can unleash a supernova beyond his level. Well, he can't, there's a rule saying you can't invest more power points in a power than your manifester level.

Complete Psionic isn't really that unbalanced though, the editing on it is just rubbish.

danzibr

2012-03-06, 12:25 PM

So anyways...

That seems fine to me. Basically, you can play what you want, but you may to come from a foreign land.

Fatebreaker

2012-03-06, 01:22 PM

/facepalm

Let me make it as clear as possible: Everyone everywhere is like that.

Really? Everyone? Everywhere?

Your experiences have led you astray. No, they're not. I've never gamed with the type of people you're describing, and I've been doing this for going on 28 years across four states and two countries.

.......except not all games are zero-sum.

If, purely hypothetically, someone valued the out-of-game social elements of hanging out with friends, over and above whatever in-game shenanigans are going on, you see a completely different dynamic. It turns out, friendship is magicnon-zero-sum, and cooperation and compromise are highly benefitial overall. Indeed, people who play out-of-game friendship in the sort of ruthlessly self-centered manner you describe generally lose at it, badly.

And besides, anyone who values in-game above out-of-game is not someone I want to play with.

Most moral/social/intelligent people realise that you have more fun when the people around you have fun, thus they encourage people to get involved.

If you are gaming with people who don't see "The GM/other-players feel bad" as a bad thing, then kick them in the nethers to the curb and get new gamers.

1. You're attempting to generalize all people into a group that the majority of posters are telling you they haven't experienced. This alone should tell you that maybe your generalizations aren't as 'one size fits all' as you'd like them to be.
2. Even if you think that 'human nature' only feeds one type of signal to the human brain, you have to realize that not everybody feeds into that signal right? A big difference between people and animals is our ability to make decisions and not just listen to primal instincts, which is how you seem to be talking about 'human nature'.
3. It sounds like you're trying to justify your own behavior by saying 'everyone does it'. If that's how you want to justify things to yourself feel fine, but you have to realize that you're talking to people who disagree with you. If I'm playing in someones game and I roll a 1 when I wanted a 20 I'm not going to cheat because that's not the game I want to play, so telling me that everyone lies and cheats just isn't something I, personally, will ever agree with.

...'cause I'd imagine that "everyone, everywhere" would include the folks speaking against your claim, and even if they're lying about not being liars (I see through your lies!), I know I'm not the person you think I am, and I know my friends aren't the people you think they are. I'm not sure why you imagine that you know everyone, everywhere well enough to make that claim in the first place.

Look, I could write a book on how not everyone is the way you see them, but you seem pretty set on the idea that people are calculating, unfeeling schemers who are solely out for number one at the expense of everyone who is not, in fact, number one. I'm genuinely sorry that you feel that way, and you have my sympathies for whatever twisted your worldview to the point where you cannot accept even the hypothetical existence of decent people.

Whether you call it morality, empathy, enlightened self-interest, a different set of values, or just plain maturity, people with social graces do exist beyond your world of double-talking, backstabbing, self-absorbed, insecure cheaters. Go find some. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

--

Son of Zeal: Now I want to run a game called "My Little Politician: Friendship is Magic Non-Zero Sum." It will feature an Equestria wracked with civil war, as Celestia defends the Solar Empire against the New Lunar Republic, while Discordian cultists terrorize anyone and everyone (and especially each other!) in the name of chaos. The Mane Six will champion the day, while the elite Wonderbolts and Shadowbolt duel for control of the skies. Pegasi will unleash war-weather of nightmarish proportions on their enemies, unicorn nobles will lead valiant charges, and the Terrestrial Legions of the earth ponies keep watch from high atop the battlements, ever-vigilant in the face of the enemy. Monsters will roam wild and Weaponized Morality Devices will unleash rainbows of despair.

Vinyl Scratch & Octavia, naturally, will provide the soundtrack to the apocalypse.

--

Regarding Psions:
I never really got the deal with psions. It used to always strike me as the sort of "everything and the kitchen sink" mentality of D&D. Later, after 3.x had gone out of print, I realized that psions would be an interesting alternative for the players who like the flavor of a monk but don't like the mechanics of the class, since they're all focused on inner power and control and can do all sorts of unusual things which set them apart from other classes.

Then I saw that 4e agreed with me! Awesome!

Canarr, if you've got a player who's interested, I dunno, set aside fifteen or twenty minutes and let him show you the system. If you still don't like it, no harm no foul, and at least you'll win points for listening to him. If you do, hey, awesome, your player gets his psion, and maybe the rest of the party gets surprised by a villain who doesn't operate the way they're used to. That's worth fifteen minutes no matter how you cut it!

bloodtide

2012-03-06, 01:53 PM

If you hold such contempt for them, why are you gaming together at all?

It's not like I'm given much choice. I can either game with them, or not game at all.

Coidzor

2012-03-06, 02:33 PM

^: Oh? Really now? Have you tried?

Have you put legitimate effort into finding alternative fixes for your D&D needs?
If I included psionics into a game world, I would feel obliged to give it some level of prevalence. Why should the psionic PC be the only one of his kind in the whole world?

Not every character in the world gets statted out and not every character the PCs encounter will be participating in combat either on their side or against them. You're falling into the hole of fallacy here.

The effort it would take to give them "some level of prevalence" is about as much effort as it takes for me to type out this run-on sentence about it.

Got sages? Got NPC spellcasters? Some of those are psions. Bam. Done.

Not to mention, I like to give each PC an occasional opportunity to shine in their specialty. If the psions specialty doesn’t exist in the rest of the world, that’d kinda suck for him.

Less than being banned from being allowed to play a psion if that's what he wanted. :smallwink: As for the rest, there's not much I can say without more information about what you actually mean here and do as a result.

I guess my point is: I’d rather not do something at all, than do a half-assed job of it.

Then your problem is that you define reasonable options as half-assed jobs, which is a rather needlessly alienating thing to do.

The Glyphstone

2012-03-06, 02:47 PM

I'm currently running a game where psionics are disallowed. I personally consider the psionics system to be the most beautiful thing ever invented in the history of 3.5, and take advantage of it wherever possible. In my game, psionics don't exist -because they will. The creation of the first psions and the spreading of psychic power will be an in-campaign plot event, possibly directly because of the PC's actions. Characters will have the chance to retrain as much as they want to benefit from the new power, and future replacements will be capable of psionics. But not now, and I don't think I'm doing it wrong at all.

Canarr

2012-03-06, 04:09 PM

Canarr, if you've got a player who's interested, I dunno, set aside fifteen or twenty minutes and let him show you the system. If you still don't like it, no harm no foul, and at least you'll win points for listening to him. If you do, hey, awesome, your player gets his psion, and maybe the rest of the party gets surprised by a villain who doesn't operate the way they're used to. That's worth fifteen minutes no matter how you cut it!

That is actually an argument I can get behind... might give it a shot if the topic comes up in my next campaign. Thanks.

Not every character in the world gets statted out and not every character the PCs encounter will be participating in combat either on their side or against them. You're falling into the hole of fallacy here.

The effort it would take to give them "some level of prevalence" is about as much effort as it takes for me to type out this run-on sentence about it.
Got sages? Got NPC spellcasters? Some of those are psions. Bam. Done.

Hm. Point taken, yes. Admittedly, establishing the background prevalence is not a lot of work; a couple of hours at the most, if I feel the need to establish any specific organizations or rivalries.

Less than being banned from being allowed to play a psion if that's what he wanted. :smallwink: As for the rest, there's not much I can say without more information about what you actually mean here and do as a result.

Example: a player ran a cleric of a LG goddess of healing, family, home and community. A brother cleric of his local temple had a vision that a Saint of the faith buried in her home village in a neighboring barony wanted him to bring her bones to his church, where she'd worked a lot during her lifetime. Of course, having a famous Saint buried at your temple bringt a lot of pilgrims and thus, money. The PC was drawn into the dispute between both temples who had the larger "claim" to the Saint, and in the end, it fell on him to mediate the dispute. Plus, there was a hidden cleric of Corruption who tried to manipulate events to his liking.

Yeah, I stole that plot from an old British TV series. Minus the evil cleric.

Then your problem is that you define reasonable options as half-assed jobs, which is a rather needlessly alienating thing to do.

We might have different opinions on what constitutes "reasonable" options. I believe that, as GM, it is my right to limit options to a level I am comfortable working and playing with. To me, that is "reasonable".

Coidzor

2012-03-06, 05:00 PM

We might have different opinions on what constitutes "reasonable" options. I believe that, as GM, it is my right to limit options to a level I am comfortable working and playing with. To me, that is "reasonable".

:smalltongue: Now you're just trying to recontextualize. Things that do not take hours upon hours of the DM's time are not by necessity "half-assing it" and they are not illegitimate is what my point boiled down to. Dismissing the possibility that a solution that doesn't overburden you could be valid needlessly limits yourself and your options.

Fatebreaker

2012-03-06, 05:10 PM

Happy to help, Canarr. Good luck to both you and your psion-player!

It's not like I'm given much choice. I can either game with them, or not game at all.

Bloodtide, I'm legitimately curious as to why this binary option of badgame/nogame exists. What's holding you back from finding other players?

Canarr

2012-03-06, 05:17 PM

:smalltongue: Now you're just trying to recontextualize.

Trying to what? :smallconfused:

Now, I thought my vocabulary was pretty broad, put that word I've never heard.... and neither has Leo. Where'd you get that? And what does it mean?

I get your point, I do. But my point is: as a GM, I already have a lot of things I work on during a campaign. Plot elements, random and casted NPCs as well as their motivations, goals and interactions, locations, encounters... there's always something. But I only have a limited number of hours I can put into D&D, so I choose to maximize the gain of those hours, by choosing to work on something that I, too, enjoy, or that more than one player benefits from. And psionics doesn't fit the bill on that for me.

Rubik

2012-03-06, 07:54 PM

"Recontextualize" means that one is taking something out of context and interpreting it in a way that was not meant (whether purposefully or otherwise).

Bovine Colonel

2012-03-06, 08:12 PM

/facepalm

Let me make it as clear as possible: Everyone everywhere is like that.

I'm not going to try to claim that I'm a great person or anything like that (because I'm not), but if I ever encounter proof that I'm a selfish little jerk that would lie and cheat whenever it's convenient and make concessions for no reasons except personal gain, I'm going to have to choke myself.

big teej

2012-03-06, 08:19 PM

in my humble opinion...

the DM gets say in 2 things, and only 2 things about my character.

1) is the character acceptable for his table EXACTLY as I have presented it?

if not, I expect to be informed of such, and will quickly produce alternate characters until one is met with approval...

what I will NOT do, is allow the DM to tweak my class features/choices/etc. until HE is happy with it.... nor will I fight with a DM over what I can or can't do.

2) how he implements any character specific plothooks I have provided.

may sound a little combative, but I've had enough of trying to appease people during chargen, I'll make the character I want, and if you don't like it that's fine, I'll make another (and another, and another ad naseum) but you will not mess with it.

Knaight

2012-03-06, 08:28 PM

It's not like I'm given much choice. I can either game with them, or not game at all.

Not gaming at all sounds better, given the opinion you hold of them.

Frozen_Feet

2012-03-06, 08:56 PM

I don't have much to say to the OP, expect that those rulings sound like something I might make.

And I rule my games with an iron fist. :smalltongue:

A simple fact is: conceptual space for any given game is limited. You can't have every element present in game, it just doesn't work. Sooner or later, you're going to run into mutually exclusive or detractory combinations.

For example, if the idea for a game is to play Finnish Teenage Mutant Girl Pop-Stars in year 2020 (this game exists, by the way), it needs majority of players to be just that. I mean, some player(s) could play the sleazy manager, or a burglar trying to break into the backstage, being part of the supporting cast or the antagonists respectively. But their roles are still defined by their connection and interaction with the girls.

That said, I'm not impervious to player feedback and suggestions. If there's a way, within the rules I'm using, to implement a character concept, I'll usually help in digging up the proper rules. Between games, I ask my players what sort of setting they'd want for the next one, and what ruleset.

That said, once I've laid down a concept and rules for a game, I won't budge about them. If I bring along a chess board and pieces, it means I want to play chess with them, not checkers or Calvinball. Things don't get a pass just because someone wants them or thinks they'd be cool - and this applies to me too. If I play chess, I don't get to make illegal moves to win no matter how much I hate losing in it.

It's part of the social contract of playing a role, and playing a game.

dsmiles

2012-03-06, 10:12 PM

(this game exists, by the way):smalleek:

Calvinball.
You sure? It's fun! :smalltongue:

The Glyphstone

2012-03-06, 10:48 PM

If I bring along a chess board and pieces, it means I want to play chess with them, not checkers or Calvinball.

I'm invoking the No Bystanders rule! Anyone who wasn't playing Calvinball is now playing Calvinball!

Yahzi

2012-03-07, 06:35 AM

conceptual space for any given game is limited.
Yes, exactly.

I want to present a world that is internally consistent. That means I have to know all the rules in advance. That means limiting the rules to a sub-set I find manageable.

Which, in my case, is Core only. Minus monks and psionics. Plus about 100 pages of house-rules to try and make sense out of the limited powers I did allow.

Truth be told, I'd rather be running 2E; but it's just simply unworkable. No amount of re-fluffing can make any dang sense out of it. :smallbiggrin:

Hyde

2012-03-07, 07:10 AM

It was more the implication that if you aren't a social or compromising person anything you create is going to be bad. A lot of very talented people are arrogant, stubborn, and complete ********s. I can't imagine an anti social recluse like JD Salinger would take any imput at all on his creative works, and he is considerered one of the greatest authors of all time.
.

I believe you'll note the "write a book" byline of my original text. Good job using an author for your example.

You can be uncompromising with your own material all day long, but the idea that a DnD game "belongs" to only one person is ridiculous at best.

Anyway, by my count, you're out of feet.

Hyde

2012-03-07, 07:12 AM

It turns out, friendship is magicnon-zero-sum,

You, Sir, are my new favorite.

Talakeal

2012-03-07, 10:36 AM

I believe you'll note the "write a book" byline of my original text. Good job using an author for your example.

You can be uncompromising with your own material all day long, but the idea that a DnD game "belongs" to only one person is ridiculous at best.

Anyway, by my count, you're out of feet.

I don't know why I keep having to defend such a simple statement. I was always talking about authors. You said that such a person would be better off writing a BAD novel. My entire point was that such a person could very well write a GOOD novel and you were being needlessly insulting to such authors.

I will agree with your second sentence, however I will say the DM typically has a hell of a lot more input on the game than the players, and often puts more effort in than all the players combined. Hell, typically when I run a game and let the players play whatever they want they either choose a super powered character with no back-story and motivation beyond finding monsters to kill, or a character they directly copied (and I mean directly, even down to the name) out of an anime or an action movie who they will get bored with within two weeks and want to play a different anime character. I would LOVE it if my players wanted to help build the world and find their place in it, but usually that isn't what they want to do, and they only complain about my restrictions because I don't allow their infinite damage combo or because I say they can't play Goku in a sword and sorcery game. *

As for your last sentence, I don't get the reference, but I assume you are simply declaring me the "loser" of the debate. If that is correct I am not sure how to respond to that, because all I was making was the simple point that it is unfair and needlessly cruel to dismiss someone's writing as bad because they set definite boundries when running an RPG, a totally different medium.

*My campaign world is an apocalyptic sword and sorcery / western hybrid. I have had people want to play Batman, Legolas, Venom, Lina & Gourry from Slayers, Rogue, Tommy from Vice City, the weird alien hybrid from Alien resurrection, the Predator, Princess Mononoke, Gir from Invader Zim, a future cop from Minority Report, Tinkerbelle, and I am sure many others that I can't recall or didn't notice because they were subtle enough to change the name.

And this isn't even including the list of people who wanted to make really weird original stuff, like four armed angels, colossal+ giants who can't come into dungeons or any other structure, energy based life forms, quarter dragon-gargoyle-troll-lizardman, giant fairies made of both fire and ice, winged-elven catgirls, characters who put all of their points into one stat and are literally crippled in all other areas, self admitted sociopathic serial killers in a good party, and leadership chains so that one player is controlling more characters than the rest of the party combined.**

And you know what? I allowed almost all of them, and the players ALWAYS get bored within a month and switches to something else. Usually something equally crazy whom they get bored of just as quickly.

** And that list doesn't even include the guy who wanted to play a human after a girl in his class he had a crush on. The next week he changed her to a half elf. The next week he changed her to a full elf. Then a half angel. Then a full angel. then an archangel. Then a Phoenix.
At this point the other PLAYERS were fed up with it. So one of the other came up with a plan, where I would tell him he could be whatever he wanted, and he would choose a Titan, the strongest thing in the game, then he would make a Titan and use it to make fun of the other player / teach him a lesson.
The other player's response? I didn't know you would let us be Titans! Screw Phoenix, I am going to make my character into a Titan as well! This is awesome! A week later he found that an all Titan party was boring and left the game and everyone else went back to playing normal things.

The Glyphstone

2012-03-07, 11:38 AM

Tal, your game sounds kinda awesome, in a delusional drug-trip sort of way...

Talakeal

2012-03-07, 11:44 AM

Tal, your game sounds kinda awesome, in a delusional drug-trip sort of way...

Yeah, I know. I actually find it hard to believe that most games aren't like this as my regulars (aside from a few notable exceptions) aren't the ones who do most of the crazy stuff. Normally its new players who want to play the really wierd stuff and anime characters. Maybe it is just the circles I run in.

big teej

2012-03-07, 12:17 PM

Seerow

2012-03-07, 12:23 PM

maybe its me but.....

does anyone else here become totally unreceptive to a character idea upon hearing anything along the lines of "so I was watching -anime name- and I got this really cool character idea"?

or is it just me?

It really depends on how they go about it. If they see something done and want to recreate the effect, I don't have a problem. When they decide they want to play as Sailor Moon, I just facepalm really hard.

Coidzor

2012-03-07, 12:28 PM

I don't know why I keep having to defend such a simple statement. I was always talking about authors.

That's probably the problem. Authors didn't have anything to do with the discussion, since we were talking about GMs. And if one tries to think of "author" and "GM" in the same person, one becomes uncomfortably reminded of those GMs who are super-hardcore railroaders because they forgot they were running a game, not a book.

So being reminded of that kind of imperiousness sticks in people's craw regardless of your actual intent in bringing it up or that it was a tangent and not pertinent to the main conversation.

I, personally, thought you were trying to reverse engineer any shred of approval of writers and authors doing that and then go "AHAH! You *are* OK with overbearing GMS!" when I saw what you had written and that you were so vehement about it, as it didn't seem nearly as plausible that you just wanted to have a side conversation about authors with no bearing on GMing best practices.

Sorry about that.

Talakeal

2012-03-07, 12:48 PM

I was just responding to the implication that inflexible GMs always have flawed ideas and make for bad authors.

And even the flawed ideas part is only partially false, because all GMs good and bad have some flawed ideas, and those who don't listen to feedback probably have trouble recognizing which is which.

As for myself, well, keep in mind, that list of PCs in my previous post? All of those were allowed in my game, although some took a bit of convincing on the players part. I really don't think the campaign was richer for them than if I had put my foot down and insisted players make something at least somewhat original and normal.

ahenobarbi

2012-03-07, 12:52 PM

On Psionics: Well my DM doesn't allows psions, because one player (known to cheat) once made a character that was "OMG too powerful" (which probably means it could deal much damage, because group is mostly fail-OP).

Yeah, I think it's mostly banned because of cheating players (taking adventage of DM not knowing something) or hearing about Psionics breaking game (and not noticing Tier 1 breaking game).

Hardly. While there is a cost/gain component to most decisions, I think you'll find any theory which presumes that humans are perfectly rational creatures is doomed to failure. In fact, I think you could probably think up half a dozen counterexamples yourself if you bothered. Heck, you've probably made decisions yourself within the last five minutes that weren't ruthlessly tabulated in terms of perceived cost/gain. I'm sure you could attempt to justify them that way in hindsight, but I somehow doubt you run through those calculations every time you decide to post on this very forum. How much is your time worth, in terms of an hourly pay rate? How long does it take you to post here? What else could you do with that time to better your long-term prospects or simply gain some short-term pleasure? Do you really go through all the rationally-conceivable options every time your mouse hovers over the "reply" button?

Cost/gain is different from monetary value of things. It's also different than declarations on your preference. And there is no way to define "rational choice" other than "choice actually made". This may look a bit weird at first but when most people say "irrational choice" they usually mean "misinformed choice".

Fatebreaker

2012-03-07, 01:18 PM

maybe its me but.....

does anyone else here become totally unreceptive to a character idea upon hearing anything along the lines of "so I was watching -anime name- and I got this really cool character idea"?

or is it just me?

Hey, people can be inspired by all sorts of things. And like any medium that's broad in scope (live-action films, books, video games, music, etc.), for all the bad in anime there's also a lot of good. Ghost in the Shell is a great source of inspiration for, say, a Shadowrun game. The fact that one is a tabletop rpg and the other is an anime doesn't mean that certain core ideas, concepts, and styles aren't compatible.

I'd at least want to hear whether the player had an idea for a really cool character inspired by another source, or whether he just wanted to play a really cool character from another source. I'm much more likely to be receptive to the first, and I suspect that the player is going to enjoy the first more because it's their character.

dsmiles

2012-03-07, 01:33 PM

Hey, people can be inspired by all sorts of things. Tell me about it. I once played in a campaign that was inspired by all of the old christmas specials. You know, the old stop motion ones: Frosty, Rudolph, The Year Without Santa Claus, etc. (Bumbles BOUNCE!)

Hiro Protagonest

2012-03-07, 01:39 PM

maybe its me but.....

does anyone else here become totally unreceptive to a character idea upon hearing anything along the lines of "so I was watching -anime name- and I got this really cool character idea"?

or is it just me?

Depends on the anime. If it's Shaman King, point them towards totemist, binder, and Eternal Blade. If it's One Piece, Luffy is basically the only one you have a chance of replicating, as a few feats can give you 15 feet of natural reach. If it's one with people controlling giant mechas, tell them to think of something serious.

dsmiles

2012-03-07, 01:41 PM

If it's one with people controlling giant mechas, tell them to think of something serious.Unless you're playing BESM. Then Gundams are fine. :smallwink:

Fatebreaker

2012-03-07, 01:42 PM

Tell me about it. I once played in a campaign that was inspired by all of the old christmas specials. You know, the old stop motion ones: Frosty, Rudolph, The Year Without Santa Claus, etc. (Bumbles BOUNCE!)

It wouldn't take much to make Hermes the Dentist a really creepy villain. Broken by guilt over having abandoned his fellow elves, ostracized by his former friends, he enters a downward spiral, madly harvesting teeth to satiate both his personal obsession and justify his individuality.

Eventually, he finds [the magical MacGuffin] which allows him to harness the powers of Santa, raiding the world in a single night in a horrible nightmare of stolen teeth and high-pitched cackling. Enter the players. Bonus points if one of the paladin takes King Moonrazor as his special mount.

On another note, wasn't there one of those about Easter once? With trains and stuff?

Edit:

Unless you're playing BESM. Then Gundams are fine. :smallwink:

Or Exalted! Go forth, my warstrider legions!

JonRG

2012-03-07, 01:57 PM

Andorax

2012-03-07, 02:28 PM

Haven't made it through the whole debate, so I'll just drop my own personal philosophies and experiences in here (been DMing a quarter-century or so).

As a player, I personaly enjoy "theme" campaigns, even to the point where if the DM hasn't planned one, I'll collaborate with the other players to make one. Sadly, this hasn't always ended well. I once sat down with the other players and we decided it would be fun to create characters all with 1+ level of Barbarian from the same tribe, and then multiclass into our various roles out from there (4th level start...had Bar 4, Bar1/Sor3, Bar1/Cle3 and Bar1/Ran1/Dru2).

The DM was inexperienced, the players RPed the whole "ignorant, but not stupid" thing to the hilt, and he gave up on us in a steam-laden cloud of "I don't know how to handle you people". Sad, since it was also one of the most fun campaigns I'd been in, and remember the few weeks worth of it fondly.

I typically set out some hard rules, some guidelines, and some points that my players know full well are negotiatable from the start. I have a player who has an inordinate love of the utterly bizarre and unusual, and if I don't restrict his racial choices, I'll have a character that can't show his face inside of most cities without straining the plot to the breaking point.

That said, I try to get at what the player wants to DO with his or her character...not get caught up with specific rules details as much as getting a solid idea of what the goal is, then work with them to fill in the blanks.

Knaight

2012-03-07, 04:14 PM

I think the words "So I wanna play [insert anime character here]" would be where I start to worry.

True, but I'd apply that to any medium. If it's "I want to play a character inspired by [character] from [work]" it comes down to the work. Taking anime: If the work is Seirei no Moribito, we are probably fine. If it is Bleach, there are red flags. Taking novels: If the work is A Game of Thrones, there is no issue. If the work is Sword of Truth, red flags are suddenly so abundant that an instant ban is almost reasonable.

Thiyr

2012-03-07, 04:27 PM

I actually don't mind "character based on [anime/book/video game/other RPG] character" as much as "help me make this character". We've had characters based on other characters before that worked out fairly well, but those ended up being fairly loose adaptations. We have also had Altair Ibn La Ahalfling before. This did not work out well. It's all a matter of how close they try to play it for me.

kardar233

2012-03-07, 05:35 PM

True, but I'd apply that to any medium. If it's "I want to play a character inspired by [character] from [work]" it comes down to the work. Taking anime: If the work is Seirei no Moribito, we are probably fine. If it is Bleach, there are red flags. Taking novels: If the work is A Game of Thrones, there is no issue. If the work is Sword of Truth, red flags are suddenly so abundant that an instant ban is almost reasonable.

This reminds me of the time we started a Game of Thrones campaign and one guy immediately insisted on playing Zorro. We were okay with that until we realized the character was using three swords simultaneously (with one in his teeth), and insisting that he's the captain and now we need a ship. This being a freeform, description-based game, my longsword-wielding and very polite sociopath quickly showed him why one sword is eminently more practical than three.

Moral of the story: If you're going to make an anime-inspired character, be open about it. We went through the entire first session thinking he was dressed in stylish black.

Hiro Protagonest

2012-03-07, 05:52 PM

This reminds me of the time we started a Game of Thrones campaign and one guy immediately insisted on playing Zorro. We were okay with that until we realized the character was using three swords simultaneously (with one in his teeth), and insisting that he's the captain and now we need a ship. This being a freeform, description-based game, my longsword-wielding and very polite sociopath quickly showed him why one sword is eminently more practical than three.

It's ZORO!!!

Zoro is sooo not the captain though. And makes three swords work quite well. Do you actually READ One Piece, or did you just hear he uses three swords and have a kneejerk reaction because that wouldn't work IRL?

There are websites where you can read One Piece for free (they usually have "manga" in their name). Just search "read free manga online" until you get to one that has One Piece.

JonRG

2012-03-07, 06:06 PM

This seems like more of a miscommunication than deceit. Though from what little I know of Game of Thrones (intrigue = yes), Zoro does seem like a very poor fit. Only seen his dubbed incarnation, but this player was being something of a tool regardless.

kardar233

2012-03-07, 06:33 PM

It's ZORO!!!

Zoro is sooo not the captain though. And makes three swords work quite well. Do you actually READ One Piece, or did you just hear he uses three swords and have a kneejerk reaction because that wouldn't work IRL?

There are websites where you can read One Piece for free (they usually have "manga" in their name). Just search "read free manga online" until you get to one that has One Piece.

Never read One Piece, but there was no kneejerk reaction involved. He tried to explain how it worked and showed us some panels as well, but between our setting and the low-level nature of our characters we were dubious. He said "Whatever, it'll work out in game, you'll see."

Apart from some colossally bad gameplay choices (at one point we had to bodily drag his character away from Jaime Lannister because he was about to attack him) he was incredibly obnoxious with the character and was convinced that he could defeat anyone. Finally after challenging me to a fight (because I'd told him that if he turned on me I'd kill him personally) he got a cut straight through his right flank and into his spine, then whined about it.

Needless to say, we didn't let him come back.

Don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against characters from manga; I just think that how the character fits in the setting is an essential part of character creation and it's partially up to the player to be aware of that.

Problem player for sure, but the character didn't really fit in the setting. Would have been fine in a higher-level campaign in a standard D&D setting, and great in Exalted or similar.

sonofzeal

2012-03-07, 06:36 PM

Cost/gain is different from monetary value of things. It's also different than declarations on your preference. And there is no way to define "rational choice" other than "choice actually made". This may look a bit weird at first but when most people say "irrational choice" they usually mean "misinformed choice".
First, the monetary analogue was intended merely to represent how alien that sort of logic is to most people. While money isn't the only metric by any means, it's also the most accessible one, and the fact that we still can't break it down that way suggests that what we're doing when we make decisions is something else entirely.

Second, I know I'm perfectly capable of telling the difference between irrational choice and misinformed choice even in my own life. Choosing to cycle up Danforth instead of Cosburn and hitting every red was a misinformed choice - I didn't have, or had forgotten, key information. Choosing to bark at my boss because I'm stressed was an irrational choice - it had absolutely no forseeable benefit and some very forseeable costs, but somehow it slipped out anyway. Or if that example doesn't work for you, consider addictions where the addict often knows their behaviour is self-destructive but stopping is not so easy.

Third, let's talk psychology for a moment. Ever heard of "Dissociative Capacity"? It usually gets discussed in the context of certain psychiatric disorders, but it's very normal and quite healthy. One of its manifestations is the automation of activity. It's most noticeable if you've ever been walking or driving somewhere and noticed that you can't remember the last five blocks, or where you planned to go left but you accidentally go right because that's what you usually do. We humans automate a large degree of our activity to varying degrees. We simply aren't under rational control all the time - and thank heavens, because without that sort of automation an average day would be incredibly exhausting.

Fourthly, still on psychology, there's ample evidence that decisions often come first and rationalizations come afterwards. One famous study challenged people with moral dilemmas and situations while hooked up to... I think it was an EEG. Certain types of situations would only activate the logic portions of the brain, but others would create fascinating interplays between the emotional and logical sections. And yes, one of the conclusions of the study was that the decision often comes first, and any explaination comes later. This is partially verifiable even without expensive equipment, as an average person's ethical rationale will often shift around in self-contradictory patterns depending on which dilemmas you through at them. We decide first, and rationalize after the fact.

Finally, tying in with the previous paragraph, if you've ever studied "Cognitive Dissonance" you should already have known that decisions come before rationalization, and indeed often warp those rationalizations extensively. Give people a line of objects, toys for instance, or D&D books, or anything they're potentially interested in, and ask them to rate each one on a ten point scale. Now compare those results to what happens if you let them choose a couple of those items to keep, first. If the person has already chosen to keep a particular item, they'll rate it more highly than if they were given the choice after rating. Similarly, items they didn't choose get rated lower. The rational act of assigning logical ratings to the items gets warped subconsciously by the previous decisions the person had made. The people in the study didn't mentally rate the items even before being asked and then choose the best ones, they chose first and then their subsequent ratings were measurably different as a result.

So no. "Every human decision is based on perceived cost and perceived gain"? Not on your life.

You, Sir, are my new favorite.
Your day is now 20% cooler. :smallcool:

Hiro Protagonest

2012-03-07, 06:45 PM

Never read One Piece, but there was no kneejerk reaction involved. He tried to explain how it worked and showed us some panels as well, but between our setting and the low-level nature of our characters we were dubious. He said "Whatever, it'll work out in game, you'll see."

Apart from some colossally bad gameplay choices (at one point we had to bodily drag his character away from Jaime Lannister because he was about to attack him) he was incredibly obnoxious with the character and was convinced that he could defeat anyone. Finally after challenging me to a fight (because I'd told him that if he turned on me I'd kill him personally) he got a cut straight through his right flank and into his spine, then whined about it.

Needless to say, we didn't let him come back.

Don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against characters from manga; I just think that how the character fits in the setting is an essential part of character creation and it's partially up to the player to be aware of that.

Problem player for sure, but the character didn't really fit in the setting. Would have been fine in a higher-level campaign in a standard D&D setting, and great in Exalted or similar.

Well, when we first meet Zoro, during the Shell Town arc, he's about 5th level. Or, he should be about 5th level. D&D fighters are ridiculously weak, but still, if he can somehow get a bite attack and a mouthpick weapon (the justification used in the One Piece Grand Line 3.5 webcomic), or if the DM lets him take MWF without the "three+ arms" prerequisite, it works.

He uses his third sword for parrying mostly, but uses it for extra attacks occasionally.

Showing how it works DOESN'T work, because it's just not practical. In real life. For a person who hasn't trained in it. In fantasy, though, it should be about as practical as using a shield a yard in diameter in one hand and a 6 ft long spear in the other hand, which was actually used and actually effective. Who knows how it would've worked if warriors had lifted weights in their mouths and trained with three swords?

Knaight

2012-03-07, 07:43 PM

Showing how it works DOESN'T work, because it's just not practical. In real life. For a person who hasn't trained in it. In fantasy, though, it should be about as practical as using a shield a yard in diameter in one hand and a 6 ft long spear in the other hand, which was actually used and actually effective. Who knows how it would've worked if warriors had lifted weights in their mouths and trained with three swords?

A Song of Ice and Fire is comparatively low fantasy, and someone using three swords just doesn't fit. Whereas Zorro (who is more likely than Zoro to come to mind without specification, and is about as archetypical as Conan) could, as he is relatively easy to adapt to a Bravosi swordsman. As for the swords - it makes sense in One Piece, given the rules that setting follows, but it absolutely doesn't in ASoIF. Fantasy has multiple subgenres, and what fits in one may not fit in the others.

Hiro Protagonest

2012-03-07, 07:52 PM

A Song of Ice and Fire is comparatively low fantasy, and someone using three swords just doesn't fit. Whereas Zorro (who is more likely than Zoro to come to mind without specification, and is about as archetypical as Conan) could, as he is relatively easy to adapt to a Bravosi swordsman. As for the swords - it makes sense in One Piece, given the rules that setting follows, but it absolutely doesn't in ASoIF. Fantasy has multiple subgenres, and what fits in one may not fit in the others.

I'm not really familiar with A Song of Ice and Fire (I looked for A Game of Thrones a couple times in some bookstores, but I found all the books EXCEPT that), but one sword without a shield really isn't superior to three swords, since three swords is basically one for offense, one for defense, and one for both.

However, it sounds like the player was trying to control the group's actions and insisted on his style despite the others not liking it.

Voyager_I

2012-03-07, 08:19 PM

There is no practical way of wielding a sword in your mouth. Don't try to justify it with real world comparisons. That's not to say you shouldn't enjoy One Piece or it can't belong in the right kind of fantasy; you just need to be able to recognize when it fits and when it doesn't.

Game of Thrones is not that kind of world. If you're familiar with the setting, you know that without question. Trying to stuff in a character that doesn't make sense in context just because you like another piece of fiction is a pretty clear sign of a bad player and will probably annoy the hell out of the rest of the group.

kyoryu

2012-03-07, 08:39 PM

Coidzor

2012-03-07, 08:43 PM

Playing anything other than the murder fest that is WHFR or dark heresy refluffed for the setting seems inappropriate enough for a Game of Thrones game.

Crasical

2012-03-07, 09:14 PM

RE: Feasibility of using three swords

It's perfectly fine to try take a player aside and talk to them if they're contrasting the theme of the game hard (AND IT IS IRRITATING OTHER PLAYERS. I've heard plenty of stories of bastions of purity and light succeeding against all odds in grim and dark worlds, and of dashing swordsmen swinging on chandeliers in a serious game of Deadlands, and the other players just ate up their escapades.)

But, there's something about saying that it's infeasible for a character's fighting style to exist IF they can make it work within the rules-set... That's like ruling that a rogue can't deal damage to a dragon or ogre with a dagger because their weapon cannot pierce their thick hide.

Knaight

2012-03-07, 09:32 PM

But, there's something about saying that it's infeasible for a character's fighting style to exist IF they can make it work within the rules-set... That's like ruling that a rogue can't deal damage to a dragon or ogre with a dagger because their weapon cannot pierce their thick hide.
Given that the rules set in question is free-form (that is to say absence thereof), and it is a matter of adhering to the setting it is entirely reasonable. Even if the system can handle it, there are cases where it just doesn't make sense - it doesn't matter that you can make Samus in GURPS, you don't get to bring that character to a western.

Crasical

2012-03-07, 10:26 PM

Given that the rules set in question is free-form (that is to say absence thereof), and it is a matter of adhering to the setting it is entirely reasonable. Even if the system can handle it, there are cases where it just doesn't make sense - it doesn't matter that you can make Samus in GURPS, you don't get to bring that character to a western.

Like I said, It's totally okay to speak with the player if they're not adhering to the setting and it's annoying other players. I just dislike it when people say that a guy with high dex gets nerfed because 'You have a higher AC than the fighter and you're only wearing leather armor, and that's unrealistic". There are plenty of other games where this would be true, but a lot of GMs seem very keen to enforce their own internal logic on the game, which ends up being to the detriment of fun a lot of the time.

kardar233

2012-03-07, 10:34 PM

I'm not really familiar with A Song of Ice and Fire (I looked for A Game of Thrones a couple times in some bookstores, but I found all the books EXCEPT that), but one sword without a shield really isn't superior to three swords, since three swords is basically one for offense, one for defense, and one for both.

However, it sounds like the player was trying to control the group's actions and insisted on his style despite the others not liking it.

Longsword is my favoured weapon, and I've demolished people who've trained in two-sword combat without much trouble. Sure, having more steel between you and your opponent is generally a good thing, but even ambidextrous people don't have the kind of full control you can get with a two-handed weapon. One fight I won with a single thrust directly to the head, as they couldn't muster the force required to deflect in the half-second or so I gave them.

sonofzeal

2012-03-07, 11:04 PM

Longsword is my favoured weapon, and I've demolished people who've trained in two-sword combat without much trouble. Sure, having more steel between you and your opponent is generally a good thing, but even ambidextrous people don't have the kind of full control you can get with a two-handed weapon. One fight I won with a single thrust directly to the head, as they couldn't muster the force required to deflect in the half-second or so I gave them.
I spar a lot with a variety of weapons, and by "a lot" I mean I've fought with just about every common arrangement, facing just about every common arrangement, against hundreds of people. And while I'm good at einhanding, it's at a disadvantage unless you're considerably better than the guy with two swords, or a sword and shield, or a polearm. The difference is that einhand is probably the easiest arrangement to gain some actual competency at. If both participants are merely casual, einhand isn't a bad choice. But against someone who knows what they're doing, my money's on the other guy. Except axes, I've never seen anyone for whom a big axe was anything other than a liability.

Hiro Protagonest

2012-03-07, 11:15 PM

I spar a lot with a variety of weapons, and by "a lot" I mean I've fought with just about every common arrangement, facing just about every common arrangement, against hundreds of people. And while I'm good at einhanding, it's at a disadvantage unless you're considerably better than the guy with two swords, or a sword and shield, or a polearm. The difference is that einhand is probably the easiest arrangement to gain some actual competency at. If both participants are merely casual, einhand isn't a bad choice. But against someone who knows what they're doing, my money's on the other guy. Except axes, I've never seen anyone for whom a big axe was anything other than a liability.

Actually, I believe he's zweihanding. However, the power is matched by the versatility of the other options, and dodging is an option not specific to any style. Shields are probably the best style, except for the fact that it takes longer to get a shield out of its holder than it is to just use a polearm ad a walking stick or draw an extra weapon.

Axes are really only good when dual-wielding, where you can take an axe in your off-hand, grip it near the head, and make short chops with the head and parry with the haft.

Knaight

2012-03-07, 11:32 PM

Axes are really only good when dual-wielding, where you can take an axe in your off-hand, grip it near the head, and make short chops with the head and parry with the haft.

What? Axe and shield is certainly viable, though most favor sword and shield, and one can fight with a single axe (though having an empty hand is never a good place to be). It's not a style I favor, as I'm very much a polearm person and the closest I'm likely to get to axes is partisans, but it works.

kardar233

2012-03-08, 12:45 AM

Yeah, my primary weapon is Italian hand-and-a-half, I'd guess you might call it. We just call it longsword, and einhanders are sidesword or arming sword depending on style and type. I'd still take a shield (of at least heater size) and einhander over my longsword, just because it's more effective IME. Not as fun though.

Also:

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b193/kardar233/derailedthread.jpg

SirFredgar

2012-03-08, 02:17 AM

I will agree with your second sentence, however I will say the DM typically has a hell of a lot more input on the game than the players, and often puts more effort in than all the players combined. Hell, typically when I run a game and let the players play whatever they want they either choose a super powered character with no back-story and motivation beyond finding monsters to kill, or a character they directly copied (and I mean directly, even down to the name) out of an anime or an action movie who they will get bored with within two weeks and want to play a different anime character. I would LOVE it if my players wanted to help build the world and find their place in it, but usually that isn't what they want to do, and they only complain about my restrictions because I don't allow their infinite damage combo or because I say they can't play Goku in a sword and sorcery game. *

Have you been spying on me? I have run into this problem as a GM so many times I literally had to ban them outright. Maybe Ishida from Bleach inspires you to play a soulbow... that's NIFTY! I don't know much about soul-bows, but I'll read up on them so I can work them into my story. But I don't want him to wear a lame looking white suit, have a little bracelet that activates his soulbow, daddy issues, and be named Ishida. Even more negative points when the player whines about not being able to mimic some goofy, iconic power with in-game mechanics and without homebrew help just for him.

EDIT: Oh, and I burn the sheets now, and laugh at the player who brings me an anime concept. Because in the one anime game I ran, the "Rip Offs" cycled through like 5 characters each before finally sticking with something... and they just so happened to be the first original concept the player tries.

To those that think burning a character sheet is mean: We're all really good friends
Also: I provided the paper.

Duskranger

2012-03-08, 02:58 AM

I for one control my games heavily, especially at first.

This saturday I will DM a game in the Sunless Citadel module. My character generationrules:

PHB classes and Races.
Play what you like from that book.
I reserve the right to ban everything.
Only 1 bard is allowed.

At this moment I have 2 rogues, 1 bard, 1 druid and a cleric.

On the other hand I am a bad DM since I am planning on making some characters and maybe put them in the game, along side the PC's (Wizard and Barbarian). So DM-PC's, which is frowned upon on this site.

But in short, I ban whatever I think is best, this moment it's a simple game, starting at lvl 1 with mostly players without experience. The one that has experience asked me to make the DM-PC's.

Regards,
Duskranger

Leon

2012-03-08, 03:47 AM

(though having an empty hand is never a good place to be).

Depending the environment it can be an advantage to have a free hand to gain the advantage from hanging onto things or picking up what ever is at hand to aid or abet.

sonofzeal

2012-03-08, 06:06 AM

What? Axe and shield is certainly viable, though most favor sword and shield, and one can fight with a single axe (though having an empty hand is never a good place to be). It's not a style I favor, as I'm very much a polearm person and the closest I'm likely to get to axes is partisans, but it works.
I find the problem with axes is that they're almost universally slower and have smaller striking area than swords. They also tend to have shorter reach. They can hook, but that hook can also be used against you. An off-hand axe is good for two-sticking, but I'd never willingly use one in my main hand.

And hey, cool, I'm a polearm guy too. I started on sword, but then was in a position where I had to be using the spear frequently against a wide variety of opponents for over a year, and now it's very definitely my best weapon. I'm also ranked in Naginata and Iaido, but those were only ever a diversion.

Depending the environment it can be an advantage to have a free hand to gain the advantage from hanging onto things or picking up what ever is at hand to aid or abet.
I'll still take a polearm there unless there's no room for the backswing on thrusts. I'm not going to be Flynning in combat anyway, and unless I intend to be swinging from chandeliers then the polearm's freedom to take a hand off and on again quickly is all I need.

Averis Vol

2012-03-08, 06:26 AM

personally i'm an advocate of an empty hand with a sword in the main. its especially effective against people with long hafted weapons where i can grab and maneuver the weapon, if only partially. i will say it does not work well against a sword and shield (or any combo thereof) where i have nothing to manipulate. though it does help when i can get inside someones guard, but sadly that doesn't happen enough to warrant a place in this argument. last point is the fact that two weapons of a length longer then, say, a gladius is hard to do. you have very little in the ways of leverage if someone where to initiate a bind. plus fighting with two blades tends to be more of a defensive style in my opinion, it allows you to bat away a blade (or whatever weapon you prefer) and slowly move into their guard, negating their ability to strike with anything more then the pommel if they can do even that.

i'm also a very mobile fighter, i prefer keep my enemy constantly moving, whether it be turning or stalking forward, backwards or what have you. the more things they have to focus on the more chances for error they have.

Killer Angel

2012-03-08, 06:43 AM

My character generationrules:

PHB classes and Races.
Play what you like from that book.
I reserve the right to ban everything.
Only 1 bard is allowed.

Leaving aside your other (IMO contradictory) restrictions that i'm not going to comment, I'm very curious about the reasons for last one...

Duskranger

2012-03-08, 06:57 AM

Leaving aside your other (IMO contradictory) restrictions that i'm not going to comment, I'm very curious about the reasons for last one...

What is there contradictory if I may ask?

I mean they can pick races and class which seem fun for them out of the PHB. I reserve the right to ban spells that I feel are too powerfull (not that we will ever get there, but shapechange for example).

The bards was more of why would we need more than 1 Bard, I do admit that if one was really dead set at playing a bard he would be allowed to do that.

Kalmageddon

2012-03-08, 07:06 AM

Well of course the DM has to have control over character creation and I'd like for the people who disagree to answer this:

Would you like to play a character that will have no use in the coming campaign just because that's the concept you really wanted? Or would you rather be warned by the DM in advance and reaching a functioning compromise that would benefit the enjoyment of everyone involved?

Giving clear rules about which characters are playable and which ones aren't is in fact one of the more important roles of a DM and players who complain really don't understand the issue. If a campaign is centered around investigative roleplay and urban adventures you would be out of place playing a druid, yes you could hammer it in with some convoluted background explanations, but it simply isn't worth it because at the end of the day you have a character that doesn't fit with the campaign theme.
I'm takling about how a character feels in the context of the campaign as well as game mechanics, but mainly how it feels.

Imagine watching a CSI like TV-show where one of the main character is an alien. The show is not about aliens, aliens are never mentioned nor anyone acknowleges the nature of said alien character, and everything else in the show is mundane and realistic. The alien has no reason to be there and brings nothing to the show other then confusion.

See what I mean?

Killer Angel

2012-03-08, 07:19 AM

What is there contradictory if I may ask?

I mean they can pick races and class which seem fun for them out of the PHB. I reserve the right to ban spells that I feel are too powerfull (not that we will ever get there, but shapechange for example).

I'll try to explain.
IMO, given that we're talking bout PHB, you should already know the "no way" things (broken spells), so it should be easy to ban them since the beginning, without waiting for the players choosing them. It's hard to find something unknown in the PHB, so "pick whatever you want but maybe not" sounds strange to me.

Duskranger

2012-03-08, 07:38 AM

I'll try to explain.
IMO, given that we're talking bout PHB, you should already know the "no way" things (broken spells), so it should be easy to ban them since the beginning, without waiting for the players choosing them. It's hard to find something unknown in the PHB, so "pick whatever you want but maybe not" sounds strange to me.

Only thing I potentially ban, when they ask for it is spells, animal forms (for the Druid, though that is less of an issue). For the rest, they can go wild mostly.

Most broken things are high level, low level I do not see the problem.

I mean the Druid takes an owl as a Animal Companion.

Killer Angel

2012-03-08, 07:48 AM

Only thing I potentially ban, when they ask for it is spells, animal forms (for the Druid, though that is less of an issue). For the rest, they can go wild mostly.

Most broken things are high level, low level I do not see the problem.

I mean the Druid takes an owl as a Animal Companion.

Tnx for the explanation.
Now, we can go back to the thread derailment... :smalltongue:

sonofzeal

2012-03-08, 07:49 AM

Tnx for the explanation.
Now, we can go back to the thread derailment... :smalltongue:
Which one, the derailment about psychology and human nature, or the one about weapons and empty hands?

Killer Angel

2012-03-08, 08:13 AM

Which one, the derailment about psychology and human nature, or the one about weapons and empty hands?

The latter, of course.
Psycology and human nature, could be brought back to the desire of control of GMs... :smalltongue:

Axier

2012-03-08, 09:15 AM

Let me give an example of why DM's should have a say as to what is or isn't allowed. Lets just assume that we have access to anything WoTC produced. This example is a LA of +0:

"Venerable Riddled Spellhoarding Loredrake Dragonwraught Desert Kobold"
3 +0LA Templates, High Age, 1 Feat, and an alternate race."

+11 INT -7 WIS -4 STR +2 DEX

With this, I have a level 1 sorcerer that is provided with +2 Caster Levels (Loredrake) functioning at a level 3, but turning all the casting of the Sorcerer into a Wizard (Spellhoarding) giving me INT based casting, spellbook, and using my scales as a spellbook (with unlimited pages). Plus I can burn spells from my scales and use them like scrolls (so all I have to do for scrolls is pay the spellbook copy costs and no exp. Even better once I prestige into Geometer (Complete Mage)). I can also sacrifice some gems to add countered spells to my spell list. I can then technically get all the spells in the game, even ones that do not belong to my class. I now also qualify for Epic Level Feats even though I am not Epic Level, because I am technically now an Old or older true dragon, just small sized.

The only real negative for this is that my WIS is badly hit, I’m weak physically, and if someone beats me on a knowledge check (good luck), I am lost in contemplation for 1d10 rounds. (or minutes I think).

Enjoy having the rest of the party at least 2 levels lower than me (because there is another free sorcerer level I can pick up later) and bowing to my extreme power as I destroy swaths of enemies, have a spell for every occasion, and don't even have to prepare them If it gets bad. Plus, I can just use a bunch of spell mastery and add tons of spells to my mind and then just burn the ones I have if I need too.

I’m sure everyone will have as much fun as I do in that game! Even if they are 2 levels lower, and are limited far worse. And just because I took epic toughness and have more HP than the heavy melee, I will surely be challenged just as vigorously as everyone else. The DM doesn't need to worry about a thing, and I'm not cheating or anything, just using the rules of the game.

God I love RAW.

Fatebreaker

2012-03-08, 09:39 AM

The Glyphstone

2012-03-08, 09:45 AM

Axier

2012-03-08, 10:31 AM

...I know 3.x is broken, but... is this a thing? Is this a real thing that can really happen?

Edit: And if this is a real thing that can really happen, can I get sources for where I can find all of the elements necessary to make it?

Kobold base, the Dragonwraught Feat: Races of The Dragon
Desert Kobold: Unearthed Arcana (No Constitution negative)
Riddled, Spellhoarding, and Loredrake: Dragons of Ebberon I think. Riddled and Spellhoarding are Templates, I think Loredrake might be a dragon feat, but I think it is still a template.
Draconomicon: Ability for Old Dragons to take Epic level feats. Also strange interpretation of definition of True Dragons that leads most to believe that Dragonwraught Kobolds are True Dragons by RAW.
Greater Draconic Rite of Passage: Some kind of Dragon Mag. That would give you an extra Sorcerer level, to a +3.

kardar233

2012-03-08, 01:37 PM

...I know 3.x is broken, but... is this a thing? Is this a real thing that can really happen?

Edit: And if this is a real thing that can really happen, can I get sources for where I can find all of the elements necessary to make it?

Greater Draconic Rite of Passage is online. Don't have the link on hand.

Riddled and Spellhoarding are actually from the Dragon Psychoses section of a Dragon Magazine, whose number I can't remember.

If you want to be really mean, use early entry to get into Ultimate Magus fast and get 9th-level Wizard spells by level 11.

But yes. Glyphstone wins again. Though personally I like the ascension methods that don't rely on Pazuzu; my favourite is the Divine Minion Wizard3/MoMF1.

Axier

2012-03-08, 02:27 PM

@kardar233 I forgot the psychosis where dragon mag, thanks!

As for the Godly ascentions that you can preform at level one to become a Near Infinite divine ranke diety is likely the epitome of why the GM is required to have some controll over character creation. There are a great deal of abuses in every game system that can be abused if not overseen. Especially when you get into one that is popular and has large amount of books.

Andorax

2012-03-08, 04:37 PM

It's late to the party, answering one of the earlier-debated topics, but....

...In Dragon 333, there's a very good article entitled Noble Born that explores some of the different ramifications, themes, and concepts that go with having one (or more) members of the party be of nobility. For anyone still genuinely interested in the concept, even the OP, I'd genuinely recommend looking it up.

MukkTB

2012-03-08, 07:42 PM

So no. "Every human decision is based on perceived cost and perceived gain"? Not on your life.

It makes sense to say that you make every decision for a reason. If you believe in evolution its OK to say that these reasons are meant for your benefit, but also that they may be mistaken or inappropriate for the current situation.

#1 Money isn't everything. Love for example can only be imitated. Therefore while it makes a good example of value it doesn't cover the entire system.

#2 Choosing to bark at your boss may be built on some kind of old societal interaction that doesn't apply to the modern day. It may have been an emotional impulse to define territory you fell the boss was encroaching on. It may have had something to do with alpha male status. It may have been a result of your emotional status which itself is designed for your benefit. There are definite benefits for being able to get angry in the right situation. Fight off the sabre tooth cat for example. Obviously anger in the wrong situation is bad. And with blind design you can end up in a situation where you will never need to fight off a sabre tooth cat but will still get angry.

#3 Automated actions still occur for a reason. Force of habit or some other effect. In normal people automated actions are to their benefit.

#4 experiments tend to confirm this. I can't really argue that the part of the mind that thinks of itself as 'me' is different from the driver at least some times. However I should point out that when a person makes a decision there are many cases where that decision requires rational processing to be the right one. I say, 'Whats 2+2.' You say 4. You don't say 3 or 7 because the random number generator in your head spit that number out. We do not experience a world of people acting randomly for nonproductive reasons with no free will and trying to justify their actions. We experience a world of people acting purposefully for mostly productive reasons although sometimes their directives lead them astray, possibly (probably?) without free will, who will try to justify their actions.

#5 Cognitive dissonance has some benefits. However I will admit that I do not see how it has evolutionary value over a clear unbiased vision of the world.

I agree that peoples actions may not represent the best course as laid by pure logic. I will however continue to claim that peoples actions happen for a reason. They choose actions (subconsciously) that best satisfy their internal drives. Love, hate, hunger, lust, ect. These internal drives are 'designed' for that individual to survive, prosper, and then procreate successfully. Sometimes these drives go haywire. I will agree that logically there is no reason for me to post this. It doesn't help survival, or prosperity, definitely not procreation. If I had to pin some emotional drives I would point at pride and the need for social contact.

sonofzeal

2012-03-08, 10:44 PM

It makes sense to say that you make every decision for a reason. If you believe in evolution its OK to say that these reasons are meant for your benefit, but also that they may be mistaken or inappropriate for the current situation.
This presupposes that evolution is a directed process, while any decent biologist will tell you it isn't (unless they're into Intelligent Design). Evolutionary Psychology in particular is a laughingstock in the scientific community. The signal-to-noise ratio is just too low.

#1 Money isn't everything. Love for example can only be imitated. Therefore while it makes a good example of value it doesn't cover the entire system.
Of course. Money is, however, the easiest to analyse which is why I made reference to it. And even questions of money are often intractable. How much more so, questions of emotion?

#2 Choosing to bark at your boss may be built on some kind of old societal interaction that doesn't apply to the modern day. It may have been an emotional impulse to define territory you fell the boss was encroaching on. It may have had something to do with alpha male status. It may have been a result of your emotional status which itself is designed for your benefit. There are definite benefits for being able to get angry in the right situation. Fight off the sabre tooth cat for example. Obviously anger in the wrong situation is bad. And with blind design you can end up in a situation where you will never need to fight off a sabre tooth cat but will still get angry.
Again, you're dipping into Evolutionary Psychology and the faulty assumption that our patterns of behaviour are {a} adaptive and {b} have easily-definable reasons. It's like trying to come up with an evolutionary reason we have three major lines on our hands - it's far, far more likely to be an accidental byproduct of whatever genetic mishmash was necessary to mould the rest of your body into approximately the right shape.

In normal people automated actions are to their benefit.
I didn't dispute that. I do dispute that automated actions are rational - indeed, almost by definition they're not.

#4 experiments tend to confirm this. I can't really argue that the part of the mind that thinks of itself as 'me' is different from the driver at least some times. However I should point out that when a person makes a decision there are many cases where that decision requires rational processing to be the right one. I say, 'Whats 2+2.' You say 4. You don't say 3 or 7 because the random number generator in your head spit that number out. We do not experience a world of people acting randomly for nonproductive reasons with no free will and trying to justify their actions. We experience a world of people acting purposefully for mostly productive reasons although sometimes their directives lead them astray, possibly (probably?) without free will, who will try to justify their actions.
I don't think humans are entirely irrational either. Most people can be rational as long as they're paying attention and their emotions aren't engaged too heavily. With training, you can develop the skill of acting rationally despite your emotions - but this is a difficult skill, most people aren't very good at it, and even people who've trained at it aren't perfect. The only people I know of who are naturally good at it are psychopaths.

Reason exists, rationality exists, but in day-to-day life I think you'll find most decisions are either at least partially automated, or clouded by emotion and any rationalization is applied only after the fact. In either case, most of us aren't being purely rational, and we're not rigorously pursuing our own best interest. And those of us who are, are psychopaths.