PDA

View Full Version : Why shouldn’t a DM veto characters?



Rondodu
2013-09-14, 04:07 PM
I’ve notice in a few threads that some people where drastically opposed to a DM vetoing a character. That astonishes me a lot: DM’s approval of characters is for me so essential that I submit my characters to them even when not asked to do so.

Now, I’m a point-based games player. Which means that a character can be: completely unviable (e.g. the character as no combat skill in a combat-oriented system) or minmaxed (e.g. the character has listed “krav maga 17”*as its hobby). In any system, a character can be unplayable in the context of the game (e.g. you can hardly be a local church-goer if the whole game revolves around the local church actually being a Lovecraftian cult). And then there is the whole “party-balance” thing.

This means that I, as a player (I’m a meh player, but a terrible, terrible DM), usually go through a two-steps process of approval: first, approval of the high concept (“My character is a middle-aged, very fervent army man back from the Indian colonies”); then approval of the numbers.

The first step I often share with my fellow players* so that we avoid too much toe-stepping between characters.

This also means that I’ve never been flat-out refused a character. If the character concept doesn’t match the game, I’m told early; if the numbers are the issue, I can tweak them quickly before the game begins. Much more often than not, everyone is perfectly happy and I have some feedback for my character before the game starts.

So, I ask: If you are reluctant to DM vetoing characters, why is that so? Well, you can still propose argument even if you’re actually in favor of character approval. I won’t mind.

* Well, apart for the “my character craves for human flesh” part. That’s for DM’s eyes only. You wouldn’t want to ruin the surprise.

JusticeZero
2013-09-14, 04:13 PM
I'm not against vetoing characters but the first question is why are the characters being vetoed? Some veto reasons are very foolish, such as vetoing a fighter build because it uses three PRCs to refine its concept as an amazing archer as "overpowered cheese" while allowing a Druid 20 with extra houseruled buffing without comment.

Delta
2013-09-14, 04:16 PM
I say it's as with almost anything as far as GMing is concerned, in general, it's always better to say "Yes, but..." than "No". Of course, in some cases, it's unavoidable (the chaotic evil necromancer in a group of good paladins and clerics simply does not work), but in general, I've been very successful trying to cooperate with players to make their concept work with the campaign instead of just telling them "No".

On the other hand, I actually prefer if the GM tells me "Yes, but..." rather than just "Sure, play whatever you want", because in such cases I often ended up with parties of characters that absolutely didn't fit together, I think it's a sign of a GM who has a clear vision of the campaign he tries to run that he takes an interest in the PCs and makes suggestion to make them fit in, and personally, I actually like making modifications to my character, especially in his backstory, that have some kind of connection to the campaign.

KillianHawkeye
2013-09-14, 04:18 PM
I agree with the way you do it.

This is just a guess, but maybe the opposition to a DM vetoing characters comes from situations where the DM has given a list of approved sources and then later nixes certain options such as a feat or prestige class that a player has used as a core part of their character.

Mr Beer
2013-09-14, 04:19 PM
People who object to DM veto are probably doing so in a particular context.

If the DM says up front "this is what the campaign is about and therefore your character should be within these parameters", generally only the most unreasonable person is going to have a problem with that.

Where people don't like DM veto is because of some petty or nitpicking problem the DM has with that type of character. I personally dislike psionics but one of the players in my Greyhawk campaign wanted a psionicist. I had no reason to refuse since it's canon and doesn't disrupt the game in any way, so I approved it.

If I'd veto'd the character, it would have been kind of a jerk move IMO and probably the kind of thing players are talking about when they complain about DM veto.

I did veto a character from someone else because it was game breakingly powerful but that's reasonable.

Craft (Cheese)
2013-09-14, 04:20 PM
I'm reluctant to veto things because my instinct is to be overconservative about what will ruin the game and what will be just fine: I go out of my way to fight it. I'll give suggestions "You should probably put a few more points into combat skills" or "Be warned that your elf-racist character is going to be around elves a lot", but I'd rather not outright tell the player "No": It might turn out great! My players have tried a lot of things that I was worried would ruin the game but in the end made things a lot better. I'd rather allow it and then fix things later than crush something that could add to the game.

Mr Beer
2013-09-14, 04:22 PM
I'm reluctant to veto things because usually I'm overly cautious about which things will work and which things won't. I'll give suggestions "You should probably put a few more points into combat skills" or "Be warned that your elf-racist character is going to be around elves a lot", but I'd rather not outright tell the player "No": It might turn out great! My players have tried a lot of things that I was worried would ruin the game but in the end made things a lot better. I'd rather allow it and then fix things later than crush something that could add to the game.

Valid point and the psionicist has turned out to fill a much needed gap in the party so I'm actually pleased he's there now.

Grim Portent
2013-09-14, 06:09 PM
I don't veto things when I GM because I feel players should have full freedom to do as they desire, but then I run sandbox games and like to leave plenty of world for them to burn, smash and defraud, or more commonly my players start up a mercenary group and do jobs for anyone they don't suspect of being a villain.

Part of this may be because I think game balance should be a player made thing rather than GM enforced, part of it may be because I think constricting choice makes for a duller game, and part of it is a hope that the more stuff I permit when I GM the more will be permitted when someone else GMs.

My basic gut instinct is that unless there's a very good reason to say no, such as a wizard in a no caster setting, then you should say yes. RPGs are about imagination after all and I won't constrict people in that regard.

Tengu_temp
2013-09-14, 06:15 PM
Never vetoing characters is a part of this "if RAW, it's legal, if it's in a book, it's legal!" approach that seems to have been born when DND 3e became popular.

Needless to say, I completely disagree with it. There are good reasons to veto a character and there are bad reasons to do so, but I can't think of a single game where all kinds of characters are okay, and there's nothing that should be veto'd. Characters that won't fit the campaign or the group (obviously evil murderer in an otherwise good group? No thanks), characters that are ridiculously overpowered in comparison to everyone else, character concepts that are just horribly written, dumb and/or offensive - all of this has to be purged if you want to have a good game.


I say it's as with almost anything as far as GMing is concerned, in general, it's always better to say "Yes, but..." than "No".

I don't agree with this. Some players, intentionally or not, just keep on coming up with ridiculously stupid ideas and/or causing trouble. These players need a firm GM who will tell them "no".

Amphetryon
2013-09-14, 06:24 PM
The general tenor of many objections is "the DM controls every other thing in the universe; let me have the Character that fits the image in my head."

comicshorse
2013-09-14, 06:26 PM
I say it's as with almost anything as far as GMing is concerned, in general, it's always better to say "Yes, but..." than "No". Of course, in some cases, it's unavoidable (the chaotic evil necromancer in a group of good paladins and clerics simply does not work), but in general, I've been very successful trying to cooperate with players to make their concept work with the campaign instead of just telling them "No".

On the other hand, I actually prefer if the GM tells me "Yes, but..." rather than just "Sure, play whatever you want", because in such cases I often ended up with parties of characters that absolutely didn't fit together, I think it's a sign of a GM who has a clear vision of the campaign he tries to run that he takes an interest in the PCs and makes suggestion to make them fit in, and personally, I actually like making modifications to my character, especially in his backstory, that have some kind of connection to the campaign.

Definitely this

NichG
2013-09-14, 06:41 PM
One thing to consider when it comes do DM's vetoing characters is this: players can't really veto eachothers' characters, and its also less socially acceptable for them to try.

In some cases it may be the DM's responsibility to do it - for instance, if someone is going to play something that will cause a lot of strife in the party like the necromancer/paladin issue - because no one else at the table really can.

Ravens_cry
2013-09-14, 06:48 PM
I think a DM *should* veto characters that, for example, do not fit the intended tone. If you are going for a light hearted Good verses Evil, idealistic adventure, a dark and morally ambiguous character may not fit so well. Likewise, the kind of character that would fiy in the former, would not work so well in a brooding 'mature' work. There is exceptions, but they should be worked out with the DM.

valadil
2013-09-14, 07:20 PM
The only time I'd have a problem with it is if the GM didn't lay down expectations for the characters in advance or if he wasn't vetoing things fairly. I'd hate to write up a character and then get told to redo it because wizards aren't kosher. I'd hate it even more if the GM's girlfriend got to play the wizard.

Ravens_cry
2013-09-14, 08:06 PM
The only time I'd have a problem with it is if the GM didn't lay down expectations for the characters in advance or if he wasn't vetoing things fairly. I'd hate to write up a character and then get told to redo it because wizards aren't kosher. I'd hate it even more if the GM's girlfriend got to play the wizard.
True enough. These things should certainly be discussed in advance, even before character creation even officially begins even, and GM's girlfriend syndrome is an absolute no-no.

Tengu_temp
2013-09-14, 08:25 PM
Yup. This is why in almost all cases the group (including the GM) should talk to each other about character ideas and coordinate, instead of creating them in vacuum. The only exception are pvp- or deception-focused games where it's important that players don't know what other players' characters are capable of, but even then players should consult the GM while making the character.

Tyndmyr
2013-09-14, 08:34 PM
So, I ask: If you are reluctant to DM vetoing characters, why is that so? Well, you can still propose argument even if you’re actually in favor of character approval. I won’t mind.

Because it means more wasted time rebuilding chars. 3.5 is already not the fastest of chargen systems, doing multiple iterations(especially if we're building at the first session) can burn a lot of time.

Way I see it, my standards for a campaign should be laid out clear enough the first time that there shouldn't have to be any rejections or rework.

Ravens_cry
2013-09-14, 08:43 PM
Because it means more wasted time rebuilding chars. 3.5 is already not the fastest of chargen systems, doing multiple iterations(especially if we're building at the first session) can burn a lot of time.

Way I see it, my standards for a campaign should be laid out clear enough the first time that there shouldn't have to be any rejections or rework.
Shouldn't is not the same as will. Unless you are all mind-readers, the imperfect mind-to-mind interface that is meat sounds will mean someone will eventually, especially someone new to the group, need some correction.

MikelaC1
2013-09-14, 08:45 PM
I find myself vetoing PCs constantly, but 9 times out of 10 its because someone deliberately disregards the Big16...this campaign doesn't allow undead PCs and someone tries to submit a lich.

Raum
2013-09-14, 08:45 PM
If you are reluctant to DM vetoing characters, why is that so?Short version: it's a group decision.

Yes, PCs need to fit the setting / world and be compatible with each other - at least within the game's expectations and limitations. However, gaming is a group social activity. Dump the veto and have an adult discussion. :smallwink:

Tyndmyr
2013-09-14, 08:46 PM
Shouldn't is not the same as will. Unless you are all mind-readers, the imperfect mind-to-mind interface that is meat sounds will mean someone will eventually, especially someone new to the group, need some correction.

Char creation rules are written down exactly for this reason. If it's not listed as verboten on the sheet, it is allowed, and if no house rule is listed, it will run as per RAW.

Not being excessively big on house rules, this usually fits on a post card unless we're doing a particularly unusual campaign.

Gnoman
2013-09-14, 09:06 PM
I find myself vetoing PCs constantly, but 9 times out of 10 its because someone deliberately disregards the Big16...this campaign doesn't allow undead PCs and someone tries to submit a lich.

Definitely agree with that. In my Maptools campaign on the Bay12 forum (which, due to the high turnover rate in such games, is always recruiting except for now, as the current game is in the last few sessions), I had someone submit a character with 3 obscure PRCs, and was half Stone Giant. I replied that Giants do not exist in this world. He submitted a half Fire Giant character, then a half CLoud Giant after I vetoed that. So I vetoed the player.

navar100
2013-09-14, 10:11 PM
The DM controls the NPCs, monsters, plot points, treasure, magic item availability, when the game is played (A game is played if one player can't make it. If the DM can't make it, no game.), house rules, source books available, often but not always where the game is played.

The one and only thing the players get to control is their own character. The player decides what class(es) to play, feats to take, spells to learn or prepare if he casts spells, allocate skill points. It's his avatar and the source of what constitutes his participation in the game.

The player has his own responsibility. He has to make a character that doesn't Win D&D like Pun Pun and his progeny. He also has to make a character that doesn't Lose D&D, like a fighter taking Skill Focus Craft (basket weaving). He needs to fit in with the rest of group and game, so no pirate ninja psychopath in a game about the Holy Order Of Do-Gooders.

The DM has a say when talking about a bit less than these extremes. No water orc berserkers leap attacking everywhere when water orcs don't even exist in the game world, but a human barbarian leap attacking everywhere is fine. The DM may say no evil characters and chaotic neutral cannot be used as a substitute if played in "that way", but the lawful neutral stick in the mud character type who nevertheless cooperates with the party and play-bickers with the chaotic-good character is fine.

Mr Beer
2013-09-14, 10:15 PM
Definitely agree with that. In my Maptools campaign on the Bay12 forum (which, due to the high turnover rate in such games, is always recruiting except for now, as the current game is in the last few sessions), I had someone submit a character with 3 obscure PRCs, and was half Stone Giant. I replied that Giants do not exist in this world. He submitted a half Fire Giant character, then a half CLoud Giant after I vetoed that. So I vetoed the player.

Ha hahahahha! Good choice I think. Was he trolling you or just retarded?

Prince Raven
2013-09-14, 10:29 PM
Why veto a character when you can destroy everything they love, ruthlessly crush their spirit, have them killed in the most horrible and shameful way you can think of then drink the player's tears?

MikelaC1
2013-09-14, 10:36 PM
Why veto a character when you can destroy everything they love, ruthlessly crush their spirit, have them killed in the most horrible and shameful way you can think of then drink the player's tears?

Because the moment you don't veto something specifically outlawed by the rules, then you'll have a dozen of them submitted.

Coidzor
2013-09-14, 10:43 PM
So, I ask: If you are reluctant to DM vetoing characters, why is that so? Well, you can still propose argument even if you’re actually in favor of character approval. I won’t mind.

* Well, apart for the “my character craves for human flesh” part. That’s for DM’s eyes only. You wouldn’t want to ruin the surprise.

DMs vetoing characters is, as far as I can tell, generally associated with poor communication or even a mindset that despises dialogue with the players, authoritarian, DM-as-power-tripping-jerk narratives of table top roleplaying games. To me, that particular wording has a negative connotation and has a feel of a table which I would not only not be comfortable sitting at, but would prefer did not exist due to making the greater community of roleplaying a poorer place for having existed.

Actually having reasons, communicating with the players about the game both before and after nixing a character, or, hell, just acting like a reasonable facsimile of a mature adult person generally take you out of the territory which is so reviled.

I think it behooves any GM to review the party lineup before the game actually starts in order to both familiarize themselves with the characters as well as perform last minute troubleshooting, sure, but people who look down on others for playing instead of GMing are anathema to me and my philosophy of play.

Prince Raven
2013-09-14, 10:44 PM
Because the moment you don't veto something specifically outlawed by the rules, then you'll have a dozen of them submitted.

I was thinking more just plain stupid characters than illegal ones, if a character breaks the rules simply by existing the player hasn't actually made a [insert game system here] character.

Coidzor
2013-09-14, 10:47 PM
I was thinking more just plain stupid characters than illegal ones, if a character breaks the rules simply by existing the player hasn't actually made a [insert game system here] character.

I find it's better to ask the players why they've created inane, vapid, and/or stupid characters in order to figure out what the actual problem is rather than potentially exacerbating it by choosing not to communicate.


Why veto a character when you can destroy everything they love, ruthlessly crush their spirit, have them killed in the most horrible and shameful way you can think of then drink the player's tears?

Because I was interested in a semi-cooperative storytelling and roleplaying game and that would take far too much time on something which is ultimately petty and boring?

tasw
2013-09-14, 11:48 PM
theres a few things I veto. The gunslinger doesnt fit the worlds I like to run (no gunpowder) so he's out and the summoner is overpowered and the dang eidolon has a habit of vastly overshadowing the player.

3rd party stuff is on a run it by me basis.

Other then that I'll tell you what part of the world its in, whats going on in the area at the time and how I want the game to start out before you make a character. Keep it something that makes sense with those things and wont cause PvP strife and I dont really care what you come up with.

Ravens_cry
2013-09-15, 01:07 AM
Char creation rules are written down exactly for this reason. If it's not listed as verboten on the sheet, it is allowed, and if no house rule is listed, it will run as per RAW.

Not being excessively big on house rules, this usually fits on a post card unless we're doing a particularly unusual campaign.
Perhaps that would fit the houserules, but I would want a fair bit more for information on the tone of the campaign.
A good example is Paizo's Player Guides. They give a little extra crunch, but, mostly, they tell you about the fluff, how to fit your character into the world.
In fact, the Adventure Paths I liked the least were the ones that I felt didn't match the tone of Player Guides.
You don't have to give a full on booklet, but I do want some information on the world.

oudeis
2013-09-15, 01:23 AM
A GM absolutely has the right to veto anything he doesn't want in the setting, especially characters.

Why do I say 'especially' characters? Because they are the core around which the whole continuing experience coalesces. Any character that disrupts the game or diminishes the enjoyment for others has no right to be there, and if the GM makes a reasoned judgement that your character falls under this heading then you need to alter it or convince the GM otherwise. If you can't or won't do that, then you need to come up with another concept.

Flickerdart
2013-09-15, 01:26 AM
I don't game with people I don't think are mature enough to make appropriate characters. The veto is a nuclear weapon, not a handgun - it's not there to be used.

Ravens_cry
2013-09-15, 02:13 AM
I don't game with people I don't think are mature enough to make appropriate characters. The veto is a nuclear weapon, not a handgun - it's not there to be used.
Well, there is the tactical nuke. You can also veto portions of the character. Perhaps that race doesn't exist in the campaign world, like a monk who is most assuredly *not* an elf.
Character creation should be something players (DM and PC players) can work together on. That being said, once I have the character, they are mine. You do not tell me what my character does or feels without using in-game forces, like mind control magic. You can veto a feat or Prestige Class, but you can not tell me what I think of something.

Delta
2013-09-15, 03:55 AM
I don't game with people I don't think are mature enough to make appropriate characters. The veto is a nuclear weapon, not a handgun - it's not there to be used.

Well I have some players who sometimes have a problem preparing for the game in advance. They are absolutely fine players once the campaign gets going and I like GMing for them, but getting them prepared for a new campaign can be a pain.

One time, I started a new epic pregen campaign about the biggest empire in the setting being attacked by two of the big bads, I told everyone in advance this campaign would be about the empire and needs "heroes of the empire", mercenary kind of characters just don't fit in, you need people ready to lay down their life for the empire at a moments notice and do so gladly. I explained this to all the players in advance, and all of them but two came up with fitting characters, with the other one playing a mage from a former campaign who comes from another country, but she came to me before the game and asked what she could do to make her character fit in so we worked on it and gave the character some more backstory so he became a kind of magical advisor to the empress in the years between the two campaigns and it worked out just fine.

This guy? Basically presents me with a dwarven soldier who spent the last few decades trying to defend his dwarven homelands (which are separate from the empire) against another big bad so he basically had no connection whatsoever to the empire or to the other characters. He simply didn't listen. He's not immature, he's a fine player I like playing with, but sometimes, he just needs to be told "No" or a very explicit "Yes, BUT...!" a couple of times before the game until he actually takes the time to listen and think about the game. It can be unnerving for me as a GM (of course he's pathologically unable to finish his character more than 5 minutes before campaign start as well unless you constantly nag him about it even if you explicitly stated that you wanted every new character done at least a week before the game), but some people are just like that.

I guess the core of what I'm trying to say is, people are different, and in general aren't really able to change a lot, sometimes you just have to work with it.

Waar
2013-09-15, 05:25 AM
Why should/shouldn't you veto a character?

Vetoing a character, stopps the player from realising their well character. On the other hand stopping certain options can be usefull for in Group balance and more rarely cohesion and immersion.

When I GM the basic requiremets from characters are: approximate in-group game balance, and character cooperation.

When encuraging this approximate character balance, stopping people from taking certain combinations is perfectly sensible, but unless the broken stuff is the very core of the character, actually vetoing the character is neither sensible nor recomended. (instead encurage simmilar, cool but less broken options)

Arcane_Snowman
2013-09-15, 05:36 AM
I generally do what I can to avoid telling people "no" when they present me a character, if the character is legal.

If they do present something which I find to be either confusing or "unacceptable" I do what I can to talk to the player in question and explain what my issue is, that we might work around it and come to something which we both find acceptable.

Prince Raven
2013-09-15, 07:15 AM
"I want to play a mutant ninja turtle. I'm calling him Salvador, but he's just an expy of Leonardo."

"But... THIS IS GREYHAWK!"

"and?"

:smallsigh:

You see this is the sort of case where 30 minutes into the campaign everyone's having mutant ninja turtle soup and the player's learned their lesson and is making a legitimate character.

Brookshw
2013-09-15, 08:09 AM
In the ideal world the parameters of character creation are established up front prior to first session and players adhere to them. This does not always work, but seems to resolve 90%+ of the scenarios I've encountered.

Eventually you'll run up across a player who wants to use something that might be anachronistic to the setting, in these instances try to work with them to adapt as appropriate and bring what they want to do into the campaign in a way that won't cause conflict.

But if you end up with a player that's disruptive for whatever reason you may have to veto and shouldn't be afraid to. Personally I'm opposed to what I find to be the current trend of players sense of entitlement but that's not necessarily here nor there. Case and point, I just had a friend of 15 years quit the game because they couldn't stand the munchkin factor of other players. Had I gone with "no" more often she would still be playing.

oudeis
2013-09-15, 08:45 AM
But if you end up with a player that's disruptive for whatever reason you may have to veto and shouldn't be afraid to. Personally I'm opposed to what I find to be the current trend of players sense of entitlement but that's not necessarily here nor there. Case and point, I just had a friend of 15 years quit the game because they couldn't stand the munchkin factor of other players. Had I gone with "no" more often she would still be playing.
You put into your post what I cut out of mine: the growing intolerance I feel towards the entitled mindset that seems so common in younger gamers. That right there is my biggest dislike of 4E, the 'give everybody any-and everything they may want' ethos. The GM is in charge of the game, whether by virtue of creating the setting, volunteering, getting chosen, or simply by being the only one willing to put in the time. No one is saying he should be able to peremptorily throw his weight around through arbitrary and unexplained edicts, but ultimately his decisions are law. A good gamemaster listens to what his players want and tries to find ways to realize these wishes. This does NOT mean he is obliged to give them everything they ask for or let them do anything they want.

The New Bruceski
2013-09-15, 11:26 AM
You see this is the sort of case where 30 minutes into the campaign everyone's having mutant ninja turtle soup and the player's learned their lesson and is making a legitimate character.

Lesson: next time make a mutant ninja DIRE turtle.

Autolykos
2013-09-15, 01:49 PM
I agree that it's usually better to talk about exactly which parts of the character would disturb the game and suggest to change those - or, if it's bad enough, what parts of the concept can still be salvaged. But some characters are just so completely FUBAR that anything but a veto would be silly ("Hm, well, I guess you could build a character with the same hair color..."). That probably only happens with completely new players, or when the GM failed to communicate what the campaign was about (never happened to me, but I am usually present during character generation because most of my players can't be bothered to learn the rules).
An technically, demanding to change a character to fit the campaign requires the power to veto if the character is not changed. But if that ever becomes an issue, your group has bigger problems than a bad character concept.

Delta
2013-09-15, 02:36 PM
That probably only happens with completely new players, or when the GM failed to communicate what the campaign was about (never happened to me, but I am usually present during character generation because most of my players can't be bothered to learn the rules).

Oh yes that one's fun, too. Happened to me once, the GM only said he wanted to run a campaign in a certain city, I played a noble white mage from said city with a strict code of principles, like never break the law, always obey the authorities and so on. I expected this to be somewhat problematic but the GM said it was alright.

The first adventure he ran was based on stealing some important documents from a magistrates office and forging them. The second was based on killing the son of another magistrate. Yes, I had a lot of "fun" with that character, constantly having the choice of either ignoring my principles or being in the group's face all the time, but the GM never understood why I was quite a bit pissed and asked him whether I could play a different character during the second adventure.

Brookshw
2013-09-15, 02:49 PM
For whatever reason when I glanced that over I read "strict code of pineapples", now I'm just having some weird character ideas.....

hotrodlincoln
2013-09-15, 03:06 PM
While I agree with the idea that the DM should almost never pull out the veto card, there is an underlying attitude in this thread that bothers me, and has bothered me for some time. There seems to be this idea that if there is anything that doesn't 'gel' with the setting or the way I plan to run my game, then I must make a comprehensive list of any and all such materials available to the players before the game, and if I do not, I am contractually obliged to allow it. Even if said class is some obscure class from a 10 year old issue of Dragon that has d12 hit die, full BAB, all good saves, and can cast 9th level spells from the cleric, druid, and wizard spell lists. I didn't explicitly say that the class is not allowed before players started touching the dice, therefore I must allow it.

That is, of course hyperbole, but I can not possibly be expected to memorize every single class, feat, spell or prestige class from every single sourcebook ever published. If I don't allow something core, like the Cleric, that comes as a given that I should make the players aware of that. Coming up with a 300 page long ban list on the off chance one of my players is some kind of incorrigible munchkin is asking way too much of me.

----

As A DM, typically my normal rule is "You must make a character that can reasonable work with the rest of the party." This is open ended, yes, but I reserve the right to ask for a rework for any concept that won't work with the rest of the party. I otherwise allow nearly anything that makes sense for the setting. If one player wants to be a True Necromancer with an army of the dead at their beck and call, then another player can't be a Paladin.

Flickerdart
2013-09-15, 03:31 PM
Oh yes that one's fun, too. Happened to me once, the GM only said he wanted to run a campaign in a certain city, I played a noble white mage from said city with a strict code of principles, like never break the law, always obey the authorities and so on. I expected this to be somewhat problematic but the GM said it was alright.

The first adventure he ran was based on stealing some important documents from a magistrates office and forging them. The second was based on killing the son of another magistrate. Yes, I had a lot of "fun" with that character, constantly having the choice of either ignoring my principles or being in the group's face all the time, but the GM never understood why I was quite a bit pissed and asked him whether I could play a different character during the second adventure.
That happened to me once as well - I was joining an in-progress game, and asked the DM if I could play as the valet and confidante of one of the noblemen in the party. He said yes, and spent the rest of the campaign complaining how he couldn't think of plot hooks for someone who was in that social position (despite all but two of the characters in the party being some variety of lowborn or outright criminal).

caden_varn
2013-09-15, 03:33 PM
I wonder how much of a difference it makes if you generate characters face to face, generate characters separately but play face to face, or play separateyl (by skype/post etc.) and all the vasrious gradations between? I've been playing and DMing for over 20 years, but always face to face, even with char gen., and I have rarely seen an issue. I suspect the fact I am sitting there with the guys, reinforcing that social bond, helps a lot in stopping anyone trying anything too stupid (and lets me quickly reinforce/clarify the setting rules if needed).
I suspect if you are playing with relative strangers PbP, you lack that immediate social contact that makes (most of) us want to be a decent human being.

All that said, communicating the ground rules clearly is a hugely important starting point for the DM. There is little more frustrating than ever-shifting boundaries of an unprepared or unclear DM...

TheThan
2013-09-15, 03:57 PM
I’ll veto a character for two reasons.
1: the character is not suited for the campaign. Like the chaotic evil necromancer in a party of lawful good paladins.

2: the character is too powerful. Not in the sense of “can I challenge him” oh I can. It’s that the character is too powerful in comparison to the rest of the party. I want the party to be more or less fair, with no one character outshining everyone at everything.

really, with the people I tend to play with, its not too much of an issue.

Honest Tiefling
2013-09-15, 05:23 PM
I've had my current DM veto my previous character. Yeah, I was a little disappointed that I couldn't play that character, but my DM did try to help me create a similar character and also explained OoCly why it didn't really work. (And I think I agree with him.)

So while the DM might control the rest of the story, there's a few catches. First of all, the DM does a bunch of work to keep things going. And secondly, the PCs (At least from my experience) tend to have a lot of power to alter tone. But seriously, if we need to come to a compromise to keep the DM also having fun, then it's worth it. I can always play my character that got rejected another time.

Amphetryon
2013-09-15, 05:50 PM
"I want to play a mutant ninja turtle. I'm calling him Salvador, but he's just an expy of Leonardo."

"But... THIS IS GREYHAWK!"

"and?"

:smallsigh:

Which, I'm sure you're aware, is a reducto ad absurdium example that does not contradict the general point of my quote, unless you hold that I was saying a Player must, absolutely, be allowed in all cases to play exactly the Character they initially pitch. Hint: I never said that.

Flickerdart
2013-09-15, 05:57 PM
I’ll veto a character for two reasons.
1: the character is not suited for the campaign. Like the chaotic evil necromancer in a party of lawful good paladins.
This can totally work, though. Chaotic Evil doesn't mean puppy-killing baby-kicker, and necromancer doesn't mean undead-hoarding maniac. As long as the paladins don't find out the guy is Evil (Undetectable Alignment makes the guy look non-Evil, and Misdirection can make him appear straight up Lawful Good like the paladins are) then there's no problem.

Ravens_cry
2013-09-15, 06:07 PM
This can totally work, though. Chaotic Evil doesn't mean puppy-killing baby-kicker, and necromancer doesn't mean undead-hoarding maniac. As long as the paladins don't find out the guy is Evil (Undetectable Alignment makes the guy look non-Evil, and Misdirection can make him appear straight up Lawful Good like the paladins are) then there's no problem.
You are forgetting the necromancer part. Now, I can totally see a non-evil necromancer being possible, but most of the creatable undead are, by RAW, Always Evil and the spelsl to create them are Evil descriptor spells. For this to work, you basically have to forsake actually doing what your class is designed to do.
Furthermore, there is tone again.
If you are going for a black and white morality style campaign, neither chaotic evil or necromancers really fit.

Coidzor
2013-09-15, 06:12 PM
While I agree with the idea that the DM should almost never pull out the veto card, there is an underlying attitude in this thread that bothers me, and has bothered me for some time. There seems to be this idea that if there is anything that doesn't 'gel' with the setting or the way I plan to run my game, then I must make a comprehensive list of any and all such materials available to the players before the game, and if I do not, I am contractually obliged to allow it. Even if said class is some obscure class from a 10 year old issue of Dragon that has d12 hit die, full BAB, all good saves, and can cast 9th level spells from the cleric, druid, and wizard spell lists. I didn't explicitly say that the class is not allowed before players started touching the dice, therefore I must allow it.

That is, of course hyperbole, but I can not possibly be expected to memorize every single class, feat, spell or prestige class from every single sourcebook ever published. If I don't allow something core, like the Cleric, that comes as a given that I should make the players aware of that. Coming up with a 300 page long ban list on the off chance one of my players is some kind of incorrigible munchkin is asking way too much of me.

I find that this concern should be largely alleviated by the other refrain of "communication. use that ****."

Amphetryon
2013-09-15, 06:13 PM
You are forgetting the necromancer part. Now, I can totally see a non-evil necromancer being possible, but most of the creatable undead are, by RAW, Always Evil. For this to work, you basically have to forsake actually doing what your class is designed to do.
Furthermore, there is tone again.
If you are going for a black and white morality style campaign, neither chaotic evil or necromancers really fit.

Necromancers can, in theory (and personal experience), play as enemy debuffers and general spellcasters that never actually create, summon, or otherwise control Undead. Is a necromancer played this way still, somehow, inappropriate to the party?

Ravens_cry
2013-09-15, 06:14 PM
Necromancers can, in theory (and personal experience), play as enemy debuffers and general spellcasters that never actually create, summon, or otherwise control Undead. Is a necromancer played this way still, somehow, inappropriate to the party?
Perhaps not, though, as I mentioned in the edit (sorry) tone itself could still veto this.

Coidzor
2013-09-15, 06:29 PM
Perhaps not, though, as I mentioned in the edit (sorry) tone itself could still veto this.

Could, maybe, possibly, potentially even probably. Not Must, however.

Life is screwy like that, and gaming is no exception. For every hard and fast thing someone could bring up you'll likely have someone who comes up with some way that it could potentially be used.

Knaight
2013-09-15, 06:46 PM
The big issue with vetoing a character is that it involves a character being completely made, and only then getting rid of them. That's horribly inefficient - if a character won't work, that information needs to get out prior to them being complete.

Jay R
2013-09-15, 10:26 PM
Don't veto characters. Veto specific details, and make it clear to the players that there is agood, specifc game reason, even if they cannot know what it is.

I just started a unique game today. I gave them four pages of rules for character creation, along with a statement that they can ask for exceptions. Five characters out of six are exceptions to the rules I sent out in various ways, but I vetoed several ideas along the way.

Once I vetoed something while not giving a reason. "No, you can't be a half-elf, for reasons I will not tell you." The reason is the brute fact that there are no elves anywhere near, and elves are very different from the standard. (When the PCs are high enough level, I will introduce the elves from Discworld.)

But I told them in advance that there was much about the world they wouldn't know, and many ideas might not be possible. It seems to have been OK; I sent out the rules to four players, and sat down to the table today with six.

TheThan
2013-09-15, 11:22 PM
This can totally work, though. Chaotic Evil doesn't mean puppy-killing baby-kicker, and necromancer doesn't mean undead-hoarding maniac. As long as the paladins don't find out the guy is Evil (Undetectable Alignment makes the guy look non-Evil, and Misdirection can make him appear straight up Lawful Good like the paladins are) then there's no problem.


Necromancers can, in theory (and personal experience), play as enemy debuffers and general spellcasters that never actually create, summon, or otherwise control Undead. Is a necromancer played this way still, somehow, inappropriate to the party?

I feel at this point the player is just trying to get around the DMs’ ruling because he was told “NO”. There are people like this, they can’t stand being told no, and will go out of their way to do what they were told they couldn’t do.

MY point of view is simple, if you don’t want to submit to the Dm’s rules (within a certain limitation that is) then you shouldn’t play.
After all, do you want to play dnd or not?

Honest Tiefling
2013-09-15, 11:46 PM
The big issue with vetoing a character is that it involves a character being completely made, and only then getting rid of them. That's horribly inefficient - if a character won't work, that information needs to get out prior to them being complete.

This is a good point, but I assume most people ask about race/class combos before making a full character, or ask about potentially problematic backstory elements such as nobility first? Or is my group just weird?

huttj509
2013-09-15, 11:54 PM
This is a good point, but I assume most people ask about race/class combos before making a full character, or ask about potentially problematic backstory elements such as nobility first? Or is my group just weird?

I dunno. Most recently for me I was contacting a prospective DM about the PF Summoner, not because of OP concerns, but because I was wondering how a character walking around with a large armed multi-headed flying snake would fit into her world. I envisioned it and thought "awesome," but realized it could be a bit too much for some campaign settings.

"Prospective" is only there because it's one of those "we're totally still planning to do the campaign, but time scheduling, prep, 2 year old, and work are postponing it."

Tar Palantir
2013-09-16, 01:20 AM
Lesson: next time make a mutant ninja DIRE turtle.

And when the same thing happens again, at least he won't be surprised.

Bogardan_Mage
2013-09-16, 02:14 AM
I feel at this point the player is just trying to get around the DMs’ ruling because he was told “NO”. There are people like this, they can’t stand being told no, and will go out of their way to do what they were told they couldn’t do.

MY point of view is simple, if you don’t want to submit to the Dm’s rules (within a certain limitation that is) then you shouldn’t play.
After all, do you want to play dnd or not?
It sounds like your style of DMing is more that of one who can't stand being told no, frankly. Actually this strikes me as a textbook answer to the question at hand. It doesn't matter what the actual reason (if there is one at all) for the veto is, the important thing is that the players obey every arbitrary demand of the DM? That's exactly why people don't like vetoes.

Gettles
2013-09-16, 02:22 AM
"I want to play a mutant ninja turtle. I'm calling him Salvador, but he's just an expy of Leonardo."

"But... THIS IS GREYHAWK!"

"and?"

:smallsigh:


Ok, fine. I'll make him a Raphael expy. Better?

Turalisj
2013-09-16, 02:37 AM
"I want to play a mutant ninja turtle. I'm calling him Salvador, but he's just an expy of Leonardo."

"But... THIS IS GREYHAWK!"

"and?"

:smallsigh:

See, I would just make an awakened turtle rogue and not tell you that he's an expy.

Souju
2013-09-16, 02:39 AM
i'm a fan of "line item veto"
Yes, you can make an absurdly powerful fighter who uses oversized weapons...but your weapon can't be so large it requires a complex pulley system to sheathe. (Actual character used by someone in my group)
And my group has established a general rule that only the DM can create custom magic items after a particularly loathsome instance of a character cheesing the magic item creation rules to make his stealth checks impossible to detect by mere mortals. At level 5.
Also our entire group is skittish about paladins being played by certain players. One member would make it amusing as hell (Troglodyte Paladin), while another would simply embody Lawful Stupid or Stupid Good. There's a reason (well, many, many reasons) why I prefer inquisitors to paladins >_>

sktarq
2013-09-16, 02:46 AM
There is another issue that I finds comes up in vetoing a character. Times issues.
Sometimes a player comes up with a character that by the rules is fine. Power level is fine etc but due to their nature willeat up a HUGE percentage of game time.
It may be that they are a psionic, the GM and player are both pretty new the rules of such things.
It may be that they are a scout or turn invisible type that by their nature goes off alone allot. And whenever they do the GM spends several minutes while the character does his thing and then has to go back to the other 80% of the party while the Ofbuscated character's player goes to the kitchen to make snacks and misses the big bad's introduction and critical mission info.
It could be that they made a noble or info specialist who wants act as the "face" of the party and will thus basically take over whenever they want to "investigate stuff by talking to people" comes up and that is planed to be a central pillar of the game. Or someone makes a "leader type" Often noble or say a Marshal class in 3.5 who with skills and abilities it now makes sence for them to be calling many of the party's decisions. Basically because of the nature of the expected game and the collection of characters a single player has just made themselves the centre of attention. One character (and thus their player) is now the star of your game.
Did that player do something wrong? No....but is the use of their character going to reduce the fun for everybody else around the gaming table? Yes and a big part of the GM's job is to make sure that everybody is having fun. Generally these things can be worked out with some mods and good discussion.
It is a larger than the rules gameplay issue that can be critical.

Krazzman
2013-09-16, 04:51 AM
From my perspective Vetoing isn't something bad. Most DM's have their reason.

Examples:
In our DnD games where H is the DM he told us... Chars that are too overpowered are going to die. So far this isn't a concern since I am by far the most powerful character. (Warblade, Totemist and Warlock) But at a certain point and on other topics the other players could shine. The Warlock is still a blaster but the Cleric in that game is stronger due to that Crusader dip.
In the Warblade game our Rogue/Ranger doesn't dish out that many damage but it is expected from a beginner char (I helped him built it and actually just looked for diversity and he is the primary skillmonkey where I am the frontliner). Our DM even allowed our Bardlock to reallocate her levels to be mainly bard with a warlock dip instead the other way around.
In the Totemist round we are currently level 3 so with Multiattack and only the sphinx claws his attack routinge is +5/+5/+3 additional enhancement bonus due to essentia invested in the claws (+5/+5) not included and +3 for an unarmed strike. The others are a Warmage, a Kossuth Cleric with Fiery Burst and a Dwarven Fighter. The fighter dishes out big chunks of pain but only has his single attack of 1d10+(unsure) while I run around with at least 1d8+3/1d8+3 + again essentia invested. So far I am not too far off and I try to help people if they want advice. I begin to know what my dm does not like in characters and try to avoid that.

In PF where I am a player:
Summoners are banned as well as general summoning of armies. This stems from the fact that summons tend to drag combat into a length that is not comfortable for them. Or they forgot about them etc. The summoner is rather too focused on this and the eidolon can bring rather problematic building into the whole mess.
The more exotic the build the better backstory is expected and our DM actually said no Changelings when played "Way X".

In the game I DM I had to Veto a character that was too far off.
Playing in Faerun with PF rules the campaign revolves around rashemen and a very lost part of it too with not that much civilisation and more barbaric.
One character wanted to be a Darkling Ninja. The Problem being Darklings would look like stuff the players and other members of the tribe would kill on sight. Without asking questions. So I had to say no and told him why. Next thing was a Half-Orc Samurai... I facepalmed at first but got an idea since he wanted to be a Ronin too. And well now he joined the tribal and they are now hunting a vampire. The first was a no, the second a yes, but... I now understand why the other DMs ban certain things better and know how hard it can be.

Black Jester
2013-09-16, 07:03 AM
I think this is backwards thinking. The GM doesn't veto specific characters; all characters require the specific and explicit GM's admission or are not a part of the game. So, by default all characters are banned, until the GM says otherwise, and it is not the GM's job to justify his decision to grant or withheld this admission; it is the player's job to make a convincing argument for his character, and why it would be fun to play, and most importantly, why the character in question is fun to play with. If he can't, the character is probably not good or interesting enough for the game anyway.

Earthwalker
2013-09-16, 07:24 AM
Necromancers can, in theory (and personal experience), play as enemy debuffers and general spellcasters that never actually create, summon, or otherwise control Undead. Is a necromancer played this way still, somehow, inappropriate to the party?

This kind of things becomes problematic for me when GMing. I have one player that could play an evil necromancer in a group of do-gooders and play it well and the game would work fine. Another player, playing a necromancer in the same group would just ruin the game before the first session was over.

I only game with friends and we are mature enough but these days when telling the players about my next campaign before hand I generally have to set the tone and do a pre-band on all evil if the game is going to be good focused.

Mastikator
2013-09-16, 07:25 AM
A DM shouldn't veto a character if he's unwilling to help the player make the character (nor should a player deny the DM the right to meddle with his character, go play a single player computer game if that's what you're into, roleplaying is a cooperative game). IMO the best scenario is when the better half of the first session is the players making characters together with each other and the DM, failing that the DM should be involved. The PCs should be involved in the campaign setting, the best way to ensure this is if the DM helps tie the backstory of the character to the setting, as well as giving him NPC connections. A PC shouldn't seemed to have poofed into existence.
This also helps regulate the power aspect and gives the DM a very good idea of what the players want from their PC and the game.

Frozen_Feet
2013-09-16, 07:41 AM
There's two reasons why I might veto a character:


The character could not conceivably exist in a setting (psionicist in modern-day game, astronaut in medieval setting, etc.)
The character isn't / can't be covered by the rules (a wizard in Twilight 2013, half-dragon minotaur in LotFP)


I haven't had to veto characters in a long while, because it's usually apparent after I present my game scenario and chosen rules which kind of characters can't be used.

Bogardan_Mage
2013-09-16, 07:43 AM
I think this is backwards thinking. The GM doesn't veto specific characters; all characters require the specific and explicit GM's admission or are not a part of the game. So, by default all characters are banned, until the GM says otherwise, and it is not the GM's job to justify his decision to grant or withheld this admission; it is the player's job to make a convincing argument for his character, and why it would be fun to play, and most importantly, why the character in question is fun to play with. If he can't, the character is probably not good or interesting enough for the game anyway.
Sure, if you like, but the player cannot be reasonably expected to make a convincing argument for his character if the GM does not justify his decision. If I argue at length that my Necromancer character will bring dramatic conflict to the party of Paladins without derailing the game, because he's willing and able to conceal his Evil alignment and intends to act as a debuffer rather than a zombie master, it's not going to help when the GM says nothing more than "No, vetoed" because his actual reason for disallowing the character is that Necromancy doesn't exist as a school of magic in the setting and he would actually be perfectly fine with an Evil character in a party of Paladins if I chose any other class. Communication is a two way street.

Mono Vertigo
2013-09-16, 08:56 AM
I've already veto'ed characters for a reason that I've not seen mentioned here yet:
not the concept, not the details, but the powers (which come from supplements, and never from core books). They may have to do with time/fate and I feel they'd wreck the campaign very easily. Or the execution is complicated for me, and I'd rather wait until I'm more familiar with the core rules and GMing in general before allowing players to take them.
Rest of the time, I try to go "yes, but...". Even if the original character concept has to be changed and refined a lot before being allowed (at which point it might sound more like "no, but..." to a player).

Logic
2013-09-16, 09:19 AM
I generally don't veto characters. I do make the following exceptions:

"Bill" only plays Wizards or Sorcerers. For the last 15 years he has played exactly 2 characters that were not a Wizard or Sorcerer. I vetoed his most recent Wizard to let one of the other players have a chance to play the mage. And to encourage him to play something different.

"Bobby" only plays elves (and usually gish elves.) In the past 15 years, about 75% of his characters were elves, and 75% of those were gish elves. I vetoed his most recent gish elf to encourage him to play something different.

"Danny" only plays psychic classes. I vetoed his most recent psion because I was tired of his one trick ponies.

"Dirk" only min-maxes. I usually ask for a complete "build plan" and occasionally veto his characters for being far too cheesy.

Tim Proctor
2013-09-16, 09:36 AM
As a DM there are lots of reasons why they shouldn't Veto characters, its easier to list the reasons they should.

1) it interferes with the playability of the campaign... We're playing Ravenloft and they want to play a Paladin, or something of the nature. The PC is overpowered for the setting or doesn't fit the setting.

2) it detracts from the playability/funness of the players... Someone wants to be Chaotic Evil in a Lawful Good party so that they can TPK. The PC actively harms the fun of the players or the well being of characters.

I'm sure I could think corner cases but those are the two issues I've seen.

jindra34
2013-09-16, 10:13 AM
The big reason not to is because at the final stage, if you were communicating properly the whole way through, the whole of the character shouldn't be unusable. Just small bits, which you should be able to sit down, talk it over with them and rework it without the issues (be they playability, powergamey beyond what is acceptable, or just going into areas your not comfortable RPing).

Eric Tolle
2013-09-16, 10:21 AM
In general, unless we're playing a game of Fiasco or Polaris. s player arguing that their character will bring "Dramtic Conflict" to a game is reason enough right there to veto a character. Because that right there is saying that no matter what the system, the player wants a game of Fiasco.

illyrus
2013-09-16, 10:31 AM
As a player I'd rather the GM have a small list of books that are allowed and then anything outside of that you can ask for approval. So I know going in if I'm pulling from a non-approved source my work might go to waste. Never bothered me to have a character vetoed in this case.

The only veto that ever got to me was when a GM felt that druids should be hippie ultra-pacifists (this mindset was not brought up to me during chargen) and I was playing my druid as a bit more survival of the fittest (who viewed the party and allies as basically part of his pack). GM vetoed the behavior mid game and I now had to play an ultra-pacifist hippie. That did not end well, turns out the GM mandated code ultra-pacifist hippie druids must follow does not mesh well with slay quests and the campaign ended.

Forrestfire
2013-09-16, 11:05 AM
"I want to play a mutant ninja turtle. I'm calling him Salvador, but he's just an expy of Leonardo."

"But... THIS IS GREYHAWK!"

"and?"

:smallsigh:

I feel like the correct response to a player running something like that is to ask them where their character came from, and if it doesn't fit, to offer alternate backstories. Mutant ninja turtle? Experimenting wizard, magical fallout from a battle between spellcasters, incursions from Limbo, a rod of wonder-gone-wrong... There are myriad ways for this character to exist in Greyhawk, or whatever other campaign setting. Whether or not the character fits the theme of the campaign depends on the player, but the character? I personally don't see an issue.

Also, Greyhawk is the setting that Owlbears originate from. A mutant turtle would fit in fine. :smallamused:

JusticeZero
2013-09-16, 11:10 AM
As a player I'd rather the GM have a small list of books that are allowed and then anything outside of that you can ask for approval.
I tended to do that with 3.5. "No, you can't use Book of X." "Why not?" "Because I don't have access to a Book of X, so I can't check the rules!"
When I have all the material, having a bunch of splats usually balances things better. usually.

oudeis
2013-09-16, 12:01 PM
The only veto that ever got to me was when a GM felt that druids should be hippie ultra-pacifists (this mindset was not brought up to me during chargen) and I was playing my druid as a bit more survival of the fittest (who viewed the party and allies as basically part of his pack). GM vetoed the behavior mid game and I now had to play an ultra-pacifist hippie. That did not end well, turns out the GM mandated code ultra-pacifist hippie druids must follow does not mesh well with slay quests and the campaign ended.Then your GM was a tool (or maybe he was a good guy who who was having a tool moment or C.A.P.*) because that is the single most awesome concept for a Druid I've ever SEEN. You, my friend, win at Druid.



*Cognitive Air Pocket

Gwazi Magnum
2013-09-16, 12:30 PM
To share my own experience on why a DM vetoing characters is bad...

And a number of people have already heard this story btw :p

I was once in a campaign where as a challenge to ourselves, the players agreed on being no caster classes (and no cheap work around's like wand blasting) but we could still use magic items and have access to some spells when needed.

The DM took this and ran with it. He banned any kind of caster out right, not really allowing any kind of magical source. Up to the point he was banning most Tome of Battle Maneuvers and re-wrote the Paladins lay on hands ability to require a powder (and this the kind of DM who constantly cuts you off from items for fun, so this was an easy 'You lose lay on hands' card for him to use).

But this same DM also banned things like the "Spell less ranger variant" because he saw the +10 speed as 'Too OP and too Magical".

The nerfed already weak things even more in the name of 'realism' like changing rapid reload to allow one extra attack per round (if BAB allowed it) rather than changing the reload time.

He also scanned through each character before hand to approve or not based on 'how broken they are' and considering he saw +10 speed to be OP... he barely knows the definition of balance or power levels.

Lastly, he also tried banning high skill numbers such as Listen and Spot by putting in a punishment system. The idea being if you had high listen and spot you were overly sensitive to things and would be paralyzed if he deemed it was too loud or noisy.

Gwazi Magnum
2013-09-16, 12:31 PM
Then your GM was a tool (or maybe he was a good guy who who was having a tool moment or C.A.P.*) because that is the single most awesome concept for a Druid I've ever SEEN. You, my friend, win at Druid.



*Cognitive Air Pocket

Agreed. That is honestly how Druids are supposed to be played anyways.
They reflect nature and how nature works.

tasw
2013-09-16, 07:42 PM
I'm a little curious about this constant communication idea about character building that keeps coming up. Maybe my situation is weird but we're all too busy with real life stuff to really do that pre-game.

My last campaign start went like this "heya X, we got enough people and a location now so we're starting the game Saturday. 1st level, PF rules, E6, starting in the shadowdale region of the dalelands in the forgotten realms.. Standard starting wealth per the SRD. Everything from Paizo on the SRD is okay except summoners and gunslingers, stuff from 3rd party run by me first, email or text me with any questions".

Then a day or 2 before the game I get an okay what time again 3 or 4 times, send out time and addy again and meet 3/4 of the characters (not players thankfully) on game night while the people who didnt finish are finishing.

Bogardan_Mage
2013-09-16, 08:18 PM
I'm a little curious about this constant communication idea about character building that keeps coming up. Maybe my situation is weird but we're all too busy with real life stuff to really do that pre-game.

My last campaign start went like this "heya X, we got enough people and a location now so we're starting the game Saturday. 1st level, PF rules, E6, starting in the shadowdale region of the dalelands in the forgotten realms.. Standard starting wealth per the SRD. Everything from Paizo on the SRD is okay except summoners and gunslingers, stuff from 3rd party run by me first, email or text me with any questions".

Then a day or 2 before the game I get an okay what time again 3 or 4 times, send out time and addy again and meet 3/4 of the characters (not players thankfully) on game night while the people who didnt finish are finishing.
You've clearly laid out what's allowed and given some idea of the setting, and you've invited communication with respect to 3rd party content. What makes you think you aren't engaging in sufficient communication? Do you then go and veto characters that didn't break the guidelines you set out? If not, then you've done your job right and you shouldn't feel like anyone here's expecting more of you.

murph04
2013-09-16, 08:45 PM
I mainly veto characters based on story. I know it is very petty, but if a character can't fit within my vision for a campaign, or simply doesn't have enough to them to last the full story then I shut down the player before they get to excited.

But I don't outright say "No". I look for flaws in the characters backstory or how useful he can be combat-wise.
I have a player whose obsessed with fulfilling every role of the party, except healer, if he needs to. So he made a doppelganger Ardent Necromancer with a hombrewed Theme (It was a 4E game). He said his doppelganger transformed parts of his body to whatever he thinks is useful (Elf eyes, shifter claws, dragonborn head). He was born a psychic Ardent and enjoyed reading people's minds and playing pranks on them. One day he met a dying necromancer who gifted him with the knowledge of necromancy.

Red flags went up for me immediately, so I went to work with a barrage of questions.

ME: So you're playing a doppelganger purely to have you're own custom race?
PLAYER: No, he can change form to look like any other race when he wants to. He just prefers to be in a superior form
ME: And you're fine with him being repelled by most of society?
PLAYER: Well when we're in cities or town's he'll look normal
ME: So only when no strangers are around he'll look like that?
PLAYER: Well...yes
ME: Then just have him look normal always because most of the campaign takes place in a big city. Next, why do you need to summon undead when you can already break people's brains as an ardent
PLAYER: it's incase I get overwhelmed
ME: So you're going to put away your sword and shield to take out your staff, both of which are minor actions, so you can cast an Animate Undead spell, using you're standard action. This leaves you without a move action and still at the mercy of whatever is overwhelming you

This goes on for some time. I'm not trying to squelch their creativity or anything, I just want them to know what they're getting into. Because I always make sure they adhere to their concepts. I won't have any paladins let a criminal go just because it's convenient for them.

If a player makes a good enough case to win me over then I let them off the hook. The above player eventually convinced me that his Ardent could use his psionic powers to make him and his undead seem more terrifying in the eyes of his enemies, and he changed his doppelganger to an Elf

Coidzor
2013-09-16, 09:13 PM
I think this is backwards thinking. The GM doesn't veto specific characters; all characters require the specific and explicit GM's admission or are not a part of the game. So, by default all characters are banned, until the GM says otherwise, and it is not the GM's job to justify his decision to grant or withheld this admission; it is the player's job to make a convincing argument for his character, and why it would be fun to play, and most importantly, why the character in question is fun to play with. If he can't, the character is probably not good or interesting enough for the game anyway.

The person running the game needs more communication and people skills than the players, not less. :smallyuk:

Sure, the GM doesn't *have* to talk to the players at all about anything ever, but they'd better if they want to actually have a game to run instead of acting out a story by themselves. Because, honestly, if someone is going to go to that kind of trouble, they're better off spending their time making handpuppets than learning the rules of a tabletop roleplaying game enough to GM for themselves.

How is a player supposed to present a convincing argument that their vetoed character should get into the game if the GM is going to refuse to share their reservations with the player, details about the game the GM is planning on running, or really any other information which would be pertinent because the player isn't entitled to know what the GM is thinking and it's not the GM's job to talk to the player about the game the GM is about to start running that the player is trying to play in? :smallconfused:


I'm a little curious about this constant communication idea about character building that keeps coming up. Maybe my situation is weird but we're all too busy with real life stuff to really do that pre-game.

My last campaign start went like this "heya X, we got enough people and a location now so we're starting the game Saturday. 1st level, PF rules, E6, starting in the shadowdale region of the dalelands in the forgotten realms.. Standard starting wealth per the SRD. Everything from Paizo on the SRD is okay except summoners and gunslingers, stuff from 3rd party run by me first, email or text me with any questions".

Then a day or 2 before the game I get an okay what time again 3 or 4 times, send out time and addy again and meet 3/4 of the characters (not players thankfully) on game night while the people who didnt finish are finishing.

Not so much constant, necessarily, but even just setting up some ground rules before everyone breaks up to make their characters combined with the ubiquity of text messaging, email, and other forms of instantaneous, or at least very rapid, communication means that y'all should be able to keep in touch to at least communicate what is necessary.

Disorganization is the bane of just about everyone though. If it works, it works. If it doesn't then it would seem probable that being in the presence of the people who were still finishing up their characters or had finished their characters would help iron out any rough edges.

Black Jester
2013-09-17, 03:03 AM
The person running the game needs more communication and people skills than the players, not less. :smallyuk:

This is not an issue of communication. Seriously it should really go without saying that players talk with each other.
This is about the mentality and who has the final saying about the contents of the game and on which basics these communication takes place.
The huge difference between "all characters are allowed until the GM says otherwise" and "all characters are banned until the GM says otherwise" is that it puts the authority over the game where it belongs: in the hands of the one who actually runs the game.
A vetoed character (or much more likely, a banned character trait) is not some kind of special treatment or punishment, it is a matter of course and the GM is not required to justify that decision to the player (he can and should explain it, but it is already completely legitimized because it's the GM's decision and that's enough).

Krazzman
2013-09-17, 03:20 AM
Then your GM was a tool (or maybe he was a good guy who who was having a tool moment or C.A.P.*) because that is the single most awesome concept for a Druid I've ever SEEN. You, my friend, win at Druid.



*Cognitive Air Pocket

Wait there are other concepts? I thought worshipping Malar was a core feature of Faerun?

Currently our Druid in a 3rd level group can summon extra big wolves (summoning focused) and is a follower of Malar.
I could see a "narrow" minded DM banning this Druid if he plans that the players go against Werewolves and the like but... luckily our DM is more focused on an interesting story for that campaign.

Mr Beer
2013-09-17, 04:11 AM
To share my own experience on why a DM vetoing characters is bad...

And a number of people have already heard this story btw :p

I was once in a campaign where as a challenge to ourselves, the players agreed on being no caster classes (and no cheap work around's like wand blasting) but we could still use magic items and have access to some spells when needed.

The DM took this and ran with it. He banned any kind of caster out right, not really allowing any kind of magical source. Up to the point he was banning most Tome of Battle Maneuvers and re-wrote the Paladins lay on hands ability to require a powder (and this the kind of DM who constantly cuts you off from items for fun, so this was an easy 'You lose lay on hands' card for him to use).

But this same DM also banned things like the "Spell less ranger variant" because he saw the +10 speed as 'Too OP and too Magical".

The nerfed already weak things even more in the name of 'realism' like changing rapid reload to allow one extra attack per round (if BAB allowed it) rather than changing the reload time.

He also scanned through each character before hand to approve or not based on 'how broken they are' and considering he saw +10 speed to be OP... he barely knows the definition of balance or power levels.

Lastly, he also tried banning high skill numbers such as Listen and Spot by putting in a punishment system. The idea being if you had high listen and spot you were overly sensitive to things and would be paralyzed if he deemed it was too loud or noisy.

That's not so much veto-ing characters as veto-ing the character progression system. Probably would have been better to just run 1st Ed and ban spellcasters.

Kaerou
2013-09-17, 09:11 AM
I think to an extent some vetoes are more to do with metagame mindset as opposed to actual balance or concept. Barring a fighter-archer who took a few different PrC's to get extra damaging arrows for example is more of a metagame veto. There's very little cheese that is going to make an archer fighter even comparable to an averagely played wizard.

In character the fighter is really just extra good at shooting a bow and knows a trick to drawing the bow to get a bit more whack out of it while keeping accuracy.

The DM see's 'arrowdude 2, bowguy 1' and his box is ruffled and he says 'you can't be both an arrow dude and a bowguy!' when really its just BaB+3, 'draw trick' and 'accurate draw'. If those were feats a fighter could have picked up he wouldn't have cared. Its just a bit of extra text at the top of the charsheet by the class column he has problems with. In character its just a guy extra good with a bow. And its still weaker than core classes like wizard and cleric.

Veto when its not abused for silly reasons is fine. That guy who wants to roll a LE Drow Rogue when the rest of the party composes a Lawful Good Paladin of Torm and a chaotic good elven ranger with favored enemy: Drow then its just going to make for problems no matter how much the guy yells about his skill ranks in disguise.

russdm
2013-09-17, 01:36 PM
this is a bit late but:

As a DM/GM, I will be up front about what races/classes/houserules are present, and if the players decide to still pick things that aren't available, I will just veto it out. After all, I have already given the reason why you can't be a half-elf or a gnome. Or why you can't play that wizard. Or why you can't have that spell. If you are still just going to try to use those options despite being told you can't, then I am well within my rights as a DM to veto the character. I can veto any part I don't like freely.

As a DM/GM, I am under no obligation to give the players everything they want if it will cause problems or based on their backstory it gets their characters killed before the game/campaign even begins. Also, none of the magic items from the lists are automatically present at all times. Some items may not be purchasable because there is no reason why every magic item is there.

Players are expected to play characters that fit into the story, so if there are no half-elves or gnomes, and no wizards, then the player cannot make a gnomish wizard or a half-elven wizard. If the party is going to be playing the various members of a particular faith or group, then they can't play members of an opposed faith or group without having caveats as to why.

I am mainly ticked with some people acting like its the DM's responsibility to let the players play anything they want. It is the responsibility of the players to make characters that will work without annoying the DM. If you choose to be a prick about this, well sorry, but were you not paying attention when I took the time to outline the houserules that were being used for the setting in which you would be playing? No? Then pay attention!

I find most people have mentally that "Anything goes until the DM say yes, but" VS "Make something that doesn't cause the DM's head to explode" mentality. If you really wanted to play that incrediably weird crazy thing, maybe you should discuss it so the DM can say sure. But characters shouldn't be seen as freebies.

DMs are supposed to be Judge, Adventure Maker, and World Builder plus running the monsters. So they have the freedom to say 'NO' to anything you ask for if they want. Atleast as long as it makes sense to do so and you tell the player why, like I don't have the splatbook and I am not buying it. Sorry.

My two silver pieces.

Jay R
2013-09-17, 03:45 PM
The argument that DMs should never veto characters requires the following assumptions:

1. All D&D worlds are identical, so there's no such thing as a character that will work one place but not another.

2. All D&D campaigns are interchangeable, so builds that are balanced one place are automatically balanced everywhere else.

3. All races and classes exist in every D&D world, and so the entire range of options always exists. (I just vetoed a half-orc for the very good reason that there are no orcs in this world.)

4. The entire game is written out in the books, so the DM should never make a judgment call.

5. No player ever miscounts or miscalculates or makes any other mistake.

If these were all true, then it might be possible for the DM's job to not include vetoing characters. But they are all false, and the DM must try to make the world work, and keep the game balanced. Sometimes this includes vetoing characters.

NichG
2013-09-17, 03:48 PM
I think to an extent some vetoes are more to do with metagame mindset as opposed to actual balance or concept. Barring a fighter-archer who took a few different PrC's to get extra damaging arrows for example is more of a metagame veto. There's very little cheese that is going to make an archer fighter even comparable to an averagely played wizard.

In character the fighter is really just extra good at shooting a bow and knows a trick to drawing the bow to get a bit more whack out of it while keeping accuracy.

The DM see's 'arrowdude 2, bowguy 1' and his box is ruffled and he says 'you can't be both an arrow dude and a bowguy!' when really its just BaB+3, 'draw trick' and 'accurate draw'. If those were feats a fighter could have picked up he wouldn't have cared. Its just a bit of extra text at the top of the charsheet by the class column he has problems with. In character its just a guy extra good with a bow. And its still weaker than core classes like wizard and cleric.

One thing to keep in mind is that some tables take PrC fluff seriously and consider classes to be an in-character thing rather than a metagame package of abilities.

This is particularly true in certain settings, like Oriental Adventures/Rokugan, where a character having both a Lion clan PrC and a Scorpion clan PrC is saying a lot about their background, political ties, etc - they're basically committing to being a Scorpion spy that lived among the Lion clan for some time, which may be just as bad as the drow/paladin/elven ranger example you gave.

Brookshw
2013-09-17, 04:21 PM
The argument that DMs should never veto characters requires the following assumptions:

1. All D&D worlds are identical, so there's no such thing as a character that will work one place but not another.

2. All D&D campaigns are interchangeable, so builds that are balanced one place are automatically balanced everywhere else.

3. All races and classes exist in every D&D world, and so the entire range of options always exists. (I just vetoed a half-orc for the very good reason that there are no orcs in this world.)

4. The entire game is written out in the books, so the DM should never make a judgment call.

5. No player ever miscounts or miscalculates or makes any other mistake.

If these were all true, then it might be possible for the DM's job to not include vetoing characters. But they are all false, and the DM must try to make the world work, and keep the game balanced. Sometimes this includes vetoing characters.

I like the way you put that :smallsmile:

russdm
2013-09-17, 04:59 PM
I like the way you put that :smallsmile:

It needs to be put into a signature.

Knaight
2013-09-17, 11:07 PM
The argument that DMs should never veto characters requires the following assumptions:

1. All D&D worlds are identical, so there's no such thing as a character that will work one place but not another.

2. All D&D campaigns are interchangeable, so builds that are balanced one place are automatically balanced everywhere else.

3. All races and classes exist in every D&D world, and so the entire range of options always exists. (I just vetoed a half-orc for the very good reason that there are no orcs in this world.)

4. The entire game is written out in the books, so the DM should never make a judgment call.

5. No player ever miscounts or miscalculates or makes any other mistake.

If these were all true, then it might be possible for the DM's job to not include vetoing characters. But they are all false, and the DM must try to make the world work, and keep the game balanced. Sometimes this includes vetoing characters.

Alternately, it requires, say, a system where the setting is made collaboratively, as the characters are made (possibly even before the GM is picked). Or a number of other things.

Also, this isn't the D&D board.

Prince Raven
2013-09-18, 08:58 AM
Also, this isn't the D&D board.

Considering the title says "DM", the majority of this forum have played D&D and that the entire thread is full of D&D references, I think you're being a little nitpicky here.

BWR
2013-09-18, 10:06 AM
The argument that DMs should never veto characters requires the following assumptions:

1. All D&D worlds are identical, so there's no such thing as a character that will work one place but not another.

2. All D&D campaigns are interchangeable, so builds that are balanced one place are automatically balanced everywhere else.

3. All races and classes exist in every D&D world, and so the entire range of options always exists. (I just vetoed a half-orc for the very good reason that there are no orcs in this world.)

4. The entire game is written out in the books, so the DM should never make a judgment call.

5. No player ever miscounts or miscalculates or makes any other mistake.

If these were all true, then it might be possible for the DM's job to not include vetoing characters. But they are all false, and the DM must try to make the world work, and keep the game balanced. Sometimes this includes vetoing characters.

The most concise and clear list of reasons for bannings in the discussion.

+1.

I've had games not ruined but marred by the DM not saying no. E.g. an all-elf campaign where after one death the player insisted on bringing in a human. The DM is too nice and wants people to have characters they like. The human worked in combat but not in story. Especially when all the other elves were slightly racist.

Brookshw
2013-09-18, 10:18 AM
The human worked in combat but not in story. Especially when all the other elves were slightly racist.
Just can't trust those danged smug pointy earred tree hugging elitists!

Coidzor
2013-09-18, 02:58 PM
The argument that DMs should never veto characters requires the following assumptions:

Alternatively simple communication between players & DM before the start of the game. Then it's either tweaking characters or defenestrating people for being trolls.


I've had games not ruined but marred by the DM not saying no. E.g. an all-elf campaign where after one death the player insisted on bringing in a human. The DM is too nice and wants people to have characters they like. The human worked in combat but not in story. Especially when all the other elves were slightly racist.

See, this is a clear situation where both the DM and the particular player should have just been tossed out of a window. The problem of having a mindset where you're in love with the DM veto, though, is that you sacrifice the ability to see that the DM needs punishment too.

jindra34
2013-09-18, 03:41 PM
Coidzor: Even with PERFECT communication the person running the game can't possibly cover or think of all the things they might not want being played (including seemingly innocent combinations). So and end point review with the ability for the person running it to say no to this or that would still be nessecary.

BRC
2013-09-18, 03:41 PM
Alternatively simple communication between players & DM before the start of the game. Then it's either tweaking characters or defenestrating people for being trolls.


It depends how you are defining a Veto?
For example A Player expresses an interest in playing a Druid with a pet bear. The DM mentions that this will be an urban campaign, so a bear animal companion is going to attract way too much attention. The player decides to play a different character. Is that a DM vetoing the bear-Druid, or is that just good communication allowing a player to scrap an unsuitable character idea before putting too much effort into it.

I belive A DM should veto characters when neccessary. However, if this veto occurs after the character sheets have been written up, that indicates a failure to communicate on the parts of both the DM and the Player.

TheThan
2013-09-18, 03:50 PM
It sounds like your style of DMing is more that of one who can't stand being told no, frankly. Actually this strikes me as a textbook answer to the question at hand. It doesn't matter what the actual reason (if there is one at all) for the veto is, the important thing is that the players obey every arbitrary demand of the DM? That's exactly why people don't like vetoes.

Haha no, not at all. I give players a TREMENDOUS amount of freedom not only in the game, but when creating characters. It’s extremely rare that I veto a character. I mostly run sandbox games nowadays. In fact I can only really recall one time I’ve had to do that.


In this situation, a player wanted to play an Ur Priest. (For those of you who may not know, an Ur Priest is a spell caster that basically steals power from the gods.) When the player in question explained to me his character class and the basic idea behind it; I had to tell him no. Not because of power or anything but because the class does not and could not really exist in the setting.

In the homebrewed setting I was running at the time; gods are very jealous of their own power. They give it out sparingly and only to those who worship them (clerics, paladins etc). They all know exactly who is using their power and were they are at all times (comes with the territory of being a god). So if someone tries to steal their power, they instantly know it, and know who it is and where they are.

Typically they send their earthly representatives (clerics, paladins etc) to destroy the person trying to steal from them. If that doesn’t work, they send in angels or another celestial being. If that somehow doesn’t work they deal with it personally.

Oh and did I mention that I don’t stat my gods.

Even after I explained why he couldn’t be an Ur Priest, he tried to convince me to allow him to play the character as is (if he just wanted to play an evil wizard or cleric or somesuch it would have been fine but he specifically wanted to PRC into Ur Priest, with no changes to fluff). I explained that the gods do not pull punches nor do they play fair. After the first two or three groups of clerics and paladins (assuming they survived) the thunder really starts coming down. The party was going to be TPKed very quickly in that regards. TPKs do not work towards my goals as Dm, and it shouldn’t work towards the player’s goals either.

I even explained that all this was an important part of the campaign setting (that I spent an awful long time working on) and an important part of the plot (again something I spent a lot of time on). He still wouldn’t budge and then decided to not play in that game.

Forrestfire
2013-09-18, 05:11 PM
Haha no, not at all. I give players a TREMENDOUS amount of freedom not only in the game, but when creating characters. It’s extremely rare that I veto a character. I mostly run sandbox games nowadays. In fact I can only really recall one time I’ve had to do that.


In this situation, a player wanted to play an Ur Priest. (For those of you who may not know, an Ur Priest is a spell caster that basically steals power from the gods.) When the player in question explained to me his character class and the basic idea behind it; I had to tell him no. Not because of power or anything but because the class does not and could not really exist in the setting.

In the homebrewed setting I was running at the time; gods are very jealous of their own power. They give it out sparingly and only to those who worship them (clerics, paladins etc). They all know exactly who is using their power and were they are at all times (comes with the territory of being a god). So if someone tries to steal their power, they instantly know it, and know who it is and where they are.

Typically they send their earthly representatives (clerics, paladins etc) to destroy the person trying to steal from them. If that doesn’t work, they send in angels or another celestial being. If that somehow doesn’t work they deal with it personally.

Oh and did I mention that I don’t stat my gods.

Even after I explained why he couldn’t be an Ur Priest, he tried to convince me to allow him to play the character as is (if he just wanted to play an evil wizard or cleric or somesuch it would have been fine but he specifically wanted to PRC into Ur Priest, with no changes to fluff). I explained that the gods do not pull punches nor do they play fair. After the first two or three groups of clerics and paladins (assuming they survived) the thunder really starts coming down. The party was going to be TPKed very quickly in that regards. TPKs do not work towards my goals as Dm, and it shouldn’t work towards the player’s goals either.

I even explained that all this was an important part of the campaign setting (that I spent an awful long time working on) and an important part of the plot (again something I spent a lot of time on). He still wouldn’t budge and then decided to not play in that game.


So if the issue was fluff and not the power level of the class, why didn't you just have the Ur-Priest able to syphon power without the gods noticing? Or say that the Ur-Priest takes power not from the gods' domain, but from their something about their beings themselves, so they don't notice it? Maybe this Ur-Priest gets his power from ambient magical radiation given off by the gods that is normally unnoticed by everyone, even the gods themselves? Hell, you could turn it into a plot point—this guy might just be flat-out hidden from the gods, and when events start moving, they're missing minor traces of power and have literally no idea where it went.

Although, just to be clear, I need to make sure. Is divine magic in this world only granted by gods? Would you have allowed him to play a cleric without having to worship a god? If so, was the player wanting to be an Ur-Priest such an issue that if you had let it in your game, you would plan to kill off every player's characters just to stop it?

Mr Beer
2013-09-18, 05:23 PM
It seems completely reasonable to veto Ur-priests in a setting where the gods can detect power theft and react to it much like Soviet Russia would to a lone anarchist pilfering their WMDs.

Also if a player won't play a campaign because they can't have this one specific priest sub-type, it's a fair guess that they may be inflexible in other ways that adversely affect game play.

Forrestfire
2013-09-18, 05:25 PM
That is a good point about the player. I wonder what he would have run if he was more flexible.

Flickerdart
2013-09-18, 07:56 PM
It seems completely reasonable to veto Ur-priests in a setting where the gods can detect power theft and react to it much like Soviet Russia would to a lone anarchist pilfering their WMDs.

Also if a player won't play a campaign because they can't have this one specific priest sub-type, it's a fair guess that they may be inflexible in other ways that adversely affect game play.
There's a feat that changes the source of Ur-Priest power to that of a dead god, rather than theft from living ones.

Turalisj
2013-09-18, 09:25 PM
It seems completely reasonable to veto Ur-priests in a setting where the gods can detect power theft and react to it much like Soviet Russia would to a lone anarchist pilfering their WMDs.

There's a comment in there, but I'm going to hold off >.>

I do mostly PBP games, so I expect a character concept to be shot down 9 times out of 10.

Mr Beer
2013-09-18, 10:35 PM
There's a feat that changes the source of Ur-Priest power to that of a dead god, rather than theft from living ones.

It's not my setting, so I'll let TheThan explain why that would or would not fly. I'm saying it's a de-facto valid reason to veto a character. Now obviously any RPG-er can think of a whole bunch of possible justifications to allow it but I personally would have no issue with this veto.

NichG
2013-09-18, 11:42 PM
Yeah, cosmology is cosmology. If for whatever reason 'arcane magic doesn't work in this setting' or 'no one has invented gunpowder' or 'swords are taboo and carrying one is punishable by death' you can question whether or not those things make for a good setting or good game design, but its kind of boorish to say 'well I should be able to cast spells, have guns, and use a sword anyways because I get to decide my character'.

The DM can still be wrong here, but its not for exercising a veto to enforce a cosmological restriction/prevent a TPK. If they're 'wrong', its because the cosmology they decided to run a game with isn't something the people at the table (as a whole) would enjoy playing.

russdm
2013-09-19, 12:04 AM
Regarding the Ur-Priest: If its in FR, then all the gods hit the Ur-Priest with death hit and send their priests after him to take him out.

Not worshipping a god in Faerun is Fatal. You are screwed in the afterlife once you die. Enjoy getting your soul devoured by a wall for all eternity and all because you wanted to play an athesist.

TheThan
2013-09-19, 12:41 AM
So if the issue was fluff and not the power level of the class, why didn't you just have the Ur-Priest able to syphon power without the gods noticing? Or say that the Ur-Priest takes power not from the gods' domain, but from their something about their beings themselves, so they don't notice it? Maybe this Ur-Priest gets his power from ambient magical radiation given off by the gods that is normally unnoticed by everyone, even the gods themselves? Hell, you could turn it into a plot point—this guy might just be flat-out hidden from the gods, and when events start moving, they're missing minor traces of power and have literally no idea where it went.

Although, just to be clear, I need to make sure. Is divine magic in this world only granted by gods? Would you have allowed him to play a cleric without having to worship a god? If so, was the player wanting to be an Ur-Priest such an issue that if you had let it in your game, you would plan to kill off every player's characters just to stop it?

I tried to compromise but he wanted to play the class perfectly straight, and was pretty unwavering in that regards.

To answer the question on the setting, it’s both yes and no.
The gods are the only things that grant divine magic, up until the main villain of the campaign learned how to “get” divine magic without worshiping the gods. It’s pretty much a play on the whole “cleric of a cause” clause presented in the 3.5 PHB.

campaign spoiler

the issue is that the "villain" does not believe in the gods. He's so strong in this belief that he's able to cast divine magic. Which to him proves his point even further. He starts preaching and teaching and gains a following. This grows to the point where he starts gaining divine ranks and can ascend to godhood himself.

However he ascends to godhood he still doesn't believe in the gods. This paradox is so great that the world cannot handle the Irony and the world starts to be destroyed.

Since he's in effect stealing worshipers, gods are losing a lot of their power (granted via worship), and they begin to not be able to do what they're there to do anymore (the god of weather can't control it anymore and it gets outta control, etc). Additionally they also need that power to simply live (sustain their godhood), by losing worshipers, they lose their godliness and die.

BWR
2013-09-19, 12:57 AM
Alternatively simple communication between players & DM before the start of the game. Then it's either tweaking characters or defenestrating people for being trolls.



See, this is a clear situation where both the DM and the particular player should have just been tossed out of a window. The problem of having a mindset where you're in love with the DM veto, though, is that you sacrifice the ability to see that the DM needs punishment too.

1. In my case, it was stated very clearly beforehand that this was to be an elf-only campaign. It's just that the player brought in a human when his elf died at the first opportunity where we were actually around humans.

2. Why the hell should the DM be tossed out preventing an otherwise awesome game from being played? A simple "I said: only elves" would have kept everything on track?


The basic assumption of the "DM veto" is that the DM has a vision of what s/he wants hin her/his game and has complete control. One assumes that the DM announces most restrictions beforehand but sometimes something comes up that was unforseen. Should the DM be forced to accept everything unforseen just because it was unforseen? Or should the DM actually be able to run the game the way s/he sees fit?

If you don't like what the DM is doing, bring up your objections. If the DM doesn't relent, you can leave. No matter how badly the game is run, the idea that the DM should be forced to accept all manner of **** because 'hurr durr, veto is bad' is ridiculous.

Black Jester
2013-09-19, 06:20 AM
See, this is a clear situation where both the DM and the particular player should have just been tossed out of a window. The problem of having a mindset where you're in love with the DM veto, though, is that you sacrifice the ability to see that the DM needs punishment too.

No, no way. The GM has any right to define exactly and specifically what happens in his campaign. The players may participate, but due to their different roles and different levels of responsibility for the overall success of the game, there is no equal footing between players and gamemasters. When it comes to the game (and obviously only to the game) the opinion and reasoning of the GM *always bear significantly more meaning than that of any individual player.

Brookshw
2013-09-19, 07:04 AM
Better question, why the assumption that any DM "loves" vetoing something? Far easier to work with a player to find a way for them to get what they want, but when used it should be more for something like the following (this did happen, player was remaking character for no reason and had been part of the campaign from the get go).

"So let's see, we're high level, bordering epic, the party is completely good, is actively working with Celestials routinely, uses Celestia as it's main base as this is a planar campaign, and you want to bring in a horribly demented Illithid Savant, despite being already told no, and from a book that specifies it's not for players, and on top of that since you're starting high level with multiple levels of the prestige you want to start having already devoured/absorbed the abilities of multiple different prestiges to give you any ability you want from across the board to reach a whole new level of cheese?"

Frozen_Feet
2013-09-19, 09:33 AM
1. All D&D worlds are identical, so there's no such thing as a character that will work one place but not another.

2. All D&D campaigns are interchangeable, so builds that are balanced one place are automatically balanced everywhere else.

3. All races and classes exist in every D&D world, and so the entire range of options always exists. (I just vetoed a half-orc for the very good reason that there are no orcs in this world.)

4. The entire game is written out in the books, so the DM should never make a judgment call.

5. No player ever miscounts or miscalculates or makes any other mistake.


Replace "D&D" with "roleplaying games" and "DM" with "GM" and the fallacy becomes even more obvious.

But yeah, I agree.


No, no way. The GM has any right to define exactly and specifically what happens in his campaign. The players may participate, but due to their different roles and different levels of responsibility for the overall success of the game, there is no equal footing between players and gamemasters. When it comes to the game (and obviously only to the game) the opinion and reasoning of the GM *always bear significantly more meaning than that of any individual player.

... this is contingent on the game system. Believe or not, there are RPGs where the GM isn't omnipotent, and is beholden to rules that limit his decisions.

Jay R
2013-09-19, 09:37 AM
1. The DM has great power.

2. With great power comes great responsibility.

3. Therefore the DM should use that power when it enhances the game, and not abuse it.

Are we done here?

Turalisj
2013-09-19, 10:21 AM
When it comes to the game (and obviously only to the game) the opinion and reasoning of the GM *always bear significantly more meaning than that of any individual player.

No it doesn't. Because at some point you'll make your players mad enough that you're a DM of none.

Black Jester
2013-09-19, 11:17 AM
Being in theory able to control the game fully doesn't make anyone a horrible person who is not worth playing with. Authoritative, perhaps, but that doesn't mean that a GM's decision are bad, just because they they are strict.
You can, after all, make just as bad decisions without restricting any players - and sometimes, not restricting the players in itself can be a really bad decision.

Psyren
2013-09-19, 11:41 AM
I'm reluctant to veto outright; I'd rather work with the player to realize their concept in the least disruptive way possible. And a lot of that has to do not just with the character, but with the player as well. I know folks who will play a T1 weakly - a healbot Druid or a buffer Wizard for example, and never steal the spotlight, while other folks will play a low tier like a Fighter, make it a charger and warp every combat around themselves. I'd be more inclined to sit with the third player than the first two and make adjustments, rather than design every combat to either enable or counter their schtick.

navar100
2013-09-19, 12:49 PM
Being in theory able to control the game fully doesn't make anyone a horrible person who is not worth playing with. Authoritative, perhaps, but that doesn't mean that a GM's decision are bad, just because they they are strict.
You can, after all, make just as bad decisions without restricting any players - and sometimes, not restricting the players in itself can be a really bad decision.

If players don't like those strict, not bad decisions, they still get to vote with their feet, and the DM is a DM of none.

It is the DM's campaign, but it is everyone's game.

Tengu_temp
2013-09-19, 01:41 PM
I don't like the term "vote with your feet". It implies that when there's a disagreement or conflict of interest in a game, the players have only two options - either swallow the DM's decision without objections, or leave the game without saying a word. What happened to discussion, talking about problems, going on a compromise in order for everyone to have fun? Communication is the key to a successful game. Walking out the moment someone does something you don't like is not communication.

Brookshw
2013-09-19, 01:51 PM
I don't like the term "vote with your feet". It implies that when there's a disagreement or conflict of interest in a game, the players have only two options - either swallow the DM's decision without objections, or leave the game without saying a word. What happened to discussion, talking about problems, going on a compromise in order for everyone to have fun? Communication is the key to a successful game. Walking out the moment someone does something you don't like is not communication.

Great point but let me save the phrase, vote with your feet by getting up and taking the DM chair. Though I realize groups vary and many people who post here are likely more than happy to do this, but a simple "how about I take a turn running a session/campaign and we can match notes on styles and different elements of each that can add to increased fun for all going forward".

TheThan
2013-09-19, 03:21 PM
The question is “do you want to play or not?”.

A lot of people are saying “if you don’t like it, just leave.” The problem is that if you just walk whenever something happens that you don’t like, then you’re never really going to get to play. That begs the question above “do you want to play or not?”.

If you walk or “vote with your feet” over something that can be worked out between you and your DM/other player(s), then you clearly don’t really want to play. If you stay around and find an adequate solution to the problem without walking, that tells me you really do want to play.

Believe it or not, some people don’t have a lot of options when it comes to DMs. There may only be one or two in the area, or one or two you know (I personally HATE playing in a stranger’s game). if you alienate those people, then good luck finding a game. if you wish to step into the DM’s chair, the same applies, if you alienate the people around you that play the game, then you won’t have anyone to DM for.

Not to mention you have a reputation to uphold, if people don’t like you because you whine and quit when something happens, then people won’t want to play with you. (Surprisingly, people usually game with people they like or get along with).

You can always go online, but the same behavior will spark the same sort of situation, only less severe since your anonymous.

russdm
2013-09-19, 04:10 PM
I don't like the term "vote with your feet". It implies that when there's a disagreement or conflict of interest in a game, the players have only two options - either swallow the DM's decision without objections, or leave the game without saying a word. What happened to discussion, talking about problems, going on a compromise in order for everyone to have fun? Communication is the key to a successful game. Walking out the moment someone does something you don't like is not communication.

You are preaching to the wrong choir, Tengu. A lot of players here I have noticed have this mentality of Player Good, DM Bad, and if the DM ever uses his game granted authority to make them unable to do something, then the players should always leave, never talk it out. Like "The DM should never veto anything because that's abusing the DM's authority on the players and the players should be able to play any character they want. Or the Game only matters because of the players and the DM should submit to all of his players' wish no matter how disruptive to his campaign. The DM should never say 'No' but always 'Yes, but'.". The main function of the DM appears to be satisfying all of his players' whims because the PCs are most important and doesn't matter at all. I am simplifying a lot, but this sums up nearly all of the discussion I have seen here.

Lord Vukodlak
2013-09-19, 04:15 PM
Its funny I've seen in systems outside D&D that its explicitly said the Game master/storyteller whatever hes called has final approval over characters.

russdm
2013-09-19, 04:18 PM
Its funny I've seen in systems outside D&D that its explicitly said the Game master/storyteller whatever hes called has final approval over characters.

And yet in D&D it is explicitly believed that the players have final say over the DM, who must submit and call them 'Master'.

Coidzor
2013-09-19, 04:29 PM
And yet in D&D it is explicitly believed that the players have final say over the DM, who must submit and call them 'Master'.

Because people say that the DM should have more authority than he should in their view, so of course people overreact. And then there's the differences of opinion about where, exactly, the line should be drawn and when strictness becomes being an asshat and all kinds of other fun things.


1. In my case, it was stated very clearly beforehand that this was to be an elf-only campaign. It's just that the player brought in a human when his elf died at the first opportunity where we were actually around humans.

2. Why the hell should the DM be tossed out preventing an otherwise awesome game from being played? A simple "I said: only elves" would have kept everything on track?

The basic assumption of the "DM veto" is that the DM has a vision of what s/he wants hin her/his game and has complete control. One assumes that the DM announces most restrictions beforehand but sometimes something comes up that was unforseen. Should the DM be forced to accept everything unforseen just because it was unforseen? Or should the DM actually be able to run the game the way s/he sees fit?

If you don't like what the DM is doing, bring up your objections. If the DM doesn't relent, you can leave. No matter how badly the game is run, the idea that the DM should be forced to accept all manner of **** because 'hurr durr, veto is bad' is ridiculous.

1. Obviously there was a failure of communication at some point, even if it was just a failure at communicating the player's agreement. That or he just reneged on his agreement. Hence the defenstrating.

2. Yeah, and he didn't do that when he should have. Hence the defenstrating. Bonus points would have been awarded if he'd pointed out that everyone had agreed that this was the game they would be playing.

And I reject that as a universal premise. In the cases where that is true, sure, it's true, but there are also tables where the players have the ability to discuss with the GM what sort of game they would like to play next rather than having to choose between A. arguing the GM down when he presents the next game, B. leaving, or C. knuckling under. If there is an agreement in place than recognizing that something doesn't fit with the game everyone has come together to play isn't in veto territory anymore, it's just recognizing that it goes against the established strictures. A veto is, ultimately, capricious, it's not bound by any kind of rules or prior communication. Whereas an illegal build is an illegal build without need to invoke veto or rule 0.

You'll note I never said that one should allow anything and everything. I emphasized communication and that I dislike the term veto because it reminds me of capriciousness and authoritarian values and I reject the notion that is the neutral phraseology. To me it is indicative of a hostile, even confrontational POV rather than a collaborative one, much like the use of "entitlement" or "entitled" as a special term denotes a philosophy of the game that is inimical to my own even if there are areas of potential for common ground in practice.


It depends how you are defining a Veto?

Everything wrong and negative about potential GM-Player relations, or thereabouts. Rejections without cause. Ultimatums given without explanation. An air that the GM is superior to their players and does not have to respect them or their time.


For example A Player expresses an interest in playing a Druid with a pet bear. The DM mentions that this will be an urban campaign, so a bear animal companion is going to attract way too much attention. The player decides to play a different character. Is that a DM vetoing the bear-Druid, or is that just good communication allowing a player to scrap an unsuitable character idea before putting too much effort into it.

I belive A DM should veto characters when neccessary. However, if this veto occurs after the character sheets have been written up, that indicates a failure to communicate on the parts of both the DM and the Player.

If the DM out-and-out rejected it then yeah, that'd be a veto to me, actually talking it out is fine in my book, it's what I'd prefer.

Pretty much.


Coidzor: Even with PERFECT communication the person running the game can't possibly cover or think of all the things they might not want being played (including seemingly innocent combinations). So and end point review with the ability for the person running it to say no to this or that would still be nessecary.

A GM is always going to have to do an end point review regardless if the GM is supposed to have knowledge of the players' characters and their capabilities and other information about them. Their own copies of the character sheets, even, sure. I think that with even adequate communication about the nature of the game and agreement by the players to the nature of the game would preclude anything but corner cases or deliberate trolling. There might be specific issues that would need to be ironed out, but nothing so kludgey as a blanket veto on a character.


No, no way. The GM has any right to define exactly and specifically what happens in his campaign. The players may participate, but due to their different roles and different levels of responsibility for the overall success of the game, there is no equal footing between players and gamemasters. When it comes to the game (and obviously only to the game) the opinion and reasoning of the GM *always bear significantly more meaning than that of any individual player.

For some tables, especially pick up games, events, things like Living Forgotten Realms, or even general play beyond a group of people who know each other at least as acquaintances beforehand, sure. Universally? I don't think so. If you're actively letting on to your players that you don't think their time or input into the game is as valuable as what you put in, that's actively snubbing them. Sure, everyone knows that the GM puts more time into the game by default, but it's like calling a kid ugly to its mother's face. It's bad manners. It misses the point of having other people to play the game with.

It also sets up the entire relationship as oppositional when collaboration tends to be of more general utility and regardless of what you want to do, getting your players to agree to it, even to *want* to go along with it is of incalculable value to a game. The GM has more weight, but only in proportion to their greater responsibility. They don't have more meaning. To believe that would be a delusion of grandeur on their part. They're only people who may or may not have a screen in front of them when they play, at the end of the day.

russdm
2013-09-19, 04:53 PM
Why are Vetos being seen as bad? Because it doesn't let you play your unsuitable character for the campaign character? Vetos are for players that already get told they can't be something and they just go add with it anyway. Like making a gnome when gnomes have been stated as not existing whatsoever and the player decides to make a gnome bard/cleric/whatever despite being told multiple times. The only thing left to do is just veto it because yes but doesn't work anymore.

BRC
2013-09-19, 04:56 PM
Everything wrong and negative about potential GM-Player relations, or thereabouts. Rejections without cause. Ultimatums given without explanation. An air that the GM is superior to their players and does not have to respect them or their time.


So you're defining a Veto as "Everything Bad".
If it was bad, it's a veto, if it was good, it was just the result of a reasonable discussion between GMs and players.



If the DM out-and-out rejected it then yeah, that'd be a veto to me, actually talking it out is fine in my book, it's what I'd prefer.

Pretty much.
The issue with an absolute "No Vetos" policy is that it can open the door to a lot of player abuse.

I'm playing devil's advocate here, these are extreme examples.

DM: "We're going to be playing an urban campaign".
Alice: I'll play a rogue with connections to the thieve's guild.
Bob: I'll play a Wizard who got kicked out of the academy.
Chris: I'll play a Druid who hates cities and wants to burn them all down.

DM: This is going to be a millitary campaign about repelling an invasion.
Alice: I'll play a Cleric who joined up to find her brother who went MIA.
Bob: I'll play a Fighter who is seeking to avenge his dead squad.
Chris: I'll play a Rogue who is the rightful heir to the kingdom. I don't care about repelling the invasion, my only agenda is to kill the king and assume the throne. I won't do anything that isn't directly related to that goal.

Once again, these are extreme examples, but "No Vetos Ever" is an extreme policy. By taking the option off the table a player could ruin the game for everybody else with a disruptive concept.

Really, if discussion fails, the Veto is the only tool the DM has.

Coidzor
2013-09-19, 04:57 PM
Why are Vetos being seen as bad? Because it doesn't let you play your unsuitable character for the campaign character? Vetos are for players that already get told they can't be something and they just go add with it anyway. Like making a gnome when gnomes have been stated as not existing whatsoever and the player decides to make a gnome bard/cleric/whatever despite being told multiple times. The only thing left to do is just veto it because yes but doesn't work anymore.

Honestly, at that point the entire group should re-evaluate A. why they're playing with someone who disrespects the rest of the group that much or B. why they're going with that rule for the game.


So you're defining a Veto as "Everything Bad".
If it was bad, it's a veto, if it was good, it was just the result of a reasonable discussion between GMs and players.

Everything Bad, authoritative-to-authoritarian alternative to communicating and treating players like people. What's the difference, really?


The issue with an absolute "No Vetos" policy is that it can open the door to a lot of player abuse.

I'm playing devil's advocate here, these are extreme examples.

DM: "We're going to be playing an urban campaign".
Alice: I'll play a rogue with connections to the thieve's guild.
Bob: I'll play a Wizard who got kicked out of the academy.
Chris: I'll play a Druid who hates cities and wants to burn them all down.

DM: This is going to be a millitary campaign about repelling an invasion.
Alice: I'll play a Cleric who joined up to find her brother who went MIA.
Bob: I'll play a Fighter who is seeking to avenge his dead squad.
Chris: I'll play a Rogue who is the rightful heir to the kingdom. I don't care about repelling the invasion, my only agenda is to kill the king and assume the throne. I won't do anything that isn't directly related to that goal.

Once again, these are extreme examples, but "No Vetos Ever" is an extreme policy. By taking the option off the table a player could ruin the game for everybody else with a disruptive concept.

Really, if discussion fails, the Veto is the only tool the DM has.

Well, no, there's social engineering, the kobayashi maru, and agreeing to amend things if the rest of the group really wants them amended that badly. If it's one guy being a ****, that's a separate problem that a veto is only a band-aid for. Asking the guy why he's being a **** seems more appropriate than reaching for the veto.

russdm
2013-09-19, 04:58 PM
The issue with an absolute "No Vetos" policy is that it can open the door to a lot of player abuse.

Chris: I'll play a Druid who hates cities and wants to burn them all down.

Chris: I'll play a Rogue who is the rightful heir to the kingdom. I don't care about repelling the invasion, my only agenda is to kill the king and assume the throne. I won't do anything that isn't directly related to that goal.

Once again, these are extreme examples, but "No Vetos Ever" is an extreme policy. By taking the option off the table a player could ruin the game for everybody else with a disruptive concept.

Really, if discussion fails, the Veto is the only tool the DM has.

Agreed and seconded. Veto is for preventing player abuse and all players are trying to abuse something at the very least.

I veto both characters for these reason: 1) The druid is no because there is no reason for that character to end up in an urban campaign whatsoever.
2) The rogue is not ever going to be involved in the campaign's storyline, meaning to have the rogue actually involved in the game, you have to rewrite stuff to include the rogue being able to kill the king. There is essentially no point in allowing either character in. One would have never entered the city in the first place, and the other would only take action to do their thing and then non active for the rest of the campaign.

Coidzor
2013-09-19, 05:01 PM
Agreed and seconded. Veto is for preventing player abuse and all players are trying to abuse something at the very least.

And that is something which I categorically reject as unhealthy and detrimental to gaming.

russdm
2013-09-19, 05:08 PM
Honestly, at that point the entire group should re-evaluate A. why they're playing with someone who disrespects the rest of the group that much or B. why they're going with that rule for the game.

Why? If its something the DM has made up for the campaign setting how is it disrespectful? and if it is something that the DM choose for the campaign setting, why is it an issue for the players? Why is how the DM's makes his campaign subject to player approval while how the player makes his character not subject to DM approval? Why does the DM have to rewrite everything to make the player happy, but the players don't have to make the DM happy? Why does the DM have to comprise while the players don't, because that is what you are saying it seems to me, that the DM must always comprise for the players and that they have final say on everything he says/does in the campaign, and that the players are free to do whatever they want, screw the rules they are the players.

VariaVespasa
2013-09-19, 05:23 PM
Because it means more wasted time rebuilding chars. 3.5 is already not the fastest of chargen systems, doing multiple iterations(especially if we're building at the first session) can burn a lot of time.

Way I see it, my standards for a campaign should be laid out clear enough the first time that there shouldn't have to be any rejections or rework.

Stuff should be laid out beforehand, its true, but I would point out that 3.5 mostly takes time if you're min-maxing, rather than taking roleplaying character-based stuff. And I have less sympathy for min-maxing.

veti
2013-09-19, 05:35 PM
Chris: I'll play a Rogue who is the rightful heir to the kingdom. I don't care about repelling the invasion, my only agenda is to kill the king and assume the throne. I won't do anything that isn't directly related to that goal.

I would absolutely allow that character, after warning the player. He'd find his starting position (in the front line, with the invading army descending rapidly on his position, and the 6th-level Sergeant Major behind him having promised to personally kill any man who breaks) acutely uncomfortable, and there's every chance he'd be locked up or killed the moment everyone else realised just how loony he was... but I'd let him play.

(Absolutely, you're totally the rightful heir to the kingdom, since the present king's father's elder brother once bonked your grandmother who was a scullery maid, as your Uncle Roger once shouted at your mother in a drunken rage before he so tragically collapsed and drowned in a small ditch. Sadly, nobody else knows the story, and if they did know it they wouldn't believe it, and if they did believe it they wouldn't care, because you're self-evidently a psychopath, and more importantly, about as devoted to the kingdom as a mouldy sandwich. So even if you do kill the king and every known living relative he has, you'll still be no closer to the line of succession than the woman who cleans the royal privy - further, in fact, because at least she lives in the right building. You want to be king, you'll have to do it the hard way - stage a rebellion, raise an army. Ooh, lookie, there's an army right here! Too bad it's busy. What's your initiative?)

Destro_Yersul
2013-09-19, 05:42 PM
Everything wrong and negative about potential GM-Player relations, or thereabouts. Rejections without cause. Ultimatums given without explanation. An air that the GM is superior to their players and does not have to respect them or their time.

Okay, question time.

I started a game a little while ago. One of the players wanted to play a psionic race, I forget which one. I have a blanket ban on psionics, because I don't like them and I don't own the books they're in, so I always build my worlds without psions in them. So I told the player they couldn't have a psionic character, the world doesn't have those. They asked to play a changeling instead. I looked changelings over, and said "that could be interesting, go ahead."

How would you define this?

Honest Tiefling
2013-09-19, 05:47 PM
You don't have the books, which I think is a very good reason not to allow it, since you likely wouldn't be able to DM it.

As for taste, I think that is trickier, and while it does take a lot of work to make a believable and enjoyable world, the players need to have SOME wiggle room. Allowing changelings might be a decent compromise.

Black Jester
2013-09-19, 06:34 PM
If you're actively letting on to your players that you don't think their time or input into the game is as valuable as what you put in, that's actively snubbing them. Sure, everyone knows that the GM puts more time into the game by default, but it's like calling a kid ugly to its mother's face. It's bad manners. It misses the point of having other people to play the game with.

No, it's being honest about the structure of the game; the institutionalized roles of players and gamemasters require and establish an inherent inequality of contributions. That is not the player's fault; if he tried to contribute too much, chances are high that he will overshadow the other players and create a completely different problem.

By default, the GM is the most important person in any gaming group for anything related to the game. And that is more of a problem, as it requires any player to acknowledge not being the centre of all attention for the time being, and yes, that can be hurtful, but is a necessary experience nonetheless, not only because of the relationship between each player and the GM but also for the relationship between the players. And, of course it requires the GM to actually express this authority over the game - the first step of which is of course, to acknowledge it.


It also sets up the entire relationship as oppositional when collaboration tends to be of more general utility and regardless of what you want to do, getting your players to agree to it, even to *want* to go along with it is of incalculable value to a game.

There is no connection whatsoever between the obviousness of the inevitable authority of the GM over the game and the level of competitiveness vs. collaboration. That is a question of style, not authority. If anything, the acknowledgement of GM authority makes any competition more futile and effectively reduces its impact.
That doesn't mean that you cannot have a challenging game style while being more authoritative; if you go the hard exploration/dungeoncrawl tactical game, where the primary function of the Gm is to act as the referee, you still fare better with a referee who is tough, but fair over one who backs down easily and can get intimidated.


The GM has more weight, but only in proportion to their greater responsibility. They don't have more meaning.

Of course they have more meaning. It is the GM who gives the game any meaing at all in the first place. They define the contents of the game; they literally control everything that will ever happen in the game. They create most of the content to begin with and they can set in a context in the game so that it actually bears a meaning at all. 5 Player characters in a white void are meaningless; they can do nothing except interacting with each other and that kind of dialogue-based navel gazing is not exactly sustainably exciting, is it? For any real meaning of any PC he needs to interact with any form of environment, which in turn is created and controlled by the GM.


To believe that would be a delusion of grandeur on their part. They're only people who may or may not have a screen in front of them when they play, at the end of the day.

i think this attitude makes it much more difficult to run a good game, and it also somewhat dodges the responsibility of running a game. As a GM you have all kinds of control and power over the game, even to a truly stupid "rocks fall, everybody dies" degree. You can either use this authority consciously and actively or you can try to ignore it, making it a lot more arbitrary.

oudeis
2013-09-19, 06:48 PM
Coidzor, at this point I suspect that you yourself are one of the best arguments in favor of GM veto, and that you argue so vociferously because you suspect that as well and are desperately trying to disprove that to yourself and us.

Coidzor
2013-09-19, 07:15 PM
Coidzor, at this point I suspect that you yourself are one of the best arguments in favor of GM veto, and that you argue so vociferously because you suspect that as well and are desperately trying to disprove that to yourself and us.

You certainly are capable of holding that opinion, though I suspect that it's more that we as individuals would not gel well due to personal and/or philosophical differences if you feel so strongly just from what I have written so far.

Desperation and unexpected passion are not necessarily the same thing, after all.


Why? If its something the DM has made up for the campaign setting how is it disrespectful? and if it is something that the DM choose for the campaign setting, why is it an issue for the players?

Why is how the DM's makes his campaign subject to player approval while how the player makes his character not subject to DM approval?

Why does the DM have to rewrite everything to make the player happy, but the players don't have to make the DM happy?

Why does the DM have to comprise while the players don't, because that is what you are saying it seems to me, that the DM must always comprise for the players and that they have final say on everything he says/does in the campaign, and that the players are free to do whatever they want, screw the rules they are the players.

Because ostensibly the group agreed to play the game or at least the rest of the group did and if someone shows up to the game with an illegal character when they know that the character is illegal they're deliberately trying to cause a scene and waste everyone's time. Either the players get annoyed at the guy forcing the issue for forcing the issue when they're fine with the way things are or they weigh in and maybe the agreement to play the game that way was premature.

And if the player is the kind of person who deliberately makes a character knowing that it doesn't fit and it'll just get told no, what, exactly, is his motivation for doing such a thing other than to be disruptive? Ignorance and miscommunication, sure, those are sometimes going to crop up despite one's best efforts to establish something beforehand. Deliberately trying to stall or disrupt the game though? That demands some investigation of the player, because it's an issue with the player at the heart of it, not with the character.

It's not an either-or, it's a both-and thing. Of course the GM is going to have a place at the table and even within the confines of actually holding to running the kind of game everyone has agreed that they're going to sit down and play (beer and pretzels, epic fantasy, dimension-hopping science fiction buddy thriller, gritty post-apocalyptic gladiatoral combat, Paranoia...) there's some fairly broad room for creative direction.

If the entire gaming group is dead set on something like that it goes back to playing the game that everyone wants to play, not just the game that the GM wants to play. It's kind of a given that in the process of negotiation there's some give and take. It's when the GM is absolute authority and will brook no discussion that one needs guarantees that the game is a game that one would want to play in, not a game where the GM is upfront and working with the group to come up with a game that they want to play together.

If that's what you think I'm saying, then I apologize for the miscommunication on my part, because that is not my intent nor is it my stance. I've mostly been arguing against the excesses of giving the GM an undue amount of power beyond what their responsibility as GM entails and glossing over or taking it as granted that communication and negotiation are a two-way street.


Okay, question time.

I started a game a little while ago. One of the players wanted to play a psionic race, I forget which one. I have a blanket ban on psionics, because I don't like them and I don't own the books they're in, so I always build my worlds without psions in them. So I told the player they couldn't have a psionic character, the world doesn't have those. They asked to play a changeling instead. I looked changelings over, and said "that could be interesting, go ahead."

How would you define this?

If you kept running into friction from your players about psionics, that'd be one thing, but if it's an established table rule and everyone's fine with it, what do I care? I'm a little bit surprised that was the first time he'd have found out, so unless he'd just managed to forget I'd recommend doublechecking that everyone's aware of what's what and that your lines of communication were clear, but, eh, you communicated, you explained, you didn't asspull, and it didn't go so far down the line as them showing up with a completed character from what I gather.

crazyhedgewizrd
2013-09-19, 07:26 PM
Great point but let me save the phrase, vote with your feet by getting up and taking the DM chair . . . can add to increased fun for all going forward".

I find this reaction worst than walking out, its saying I don't like what the DM is doing and these restriction placed on me, so I'm going to take over and show you how to run a real game.

This shows no respect for the DM and the other Players.

Brookshw
2013-09-19, 07:36 PM
I find this reaction worst than walking out, its saying I don't like what the DM is doing and these restriction placed on me, so I'm going to take over and show you how to run a real game.

This shows no respect for the DM and the other Players.

Huh, okay. Honestly I'd be thrilled if one of my players offered to run a game and feel it would provide me with a better understanding of how they view the game. To each their own I suppose.

russdm
2013-09-19, 08:02 PM
If that's what you think I'm saying, then I apologize for the miscommunication on my part, because that is not my intent nor is it my stance. I've mostly been arguing against the excesses of giving the GM an undue amount of power beyond what their responsibility as GM entails and glossing over or taking it as granted that communication and negotiation are a two-way street.

Its nice having things made more clear. Like cookies and milkshakes.

JusticeZero
2013-09-19, 08:09 PM
A lot of players here I have noticed have this mentality of Player Good, DM Bad, and if the DM ever uses his game granted authority to make them unable to do something, then the players should always leave, never talk it out..
Examples? Because this is seeming to approach the hyperbolic here, and i'd hate to think that this whole argument is over a piece of straw.

crazyhedgewizrd
2013-09-19, 08:14 PM
Huh, okay. Honestly I'd be thrilled if one of my players offered to run a game and feel it would provide me with a better understanding of how they view the game. To each their own I suppose.

There are ways to offer to run a game, I'm just saying not to do it when the DM turns down the character because it looks like then person is having a hissy fit and not many people would agree with the person.

russdm
2013-09-19, 08:21 PM
Examples? Because this is seeming to approach the hyperbolic here, and i'd hate to think that this whole argument is over a piece of straw.

Well, first I would say some of the posts in this thread about how if a DM does anything than say 'Yes, but...' he is being a jerk and abusing his power. Other threads when discussing DM functionality they mention the same concept that the DM should always say 'Yes, but..' or that the DM is there to provide entertainment for the players. Its not so plainly put like in this thread but you can feel it in other threads from some stuff you can read.

Brookshw
2013-09-19, 08:29 PM
Hey, you did put it in your sig!

NichG
2013-09-19, 08:33 PM
Examples? Because this is seeming to approach the hyperbolic here, and i'd hate to think that this whole argument is over a piece of straw.

I have seen a lot of this kind of thing here; its not a strawman. But, it tends to be that there is a subset of posters who are very proactive about these ideas whenever they come up, and its hard to say whether or not that truly represents the views of those who don't comment in such threads.

I'm not sure giving specific examples is actually allowed by the forum rules since its 'bringing stuff from other threads into this one'.

navar100
2013-09-19, 08:40 PM
I don't like the term "vote with your feet". It implies that when there's a disagreement or conflict of interest in a game, the players have only two options - either swallow the DM's decision without objections, or leave the game without saying a word. What happened to discussion, talking about problems, going on a compromise in order for everyone to have fun? Communication is the key to a successful game. Walking out the moment someone does something you don't like is not communication.

Exactly, but Black Jester has been suggesting the DM doesn't have to communicate at all, to veto a character without giving a reason why.

Knaight
2013-09-19, 09:04 PM
Well, first I would say some of the posts in this thread about how if a DM does anything than say 'Yes, but...' he is being a jerk and abusing his power. Other threads when discussing DM functionality they mention the same concept that the DM should always say 'Yes, but..' or that the DM is there to provide entertainment for the players. Its not so plainly put like in this thread but you can feel it in other threads from some stuff you can read.

Sure, provided that you project enough. The actual position that gets taken frequently is that the GM is, essentially, one of the players. Their fun is valued exactly the same as that of any other player. The entire 'Yes, but...' principle is explicitly something to avoid slowing the game down via railroading, and is understood to have exceptions ('I flap my arms and fly away' is going to get a 'no' in just about any game that isn't named Toon). It's a bumper-sticker phrase to a more complex argument, not an axiom, and it is specifically against the idea that there is a particular story the players have to follow, and everything off that story needs to get shot down.

Basically, you're interpreting "the GM is one of the players" as "the players rule all". There's a major difference between not being accorded special status and being trodden upon, and it is being elided here.

Incidentally: I say this as someone who almost constantly GMs, prefers being in the GM chair, and only occasionally plays.

russdm
2013-09-19, 09:10 PM
Basically, you're interpreting "the GM is one of the players" as "the players rule all".

Some have posted their comments as being essentially this though not in the exact words. Or I am reading more into than what they are saying?

Tim Proctor
2013-09-19, 11:44 PM
I am a strong believer that most games are a role-playing game, not an I'm-gonna-play-wtf-I-want game. I half feel that this should be like Fiasco where things about characters get completely messed up, and its very enjoyable. The issues of someone only plays X type character, is an issue where the player should expand their boundaries, and I do think an improv based game like Fiasco is a great way to do that.

Also having a DM/GM that will help players out with fulfilling their character goals is a big part of it. I think any GM/DM is entitled to state the setting, and the players fill in the details. If I say we're playing an all human world where every non-human-race is an enemy and they want to play an elf, I will let them know its an all human campaign, if they persist they can find a new DM/GM and by proxy a new group. It is significantly easier to make a new character than it is a campaign setting, that is the real issue here.

That doesn't mean that a DM/GM should be a 'my-way-or-the-highway' type because if all the players want to play a Super Hero or Comic Book Hero campaign and he plops out his D&D and says we're playing Forgotten Realms then the DM/GM is at fault. Basically it boils down to this (IMO) first that everyone should attempt to make everyone happy, and secondly that the amount of effort required for changes should take priority.

Frozen_Feet
2013-09-20, 01:01 AM
I don't like the term "vote with your feet". It implies that when there's a disagreement or conflict of interest in a game, the players have only two options - either swallow the DM's decision without objections, or leave the game without saying a word. What happened to discussion, talking about problems, going on a compromise in order for everyone to have fun? Communication is the key to a successful game. Walking out the moment someone does something you don't like is not communication.

The internet happened. Reasonable discussion goes to die in a corner here. Ad hominem attacks, blackpainting your opponent's words, knee-jerk reactions and shouting contests are the norm here. Seriously, whether the topic is sexism, realism, monks, wizards, disjuntion or fluffy bunnies, you will always see a bunch of nay-sayers who will just stand up and leave. Sometimes, I get the feeling the invidual subjects are just an excuse for people to get all fired up and preach their One True Way of playing.

I'm not sure if this is in any shape or form representative of how people act in person. If they did, a fair few of posters here would be downright dysfunctional in everyday life. I believe it's just the bad aspects of online anonymity coming to fore.

Destro_Yersul
2013-09-20, 04:12 AM
If you kept running into friction from your players about psionics, that'd be one thing, but if it's an established table rule and everyone's fine with it, what do I care? I'm a little bit surprised that was the first time he'd have found out, so unless he'd just managed to forget I'd recommend doublechecking that everyone's aware of what's what and that your lines of communication were clear, but, eh, you communicated, you explained, you didn't asspull, and it didn't go so far down the line as them showing up with a completed character from what I gather.

He was a new player. I mostly run PbP games these days, though I tend to recruit from my online friends first. It does make it a bit easier to catch everyone and help them make fitting characters, after all, but it also means that I don't usually bother with recruiting threads featuring the 16 Q&A's everyone seems so fond of around here, instead just answering those as they come up. But yeah, I got rid of the psionics idea during the concept stage, when nothing was actually written down on paper.

Teulisch
2013-09-20, 12:53 PM
i have had problems with GM line-item veto.

one GM has in different systems prevented me from playing a point-build character that was entirely within the rules, simply because he did not want my starting character to be optimized. in one case, this was champions and i was told mid character creation that i was not allowed to raise my OCV above a 7 (dead average, and this was a superhero game). he then allowed other players to raise their OCV, because he didnt even bother to check their character sheets before play. in a different system (rogue trader), he refused to let me max out a non-combat skill, and then after i still had a heavy investment in this skill never let me roll it. i no longer play with this person, in part because of other issues in how he runs games and plays.

the simple problem, was that he knew i had a good understanding of the rules (i had read the book), and he was afraid of letting me build a competent character. on the communication issue, when i tried to explain what i saw as a problem he would yell at me until i stopped talking.

a different GM once ran a d20 star wars game- one player wanted to be a jedi, another wanted a mandalorian. he told the first no, and made him play a mandalorian. he then forced the other player to be a jedi (because his plot required one). weirdest case of GM veto i have ever seen. i quit that game (he actually said 'if you don't like it then leave', so i did), but heard later than all the non-droid PCs were forced to multiclass to jedi, just like in the KOTOR video game.

while the option to veto is important (personally i would not allow a gunslinger in any pathfinder game i ran), any veto should apply to all players equally. you cant tell player A one thing, and player B another- that ruins everyone's fun.

Morghen
2013-09-20, 01:32 PM
Some players, intentionally or not, just keep on coming up with ridiculously stupid ideas and/or causing trouble. These players need a firm GM who will tell them "no".I'm not ready to read six pages to see if anybody else has addressed this, so I'll just jump to the end.

I don't see it as the GMs job to pre-empt stupid CharGen decisions. Monsters, etc. should be the ones doing that by showing them how the decisions are stupid.

Problem characters, OTOH, are a big deal and should be nipped in the bud.

Also: I don't see it as the GMs job to make sure the party doesn't end up with a Brute Squad makeup. If they've got no area-effect spellcaster or Face, things will be hard for them. Let your world show them that they need those things instead of making the decision for them.

Tengu_temp
2013-09-20, 04:05 PM
You're talking about this from a mechanical perspective, I was thinking more of a narrative one. Also, I still don't agree with you.

Arcane_Snowman
2013-09-20, 10:30 PM
Also: I don't see it as the GMs job to make sure the party doesn't end up with a Brute Squad makeup. If they've got no area-effect spellcaster or Face, things will be hard for them. Let your world show them that they need those things instead of making the decision for them. Alternatively you could try to fit a campaign around the fact that they're a Brute Squad, obviously it's what they'd prefer to do.

If you don't outline your expectations as a DM, from both a narrative and mechanics stand point, then penalizing your players for building what they'd like to play seems to me like extremely poor form. Yes they should get into trouble for not having the roles filled, but they shouldn't be hammered over the head with what they're lacking.

NichG
2013-09-21, 01:50 AM
In general, I think that letting something you know won't work alone and then punishing it in game is just a recipe for unhappy players. That doesn't necessarily mean a veto, but it does mean saying something to them about the problem at the very least.

Saying 'well, you made dumb choices, of course you got slaughtered' may be a legitimate explanation for what happened, but its not going to make the players any happier.

PersonMan
2013-09-21, 06:06 AM
I don't see it as the GMs job to pre-empt stupid CharGen decisions. Monsters, etc. should be the ones doing that by showing them how the decisions are stupid.

In other words, you watch people do things you know will make them have less fun later and not care? Who do you play with, the people you hate?

It's like if there's a young child about to touch something that you know is hot. They won't be severely injured, but the burn on their hand will make the climbing park they're about to go to a lot less fun.

You proceed to not care and say "well, the world will show them not to do stupid things". This is basically the same thing, as most people don't make stupid decisions on purpose but do so out of ignorance, just as the example child is.

It reminds of once when, for whatever reason, a GM-type guy let me work for several hours on a character just to say "you can never play them because of their ideology", after I had mentioned it over half a dozen times while working on the character. I mean...why? Is there any other reason other than laziness or malicious intent that you would say "you made a mistake? How about instead of informing you of it I let you get screwed over"?

russdm
2013-09-22, 12:06 AM
If you don't outline your expectations as a DM, from both a narrative and mechanics stand point, then penalizing your players for building what they'd like to play seems to me like extremely poor form. Yes they should get into trouble for not having the roles filled, but they shouldn't be hammered over the head with what they're lacking.

How hard is it really to let your players know this stuff? Its kinda of required of DMs to explain some things to the players.

Frozen_Feet
2013-09-22, 11:15 AM
In other words, you watch people do things you know will make them have less fun later and not care? Who do you play with, the people you hate?

You are assuming that sub-optimal character-build choices will make the game less fun. This is not necessarily the case. Some people plain enjoy watching their characters suffer, even when that was not their explicit goal.

"Fun" is a very ephemereal quality, and it's usually flat-out impossible to tell whether something will be "fun" beforehand. So unless a GM is psychic, it's usually worth it to give player a chance to play a character they think they want to play, instead of vetoing characters based on what you assume they don't want to play.

PersonMan
2013-09-22, 11:38 AM
You are assuming that sub-optimal character-build choices will make the game less fun. This is not necessarily the case. Some people plain enjoy watching their characters suffer, even when that was not their explicit goal.

Sub-optimal decisions =/= "let them be stupid and then punish them".

Frozen_Feet
2013-09-22, 11:55 AM
Yes, it is. A minorly bad decisions that only minorly hampers you, and a majorly bad decision that majorly hampers you, are both sub-optimal. They are just different degrees of sub-optimal.

You are also defining "punishment" in questionably broad terms. First, and most importantly, the "punishment" rarely befalls on the actual player; usually, it only affects their character. And in any sort game, accidentally eliminating your game character can be funny in itself. Second, "logical consequence" is not the same as "punishment"; going into battle with low AC (for example) is likely to get you hit. It doesn't actually matter a whiff whether you do this intentionally or ignorantly, the result is the same and requires no extra work from the GM - he is just following the rules. But, doing the opposite (protecting characters from consequences they might not want) does require extra effort from the GM's part.

It's not necessarily the GM's job or place to see that effort. It prevents people from realizing consequences of their mistakes and, taken to extreme, can prevent them from ever learning to play the game themselves. In every game, there is a point after which the training wheels must come off for the player to keep enjoying themselves.

PersonMan
2013-09-22, 12:17 PM
I don't see how "take off the training wheels" means "take off the training wheels and let them slam into the ground as they fall" rather than "take off the training wheels and help them get used to having to balance the bike", though.

Something about "gee, you could do this, but you have four melee fighters and no face, so you can't" doesn't seem much fun to me.

Honest Tiefling
2013-09-22, 12:20 PM
Could be a difference in playstyle. I cannot see this working well in a game where people come in with several page long back stories, but in a more lighthearted hack n' slash, it might be worth a few chuckles.

Frozen_Feet
2013-09-22, 12:36 PM
Something about "gee, you could do this, but you have four melee fighters and no face, so you can't" doesn't seem much fun to me.

It doesn't matter if it's not fun if there's something else funny to be done with the group. As long as the players have a chance to say "we do something else, then", neither you or they have ruined the game.

jindra34
2013-09-22, 12:50 PM
Frozen, its generally a bit distasteful if someone is running a game with a theme to go run off away from that theme. Then again veto's really shouldn't be applied to the entire group, if that comes up you really need to sit down and talk over the campaign again, because obviously you didn't get on the same page the first time.

Frozen_Feet
2013-09-22, 03:58 PM
I've said as much myself. That's not what the point of contention is really about. There can be myriad suboptimal ("stupid") character permutations and actions that are still thematical. A mute Chinese man with no shooting skills could still have a role in a gun-slinging Western, to give an example. It's obvious there are a lot of roles he can't fill, but that doesn't tell us whether his player can or will have fun.

Traab
2013-09-22, 04:22 PM
I just wanted to add my 2 cents about something I read further back. The "turtle soup" option. Basically implying you go ahead and let them roll the character they want, then make sure they die quickly in some horrific manner. Thats a HORRIBLE way to do things! Thats insanely passive aggressive, and its an even worse waste of time because instead of just telling the guy "no" you let the whole adventure start up, let the party form, let the quest begin, then dropped an anvil on his head for a no save instant death.

Now he has to create a new character anyway, he doesnt know what you specifically want him to do other than, "not that" and now there is even more work involved with him creating a new character, catching up to the group, and merging with them in some way. If you dont like the character because its a total ripoff of some game/book/movie or if it doesnt fit thematically with the campaign, JUST TELL HIM. "Look, I admit, thats a hilarious idea, and in a sandbox campaign you playing a ninja turtle would be fun. This is Call of Cthulu, and you arent a sanity shattering horror from beyond the realms of space and time. Save that one for later and roll a human of some sort please."

Amphetryon
2013-09-22, 05:09 PM
I've said as much myself. That's not what the point of contention is really about. There can be myriad suboptimal ("stupid") character permutations and actions that are still thematical. A mute Chinese man with no shooting skills could still have a role in a gun-slinging Western, to give an example. It's obvious there are a lot of roles he can't fill, but that doesn't tell us whether his player can or will have fun.

I don't recall another poster in this thread saying that "suboptimal" equals "stupid." That appears to be a point of confusion in communicating.

Is it your contention that they are always equivalent terms, as the above would imply? Did I, perhaps, miss the other poster(s) who posited that the two terms were always synonymous?

molten_dragon
2013-09-22, 07:44 PM
I’ve notice in a few threads that some people where drastically opposed to a DM vetoing a character. That astonishes me a lot: DM’s approval of characters is for me so essential that I submit my characters to them even when not asked to do so.

Now, I’m a point-based games player. Which means that a character can be: completely unviable (e.g. the character as no combat skill in a combat-oriented system) or minmaxed (e.g. the character has listed “krav maga 17”*as its hobby). In any system, a character can be unplayable in the context of the game (e.g. you can hardly be a local church-goer if the whole game revolves around the local church actually being a Lovecraftian cult). And then there is the whole “party-balance” thing.

This means that I, as a player (I’m a meh player, but a terrible, terrible DM), usually go through a two-steps process of approval: first, approval of the high concept (“My character is a middle-aged, very fervent army man back from the Indian colonies”); then approval of the numbers.

The first step I often share with my fellow players* so that we avoid too much toe-stepping between characters.

This also means that I’ve never been flat-out refused a character. If the character concept doesn’t match the game, I’m told early; if the numbers are the issue, I can tweak them quickly before the game begins. Much more often than not, everyone is perfectly happy and I have some feedback for my character before the game starts.

So, I ask: If you are reluctant to DM vetoing characters, why is that so? Well, you can still propose argument even if you’re actually in favor of character approval. I won’t mind.

* Well, apart for the “my character craves for human flesh” part. That’s for DM’s eyes only. You wouldn’t want to ruin the surprise.

I'm against it in general because the whole point of a game is to have fun. The player who made the character should be able to have fun playing the character that they want to.

Of course this doesn't mean anything goes, there will always be some restrictions, but I believe that a DM should not be just outright vetoing characters. They should work with the player to make the changes necessary to let the player play the concept they want, while still having a character that fits in the rest of the game.

Mr Beer
2013-09-22, 09:59 PM
Of course this doesn't mean anything goes, there will always be some restrictions, but I believe that a DM should not be just outright vetoing characters. They should work with the player to make the changes necessary to let the player play the concept they want, while still having a character that fits in the rest of the game.

Compromise through discussion is obviously the first and best solution, veto-ing is perfectly fine if that doesn't work out as planned though.

Gnoman
2013-09-22, 10:13 PM
I've said as much myself. That's not what the point of contention is really about. There can be myriad suboptimal ("stupid") character permutations and actions that are still thematical. A mute Chinese man with no shooting skills could still have a role in a gun-slinging Western, to give an example. It's obvious there are a lot of roles he can't fill, but that doesn't tell us whether his player can or will have fun.

Let's go with your example. Picture this scene at a gaming table:

DM: What have you come up with for the Tombstone Campaign?

Al: I've got Wyatt, a US Marshal. He's a hard, no-nonsense lawman, who's quick with a pistol and is adamant about keeping the poker games fair.

Bob: I've got a pool-shark pistoleer named Morgan. I'm going to change him to be Virgil's brother and assistant marshal.

Charlie: I'll also make my character Virgil's brother. He's a gambler that can't stay out of trouble who is currently town sherrif.

Dave: Mine won't be one of the family. He's a dentist and gambler that's handy with a shotgun. Virgil's deputized him to help keep the lid on things.

Edward: My character is Sum Ting Wong, a Chinese immigrant that can't speak, so he has to pantomime everything. He's also a pacifist that hates guns and refuses to fight.

Are you honestly saying that you see no reason why Edward's character should not be allowed?

Mr Beer
2013-09-22, 11:19 PM
Are you honestly saying that you see no reason why Edward's character should not be allowed?

The possibilities for excellent party support in the vital laundry and Chinese takeout departments don't excite you?

Frozen_Feet
2013-09-23, 01:11 AM
I don't recall another poster in this thread saying that "suboptimal" equals "stupid."

I'm not arguing for their synonymity at all. Don't get hung up on it. There are character choices that are "bad" or "stupid" because they are unthematic, and there are character choices that are "bad" or "stupid" because they are sub-optimal. The labels can be attached to both groups; what I'm arguing is that the latter type of "stupid" choices don't warrant an automatic vetoing.


Let's go with your example. Picture this scene at a gaming table:

DM: What have you come up with for the Tombstone Campaign?

Al: I've got Wyatt, a US Marshal. He's a hard, no-nonsense lawman, who's quick with a pistol and is adamant about keeping the poker games fair.

Bob: I've got a pool-shark pistoleer named Morgan. I'm going to change him to be Virgil's brother and assistant marshal.

Charlie: I'll also make my character Virgil's brother. He's a gambler that can't stay out of trouble who is currently town sherrif.

Dave: Mine won't be one of the family. He's a dentist and gambler that's handy with a shotgun. Virgil's deputized him to help keep the lid on things.

Edward: My character is Sum Ting Wong, a Chinese immigrant that can't speak, so he has to pantomime everything. He's also a pacifist that hates guns and refuses to fight.

Are you honestly saying that you see no reason why Edward's character should not be allowed?

I can see loads of ways in which Edward's character may have problems integrating into or working in the game; but I can also see ways for Edward to have fun despite, or even because of that. That's the reason why I'd have no problem allowing that kind of character.

NichG
2013-09-23, 01:46 AM
I feel there's a gap here between silently allowing Edward to go forward with his problematic character and actually refusing to let him play it.

In the above hypothetical, I think a DM who doesn't point out 'this is a combat heavy game, and you're basically saying you don't want to take part in that aspect of the game' is being irresponsible and cruel to the player. You can do that without saying 'no you can't play that' outright.

If Edward still wants to go forward with that character it is still the DM's responsibility in this case to understand why he's doing that. Not all reasons are conducive to a good game.

- A player doing it for the challenge or to try something new is probably going to be fine with the campaign as is, even if they might have bitten off more than they can chew.
- Another possibility is that the player doesn't want to take an active role in the game - their character is basically an excuse to spectate and occasionally kibitz. That can be fine, but the DM needs to know ahead of time.
- On the other hand, if a player is doing it just to constantly get attention/start interparty arguments, thats an OOC problem that needs to be addressed.
- The player may also just not be thinking about the stability of the game as a whole, something that is generally the DM's responsibility to consider. In this case, the situation needs to be explained thoroughly, but a veto may well be appropriate (no you can't play a CE Necromancer in this party that has a Cleric of Pelor and a Paladin).

Frozen_Feet
2013-09-23, 06:23 AM
This is my experience as a convention GM speaking, but points 1 & 2 on your list are such that I don't need to know if a player belongs to either camp beforehand; I can adjust the game on the fly for such behaviours. Point 3 is something that can't be observed beforehand - trolls either don't or refuse to identify themselves as such. They're better just booted off the game if they become a problem (something I haven't actually had to do).

As for point 4... I don't expect my players to think, period. If they do, it's a bonus. :smalltongue: "Stability" is not my concern either.

But much of this comes from a difference in playing environment. Lots of people here apparently have their own, fairly static groups they like to play with. In such environment, it may be fair to expect everyone to know and be mindfull of each other's playstyle (etc.). I, have to lead games for people I have never met before at a moment's notice and have predetermined time-slot to fit a game into. There's no time to have a detailed discussion with every player to determine what they would like to play. It's impossible to tell what they will or won't find fun beforehand, so I instead hold the game as I planned and adjust things as I go. Playing the game is a higher priority than talking about playing a game.

BRC
2013-09-23, 12:32 PM
Here's the thing, the DM's duty is to the enjoyment of the group as a whole, NOT to each individual player.
It's true that if each player is having fun, then the group is having fun, but a disruptive character concept can drag everything down.

A character concept like Edward's pacifist or the Rogue who would be King could be interesting, but it wouldn't be fun for the rest of the group.



I can see loads of ways in which Edward's character may have problems integrating into or working in the game; but I can also see ways for Edward to have fun despite, or even because of that. That's the reason why I'd have no problem allowing that kind of character.
Yes, Edward could have fun, however you should discuss with them ways to make sure they know what they're doing, otherwise they're just a disruptive influence. And even if Edward's idea of a good time is running around telling everybody else to stop shooting, the rest of the party signed up for gunfights, not for aiming around a guy pantomiming that they shouldn't shoot.



I would absolutely allow that character, after warning the player. He'd find his starting position (in the front line, with the invading army descending rapidly on his position, and the 6th-level Sergeant Major behind him having promised to personally kill any man who breaks) acutely uncomfortable, and there's every chance he'd be locked up or killed the moment everyone else realised just how loony he was... but I'd let him play.

(Absolutely, you're totally the rightful heir to the kingdom, since the present king's father's elder brother once bonked your grandmother who was a scullery maid, as your Uncle Roger once shouted at your mother in a drunken rage before he so tragically collapsed and drowned in a small ditch. Sadly, nobody else knows the story, and if they did know it they wouldn't believe it, and if they did believe it they wouldn't care, because you're self-evidently a psychopath, and more importantly, about as devoted to the kingdom as a mouldy sandwich. So even if you do kill the king and every known living relative he has, you'll still be no closer to the line of succession than the woman who cleans the royal privy - further, in fact, because at least she lives in the right building. You want to be king, you'll have to do it the hard way - stage a rebellion, raise an army. Ooh, lookie, there's an army right here! Too bad it's busy. What's your initiative?)
The problem with this is that you are putting the Player in a situation where they must either abandon their character concept and fight the Invasion (as is the campaign concept...so that shouldn't be a problem) OR fail horribly.
Both are basically just roundabout ways of vetoing the character. Sure they're realistic outcomes for a character in that position, BUT they're not neccessarily going to be fun for anybody involved.

Lets go with the example of a paladin in a theives guild campaign. Every time they do somthing criminal (all the time) they need to add "Trick or distract the Paladin" to their plan. At that point the Paladin isn't a party member, they're a recurring obstacle to the rest of the party's success.


Personally I feel that a Direct Veto is better than allowing a plainly unsuited character into the game to face inevitable failure. Best case scenario with an outright Veto, the player makes a more appropriate character for the campaign. Worst case they storm off in a huff.

Of course, a Veto is a last resort. The Rogue-Who-Would-Be-King could work if you change his motivation from "leaving the frontlines to go stab the King" to "Winning glory and prestige on the front lines, allowing him to gather supporters in the millitary and infiltrate the Royal Court".
However, if he refuses that, or any other change to the character that allows them to actually participate, then it's better to just ban the character than to let them into the game.


A Post-Game Veto (The character is doomed to failure from the start) is, in my opinion, a terrible idea, since you're just taking time away from the actual campaign. Consider the Rogue.
DM: You are on the front lines, awaiting the advancing army.
Player: I shout "I AM THE TRUE KING!"
DM: Your sargent has you arrested and executed shortly afterwards for sedition against the King.

All you did there was acknowledge that the character exists in the setting before removing him. Now you have the same situation, either the player makes a new character, or storms off in a huff.

Either way, the other players did not sign up for the grand adventure of "This guy gets arrested and executed', they want to fight battles.

The longer you keep the disruptive character around, the worse it is, since the campaign that player wants to play (leading a rebellion against the King), and the campaign the other players want to play (Fighting off the invading army) keep distracting from each other.

Eventually the other players will start saying "Shut up about your quest to take the throne! Can we fight off these invaders please?"

Yes, a good DM allows the players to run with their concepts, but the DM's job, first and foremost, is to make sure the party has fun.

Amphetryon
2013-09-23, 12:45 PM
I'm not arguing for their synonymity at all. Don't get hung up on it.That's pretty much exactly what using "stupid" as a parenthetical qualifier directly after the term "sub-optimal" indicates by your own phrasing, but whatever.

Earthwalker
2013-09-24, 06:10 AM
Let's go with your example. Picture this scene at a gaming table:

DM: What have you come up with for the Tombstone Campaign?

Al: I've got Wyatt, a US Marshal. He's a hard, no-nonsense lawman, who's quick with a pistol and is adamant about keeping the poker games fair.

Bob: I've got a pool-shark pistoleer named Morgan. I'm going to change him to be Virgil's brother and assistant marshal.

Charlie: I'll also make my character Virgil's brother. He's a gambler that can't stay out of trouble who is currently town sherrif.

Dave: Mine won't be one of the family. He's a dentist and gambler that's handy with a shotgun. Virgil's deputized him to help keep the lid on things.

Edward: My character is Sum Ting Wong, a Chinese immigrant that can't speak, so he has to pantomime everything. He's also a pacifist that hates guns and refuses to fight.

Are you honestly saying that you see no reason why Edward's character should not be allowed?


I feel there's a gap here between silently allowing Edward to go forward with his problematic character and actually refusing to let him play it.

In the above hypothetical, I think a DM who doesn't point out 'this is a combat heavy game, and you're basically saying you don't want to take part in that aspect of the game' is being irresponsible and cruel to the player. You can do that without saying 'no you can't play that' outright.

<snip>


I find it odd that in the original post describing the characters, the game was not described as combat heavy but then it is asumed that it is. I am not saying the asumption is bad but for all we know the story is about investigation and the quiet chinese guy with contacts in the chinese underground proves to be one of the most effective characters.

This all comes round to play styles.

I do think up front if the GM says it is going to be a combat heavy game, then choosing to play a character that can not do combat is going to be a problem.

Personally I generally run a game based on what my characters bring to the table.

My current shadowrun group all the characters have choosen some form of the pasifist flaw as well as not picking up a great number of combat skills. This has pushed the game in a more investigative / stealthy direction.

I suppose its a question of play styles. In one game (playing Pathfinder) I had a clear idea what I wanted to do, so choose the pathfinder system and told my players what I was planning in the campaign. They made characters to fit. In shadowrun I have basically allowed them to make characters and I am building a campaign to fit.

Both seem to work, I guess it just depends on what you prefer.

Also on the note of a general vibe of these forums, namly being Players = good, DM = Bad. Or the players should get to do what they want. I would say I don't see that, the most comment advice I see on any thread about Gm v Players or "What to do with Player X" or "How can I deal with GM y" is this.

Talk to them, Talk out the situation Out Of Game.

Frozen_Feet
2013-09-24, 07:38 AM
Yes, Edward could have fun, however you should discuss with them ways to make sure they know what they're doing, otherwise they're just a disruptive influence. And even if Edward's idea of a good time is running around telling everybody else to stop shooting, the rest of the party signed up for gunfights, not for aiming around a guy pantomiming that they shouldn't shoot.

You are making a load of assumptions about not only what Edward is setting out to do, but also about what every other player is set out to do and finds fun.

I'll also point out to my above post about convention games and find this idea of "making sure they know what they're doing" to be laughable. When you invite d6 random people over to a table, not even the best of them will really know beforehand. "No plan survives contact with the enemy" and all that jazz.

Is it really worth it to go over such details beforehand, or would it be more practical to just work around possible problems when they happen? Remember, you are not assembling a nuclear reactor here. You are playing a game where random chance and improvization are key parts.

BRC
2013-09-24, 10:46 AM
You are making a load of assumptions about not only what Edward is setting out to do, but also about what every other player is set out to do and finds fun.

I'll also point out to my above post about convention games and find this idea of "making sure they know what they're doing" to be laughable. When you invite d6 random people over to a table, not even the best of them will really know beforehand. "No plan survives contact with the enemy" and all that jazz.

Is it really worth it to go over such details beforehand, or would it be more practical to just work around possible problems when they happen? Remember, you are not assembling a nuclear reactor here. You are playing a game where random chance and improvization are key parts.

Well the premise of the example was "This is a problematic character", so I interpreted the prompt in a way that would be problematic.
I've never run a game at a convention, or played one for that matter, but I imagine that flexibility on the part of both the Players and the GM is paramount, even moreso than in a game among friends. I also imagine that convention gaming would be more likely to attract the type of stubborn, inflexible player who writes up a beloved character that is the hero of their own story and tries to force that story onto the game, even though there is no way the DM could have prepared for that.


Thinking about it, a Convention setting isn't the type of place to Veto a character (Unless the reason is for munchkin stat shenanigans that make one character far more powerful than the others), because the DM can't really judge the player, and because the time in which they can meet and make characters is much shorter. assuming most players are flexible and want everybody to have a good time, it's probably safer to assume that than to Veto.
So I don't think you should Veto characters in a convention. However, I still think it's a good idea to have the option of a character Veto on the table just in case your low-optimization casual dungeon crawl gets crashed by a min-maxed monstrosity of a character who deals +3d6 on all attacks but automatically fails perform: Tuba Checks according to some rule printed in Dragon Magazine years ago. Or if somebody sits down, says "Can I use a pre-made character" and hands you a small novel of backstory. Or somebody who sits down saying "I'm playing a homebrewed class called the Lightning Warrior, I get full BAB, d12 HD, Wizard Casting and heavy armor proficiency but no familiar."

Okay, in the second example you would just put the novel down, tell them that you've already made the adventure and won't be able to incorporate this backstory and if they don't like that then they don't have to play. Still, I would keep DM vetos on the table.


Which, considering all that means is avoiding putting up a sign that says "I WILL LET YOU PLAY LITERALLY ANY CHARACTER OF X LEVEL OR BELOW" is pretty easy.

Because really, if you say "no vetos", what you're allowing is all sources including Homebrew.

As soon as you say somthing like "All Homebrew must be DM approved" or "Only use these sources", you are auto-vetoing countless potential characters.

Amphetryon
2013-09-24, 10:52 AM
Well the premise of the example was "This is a problematic character", so I interpreted the prompt in a way that would be problematic.
I've never run a game at a convention, or played one for that matter, but I imagine that flexibility on the part of both the Players and the GM is paramount, even moreso than in a game among friends. I also imagine that convention gaming would be more likely to attract the type of stubborn, inflexible player who writes up a beloved character that is the hero of their own story and tries to force that story onto the game, even though there is no way the DM could have prepared for that.


Thinking about it, a Convention setting isn't the type of place to Veto a character (Unless the reason is for munchkin stat shenanigans that make one character far more powerful than the others), because the DM can't really judge the player, and because the time in which they can meet and make characters is much shorter. assuming most players are flexible and want everybody to have a good time, it's probably safer to assume that than to Veto.
So I don't think you should Veto characters in a convention. However, I still think it's a good idea to have the option of a character Veto on the table just in case your low-optimization casual dungeon crawl gets crashed by a min-maxed monstrosity of a character who deals +3d6 on all attacks but automatically fails perform: Tuba Checks according to some rule printed in Dragon Magazine years ago. Or if somebody sits down, says "Can I use a pre-made character" and hands you a small novel of backstory. Or somebody who sits down saying "I'm playing a homebrewed class called the Lightning Warrior, I get full BAB, d12 HD, Wizard Casting and heavy armor proficiency but no familiar."

Okay, in the second example you would just put the novel down, tell them that you've already made the adventure and won't be able to incorporate this backstory and if they don't like that then they don't have to play. Still, I would keep DM vetos on the table.


Which, considering all that means is avoiding putting up a sign that says "I WILL LET YOU PLAY LITERALLY ANY CHARACTER OF X LEVEL OR BELOW" is pretty easy.

Because really, if you say "no vetos", what you're allowing is all sources including Homebrew.

As soon as you say somthing like "All Homebrew must be DM approved" or "Only use these sources", you are auto-vetoing countless potential characters.
My general understanding of how Convention Characters are created, is that the GM of a given game pregenerates all the available Characters for the game, in order to streamline the process and avoid Characters that are of the wrong power level for the adventure (or flat-out illegal by the game's creation rules).

BRC
2013-09-24, 10:55 AM
My general understanding of how Convention Characters are created, is that the GM of a given game pregenerates all the available Characters for the game, in order to streamline the process and avoid Characters that are of the wrong power level for the adventure (or flat-out illegal by the game's creation rules).
In which case there would be no question of the GM vetoing characters, so convention gaming is not relevant to this discussion,

You could also say that the GM has already pre-vetoed every character except the ones they premade.

Jay R
2013-09-24, 11:44 AM
I get the feeling that we wouldn't really disagree that much on any actual scenario; we are just thinking so theoretically that we're not seeing that fact.

Let me offer some basic principles, based on clear, diamond-hard examples. If anybody disagrees with one of them as a basic principle, we'll have something concrete to discuss.

1. I assume that everybody agrees that the DM can and should veto illegal characters. ("No, your fighter cannot shoot lightning out of his eyes." "No, you can't take a tenth level into this first level game." "No, your character's stats aren't all 18s.")

2. I assume that everybody agrees that no character should be vetoed without a clear reason. ("No, you can't take a half-elf. There are no orcs in this world." "No, you can't be a barbarian. The entire world is civilized." "No, you can't be a Wizard. We're playing an Old West game set in Wyoming.")

These two alone lead to the unsurprising and non-controversial position that the DM can occasionally veto characters, but should only do it to improve the game.

3. I assume that everyone agrees that it's possible that giving the reason can sometimes (though rarely) be impossible without giving away the plot, or some secret. ("I can't let him be a dwarf - when the party finally meets dwarves after five levels or so, the dwarves will instantly recognize his Axe as a relic of Durin's age, leading to a possible war, quest, or triumph." "No non-human has been seen on this continent for 500 years, and nobody believes in them any more, which is why the orc invasion will be such a big cultural shock. The PCs have to be human.")

4. I assume that everyone agrees that the DM should work with the players to make characters that fit into any game-specific or world-specific requirements, rather than merely say "No". (Not "No, you can't have a dwarf", but "I'm sorry, but on this world there are no non-humans, and people really don't believe they exist. Can I help you design a bearded, axe-wielding human smith?")

5. I assume that everyone agrees that some vetoes are automatic ("No, you can't have all 18s"), that some characters shouldn't be vetoed, and that some are judgment calls.

We are only likely to disagree about the ones that are judgment calls, which is what it means for it to be a judgment call.

Does this summation bring us together?

Ansem
2013-09-24, 11:46 AM
I'm actually having a problem concerning chars at the present moment.
I've always found it more fun to specialize than to be versatile as well.... I'd rather be good at a few things and just that than to suck at many.
However my DM finds that a character specializing is per definition minmaxing as it's trying to be better at something than another player. Should a character trying to be better in one field whilst sacrificing all others be counted as unbalanced?

BRC
2013-09-24, 11:54 AM
I'm actually having a problem concerning chars at the present moment.
I've always found it more fun to specialize than to be versatile as well.... I'd rather be good at a few things and just that than to suck at many.
However my DM finds that a character specializing is per definition minmaxing as it's trying to be better at something than another player. Should a character trying to be better in one field whilst sacrificing all others be counted as unbalanced?

It depends on what they're specializing in, and the degree to which they are specializing.

DnD is a game that is, mechanically anyway, highly focused on Combat. A Character that can do nothing besides hit people with swords, but can hit people with swords really, really well, can be unbalancing. True they can't lie or convince people or track a target or identify ancient runes, but they can hit things with swords, and there is a reason 3.5 has five entire books dedicated entierly to things the PCs can hit with swords.

You say "But I can't shoot arrows", that dosn't really matter, because you'll be hitting things with swords.

It also puts the DM in a rough spot where if they DO send them up against things to be hit with swords, the optimized character destroys everything. If the enemies cannot be hit with swords, the optimized character can do nothing, either option leads to somebody not really contributing.

So it depends on what you mean by "Specializing". Every character specializes in some way except Factotums.

Your specialization should make you better in some situations and worse in others. It becomes a problem when you become unbeatable in some situations, and impotent in others.

Ansem
2013-09-24, 01:12 PM
I want to make a wizard who does battlefield control and debuffing and will most likely spend spell focus and metamagic feats supporting that, as well as having majorly or only these kind of spells in my spellbook.
I find this more fun and worthwhile to play than straight DPS and I will probably be able to break the enemy quite often, giving the rest of the party a chance to get through the combat unscarred. However, my inability to deal direct damag or buff, I will still be good at making opponments weaker, this would probably be veto'd from what I hear now. But I don't see why I should be forced to choose illogical options because other players do as well. And especially if you want to PrC you got to plan out straight or risk losing access.

Traab
2013-09-24, 01:23 PM
I want to make a wizard who does battlefield control and debuffing and will most likely spend spell focus and metamagic feats supporting that, as well as having majorly or only these kind of spells in my spellbook.
I find this more fun and worthwhile to play than straight DPS and I will probably be able to break the enemy quite often, giving the rest of the party a chance to get through the combat unscarred. However, my inability to deal direct damag or buff, I will still be good at making opponments weaker, this would probably be veto'd from what I hear now. But I don't see why I should be forced to choose illogical options because other players do as well. And especially if you want to PrC you got to plan out straight or risk losing access.

Well, the best solution I can think of if the dm is really against specialization, is to put a few points into something else. Not a lot, but enough so your guy isnt the absolute best possible short of cheesy munchkinry. You can still kick ass at crowd control, and have a side bonus of, I dunno, diplomancy or something, I dont care, just something semi useful that doesnt require a huge investment to be worthwhile.

Ansem
2013-09-24, 01:29 PM
Adding fireball to the spell list won't hurt I guess.

BRC
2013-09-24, 02:35 PM
I want to make a wizard who does battlefield control and debuffing and will most likely spend spell focus and metamagic feats supporting that, as well as having majorly or only these kind of spells in my spellbook.
I find this more fun and worthwhile to play than straight DPS and I will probably be able to break the enemy quite often, giving the rest of the party a chance to get through the combat unscarred. However, my inability to deal direct damag or buff, I will still be good at making opponments weaker, this would probably be veto'd from what I hear now. But I don't see why I should be forced to choose illogical options because other players do as well. And especially if you want to PrC you got to plan out straight or risk losing access.

See that is fine unless you have one of the most paranoid DM's ever. Battlefield Control and Debuffing are both very general aspects with a wide variety of uses and applications that don't stop the rest of the party from contributing.

but yeah, scatter your spell list a bit to appease them. You're a wizard so getting another spell known is just a small GP investment.

Ansem
2013-09-24, 03:28 PM
Unless I go the Sorcerer route, then it's a painful investment I rather not waste.

NichG
2013-09-24, 04:48 PM
Is it really worth it to go over such details beforehand, or would it be more practical to just work around possible problems when they happen? Remember, you are not assembling a nuclear reactor here. You are playing a game where random chance and improvization are key parts.

For a convention game, what you say is probably true. Limited time to play, and if something goes wrong and the game sucks, you're just out an evening, so you might as well just try something.

But not every game is a convention game. If I'm going to spend the next 2 years of my life running for these people, or the next 2 years of my life playing in a game, I would hope that we can spare the hour to talk out what we're looking for in the game before we begin. And I certainly don't want to think of them as 'd6 random people' I just grabbed to make a game happen.

Frozen_Feet
2013-09-25, 03:22 AM
Well the premise of the example was "This is a problematic character", so I interpreted the prompt in a way that would be problematic.

What you got wrong was that the whole argument is about how such a character is problematic. Let me recount some key things for your convenience:


There's two reasons why I might veto a character:


The character could not conceivably exist in a setting (psionicist in modern-day game, astronaut in medieval setting, etc.)
The character isn't / can't be covered by the rules (a wizard in Twilight 2013, half-dragon minotaur in LotFP)


I haven't had to veto characters in a long while, because it's usually apparent after I present my game scenario and chosen rules which kind of characters can't be used.



I don't see it as the GMs job to pre-empt stupid CharGen decisions. Monsters, etc. should be the ones doing that by showing them how the decisions are stupid.

I'm approaching the example of Edward's character from the angle that is has already passed the first two sieves. The character is legal within the system and legal within the setting.

The only problem with it is that is sub-optimal, and may lead to problems for the character later down the line. (Hence, it is a "stupid" char-gen decision.) To give an analogue: imagine you're an arbiter for a chess match. Obviously, illegal moves should be vetoed; but what if a move is not illegal, but simply bad?


My general understanding of how Convention Characters are created, is that the GM of a given game pregenerates all the available Characters for the game, in order to streamline the process and avoid Characters that are of the wrong power level for the adventure (or flat-out illegal by the game's creation rules).

This is a generalization. Pregenerated characters are common, yes. But character creation methods still run the whole spectrum, based on game and GM whim. Just to give example I myself have encountered or used:


Pregenerated characters, given to players who most want them
Pregenerated characters, randomly distributed to players
Characters are all of the same class; appearance, personality and equipment are based on lottery draw; skills, name and backstory are left for the players to decide.
Characters have pregenerated names, personality, appearance and backstory; skills, equipment etc. are left for the players to determine.
Characters have pregenerated stats, equipment etc. Name, appearance, personality and backstory are left for players to determine.
Statlines, starting level and starting money are pregenerated. Players can choose which set they want, and then determine everything else. Players are allowed to make their own characters beforehand. A new character can be created from scratch at the table.
Based on a loose banlist and guidelines, players are required to create their characters beforehand without GM supervision.


Most of these games were not D&D or any of its clones, so many of the concerns brought up that are particular to those systems plain don't apply. The last two, however, were (LotFP and PF, to be exact).


For a convention game, what you say is probably true. Limited time to play, and if something goes wrong and the game sucks, you're just out an evening, so you might as well just try something.

But not every game is a convention game. If I'm going to spend the next 2 years of my life running for these people, or the next 2 years of my life playing in a game, I would hope that we can spare the hour to talk out what we're looking for in the game before we begin. And I certainly don't want to think of them as 'd6 random people' I just grabbed to make a game happen.

Most of my "normal" games are under a time-pressure too. There's one day on the week when everyone can get together and maybe two, three hours before the first players needs to leave. By the time we're at the table, people have already needed to travel and set aside time specifically to play RPGs, rather than do something else.

So the concern of how much time to spend on pre-game natter still exists. Are we going to play the game, or talk about playing the game? If there's no game, everyone has wasted some of their time already; they can't just go and "do something else fun" and be as satisfied with it as they would've been otherwise. Thus, a non-ideal game can still be better than no game, or doing something else.

BRC talked about "flexibility" being paramount for convention games, and I agree - but that doesn't mean flexibility isn't key for games between established groups as well.

NichG
2013-09-25, 05:44 AM
Most of my "normal" games are under a time-pressure too. There's one day on the week when everyone can get together and maybe two, three hours before the first players needs to leave. By the time we're at the table, people have already needed to travel and set aside time specifically to play RPGs, rather than do something else.


Three hours a week for 2 years is 312 hours. If you spend one of those hours talking over 'this is kind of the idea of this campaign', it can vastly improve the other 311. I'd say thats a worthwhile investment of time. Its not like chargen is going to be happening every session.

Or lets look at it another way. Character generation for something like D&D is already going to be taking a few hours for each player to do on their own. They're already investing a few hours into this. If it turns out their character is non-viable because, say, they bring a rogue into an undead/construct focused game, then thats two hours wasted when they become unsatisfied and have to make a new character. If the DM spends as much time in prep as in play, and the campaign crashes because everyone is unsatisfied or the campaign is really far from what they expected, then thats another huge waste of time.

I'd say once you leave the convention time constraints, there's really no excuse not to spend the hour to talk with your players. Even if your campaigns aren't 2 years long, all it would take is one player having to remake their character for some reason to make the time 'pay for itself' (not to mention however many hours of game they're sitting there bored and unable to do stuff).

Amphetryon
2013-09-25, 05:46 AM
This is a generalization. Pregenerated characters are common, yes. But character creation methods still run the whole spectrum, based on game and GM whim. Just to give example I myself have encountered or usedThat would be why I labeled it "general" understanding. :smallconfused:

johnbragg
2013-09-25, 06:18 AM
Most of my "normal" games are under a time-pressure too. There's one day on the week when everyone can get together and maybe two, three hours before the first players needs to leave. By the time we're at the table, people have already needed to travel and set aside time specifically to play RPGs, rather than do something else.


On the other hand, we have email now. Not to mention readily available blogs. So the DM(GM/Judge) can make clear what sort of setting he's running, what character concepts are and aren't a good fit.

What sort of tech level is the campaign? (Bronze Age? High Renaissance? Tippyverse?)
What races are common, rare and just-not-there?
What's the base setting? (Druids and rangers will do less well in a campaign focused on ridding Venice of its secret undead overlords. Or just pick your nature skills accordingly)
What's the starting character level?

That way players find out _before_ they get to the table that their uber-kewl half-dragon drow-tiefling paladin dual-wielding katanas doesn't fit. Or at least have an email exchange with the DM so that they can try to figure out a way that it does fit.

Then, you sit down, and maybe you need to roll up your stats and CharGen is mostly done.

Delta
2013-09-25, 06:38 AM
That would be why I labeled it "general" understanding. :smallconfused:

Well it really depends on a lot, I for one have hardly if ever prepared characters for convention groups, but then when I run a game at a convention, it's mostly DSA, the most popular german RPG so those people who play it usually have their own characters and I try to work with those.

But I don't really think it's too wise to mix up convention one-shots and campaigns here, because they're really two different kinds of animals. The only reasons I really veto characters for at a convention is if they absolutely don't fit the adventure background-wise ("No, your card-carrying baby-eating drow demon summoner will most definitely not be hired by the Paladin of the Church of Goodygoodness for this mission.") or stat-wise ("Sorry, I don't think your level 20 "The rules of reality are my bitch!" wizard doesn't really fit in with the level 1 "Oooooh let's go on an adventure!" party"), but I try to be relatively open there because I expect the same from my players.

So maybe a couple of spells you got would break the plot? Well, if you really want to play that character, would you mind ignoring those spells for just this one adventure? It's a one-shot with strange people and characters, I know I have to be flexible as both GM and player here and that's fine.

For a campaign on the other hand, I tend to be more strict. If it's something we'll be playing for months and years to come, I want everyone who has a character that fits in both the campaign and the group, I still don't like to just veto things unless they're really extreme, but try to be open with my players. "You'll be forced to deal with the very anti-mage prejudiced Church of Light in this campaign." is a fair warning to a player who wants to play a wizard, now he can decide for himself whether he wants to face the consequences this might carry. In general, I found it much more effective than to try and work with the players than just saying them "No you can't".

We had a player wanting to play a black mage in a pretty heroic group (now in the setting black mages aren't all evil and stuff, they're basically ruthless scholars who refuse to let magic be governed by outside rules so people tend to be very suspicious for them for good reason), which would've been problematic because the other characters would've had no good reason to accept someone like him on their mission, I talked to him and the other players about it, and suddenly he ended up being the twin brother of the white mage of the group, making up a fun story about why they ended up on other sides of the spectrum. Now suddenly what had been the potential for truly party-breaking conflict has become sibling rivalry which is so much easier to contain, having his twin sister in the party makes it so much easier for him to find a motivation to join the party and stick with them even if they do some stuff that his character usually wouldn't do, and she in turn protects him from the "pitchforks and torches" consequences that a traveling black mage would usually face.

Jayabalard
2013-09-25, 10:06 AM
If someone has a problem character that the GM feels the need to veto, then either:
1. The player is not abiding by the boundaries that the GM has set; in this case, the GM should indeed veto. That isn't to say that players should never have a way to address boundaries with the GM, but showing up with a character that violates those boundaries isn't the way to do it.

or

2. The gm wasn't specific enough with the boundaries for that particular player; sometimes this is the GM's fault (eg when he doesn't set any boundaries ahead of time or sets only vague ones, call this 2a), and some of those are the players fault (eg the player did a bad job of setting his own boundaries by drawing inferences from the ones the GM did set, call this 2b);

in my experience 2a is one of:

An inexperienced GM who doesn't know the system well enough to set good boundaries. The inexperienced GM can (and should) treat it as a learning experience. If he doesn't, then players should take that as a hint that you may want to avoid him. If the GM makes the effort, but a player can't adapt and work with the gm though his inexperience, then the player is the problem.
a GM who's used to a specific group and forgot to lay things out more clearly for a new player; the old timer and his group should gently bring the new guy up to speed with what is allowed and what isn't, what fits the game world and what doesn't. If they're not willing to do this in a constructive way, take that as a hint that you may want to avoid that group.
a bad GM who likes to micro manage too much. The micro managing gm is someone to avoid; you're probably not going to fix him, and you're likely to have other problems because of it.


2b is generally a problem player, who demands a level of detail from the GM that isn't reasonable.

BRC
2013-09-25, 11:04 AM
BRC talked about "flexibility" being paramount for convention games, and I agree - but that doesn't mean flexibility isn't key for games between established groups as well.

Flexibility is important in established groups, just slightly less so.
Well, thinking about it, Flexibility is just as important in established groups, it's just ALSO a lot more common on the part of the group itself.

Lets say you have a disruptive character like Edward's Pacifist. That's an inconvenient character for the rest of the group.
In an established group the rest of the group is more likely to be flexible, allowing Edward to play the character he wants to play, because they are his friends and they want him to have a good time/trust him to not get in the way too much.

In a convention setting you can't count on the group to be as flexible, so Edward would need to be more flexible, toning back the more disruptive aspects of his character. An inability to speak english may turn into poor english skills with a limited vocabulary. Strict pacifism/a hatred of guns may turn into a preference for nonlethal methods/ a determination to never be the one to initiate conflict. If the outlaws shoot first, Edward's character will hide behind a rock until the shooting stops, but he won't try to make his teammates not shoot back.

Ravenica
2013-09-28, 05:51 PM
after playing an elan psion in our last PF game my DM banned the DSP books


I can't blame him lol I was bored and they are terrifyingly powerful with very little optimisation needed to outshine the trained monkeys I played with.

Though honestly I think the DM was very irritable to begin with, he tended to have to repeat xp gain and treasure totals multiple times because the monkeys weren't listening, and had to explain how to calculate an attack bonus at least once per session because someone "forgot".

Once we hit level 15 (we started at 12) we had both had enough of the campaign so I pretty much ran roughshod over the rest of the party by eliminating most opponents in 1-3 rounds solo

Delta
2013-09-28, 06:09 PM
Though honestly I think the DM was very irritable to begin with, he tended to have to repeat xp gain and treasure totals multiple times because the monkeys weren't listening, and had to explain how to calculate an attack bonus at least once per session because someone "forgot".

I can fully understand it, this is something that bugs me to no end when I GM. Of course not when it's beginners who haven't played for long, if at all, but if we've been playing the same system for years, and the same campaign for months, and some players seem to forget half the rules their character uses every single session, I often feel like packing up my stuff and going home.

Ravenica
2013-09-28, 06:14 PM
Heh just got invited to and started a new campaign with the same DM, none of the monkeys are there? All new people. Funny how people who claim to have been playing for "years" didn't get a second invite to his table XD

Overall he's a really good DM, drives the story without making me feel railroaded. I know he was scaling the encounters to their (actual) playlevel rather than their (stated) playlevel otherwise it wouldn't have been quite so easy to steamroll. Should be interesting to see how this campaign goes. I'm rolling it alchemist style this time around but it's mostly new players so I don't expect much out of our blasty sorc and somewhat amateurish cleric. Guy playing a fighter is definately a little more system savy though. He's definately picking up some of the slack from the other two and playing team leader. I get to sit back and stick blocks of C4 to enemies backs :smallbiggrin: (sticky remote bombs are fun!)

nedz
2013-09-28, 08:43 PM
I find peer pressure to be very useful in this kind of situation.

For example: I was running an all Dwarf game. Six levels in: one player asks if he can have a Gnome cohort. I say "It's possible", but the rest of the group demur and the cohort ends up being a Dwarf.

No DM veto either threatened or used; yet the game stays true to its theme.

I strongly prefer subtle persuasion over enforcement — you do have to be able to pull this off though.

Ed:
with the Sum Ting Wong example above you could try asking the player things along the lines of:

"Looking at the rest of the party's characters, we could easily get into a shoot out at the OK corral type event. How would your character fit into that type of encounter ? Alternatively: suppose they, I don't know, pull a bank job; how would Sum Ting Wong work in that sort of caper ?"

Hopefully this will cause them to rethink.

Frozen_Feet
2013-09-29, 09:00 AM
Three hours a week for 2 years is 312 hours. If you spend one of those hours talking over 'this is kind of the idea of this campaign', it can vastly improve the other 311. I'd say thats a worthwhile investment of time. Its not like chargen is going to be happening every session.

So you think the natter-to-gaming ratio should be 1 to 311? I can surely get behind that! One question: how do you suppose to reach that ratio, applying your own standards of questioning to character building?


Or lets look at it another way. Character generation for something like D&D is already going to be taking a few hours for each player to do on their own.

Yeah, I just find that a good reason to play something not alike modern D&D...


On the other hand, we have email now. Not to mention readily available blogs. So the DM(GM/Judge) can make clear what sort of setting he's running, what character concepts are and aren't a good fit.

Speaking as veteran of tabletop, AIMHack and forum roleplaying, I've found that no modern technology past the phone really makes discourse between players and GMs faster. E-mail in particular is a good way to spend two weeks on a discussion that would take 15 minutes face-to-face.

Don't get me wrong, electronics is a good way to transfer huge amounts of rule and setting data. It's a great way to spread information of a game. But when it comes to actually starting the game, or teaching someone to play, it is just hideously slow.

johnbragg
2013-09-29, 09:28 AM
Speaking as veteran of tabletop, AIMHack and forum roleplaying, I've found that no modern technology past the phone really makes discourse between players and GMs faster. E-mail in particular is a good way to spend two weeks on a discussion that would take 15 minutes face-to-face.

You know what, for the main topic of the thread, what to do about character concepts that don't fit, the phone works just as well. I suppose the optimized answer (for starting a new campaign with a new group of roleplayers) would be to email out the setting sketch, get character concepts back by email, and phone the players whose characters don't fit/need work. Then the first session is still char-gen, but you can focus on the players who don't have the book(s)--everyone else should come to the table with a plan.

EDIT: It's that electronics makes it very possible to "borrow" non-game-time for game-time purposes.

NichG
2013-09-29, 09:32 AM
So you think the natter-to-gaming ratio should be 1 to 311? I can surely get behind that! One question: how do you suppose to reach that ratio, applying your own standards of questioning to character building?


Well I have to be concrete for that then, so its a good thing I just started a campaign recently. We had 4 veteran players and 2 new players. Like, completely new to tabletop games entirely. So there was no avoiding spending some time with them. The system is also something no one was really familiar with.

So I ended up spending about 3 hours answering mechanics questions and the like. But I basically used that time to get an idea what each person was trying to make and to verify that it made sense.

I can say now what everyone is playing and I have a good idea how they'll work together. I didn't have to veto anything, though I had to nudge a few people along the lines of 'don't just put one point into everything, you'll suck for a long time'. I will probably have to adjust trim during game a bit but I know what I'm getting into - I'll be running a more social, less combatty campaign.

The group is:

- One very combat-focused guy (but I know the guy and I expected that)

- Someone who is very information-gathering/socially focused.

- Someone who might have some trouble having a well-defined role but who is decent at combat and probably could do a decent job with stealth/being beneath notice. I anticipate having to help here a bit, but she's decent at combat so that will provide a secondary niche for awhile.

- A very idiosyncratic 'summoner-type' character. He will likely end up driving plot for awhile just based on the weirdness of what he can do. No skills outside of what he can bring in with his summons though.

- Tinker/inventor type character with a good set of social abilities. Can manipulate status and belongs to the nobility or at least can act the part. That'll give him a niche on certain social endeavors. No indication of combat ability.

- Someone sort of 'shrouded in the supernatural' who is using a gimmick that will eventually let her learn a crap-ton of different powers/abilities, but its slow to pick up. Once her trick comes into play, she'll have no problems, but until then she might have difficulty with situations. No indication of combat ability.

If I just went in and did high-combat this would be disastrous, so the exercise saved me lots of time and perhaps two players. I also have backstory hooks for most of the characters now, on the basis of custom items they spent chargen points to come in with (each is a memory from their past).

veti
2013-09-29, 05:41 PM
The problem with this is that you are putting the Player in a situation where they must either abandon their character concept and fight the Invasion (as is the campaign concept...so that shouldn't be a problem) OR fail horribly.
Both are basically just roundabout ways of vetoing the character. Sure they're realistic outcomes for a character in that position, BUT they're not neccessarily going to be fun for anybody involved.

I did say "after warning the player". Some players actually like playing lunatics, and that's fine, so long as they don't interfere with everyone else. What I described is my way of sending a message to the player that I'm not going to rewrite the campaign just because they (and only they) decide they want to play a completely different character.

If everyone else agrees with his concept, and swears to support him in his revolution, then he's in a stronger position, but he still has to play it smart. Shouting "I am the true king" in that position is suicide. My policy is to let players commit suicide if they want to.


Of course, a Veto is a last resort. The Rogue-Who-Would-Be-King could work if you change his motivation from "leaving the frontlines to go stab the King" to "Winning glory and prestige on the front lines, allowing him to gather supporters in the millitary and infiltrate the Royal Court".

Exactly. He does have smart options, particularly if the other players agree to support him. But a player can't just choose to play "the true king", and expect to have everyone else fall at their feet as of right, because that's basically rewriting a large part of the setting.

My last campaign was set in, basically, medieval Europe. Everyone worshipped the same god, who would accept clerics of absolutely any alignment, so no problem there. But if a player insisted "I'm a worshipper of Loki" - after trying to reason with them - I'd let them play. There would be obvious penalties involved, if they were ever fool enough to let anyone find out - but there was also a smart way to play it, and if they wanted to do that, why not?