PDA

View Full Version : How strict is too strict?



Raine_Sage
2014-08-04, 02:11 AM
Bleh, feeling a little crummy about a stupid argument, was wondering if other people might share their thoughts on this.

A friend of a friend wanted to run a pathfinder campaign. I had never played pathfinder before and since my friend was also playing I figured it'd be fun to pick up something new. Before the character creation session I did a little rummaging on the srd because I had a character concept ready to go, worked out the approximate stats I'd need to make it work, figured I could use the character building session to ask the gm questions and refine what I had into an actual character sheet.

When we got together I found out that we could only roll for stats (and no rerolls) presumably to prevent minmaxing, that I couldn't play the class I wanted (Oracle) because there was a 2 caster limit on the party and those slots were filled (caster defined here as anything that gets above 4th level spells), and that rolling your backgrounds using the random background tables was "heavily encouraged" to prevent "special snowflake" characters. I was slightly miffed because the whole thing came off sort of like him saying "I don't trust my players not to **** the bed if I let them have any kind of choice about things." And I told him as much. Predictably I got the 'if you don't like it you don't have to play' response which was fair enough so I walked.

Only now my friend feels guilty about playing without me despite constant reassurances that no I'm ok with it really, if they're having fun that's great! But now I'm just wondering if I overreacted. How strict is a deal breaker for you guys generally?

Sidmen
2014-08-04, 02:35 AM
You know, I've never personally understood people who couldn't play a game (that they didn't know anything about beforehand) unless they get to play whatever the heck they want. Usually it's a race or class thing - sometimes a GM doesn't want to run a world where Centaur Inquisitors are running around with Gnomish Witches (or whatever). If I were in your shoes, I would've said "well, that concept is out the window - let's see what my random stats say I should be".

It's not that I'm hating on you - I just can't put my head on your shoulders and understand it. And you certainly aren't alone - I had a GM that wanted to run a game with JUST Elves, Dwarves, and Humans; where magic-users were practically non-existant. One of our players practically exploded because he couldn't play an esoteric race I've never heard of as a Wizard. He, like you, left the game before we started playing.

From the perspective of someone who watched someone else leave a game for similar reasons - it's hard to not think that the GM or the rest of the group did something wrong or hurt the other guy's (in this case, your) feelings. If I had liked (or even knew) the other guy more I might've been worried that I'd bruised a friendship - even if he said everything was fine (that's usually code for "I'm repressing it" in my experience).

Personally, I'm pretty open when it comes to restrictions (weird...). Most of them have a very good reason to exist; whether that reason is story-, world-, or balance-based. Heck, sometimes it's just mood based. Wanting to only have two spellcasters in a party certainly sets a particular mood that is entirely different from having 3/4 of a party composed of magicians of various colors.

VoxRationis
2014-08-04, 02:36 AM
The DM has the right to determine the method of stat generation. Rolling is a classic, and though the Playground may hate it owing to their desire to leave nothing to chance, entirely legitimate method.

As for caster limits... Party setup is another thing that can be tricky. You generally have roles to fill; if an important role (such as healer) goes unfulfilled, the party limps along. Therefore, it's really easy to get forced to play a particular role. That kind of sucks, but that's the way it goes. Try talking more with your fellow players in advance next time to try and work out a more favorable compromise.

Averis Vol
2014-08-04, 02:43 AM
First of all, sorry to hear that, that's pretty weak yo. Secondly, I think a little bit of strictness is a good thing, but I mostly let my players play what they want, because we're all here to have fun. As to the situation you were in, I think if everyone had been at the table without their characters already built, that would have been an okay situation because you could have talked it out there like rational people, instead of apparently playing, "Use really specific character gen rules without telling the new guy/girl."

In all, I think walking was a good idea. First impressions are important, and if you don't click right off the bat, maybe it just wasn't meant to be.

Raine_Sage
2014-08-04, 02:48 AM
You know, I've never personally understood people who couldn't play a game (that they didn't know anything about beforehand) unless they get to play whatever the heck they want. Usually it's a race or class thing - sometimes a GM doesn't want to run a world where Centaur Inquisitors are running around with Gnomish Witches (or whatever). If I were in your shoes, I would've said "well, that concept is out the window - let's see what my random stats say I should be".

It's not that I can't play a game with class restrictions. I don't mind hard and fast rules as to what can and cannot be played provided they make sense. I.E. we're playing an underwater game please no fire elementals. I just like having a solid idea of who my character is beforehand and I hate leaving things up to chance. I know that sounds silly given the kind of game pathfinder is, but that's also why I like being able to have some control over what my character ends up as, since I will have so little control from that point onwards.

And part of it is also some classes just aren't fun for me. I hate playing wizards for example, despite being the most versatile class in later levels I just can't stand them. I love playing fighters, I'm kind of eh on rangers and so on and so forth. I love warlocks not because of how they play but because I really love their fluff. I don't mind playing a class I'm not fond of if there's a good reason why I need to play that class. Maybe we need a healer or maybe we're playing at a wizarding school idk. What bothered me in this case was that I could potentially be stuck with something I hate just because I got an unlucky roll, and that the GM was not open to rerolling at all.

Oneris
2014-08-04, 02:54 AM
While limiting character stat generation and party makeup is just a method to limit optimization, limiting character background is probably going a bit too far. Player Characters are special snowflakes in the world just for being able to get past level 5, so how much difference is it going to make if they also happened to be a long lost heir? The worst a character background can do (for the GM) is to change some of the fluff, while most of the time it either never comes up during gameplay, or sometimes can even enhance the plot and Player-NPC interactions.

If he is so worried about character background generation, he will also probably be worried about roleplaying character personalities in general. Special-snowflake-ship isn't limited to background alone; it can also take the form of simply standing up to the local lord or refusing to get wrongfully arrested for a crime. To want to limit 'specialness' in its entirety would mean cracking down on player behavior as well.

I'd say you made a good decision getting out of there early. Prepare to eventually see your friend complaining about railroading.

Sidmen
2014-08-04, 02:58 AM
Yeah, I can Grok that. If you didn't have an already established RPG-playing relationship with that group, I can see being warned off by that possibility. I sometimes have a hard time remembering that I'm not a typical GM (I let people re-work anything they want on their character - especially if it turned out to be more useless than they anticipated).

Knaight
2014-08-04, 03:14 AM
Honestly, the GM looks like a bit of a control freak - I'd consider that a warning sign, and I say that as someone who's a near permanent GM. Some specifics about it being Pathfinder with randomized characters would have been nice, and the reasons given have a distinct tone of "this is my game, you're just witnesses to it, and I dictate how it goes" to them.


You know, I've never personally understood people who couldn't play a game (that they didn't know anything about beforehand) unless they get to play whatever the heck they want. Usually it's a race or class thing - sometimes a GM doesn't want to run a world where Centaur Inquisitors are running around with Gnomish Witches (or whatever). If I were in your shoes, I would've said "well, that concept is out the window - let's see what my random stats say I should be".

It's not that I'm hating on you - I just can't put my head on your shoulders and understand it. And you certainly aren't alone - I had a GM that wanted to run a game with JUST Elves, Dwarves, and Humans; where magic-users were practically non-existant. One of our players practically exploded because he couldn't play an esoteric race I've never heard of as a Wizard. He, like you, left the game before we started playing.
It's not about restrictions really, it's more about odd restrictions coming out after the game starts. If the game is pitched as being about the warriors in a dwarf clan, basically nobody has an issue with playing dwarves in some sort of fighting class. There might be an issue if there are hidden restrictions - everyone has to be a Fighter, where the players went in thinking that Barbarian, Ranger, etc. were at least open, but it's generally fine. If someone says that they're GMing a pathfinder game, gets players, and then says that everyone needs to make a dwarven Fighter, it comes off poorly.

Let me put it this way - basically nobody comes to D&D saying that they want to play a space marine in powered armor using a plasma rifle. I've never even heard of someone wanting to play a pilot. It's generally understood that those aren't in the available play space. Basically nobody gets upset that those concepts are banned. Issues only come up when the game is pitched such that it's understood that the available space for characters is one thing, and then it comes up that no, it's actually something else. In this case, it's the heavy randomization (heavily encouraged random background tables?) and arbitrary restrictions with no forewarning in a game that generally doesn't have them. It can also be something more egregious - if someone pitches a Legend of the Five Rings game and then tells people that there are no samurai in it once they sit down to play, it's just egregious. Similarly, if someone pitches Shadowrun and once it starts says something to the effect of "no magic, no metahumans" people are likely to be annoyed. The samurai is the iconic character of Legend of the Five Rings, the entire point of Shadowrun as opposed to any other cyberpunk game is the fantasy element.

TiaC
2014-08-04, 04:15 AM
It's not about restrictions really, it's more about odd restrictions coming out after the game starts. If the game is pitched as being about the warriors in a dwarf clan, basically nobody has an issue with playing dwarves in some sort of fighting class. There might be an issue if there are hidden restrictions - everyone has to be a Fighter, where the players went in thinking that Barbarian, Ranger, etc. were at least open, but it's generally fine. If someone says that they're GMing a pathfinder game, gets players, and then says that everyone needs to make a dwarven Fighter, it comes off poorly.

There's also an issue with the restriction taking the form of "They can do this, but you can't, because they got there first." Especially if one of those casters was an oracle, because then even if Raine played, there would be this other player who gets to do the thing that she(?) couldn't.

BWR
2014-08-04, 04:56 AM
Honestly, the GM looks like a bit of a control freak - I'd consider that a warning sign, and I say that as someone who's a near permanent GM. Some specifics about it being Pathfinder with randomized characters would have been nice, and the reasons given have a distinct tone of "this is my game, you're just witnesses to it, and I dictate how it goes" to them.


It's not about restrictions really, it's more about odd restrictions coming out after the game starts. If the game is pitched as being about the warriors in a dwarf clan, basically nobody has an issue with playing dwarves in some sort of fighting class. There might be an issue if there are hidden restrictions - everyone has to be a Fighter, where the players went in thinking that Barbarian, Ranger, etc. were at least open, but it's generally fine. If someone says that they're GMing a pathfinder game, gets players, and then says that everyone needs to make a dwarven Fighter, it comes off poorly.

Let me put it this way - basically nobody comes to D&D saying that they want to play a space marine in powered armor using a plasma rifle. I've never even heard of someone wanting to play a pilot. It's generally understood that those aren't in the available play space. Basically nobody gets upset that those concepts are banned. Issues only come up when the game is pitched such that it's understood that the available space for characters is one thing, and then it comes up that no, it's actually something else. In this case, it's the heavy randomization (heavily encouraged random background tables?) and arbitrary restrictions with no forewarning in a game that generally doesn't have them. It can also be something more egregious - if someone pitches a Legend of the Five Rings game and then tells people that there are no samurai in it once they sit down to play, it's just egregious. Similarly, if someone pitches Shadowrun and once it starts says something to the effect of "no magic, no metahumans" people are likely to be annoyed. The samurai is the iconic character of Legend of the Five Rings, the entire point of Shadowrun as opposed to any other cyberpunk game is the fantasy element.

I think you're going a bit far here. Unless I misunderstand the situation, the OP had an idea and was told at character creation that it was no go, rather than being told to make a character and being told during play it was not ok. There is a world of difference between setting limits at cc (the proper time to bring them up) and bringing them into play when everybody is supposedly done with cc. If the DM has certain limits for the game, like the limit on casters, then a 'first come first served' way of allocating the slots is perfectly valid. I suppose you could complain that randomly determining which of the hopeful players got to play a caster might be more fair but that's really a minor issue. The randomized background is a bit unusual but having seen what some players do (or try to do) with their special snowflakes, I can see where he's coming from. A ban like that can be seen as "I don't trust you to not **** the bed" but it can also be seen as "rules are in place not to punish those who aren't a problem but to prevent those who are".

From what the OP has shown, I'd say s/he did overreact to this. Of course I don't know the details, nor how things were said or the people involved or the relationships between them, but I lean towards the DM's side of things. If a DM has a vision for a game and some people want to mess up that game, disruptive elements can stop being disruptive or leave. If enough players leave, the DM should run something else because it's obvious people aren't interested. I suffered a d20 burn-out a couple months ago. Coming up with characters and builds is just a pain, I'm tired of the bog-standard boring D&D worlds, even the settings I love, the mechanics; everything is just boring and uninspired. I still play with one of my groups because they are friends and I like seeing them. Everyone else wants to keep doing the stuff we've been doing for 20 years, so I just grit my teeth and bear it because I like my friends. I chose to stop being a disruptive element rather than leave. If I found it so darn horrible that subjecting myself to the game was worse than not hanging out with my friends, I'd leave. So for the OP I guess it boils down to if playing a certain way is more important than seeing your friends.

Held
2014-08-04, 04:56 AM
I personally hate it when I tell people about my feelings and they respond with, "If you don't like it, move it." Honestly, that's just exemplifying a lack of willingness to discuss or explain why you do things. Something simple as, "I get the feeling you don't trust us with chargen" doesn't warrant a "lol okay leave if you don't like it" attitude. I think the DM should have said either, "Well, I do it this way because I think x", or "This isn't the right time to talk about that. How about we table it for now, talk after the game, and we just play now?"

I don't think you overreacted too much. It's maybe a heavy reaction, but I also dislike people touting the "my way or highway" responses. Walking away because you don't like the chargen is petty, walking away because you don't like a particular DM's attitude is a strong reaction, but not necessarily an overreaction. Depending on specific details, of course.

Coidzor
2014-08-04, 05:01 AM
Bleh, feeling a little crummy about a stupid argument, was wondering if other people might share their thoughts on this.

A friend of a friend wanted to run a pathfinder campaign. I had never played pathfinder before and since my friend was also playing I figured it'd be fun to pick up something new. Before the character creation session I did a little rummaging on the srd because I had a character concept ready to go, worked out the approximate stats I'd need to make it work, figured I could use the character building session to ask the gm questions and refine what I had into an actual character sheet.

When we got together I found out that we could only roll for stats (and no rerolls) presumably to prevent minmaxing, that I couldn't play the class I wanted (Oracle) because there was a 2 caster limit on the party and those slots were filled (caster defined here as anything that gets above 4th level spells), and that rolling your backgrounds using the random background tables was "heavily encouraged" to prevent "special snowflake" characters. I was slightly miffed because the whole thing came off sort of like him saying "I don't trust my players not to **** the bed if I let them have any kind of choice about things." And I told him as much. Predictably I got the 'if you don't like it you don't have to play' response which was fair enough so I walked.

Only now my friend feels guilty about playing without me despite constant reassurances that no I'm ok with it really, if they're having fun that's great! But now I'm just wondering if I overreacted. How strict is a deal breaker for you guys generally?

Sounds like a bit of a bad foot forward and like the DM doesn't trust players and doesn't want to actually dialogue with them about what they actually want, which is not the most promising of signs but not inherently damning in and of itself, either.

I don't know how you broached it, and how you broached it would definitely influence things, but his response was pretty bad.


If the DM has certain limits for the game, like the limit on casters, then a 'first come first served' way of allocating the slots is perfectly valid.

Yes, the players who know the GM better and have easier access to him to ask first, even before the first session, getting to be the only ones playing casters is just the height of fairness and transparency. :smalltongue:


You know, I've never personally understood people who couldn't play a game (that they didn't know anything about beforehand) unless they get to play whatever the heck they want.

I don't think that's quite what's going on here, though.


Usually it's a race or class thing - sometimes a GM doesn't want to run a world where Centaur Inquisitors are running around with Gnomish Witches (or whatever).

GMs definitely need to be better prepared to defend and explain their positions with those sorts of things than "It's my way or the highway," though.

Kalmageddon
2014-08-04, 05:11 AM
Out of curiosity, what was the character you wanted to play? Oracle, I get it, but what race? What was his/her background? And did the campaign had any particular theme going on, or was it just supposed to be a vanilla Pathfinder campaign?

As others have said in this thread, I think having a concept for a campaign that limits what kind of character you can play is generally fine. I'm not fond of rolling for background, though. I can understand the concerns for Special Snowflake Syndrome but usually you can just veto a character on a case by case basis. If someone comes up with a reasonable background there shouldn't be any problems.

Cikomyr
2014-08-04, 06:57 AM
I dont understand something. Whats so damn wrong about a special snowflake? Adventurers arent exactly normal people, thry all have a reason for being on the road rather than following their designated social spot.

While i am a big believer of rolling for background and even class (big lover of WFRP), i also love when people take results and then create something truly original with it. Especially if a player was hoping to play a certain kind of chqracter but end up doing something else.

And yes. These original stories, when put some thoughts, are awesome and intrinsic part of the sessions i run. Whats the point of a backstory if it aint gonna matter? :-P

Aedilred
2014-08-04, 06:58 AM
In theory, it's better to veto on a case by case basis when you see someone taking the proverbial. However, having dealt with certain players before who query everything and complain at the drop of a hat (and kick up an unholy fuss OOC if you try to remove them from the game) sometimes it is just easier to impose a blanket restriction on everyone. The problem with case-by-case vetoes is that people take umbrage that you're disrespecting their creation, and such conversations can rapidly deteriorate into arguments. "You let him have the background he wanted! Why can't I, it all makes sense <cue long and stupid explanation>, you're being totally unfair, this is favouritism, you're a control freak, railroading blah blah".

Not a great start to the game for anyone.

If the GM in question has experienced or witnessed something like that before, they might well have come to the conclusion that it's easier just to get everyone to roll for stuff. You can be pretty sure nothing too stupid's going to come up, the players who won't complain anyway still won't complain, and it helps neutralise those who otherwise will. If anyone's going to leave over it, well, you might take the view it's probably for the best, and better they leave immediately rather than causing problems later. Obviously, I don't know the details of the individual game or history in this instance, though.


I dont understand something. Whats so damn wrong about a special snowflake? Adventurers arent exactly normal people, thry all have a reason for being on the road rather than following their designated social spot.
I pretty much took it as read that this refers to "special snowflakes even by the standards of adventurers".

Kalmageddon
2014-08-04, 07:05 AM
I dont understand something. Whats so damn wrong about a special snowflake? Adventurers arent exactly normal people, thry all have a reason for being on the road rather than following their designated social spot.

While i am a big believer of rolling for background and even class (big lover of WFRP), i also love when people take results and then create something truly original with it. Especially if a player was hoping to play a certain kind of chqracter but end up doing something else.

And yes. These original stories, when put some thoughts, are awesome and intrinsic part of the sessions i run. Whats the point of a backstory if it aint gonna matter? :-P

They are not normal people because of what they end up accomplishing, but they can and probably should be normal people in regards to the setting, in my opinion.
Special Snowflake Syndrome is a problem mainly when it creates character so disconnected from the setting that they feel out of place. Think of someone that wants to play a Star Trek-like human character in Warhammer 40K, someone that is eager to meet new cultures and is as peace loving and open minded as anyone can be, in a setting where there are very good reasons to act in exactly the opposite way: everyone and everything wants humans dead or worst.
Such character would feel out of place and its mere presence would be detrimental, at least if we assume that the campaign takes the 40K setting premise seriously and doesn't mean to play around or make fun of it.

Aedilred
2014-08-04, 07:08 AM
They are not normal people because of what they end up accomplishing, but they can and probably should be normal people in regards to the setting, in my opinion.
Special Snowflake Syndrome is a problem mainly when it creates character so disconnected from the setting that they feel out of place. Think of someone that wants to play a Star Trek-like human character in Warhammer 40K, someone that is eager to meet new cultures and is as peace loving and open minded as anyone can be, in a setting where there are very good reasons to act in exactly the opposite way: everyone and everything wants humans dead or worst.
Such character would feel out of place and its mere presence would be detrimental, at least if we assume that the campaign takes the 40K setting premise seriously and doesn't mean to play around or make fun of it.

Also that, yes.

huttj509
2014-08-04, 07:12 AM
To me, the main issue seems to be one of timing.

When I'm invited to a campaign, I generally have all sorts of questions about what sort of campaign it is. Kick in the door or 5 hours negotiating a peace treaty? Any restrictions/tips for the intended feel? What power level are you intending? Anything I should know about the world?

This is because, even before character creation, my mind churns up "what would be fun to play?" Restrictions are fine, but the earlier I'm informed, the better.

Even before I touch a die, my mind has spent time on the character. If I later learn about restrictions that alter the character options, especially if it slams the door on what I had been considering, that time feels wasted. It's not, really, as stuff can go back in the blender for future use, so to speak, but it at least takes some time to refocus. Especially if it's implied that others had more information/opportunity than I did. It can be more frustrating to be snowed in when you were planning on going out for the day, even if you'd generally be fine spending the day at home. I dunno, that metaphor sucks. I'm sure I'll think of a better one half an hour from now.

Cikomyr
2014-08-04, 07:30 AM
They are not normal people because of what they end up accomplishing, but they can and probably should be normal people in regards to the setting, in my opinion.
Special Snowflake Syndrome is a problem mainly when it creates character so disconnected from the setting that they feel out of place. Think of someone that wants to play a Star Trek-like human character in Warhammer 40K, someone that is eager to meet new cultures and is as peace loving and open minded as anyone can be, in a setting where there are very good reasons to act in exactly the opposite way: everyone and everything wants humans dead or worst.
Such character would feel out of place and its mere presence would be detrimental, at least if we assume that the campaign takes the 40K setting premise seriously and doesn't mean to play around or make fun of it.

No. They are not normal people, periods. Wanderlust is not something everyone feels, most people just want to settle someplace. Picking up the adventuring path is a dangerous, exciting, but also rootless life. You leave your home and may expect never to see it again. Why do you do so?

Especially ADVENTURERS, who cannot necessarily fall back to certain explanations (duty, like a Guardsman would).

ElenionAncalima
2014-08-04, 07:31 AM
I don't think the limitations he was applying were particularly unfair. Choosing to rolls stats isn't any more controlling that choosing point buy. Rolling backgrounds is a reasonable request if that is the kind of game he wants to play. The caster limit, particularly the first come, first served, is the only one that seems a little harsh too me. Sure, it will stop your power level as a party from getting out of control, but it may also cause a balance issue within the party.

However, if the DM is wrong for any reason, I would say it is because he didn't lay the rules out ahead of time. For you, it may be a lesson learned...always ask for specifics before jumping into character creation. However, it is not really fair for the DM to have "first come, first served" rules and not tell all of the players. Even if you were a late addition and the caster slots were already taken, he should have said as much up front.

Regarding the "I don't trust my players" problem, that may well be the case. However, a lot of DMs have very good reasons to not trust their players during character creation. I wouldn't take it personally, there may well be a known Mary Sue, Munchkin or MinMaxer in the group who he applied these rules to control.

DigoDragon
2014-08-04, 07:42 AM
I'm fine with the stat-rolling and the limits of casters. If the GM wants to limit what source books, spells/feats/equipment are usable then okay, I'll work with that as well... but to "Heavily Encourage" rolling for backgrounds? If I'm being restricted on the personality of my PC, then I think that's getting too strict. :smallsmile:

And I've played under GMs that make casters micromanage their material components for spells.

Cikomyr
2014-08-04, 07:49 AM
Actually, thinking about it. Isnt there an array of pre-rolled stats (the "elite array") meant to be used by NPCs and example characters.

If you wanna minimize stat roll porn, just use those

Coidzor
2014-08-04, 07:57 AM
Choosing to rolls stats isn't any more controlling that choosing point buy.

Well, yeah, that one's almost entirely irrelevant, really.


Rolling backgrounds is a reasonable request if that is the kind of game he wants to play.

That very much depends upon presentation and the genesis of the game. It's not just the GM putting together a game and the players being audience to it, after all.

If the GM can't or won't explain why he wants to roll backgrounds, it's pretty much by definition not a reasonable request.


The caster limit, particularly the first come, first served, is the only one that seems a little harsh too me. Sure, it will stop your power level as a party from getting out of control, but it may also cause a balance issue within the party.

Except it won't really even do that, per se. If you've got one person able to teleport the party around the group of ambushes the DM had planned for them along the road that the DM hadn't even considered that the party would or could skip, then you've already jumped off the rails and it doesn't really matter whether the rest of them can do so or not.

All I can really see it as is overt GM favoritism of those players who are closer to him and thus find out in advance of everyone else and can fill those slots before anyone else finds out about them being slots to fill.

That or the GM just being... thoughtless. :smallconfused:


Regarding the "I don't trust my players" problem, that may well be the case. However, a lot of DMs have very good reasons to not trust their players during character creation. I wouldn't take it personally, there may well be a known Mary Sue, Munchkin or MinMaxer in the group who he applied these rules to control.

That's not really a good reason, though. That's a "this group is unhealthy and can't resolve an interpersonal communication issue that should be relatively easily resolved by basic levels of communication, or at least some basic level of communication would result in at least taking care of the problem player being in the group anymore if they can't get along with the DM without pissing on everyone else.


Actually, thinking about it. Isnt there an array of pre-rolled stats (the "elite array") meant to be used by NPCs and example characters.

If you wanna minimize stat roll porn, just use those

I believe the GM in this case wanted to maximize stat roll porn and disparities between players who roll well and roll poorly.

Cikomyr
2014-08-04, 08:03 AM
How about "everyone rolls for stats once, and we all take the best array"

AMFV
2014-08-04, 08:39 AM
While limiting character stat generation and party makeup is just a method to limit optimization, limiting character background is probably going a bit too far. Player Characters are special snowflakes in the world just for being able to get past level 5, so how much difference is it going to make if they also happened to be a long lost heir? The worst a character background can do (for the GM) is to change some of the fluff, while most of the time it either never comes up during gameplay, or sometimes can even enhance the plot and Player-NPC interactions.

If he is so worried about character background generation, he will also probably be worried about roleplaying character personalities in general. Special-snowflake-ship isn't limited to background alone; it can also take the form of simply standing up to the local lord or refusing to get wrongfully arrested for a crime. To want to limit 'specialness' in its entirety would mean cracking down on player behavior as well.

I'd say you made a good decision getting out of there early. Prepare to eventually see your friend complaining about railroading.

Actually Golorion has a lot of post level five characters, so I wouldn't say that "past level five" is the special snowflake point. Although if he's playing in a different setting it might be different. I just made my assumption based on the standard setting for Pathfinder.

Premier
2014-08-04, 08:54 AM
No. They are not normal people, periods. Wanderlust is not something everyone feels, most people just want to settle someplace. Picking up the adventuring path is a dangerous, exciting, but also rootless life. You leave your home and may expect never to see it again. Why do you do so?

Especially ADVENTURERS, who cannot necessarily fall back to certain explanations (duty, like a Guardsman would).

I think you still don't get what a "special snowflake" is.

Consider Lord of the Rings, okay? The main characters are pretty special, no doubt about that. Frodo is certainly special compared to the usual sort of hobbit. Aragorn is extremely special compared to... pretty much all other human beings in the world. Gandalf is special compared to pretty much every single living thing in Middle Earth (except a small handful).

They're special, but - and this is the important point - they still feel like a natural part of the setting. They all feel like a part of Middle Earth. Now imagine that suddenly James Bond turns up on the pages of the story with his rocket-launching laser wristwatch, amphibious Aston Martni and his shaken, not stirred Martini. In Lord of the Rings. Kicking orc ass along with Legolas and Gimli.

Would he feel like a special character? You bet your ass he would. Would he feel - similarly to Aragorn, Frodo and Gandalf - like he belongs in the Middle Earth setting? ****, NO!!! He'd feel like a completely unsuitable character transplanted from a completely different work of fiction created in a completely different genre (which is exctly what he would be, as it were). THAT is a "special snowflake".

Players are not derived as "special snowflakes" because they want to play a heroic character who's head and shoulder above the usual peasants. They're derided when they join a low-magic campaign based on a fantasy version of Dark Ages Europe, full of Viking raiders, Saxon housecarls, Frankish mercenaries and Byzantine priests - and insist they be allowed to play the character they've already come up with, a golden skinned half-angel half-demon winged horned last survivor of a dimension-travelling nation of sorcerer-kings who can manifest 24-foot long swords of elemental fire out of thin air and who has a personal vendetta going on against Great Cthulhu (so of course the DM is also obligated to introduce Great Cthulhu into the campaign so as to enable the vendetta). That **** doesn't belong in a low magic Dark Ages Europe campaign. That **** is a "special snowflake".

Segev
2014-08-04, 09:01 AM
Honestly, making the assumption that all involved behaved politely where there is not evidence to the contrary in the OP's post, it sounds like it was handled as maturely as it could be. The DM wished to run his game with chargen in a way that was not what the OP wanted to build under. The OP chose to walk away rather than build under it. The OP isn't recriminating his friend for daring to stay and play.

The only problem is the friend thinking he should feel guilty, and there's nothing the OP can do about that other than keep saying, "No, really, it's fine." Maybe point out that nobody did anything wrong, and it's just a matter of taste. You don't have to do everything your friends do, nor do you have to avoid things just because your friends don't do them. You are your own person.

AMFV
2014-08-04, 09:02 AM
I'm fine with the stat-rolling and the limits of casters. If the GM wants to limit what source books, spells/feats/equipment are usable then okay, I'll work with that as well... but to "Heavily Encourage" rolling for backgrounds? If I'm being restricted on the personality of my PC, then I think that's getting too strict. :smallsmile:

And I've played under GMs that make casters micromanage their material components for spells.

Well to be fair it could be fun as an exercise, since everybody is doing it, that way people could get to explore different character archetypes and personalities than they usually do. I could certainly see the merit in that, the same way I could see the merit in being handed pregenerated characters as a roleplaying exercise. It allows for you to do fun and different things.

But I could see where people might dislike that sort of thing also. I imagine it'd be a matter of taste.

Tengu_temp
2014-08-04, 09:04 AM
How strict is too strict depends on the situation. But as a rule of thumb, it's better to be not strict enough than too strict.

I definitely wouldn't want to play with the DM OP described, though. He is definitely too strict, and for no good reason.

Red Fel
2014-08-04, 09:18 AM
For me, the deal-breaker is rarely one thing, but rather the intersection of multiple problem elements.

You've limited race selection? That's fine, I don't have to play an Unseelie Fey Dragonborn Warforged.

You've limited the number of primary casters in the party? That's probably a good thing, actually, I'm fine with that. I prefer melee anyway.

You've excluded Psionics and Incarnum? Well, that's a pity, but I suppose it's right that you omit a system if you're not comfortable making rulings on the mechanics.

You've excluded Psionics because it's overpowered? You're a fool, but fine.

You've excluded Tome of Battle? You monster.

Individual things like that don't tend to get me down. What gets me down is when they come in groups, or indicate a pattern of problems. For example, a DM who says that only Elves can be primary casters, because only Elves have the elegance and grace to master mystical forces. And he tells us this will be an Elf-heavy campaign. And that we don't get to play Elves, but he'll be providing us with an Elf NPC. I see flashing lights that tell me he's a fanboy, and his NPC is going to be an attempt at DMPCing. And I worry.

That said, the attitude of your DM is a bit upsetting. I understand the mentality, if a person has dealt with begging, pleading, and bothering, and wants to put his foot down. But there are more civil ways to do it. (Disclaimer: I don't know that many DMs who simply blurt out, "If you don't like it, you don't have to play." Is it possible that perhaps you were a bit forceful in your request?)

I'm also bothered by the use of random background tables, but for entirely aesthetic reasons - I like my players to be invested in their PCs, which is more likely to happen if they know and created their backgrounds, rather than had them handed over by a random dice roll.

Coidzor
2014-08-04, 09:48 AM
How about "everyone rolls for stats once, and we all take the best array"

That's one way to deal with it. Point Buys are another. And there's even rolling and then determining the Point Buy value of each player's rolled stats and then averaging them to get the Point Buy everyone's going to use.


I think you still don't get what a "special snowflake" is.

I highly doubt anything nearly egregious is what the GM in question meant or what has really been discussed so far. Special snowflake status is even more nebulous and broad than Marysueism.


Players are not derived as "special snowflakes" because they want to play a heroic character who's head and shoulder above the usual peasants. They're derided when they join a low-magic campaign based on a fantasy version of Dark Ages Europe, full of Viking raiders, Saxon housecarls, Frankish mercenaries and Byzantine priests - and insist they be allowed to play the character they've already come up with, a golden skinned half-angel half-demon winged horned last survivor of a dimension-travelling nation of sorcerer-kings who can manifest 24-foot long swords of elemental fire out of thin air and who has a personal vendetta going on against Great Cthulhu (so of course the DM is also obligated to introduce Great Cthulhu into the campaign so as to enable the vendetta). That **** doesn't belong in a low magic Dark Ages Europe campaign. That **** is a "special snowflake".

D&D and Pathfinder don't belong in Dark Ages Europe, either, for that matter. XD

Cikomyr
2014-08-04, 09:54 AM
I think you still don't get what a "special snowflake" is.

Consider Lord of the Rings, okay? The main characters are pretty special, no doubt about that. Frodo is certainly special compared to the usual sort of hobbit. Aragorn is extremely special compared to... pretty much all other human beings in the world. Gandalf is special compared to pretty much every single living thing in Middle Earth (except a small handful).

They're special, but - and this is the important point - they still feel like a natural part of the setting. They all feel like a part of Middle Earth. Now imagine that suddenly James Bond turns up on the pages of the story with his rocket-launching laser wristwatch, amphibious Aston Martni and his shaken, not stirred Martini. In Lord of the Rings. Kicking orc ass along with Legolas and Gimli.

Would he feel like a special character? You bet your ass he would. Would he feel - similarly to Aragorn, Frodo and Gandalf - like he belongs in the Middle Earth setting? ****, NO!!! He'd feel like a completely unsuitable character transplanted from a completely different work of fiction created in a completely different genre (which is exctly what he would be, as it were). THAT is a "special snowflake".

Players are not derived as "special snowflakes" because they want to play a heroic character who's head and shoulder above the usual peasants. They're derided when they join a low-magic campaign based on a fantasy version of Dark Ages Europe, full of Viking raiders, Saxon housecarls, Frankish mercenaries and Byzantine priests - and insist they be allowed to play the character they've already come up with, a golden skinned half-angel half-demon winged horned last survivor of a dimension-travelling nation of sorcerer-kings who can manifest 24-foot long swords of elemental fire out of thin air and who has a personal vendetta going on against Great Cthulhu (so of course the DM is also obligated to introduce Great Cthulhu into the campaign so as to enable the vendetta). That **** doesn't belong in a low magic Dark Ages Europe campaign. That **** is a "special snowflake".

But.. Thats just dumb... I mean.. Who would want to play such a break..?

I once made James Bond in a fantasy setting. Basically, i played a Beguiler LG elf In The Service of His Majesty, the King of Qualinost. I felt like playing a spy, and made it stick to the setting in a way believable.

Are there really players so petty they throw a tantrum because their Spesh Marines is not allowed in Middle Earth?

Kalmageddon
2014-08-04, 09:58 AM
But.. Thats just dumb... I mean.. Who would want to play such a break..?

I once made James Bond in a fantasy setting. Basically, i played a Beguiler LG elf In The Service of His Majesty, the King of Qualinost. I felt like playing a spy, and made it stick to the setting in a way believable.

Are there really players so petty they throw a tantrum because their Spesh Marines is not allowed in Middle Earth?

Those example are very extreme, but you can read my previous post to get an idea of something more plausible and yet completly inappropriate for the setting.

tensai_oni
2014-08-04, 09:58 AM
I personally hate it when I tell people about my feelings and they respond with, "If you don't like it, move it." Honestly, that's just exemplifying a lack of willingness to discuss or explain why you do things. Something simple as, "I get the feeling you don't trust us with chargen" doesn't warrant a "lol okay leave if you don't like it" attitude. I think the DM should have said either, "Well, I do it this way because I think x", or "This isn't the right time to talk about that. How about we table it for now, talk after the game, and we just play now?"

I don't think you overreacted too much. It's maybe a heavy reaction, but I also dislike people touting the "my way or highway" responses. Walking away because you don't like the chargen is petty, walking away because you don't like a particular DM's attitude is a strong reaction, but not necessarily an overreaction. Depending on specific details, of course.

This.

THIIIIIIS.

Anyone who goes "my way or the highway" when questioned about their choices is too strict. It means they have an inflexible attitude and thinking that anyone who does not follow their way of doing things is WRONG.

OP was right to leave the group. Also when you give an option of "play exactly as I want or not at all", don't be surprised that some people decide not to play at all.

On the other hand I'd easily eat up the restrictions as described in OP's post and maybe even more limited ones - if they came with some sort of justification. Or if the GM was willing to listen to the player and address the concerns back.

Roleplaying is a cooperative experience. This just sounded like the GM's power trip.

Segev
2014-08-04, 10:13 AM
I really don't get the need to take the attitude that either the OP or the DM was being unreasonable. The DM not wanting to change his chargen rules because a walk-in player has objections is not unreasonable. The player not wanting to play under those chargen rules is also not unreasonable. "I'm running it this way, and you can take it or leave it" may sound harsh, but really it's just the most direct way to put what is ultimately going to happen if the DM is adamant about running with the chargen rules he's established. It ultimately saves everybody time and stress by short circuiting any arguments that would go nowhere. Especially if there's a chance that browbeating the player into accepting your chargen rules would lead to a disgruntled player that is still, for some reason, playing at your table. That's always an ingredient that can combine with others to foment trouble. Whether the player means it to or not.

I think everybody here acted maturely.

Dimers
2014-08-04, 10:18 AM
I actually like starting from a random base and building it into a character. It's a fun exercise. But it's got problems:

If I haven't been told that's the way char-gen works for the game, my default assumption is that I'd better have a character concept ready to go.

Making a character from random rolls only works instantly if I don't care about the character at all. That works against player investment in the character, which makes me think either the game's a meatgrinder or the DM wants to play all the PCs herself.

It works against building communal background within the party, which means the party has less reason to care about working together, which goes against my idea of D&D as a team game.

Premier
2014-08-04, 10:32 AM
I highly doubt anything nearly egregious is what the GM in question meant or what has really been discussed so far.

Oh, obviously. You're perfectly right about that. I was making an extreme example because Cykomir was being obtuse about what special snowflakes are.


Special snowflake status is even more nebulous and broad than Marysueism.

This, however, I can't agree with. You know it when you see it. And if you have to argue that special snowflake / Mary Sue is nebulous, then you ARE a special snowflake / Mary Sue. :P



D&D and Pathfinder don't belong in Dark Ages Europe, either, for that matter. XD

I don't play Pathfinder so I won't comment on that, but I've RUN a Dark Ages Britain game in houseruled 1st ed. AD&D and it worked well. I know lots of people who have run or are running Dark Ages games in various editions and they're working well. 2nd Edition AD&D actually had an official Viking age sourcebook as well as a Carolingian one in their Historical Reference series.

I don't want to pick a fight, but I have to say that your assertion that Dark Ages games and D&D don't - or rather CANNOT - go well together is based on a position of ignorance.


I once made James Bond in a fantasy setting. Basically, i played a Beguiler LG elf In The Service of His Majesty, the King of Qualinost. I felt like playing a spy, and made it stick to the setting in a way believable.

I'm sure it was, but then it's NOT what I was speaking about. The point isn't that you "cannot play a spy" in D&D. Sure you can, and as your own example proves, it CAN be done in a way that feels at home in the game. But I hope you understand that it's ALSO possible to play a character (spy or otherwise) in a way that clashes with the feel, style and integrity of the setting or the campaign. You do understand that, right?


Are there really players so petty they throw a tantrum because their Spesh Marines is not allowed in Middle Earth?

Sure there are. Special snowflakes.

Aedilred
2014-08-04, 10:43 AM
But.. Thats just dumb... I mean.. Who would want to play such a break..?

I once made James Bond in a fantasy setting. Basically, i played a Beguiler LG elf In The Service of His Majesty, the King of Qualinost. I felt like playing a spy, and made it stick to the setting in a way believable.

Are there really players so petty they throw a tantrum because their Spesh Marines is not allowed in Middle Earth?

I'm not sure Bond is LG. Lawful, maybe, but even then, he's a maverick who gets results, rather than doing things by the book. Good, highly debatable. But that's a tangent.

To give a more mundane example of "snowflake" characters, I once joined a Song of Ice and Fire game. One of the players turned up and insisted on playing a mercenary warrior with a name that didn't fit in the setting, with the highest combat stats it was possible to attain through minmaxing ("legendary hero" level at game start) and with a background largely C&Pd from elsewhere... and refused to change any of it because he didn't see why he should have to. He thought he had a justification for all of it, and no matter how many times both GM and other players tried to talk him out of it he couldn't be made to understand - not only that his character didn't fit either with the "party" or the setting, but that none of us really wanted to play alongside that character either. The game never got off the ground.

It doesn't take much for a character not to fit with the setting - any setting - or indeed the game itself, and this wasn't even a homebrew setting that the GM was being precious about.A couple of those experiences under your belt and suddenly giving players a standardised template to build characters from (randomised background, stats, etc.) starts to look a lot more attractive, unless you know all the players involved and can be sure they're not going to do something egregious.

Edit: Also, I agree with Segev.

Held
2014-08-04, 10:44 AM
I think Premier's point can be condensed as follows:

A special snowflake is a character that clashes with the setting.


You can take the following example:
Let's say you have a low-magic setting, like the Lord of the Rings. Magic does exist, but it's neither widespread nor used extensively. You get small magic tricks like pyrotechnics and some mind control, but not the blazing "magic can do anything" like in Harry Potter.

Now imagine someone making Harry Potter for that setting. Their argument is that among all wizards, Harry Potter is the one who defies the normal laws of magic and who is capable of these grand feats of magic.

We call that person a special snowflake, because he presumes that the laws governing the world do not apply to their character. Normal D&D characters still fit the mold, e.g. it's perfectly normal and doesn't require a lengthy explanation as to why they belong in the setting. Harry Potter (or a wizard of like might) existing in the Lord of the Rings beggars disbelief and a lengthy explanation of why he can ignore the laws governing the world, but others cannot.


EDIT:
I'm not opposed to special snowflakes personally, though. I don't tend to enjoy making one (I like simple Joe the farmer, thanks very much), but I can see merits sometimes in characters that push the boundaries. The "son of Asmodeus" in a D&D setting requires some explanation, but done well could provide for an interesting hook in the adventure, I think.

BrainFreeze
2014-08-04, 11:16 AM
I am not going to change my character creation rules based on a random walk in player. Starting a game with an argument on why the rules you have made are there is not a good way to interact for the first time. Honestly I personally dislike the idea of a player that I have never met or talked to pre-rolling a character for my game without asking if there are any specific rules to follow before doing so.

If you are joining a game under a DM you do not know, take a breath, step back and wait to make a character until you meet at the first session.

Sartharina
2014-08-04, 11:58 AM
Except it won't really even do that, per se. If you've got one person able to teleport the party around the group of ambushes the DM had planned for them along the road that the DM hadn't even considered that the party would or could skip, then you've already jumped off the rails and it doesn't really matter whether the rest of them can do so or not.

All I can really see it as is overt GM favoritism of those players who are closer to him and thus find out in advance of everyone else and can fill those slots before anyone else finds out about them being slots to fill. Actually, with the imbalance of power in Pathfinder, I can see the need for the restriction on casters.

A DM can work around a party with One Wizard and his limited spell slots having to be drawn out over an entire adventuring day. However, when you have four wizards, the party has four times the number of spell slots, and its endurance goes up dramatically. A DM may be able to handle a party teleporting to the destination 1-3 times per day. He might not be able to handle it when they teleport a dozen or more times per day.

He can handle one caster being able to restrict enemies with a single casting of Black Tentacles or Glitter per encounter, and another spell every round after that. He cannot handle four casters pumping out four spells per round in brutal combinations.

Cikomyr
2014-08-04, 12:19 PM
To be fair, an all-wizzy party should deal with a game tailored for it, including stories and challenges. Are you a bunch of wizard apprentices to the same master? A few drow males who formed their cabal to take power away frpm their clan and the influence of their mothers? (My god i realized how that sounds)

They have to deal with rival wizards, mage hunters, etc..

Tengu_temp
2014-08-04, 12:19 PM
"Party vs enemies" is a strange look at balance. The DM can always make the enemies easier or harder, when needed.

The real issue is balance within the party. Limiting a Pathfinder party to only 2 casters, on a first-come-first-serve basis no less, pretty much bogs down to "the first two people to call dibs get to be powerful, everyone else plays second fiddle". It doesn't help with imbalance, it makes it worse.

Aedilred
2014-08-04, 01:10 PM
To be fair, an all-wizzy party should deal with a game tailored for it, including stories and challenges. Are you a bunch of wizard apprentices to the same master? A few drow males who formed their cabal to take power away frpm their clan and the influence of their mothers? (My god i realized how that sounds)

They have to deal with rival wizards, mage hunters, etc..

That still requires the GM to build his whole campaign around the PCs having large numbers of casters, which it looks like he's specifically trying to avoid. There's a limit to the modifications you can reasonably expect a GM to make to their plans for the campaign. If that's not the campaign he wants to play, then, regardless of whether it seems fair, either that's not the campaign you're going to get, or it'll be a campaign you get begrudgingly and half-heartedly.

I know the Playground is generally of the opinion that there's no point playing anything other than a caster in 3.x games (I don't entirely agree, but don't want to open that can of worms) but I don't think limiting the number of casters in the party is inherently unreasonable. Selecting who gets to play those casters, well, perhaps drawing lots or something would be fairer, but at the same time I get the impression there were two caster characters already written up, so to allow the OP to play one would either require one of the existing characters to be junked (likely annoying that player) or modifying the campaign along the above lines (annoying the GM).

Perhaps it wasn't handled amazingly; there were almost certainly better ways to do it (a lot of which will depend on context etc.) But it's hardly an outrage, either.

Sartharina
2014-08-04, 01:17 PM
"Party vs enemies" is a strange look at balance. The DM can always make the enemies easier or harder, when needed.No he can't. DMs are not magical god-computers automatically knowing how everything works and the ideal solution to all problems.


The real issue is balance within the party. Limiting a Pathfinder party to only 2 casters, on a first-come-first-serve basis no less, pretty much bogs down to "the first two people to call dibs get to be powerful, everyone else plays second fiddle". It doesn't help with imbalance, it makes it worse.You can't have a brass quintet if everyone's trying to play the trumpet (Or tuba)

Coidzor
2014-08-04, 01:27 PM
This, however, I can't agree with. You know it when you see it. And if you have to argue that special snowflake / Mary Sue is nebulous, then you ARE a special snowflake / Mary Sue. :P

Yeah, until you find people accusing players of wanting to play special snowflakes for going into the game expecting that they're going to be the protagonists in the story rather than lackeys for the DMPC. :smalltongue:


I don't play Pathfinder so I won't comment on that, but I've RUN a Dark Ages Britain game in houseruled 1st ed. AD&D and it worked well. I know lots of people who have run or are running Dark Ages games in various editions and they're working well. 2nd Edition AD&D actually had an official Viking age sourcebook as well as a Carolingian one in their Historical Reference series.

I don't want to pick a fight, but I have to say that your assertion that Dark Ages games and D&D don't - or rather CANNOT - go well together is based on a position of ignorance.

Ok, you got me, 1st ed and 2nd ed have a much different HP system so it's not nearly as much of a pain in the ass to kludge them into something that could resemble the real world if one squints. Once you get into 3E and up, it's a major chore, even with kludgy alternate rules like the vitality and wounds system, just to have games where the PCs aren't spending several weeks in bed per fight.

But, no, it's not exactly ignorance to note that taking the magic and supernatural out of D&D defeats much of the point of using the system in the first place, since if one wanted to do that, there are better systems out there for your gritty pseudo-medieval combat simulator purposes.


Actually, with the imbalance of power in Pathfinder, I can see the need for the restriction on casters.

A DM can work around a party with One Wizard and his limited spell slots having to be drawn out over an entire adventuring day. However, when you have four wizards, the party has four times the number of spell slots, and its endurance goes up dramatically.

So a DM who can only manage wizards who are played by people who aren't quite clued in yet. Far too common, I'll grant, but not exactly a situation that should be left to fester or viewed as a legitimate need, per se.


A DM may be able to handle a party teleporting to the destination 1-3 times per day. He might not be able to handle it when they teleport a dozen or more times per day.

Unlikely, at best. The meaningfulness of it dilutes greatly after 2-3 times per day. If it does not, then it means that the DM is making them use it that often, which at least strongly implies that the DM is handling it or at least attempting to do so.


He can handle one caster being able to restrict enemies with a single casting of Black Tentacles or Glitter per encounter, and another spell every round after that. He cannot handle four casters pumping out four spells per round in brutal combinations.

Possibly. If the DM's got half a brain, though, they'll learn pretty quickly how to from the free lessons the players are giving them.


You can't have a brass quintet if everyone's trying to play the trumpet (Or tuba)

You are aware that there's more to casters than just sorcerers and wizards, right? Especially in Pathfinder, there's quite a lot of specialization that can be done, and the casting classes are generally the ones best situated to specialize anyway.

Even with all wizards, saying that they're all tubas is a gross over-simplification.


That still requires the GM to build his whole campaign around the PCs having large numbers of casters, which it looks like he's specifically trying to avoid. There's a limit to the modifications you can reasonably expect a GM to make to their plans for the campaign. If that's not the campaign he wants to play, then, regardless of whether it seems fair, either that's not the campaign you're going to get, or it'll be a campaign you get begrudgingly and half-heartedly.

Bard, Cleric, Wizard is not going to require the entire campaign to be retooled from one expecting Rogue, Cleric, Wizard, Fighter. Not if the DM's worth their salt. If things are that rigid, then they might as well just be giving the players a selection of premades to choose from.


I know the Playground is generally of the opinion that there's no point playing anything other than a caster in 3.x games (I don't entirely agree, but don't want to open that can of worms) but I don't think limiting the number of casters in the party is inherently unreasonable.

It is without a good reason. So far no one has supplied a good reason, just justifying it with DM/GM incompetence.


Selecting who gets to play those casters, well, perhaps drawing lots or something would be fairer, but at the same time I get the impression there were two caster characters already written up, so to allow the OP to play one would either require one of the existing characters to be junked (likely annoying that player) or modifying the campaign along the above lines (annoying the GM).

Yeah, it's totally fair to give the full details of character generation to some of the group so they can make their characters in advance and snap up the limited slots without any competition while withholding those details from the rest until they're there face-to-face.

Aedilred
2014-08-04, 01:43 PM
So the problem of caster overload is to be handled by... escalation? Too many casters are balanced by adding even more casters to the game? What then of the other players who opted to play non-caster classes?

It kind of amuses me that the Playground is at once so obsessed with how casters utterly break the game and yet the suggested solutions for dealing with them in this situation are to give into the madness by just making the campaign entirely caster-centric; moreover, that character generation methods that don't allow for the same levels of optimisation (and might thus help to limit casters' abilities) are denigrated. Also the assumption that every player using a caster is necessarily a munchkin and if they're not breaking the game they're doing it wrong.

Cikomyr
2014-08-04, 01:57 PM
So the problem of caster overload is to be handled by... escalation? Too many casters are balanced by adding even more casters to the game? What then of the other players who opted to play non-caster classes?

It kind of amuses me that the Playground is at once so obsessed with how casters utterly break the game and yet the suggested solutions for dealing with them in this situation are to give into the madness by just making the campaign entirely caster-centric; moreover, that character generation methods that don't allow for the same levels of optimisation (and might thus help to limit casters' abilities) are denigrated. Also the assumption that every player using a caster is necessarily a munchkin and if they're not breaking the game they're doing it wrong.

... Actually, its because i have had this idea of a "Male Drow Wizard group" in my head for a while. The politics and power play of Drow politics when you are trying to step above your station defined by sex

Coidzor
2014-08-04, 02:03 PM
So the problem of caster overload is to be handled by... escalation? Too many casters are balanced by adding even more casters to the game? What then of the other players who opted to play non-caster classes?

...You are aware of how the game works, right? :smallconfused: It's not escalation to use casters against casters. It's more keeping parity.

Also, what non-caster players? We were specifically talking about the all-caster party at that point.

But, hey, let's go back to how to deal with the 2 non-casters who are feeling overshadowed by the 2 casters in the party. You'll note that there are a number of proposed measures floating around that address this and that limiting the party to 2 casters is already in effect and not effective. You have JaronK's suggestion of a lower point buy or allowing lower tier characters to have gestalt options to increase their capabilities and the ways they can interact with the game. You have ye olde Gentleman's Agreement. You have guides to playing GOD Wizards and other supportive style full-casters so that the less potent PCs are buoyed to victory without having their noses rubbed into it. You have E6/P6(and 4, 8, 10) You even have limiting every full-caster to more Bard style spell progression.


It kind of amuses me that the Playground is at once so obsessed with how casters utterly break the game and yet the suggested solutions for dealing with them in this situation are to give into the madness by just making the campaign entirely caster-centric;

You'll recall that saying only Derek and Jasmine are able to play casters isn't exactly a solution, per se. It's, at best, a kludge or at worst a gentleman's agreement that only extends to those two members of the group. If you're openly but indirectly telling the rest of the group that you don't trust them, things have gotten to a place of decidedly undesirable GM-Player dynamic.


moreover, that character generation methods that don't allow for the same levels of optimisation (and might thus help to limit casters' abilities) are denigrated.

Level of optimization hasn't even been brought up until now in this thread as far as I have seen. If you're talking about the proposal to limit casters for reasons not viewed as legitimate, well, I don't think you're quite grasping why the reasoning is viewed as illegitimate if this is your response. :smallconfused:


Also the assumption that every player using a caster is necessarily a munchkin and if they're not breaking the game they're doing it wrong.

Are you trying to pull a Bugs Bunny & Daffy Duck Duck Season vs. Rabbit Season thing over here? Because you're the one on the side arguing in favor of the position that's arguing that caster = game-breaking munchkin and in favor of limiting the number of casters allowed to the players lest they be irresponsible children and break the game/campaign. :smallconfused:

Sartharina
2014-08-04, 02:13 PM
Are you trying to pull a Bugs Bunny & Daffy Duck Duck Season vs. Rabbit Season thing over here? Because you're the one on the side arguing in favor of the position that's arguing that caster = game-breaking munchkin and in favor of limiting the number of casters allowed to the players lest they be irresponsible children and break the game/campaign. :smallconfused:The problem is the spell slot and action economy allows even the most unoptimized wizards to become exponentially more powerful in larger numbers without anyone knowing what the hell happened.

ImNotTrevor
2014-08-04, 02:32 PM
I think the situation from the first post is less of a "WOAH SUPER STRICT" issue and more of a "Failure to Communicate" issue.

I think OP handled it well, though I doubt that they're as "ok" with it as they claim to be, since they decided to drag the issue into the Forum and let us argue about who of them is right. (We only have one side of this story, btw. Keep that in mind.)

I also think that the DM handled it well, just because I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt. I don't think there's anything wrong with saying, in essence,
"Oh. It seems there has been a breakdown in communication. However, the fact remains that this is the way that we've agreed to make the characters. That doesn't seem to be meshing well with you, so you are free to not participate this time around. Next time, we'll see if we can't communicate better. Of course, you are welcome to stay if you decide that you'd like to play by the rules we've all agreed to."

I've done "First come, First serve" for classes before, while encouraging players to swap out classes if someone else really wants to. If that method pisses someone off, then they don't have to participate this time around. There will be more opportunities in the future. We're still friends.
We can still hang out.
No harm, no foul. We disagree on how to run a game of D&D. big whoop. Judging by the arguments on this thread, that is not unique. at all.

If everyone at the table agrees that this is the method they will be using, and all but 1 player are ok with it, then it makes MORE sense that the odd man out is allowed to leave, rather than redoing the methodology to make room for the 1. Sure, I'd love for them to play, but the rest of the group is on the same page on this matter. (As evidenced by OP being the only one that decided not to participate.)

The only thing that seems to have gone wrong is communication. That is not a fault of the chosen style of play. It is not a fault of the DM being a bad person. It's human error.

I may be an unusually laid-back player, but if a DM told me that they had these ground-rules when he invited me, I would be A-ok with them. If he didn't, and I found them out when I got there, I'd listen and if everyone was in agreement I'd be ok with that. If I felt that I'd genuinely and purposefully been left out, I'd be miffed. If it seemed to be human error and DM had just had a brainfart, then there's no harm/no foul.

Different people have different definitions of "too strict," and it's a personal opinion.
How strict is "too strict?" depends on the players. Question answered.

draken50
2014-08-04, 02:46 PM
I certainly wouldn't call it an overreaction.

You have preferences when it comes to character creation and the like that didn't mesh with how the GM likes to run his games. As such you made your choice not play. That's not "My way or the highway." You aren't bashing his game, or telling your friend not to play, it just wasn't a fit for you.

Personally, while I don't run the "roll random stats, random background" kind of game I get why some folks like them. If you had to roll randomly and also had no control over where the stats go, I would also be particularly frustrated with the "two casters" rule. So you roll remarkably high on int (thinking 3.5 here) but you aren't allowed to play a wizard because other characters already made casters... that would be bull in my mind, but still choosing not to be in that game is not something that's that big of a deal.

Personally, I have limited class choice with new players, because it's often far easier to learn a fighter than a cleric. That's more to avoid confusion and analysis by paralysis than any kind of balancing though. (New here means new to they system/TTRPGs not necessarily my table.)

I don't think any player electing to NOT be in a game for any reason is ever really at fault. Nor is the GM for having preferences that don't mesh with the player. Now if either starts being a jerk about it, then that's a problem.

Tengu_temp
2014-08-04, 03:00 PM
No he can't. DMs are not magical god-computers automatically knowing how everything works and the ideal solution to all problems.

An experienced DM should know the system, especially the parts where its balance starts falling apart. An inexperienced DM will probably play with inexperienced players who won't try to optimize.


You can't have a brass quintet if everyone's trying to play the trumpet (Or tuba)

What's wrong with parties where everyone has the same, or very similar role? A group doesn't have to be a brass quintet. I know I'd be annoyed if I wanted to play a specific character and the DM told me "you can't play this because we already have a wizard" or "you can't play this, you should play a skillmonkey because we don't have one yet". A good DM, and a good system, will make any reasonable party composition work.

VoxRationis
2014-08-04, 03:14 PM
In my current campaign, the only party healer just died. Magic item availability is pretty low, so the late divine caster was the only way people can get better. If someone wanted to join in, you'd be darn sure that I'd ask specifically that they play something with heal spells.

Kalmageddon
2014-08-04, 03:20 PM
An experienced DM should know the system, especially the parts where its balance starts falling apart. An inexperienced DM will probably play with inexperienced players who won't try to optimize.

You are making assumption based on nothing at all. I've been playing with people that know the game far better than me and far worse than me, you can't really be that picky if you don't live in an area with a lot of people interested in tabletop rpgs.
Trying to make things simple for everyone involved without assuming that "an experienced GM should do this and that" would be the best course of action.

Jay R
2014-08-04, 03:54 PM
I do not care if the DM is too strict, or if I don't think the rules make sense, or any of the other issues people are bringing up.

There are ten thousand ways to play D&D, and all of them are right for some people, and all of them are wrong for other people.

In this game, for whatever reason, you can't play a caster. That's a fact, and you don't need to characterize it further. You just have to make your own decisions based on the facts about the game.

If you can have fun playing a non-caster, then play a non-caster and have fun.

If you cannot have fun playing a non-caster, then this game isn't for you. Go do something else.

It's that simple.

icefractal
2014-08-04, 04:51 PM
I don't think you overreacted too much. It's maybe a heavy reaction, but I also dislike people touting the "my way or highway" responses. This. I would probably leave if someone took that attitude, at least if they stuck to it when questioned.

Certain things can be "warning signs", even if they don't affect you personally. For example, if a DM said this:
"Monks are OP, so you're guilty until proven innocent if you play one. Try any cheese like TWF, and I'll bust out some cursed items to teach you a lesson."
Then I wouldn't play in their campaign. I wasn't going to play a Monk anyway, so it doesn't affect me directly, but it means that the DM:
* Doesn't understand game balance very well.
* Has an adversarial attitude.
* Tries to solves OOC issues in-game.


Anyway, the GM in the OP isn't on that level of bad. But some of his rules are highly questionable.

Especially "two casters only". That's the worse of all worlds! If you think casters are going to break the game, bar them. If you think they're fine, allow them. But only allowing a limited number mean you think they are OP, but you're going to let some of the party be OP and not the rest. That's baking a power imbalance in from the start! FAIL.

Also, random backgrounds. Great for people who want them, not something that should ever be forced on people, even in the sense of "highly encouraged". Kind of insulting, actually - you're telling people "Even if you had a back-story in mind, your ideas are worse than random output, so I'd prefer not to hear them."

kyoryu
2014-08-04, 05:35 PM
I dunno, one of the most enjoyable, and certainly longest-lasting games I've ever played was random *everything*. Race, class, stats, personality, fears, background, the whole kit and kaboodle.

But if people don't like it, then they don't like it, and don't play that game.

It's not a matter of what's "right" or "wrong". It's ways of playing a game. Some people will like some, some people will like others. Some will be relatively open in terms of what they can enjoy, some will be relatively narrow in terms of the games that they enjoy.

And if you can't find a way to have fun in a particular game, don't play. It's not an insult, and it's not a negative comment on either you or the game.

I hate mustard. So I don't eat food with mustard on it. If I go someplace that serves a lot of stuff with mustard on it, I'll try to find something that doesn't have mustard, or order it without. Worst case, I'll either leave or, if I'm with people, I'll just eat later.

What I'm not going to do is ascribe negative personality traits to people that like mustard.

JusticeZero
2014-08-04, 05:40 PM
I think the GM described in the OP is giving some really awful rulings for reasons I see above. I think the OP is right to walk. I'm not going to complain about the GM. I put down some rulings on character generation that not everyone likes either. (No Core full spellcasters? Heck, no non-DSP caster types?? No dice in character generation? Average HP? Severely restricted race choices? No T5-??) I've had people listen to the list and decide that my games were not for them, and that's fine. I'm aiming for a certain experience, and I don't feel like I need to allow things in that are completely contrary to the setting. "Can I be an elven cleric?" "No, because I did not pencil elves in anywhere (in truth, I can't stand elves), not have I made any reservation for clerics in a setting with no divine magic and, in fact, no active gods. I have to be able to fit every character into the setting somehow, after all." "zomg!" "Here are some options you can take instead that I think will result in a somewhat analogous experience. Alternately, there is a door. There are lots of great games that have lots of room for elven clerics.. Just not this one."

Mr.Moron
2014-08-04, 05:43 PM
The GM is well within their rights to run any game they want, with any restrictions they want. "Only sentient striped river bass characters allowed", "Must have at least 4 Fighters", "No Casters", "Only characters with INT values lower than 8", "All characters must have had a parent die a tragic death" you name they're it allowed to define it.

Similarly you can always choose not to play in a game you don't want to. If that's the only game around, or the only game your friends want to play well... go with it or go without a game.

Knaight
2014-08-04, 07:00 PM
I dunno, one of the most enjoyable, and certainly longest-lasting games I've ever played was random *everything*. Race, class, stats, personality, fears, background, the whole kit and kaboodle.

I'm totally fine with random everything, but it's the sort of thing that's good to know going in, especially if you have good reason to believe that it won't be the case - such as the game's default rules being nonrandom.

Coidzor
2014-08-04, 07:31 PM
I dunno, one of the most enjoyable, and certainly longest-lasting games I've ever played was random *everything*. Race, class, stats, personality, fears, background, the whole kit and kaboodle.

Oh, it can be, as long as it's communicated at the right time and in the right way. "Let's do random game for ****s and giggles," contains the premise and much of the explanation for it right there.


It's not a matter of what's "right" or "wrong". It's ways of playing a game.

Ehh... Violating the "don't be a ****" axiom is fairly wrong as far as things go. Other than that though, yeah, people is people and preferences vary.


Also, random backgrounds. Great for people who want them, not something that should ever be forced on people, even in the sense of "highly encouraged". Kind of insulting, actually - you're telling people "Even if you had a back-story in mind, your ideas are worse than random output, so I'd prefer not to hear them."

That's mostly a matter of presentation, I think. "I got a new X and it came with this set of random background tables, and I thought it'd be neat if we all tried them out" is worlds away from "Random backgrounds (because I don't want to talk to you about them at all but also don't want to say that backstory is completely irrelevant)"

kyoryu
2014-08-04, 07:46 PM
Oh, it can be, as long as it's communicated at the right time and in the right way. "Let's do random game for ****s and giggles," contains the premise and much of the explanation for it right there.

*shrug*. The game I referred to was actually a pretty serious one.

Random *can* be done well, even in the context of a serious game. It's not the only way to run games, of course, but I don't really see anything inherently evil about it.

Aedilred
2014-08-04, 08:39 PM
...You are aware of how the game works, right? :smallconfused: It's not escalation to use casters against casters. It's more keeping parity.
It's escalation to try to balance a half-caster party by making it all-caster, which was being discussed at the time I first raised it.


Also, what non-caster players? We were specifically talking about the all-caster party at that point.
There aren't any, which is the point. The theory seemed to be "it's unfair to make people play non-casters since that makes the party internally unbalanced" with the apparent solution being that people who would otherwise have played non-casters play casters instead. The non-caster players have been exterminated with extreme prejudice.


But, hey, let's go back to how to deal with the 2 non-casters who are feeling overshadowed by the 2 casters in the party. You'll note that there are a number of proposed measures floating around that address this and that limiting the party to 2 casters is already in effect and not effective.
We have no idea whether this was effective in this game or not. Do we even know what the other two casters were?



You'll recall that saying only Derek and Jasmine are able to play casters isn't exactly a solution, per se. It's, at best, a kludge or at worst a gentleman's agreement that only extends to those two members of the group. If you're openly but indirectly telling the rest of the group that you don't trust them, things have gotten to a place of decidedly undesirable GM-Player dynamic.
While I think it could have been handled better (albeit we don't know the full context of when sign-ups happened and blah blah) I don't think a restriction on the number of casters in the party is inherently unfair, unreasonable or a failure at solving the problem. It just needs a better way of determining who those players are.


Level of optimization hasn't even been brought up until now in this thread as far as I have seen. If you're talking about the proposal to limit casters for reasons not viewed as legitimate, well, I don't think you're quite grasping why the reasoning is viewed as illegitimate if this is your response. :smallconfused:
No, I was thinking of the general anti-stats-rolling thing there.


Are you trying to pull a Bugs Bunny & Daffy Duck Duck Season vs. Rabbit Season thing over here? Because you're the one on the side arguing in favor of the position that's arguing that caster = game-breaking munchkin and in favor of limiting the number of casters allowed to the players lest they be irresponsible children and break the game/campaign. :smallconfused:
Everything I've said on this point has been in response to the position (which I was not originally involved in advancing) that casters are inherently unbalancing to the party dynamic and that therefore restricting the numbers was unfair - which I presume, although I admit to using OOC knowledge on this one from the million billion previous threads on the subject and am not drawing my conclusions solely from this thread - is because they're easy to abuse in the hands of a player inclined to abuse them, and the default attitude in the Playground is that casters rule, all other classes drool as a consequence.

Pex
2014-08-04, 10:01 PM
When we got together I found out that we could only roll for stats (and no rerolls)

Ok DM.



presumably to prevent minmaxing,

Bad DM. There's nothing wrong with min/maxing. A character should be competent at what he does.


that I couldn't play the class I wanted (Oracle) because there was a 2 caster limit on the party and those slots were filled (caster defined here as anything that gets above 4th level spells),

Neutral, lean bad DM. It's the player's character, not the DM's. The player has his own responsibility. If the campaign is about the holy order of goody two-shoes, then bad on the player for wanting to play a pirate ninja assassin and getting in a huff when told he can't. However, it should not be up to the DM what the make up of the party is. Players should play what they want while being reasonable.


and that rolling your backgrounds using the random background tables was "heavily encouraged" to prevent "special snowflake" characters.

Bad DM. It's not up to the DM to determine how a character should be roleplayed. Using the term "special snowflake" rings of control-freak.

I might not have quit right then, but I would have warning signs. I would play a session or two to see how the game plays out. I would be miffed I couldn't play the character I first wanted but would make do with another. If the DM keeps telling me "Thou Shalt Not" in character creation and play, I would respond "Thou Aren't My DM".

BWR
2014-08-05, 12:33 AM
I think you still don't get what a "special snowflake" is.

Consider Lord of the Rings, okay? The main characters are pretty special, no doubt about that. Frodo is certainly special compared to the usual sort of hobbit. Aragorn is extremely special compared to... pretty much all other human beings in the world. Gandalf is special compared to pretty much every single living thing in Middle Earth (except a small handful).

They're special, but - and this is the important point - they still feel like a natural part of the setting. They all feel like a part of Middle Earth. Now imagine that suddenly James Bond turns up on the pages of the story with his rocket-launching laser wristwatch, amphibious Aston Martni and his shaken, not stirred Martini. In Lord of the Rings. Kicking orc ass along with Legolas and Gimli.

Would he feel like a special character? You bet your ass he would. Would he feel - similarly to Aragorn, Frodo and Gandalf - like he belongs in the Middle Earth setting? ****, NO!!! He'd feel like a completely unsuitable character transplanted from a completely different work of fiction created in a completely different genre (which is exctly what he would be, as it were). THAT is a "special snowflake".

Players are not derived as "special snowflakes" because they want to play a heroic character who's head and shoulder above the usual peasants. They're derided when they join a low-magic campaign based on a fantasy version of Dark Ages Europe, full of Viking raiders, Saxon housecarls, Frankish mercenaries and Byzantine priests - and insist they be allowed to play the character they've already come up with, a golden skinned half-angel half-demon winged horned last survivor of a dimension-travelling nation of sorcerer-kings who can manifest 24-foot long swords of elemental fire out of thin air and who has a personal vendetta going on against Great Cthulhu (so of course the DM is also obligated to introduce Great Cthulhu into the campaign so as to enable the vendetta). That **** doesn't belong in a low magic Dark Ages Europe campaign. That **** is a "special snowflake".

It's not even this. The 'special snowflake', as I understand it, has little or nothing to do with what sort of stuff you try to bring to the game or the optimization level or any such thing; it's those players who feel their character is the star of the show and other PCs are side-kicks. They are the Mary Sues of PCs. The star should have the most screen time, the best options, secondary characters are there to soak the bad stuff coming the star's way, etc. A long and involved backstory with the PC being a runaway princess or something is a warning sign of a special snowflake. "I want to play this character or nothing" is a sign of a special snowflake.

The point of the term 'special snowflake' is just this: all snowflakes are unique. Some just feel the need to be even more unique and special.

Delwugor
2014-08-05, 10:38 AM
A DM is perfectly within his rights to setup and restrictions or rules as he seems fit. A player is perfectly free to say no thank you and not play.
How that exchange is handled determines if someone over-reacted.

My only deal breaker would have been the randomly rolled backgrounds. Except for one shots with pregen characters, I decide my characters background and personality. I would walk away from any GM that forced it upon me.

Velaryon
2014-08-05, 01:05 PM
Bleh, feeling a little crummy about a stupid argument, was wondering if other people might share their thoughts on this.

A friend of a friend wanted to run a pathfinder campaign. I had never played pathfinder before and since my friend was also playing I figured it'd be fun to pick up something new. Before the character creation session I did a little rummaging on the srd because I had a character concept ready to go, worked out the approximate stats I'd need to make it work, figured I could use the character building session to ask the gm questions and refine what I had into an actual character sheet.

When we got together I found out that we could only roll for stats (and no rerolls) presumably to prevent minmaxing, that I couldn't play the class I wanted (Oracle) because there was a 2 caster limit on the party and those slots were filled (caster defined here as anything that gets above 4th level spells), and that rolling your backgrounds using the random background tables was "heavily encouraged" to prevent "special snowflake" characters. I was slightly miffed because the whole thing came off sort of like him saying "I don't trust my players not to **** the bed if I let them have any kind of choice about things." And I told him as much. Predictably I got the 'if you don't like it you don't have to play' response which was fair enough so I walked.

Only now my friend feels guilty about playing without me despite constant reassurances that no I'm ok with it really, if they're having fun that's great! But now I'm just wondering if I overreacted. How strict is a deal breaker for you guys generally?


I think walking away under these circumstance was perfectly reasonable. Certainly it wasn't a "there's no way I can play with this guy" situation, but in your shoes I would probably have done the same thing.

First, you had a character you wanted to play but weren't allowed. I've walked away from games for that reason alone, and with a less reasonable character (that I really had my heart set on at the time). That you were disallowed because someone else was already playing something kinda like is even worse. I can understand the line of thinking that leads to a "two casters only" ruling but the circumstances were unfair to you because you didn't know about the restriction and others had already called dibs before you knew there were dibs to call.

Second, being "heavily encouraged" to randomize aspects of your character that you would normally expect to have control over is something that not everyone likes and that's perfectly valid. I'm one of those people who wants control over every single aspect of character creation unless I choose to randomize it. I've played in games where stat allocation was taken out of my hands, or class or abilities were determined randomly, and for me they just were not enjoyable. With my ability to create the character I wanted taken away from me, I was left with something I had no investment in playing.

I don't think you were being unreasonable at all. I think you could have worked within those restrictions and perhaps still had fun, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with choosing not to play, especially when confronted with "my way or the highway" instead of the DM being willing to work with you on finding something.

BWR
2014-08-05, 01:46 PM
I think walking away under these circumstance was perfectly reasonable. Certainly it wasn't a "there's no way I can play with this guy" situation, but in your shoes I would probably have done the same thing.

First, you had a character you wanted to play but weren't allowed. I've walked away from games for that reason alone, and with a less reasonable character (that I really had my heart set on at the time). T

I don't think you were being unreasonable at all. I think you could have worked within those restrictions and perhaps still had fun, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with choosing not to play, especially when confronted with "my way or the highway" instead of the DM being willing to work with you on finding something.

So you admit to indulging in 'my way or the highway' regarding your own characters, but criticize the DM for doing the same?

Velaryon
2014-08-05, 02:28 PM
So you admit to indulging in 'my way or the highway' regarding your own characters, but criticize the DM for doing the same?

In response to a DM that allows other, more powerful and potentially game-breaking characters without blinking an eye but disallows mine the instant I bring it up and won't even consider it, despite having no reason to think I'm a problem player? Yes. And that's exactly the situation in which I walked away from that I referred to. But since you tried to use that example to paint me as a hypocrite, I guess further explanation was warranted.

Or were you referring to the time I mentioned when everything was randomized even over my protestations because I wanted to have some control over what character I played? Because I actually did stay for that one and it was a terrible game from a DM who is normally pretty good, but the arbitrary and stupid rules he instituted that time resulted in almost no one playing characters they had any interest or investment in, so the game collapsed quickly.

To paraphrase a common sentiment I see expressed on these boards, better to have no game at all than one you don't enjoy playing in.

Knaight
2014-08-05, 03:13 PM
So you admit to indulging in 'my way or the highway' regarding your own characters, but criticize the DM for doing the same?

The player has exactly one major thing in the game - their character. The DM has basically everything. As such, I'd expect a lot more flexibility from the DM regarding making at least minor changes and trying to make things work*. Obviously there's a limit to this; a player trying to bring a Samus knockoff into D&D needs to switch characters pronto, but the situation is meaningfully different regarding how flexible things should be.

*I generally GM, and while there are generally setting elements that are very core to the setting or campaign and can't be changed, there are also generally peripheral things where I just don't care. For instance, I had a recent campaign (not D&D) where a player wanted to play a dragon. I didn't plan on having any dragons in the setting, but it's not like it conflicted with anything important, so I stuck some dragons in and called it a day.

Jay R
2014-08-05, 03:18 PM
Bad DM.
...
Neutral, lean bad DM.
...
Bad DM.

I think it's more accurate to say that the DM is playing a different sort of game than the game you prefer. That's not "bad", unless you mean to imply that there's only one "good" way to play. It's just a different taste.

Premier
2014-08-05, 05:44 PM
I can't say I "blame" the OP, or that he/she was "in the wrong", but it looks like there are quite a few people who here whose opinion is "You were 100% in the right to expect to play your character concept and to walk when you couldn't", and I'd like to ask you all a question:

Imagine you're going to a restaurant one evening. You don't know what sort fo restaurant it is, because a friend recommended it and you didn't want to waste time looking up its homepage or its menu. As it were, you suddenly get quite a hankering for bacon while you're on the way. You haven't had bacon in a while, and the mood suddenly struck you. "Hmmm, I'm gonna have some real nice bacon when we get there!" - you keep saying to yourself. Now, are you "in the right" to expect to be served steak when you get there?

And if you answered "Yes", then also answer this: what if it's a Kosher Jewish or Halal restaurant where they can't cook or eat pork for religious reasons? What if it's a vegetarian place? What if it's a restaurant famed for only having seafood? Are you still "fully in the right" expecting them to make serve you bacon nevertheless?

Because the way I see it, what happened here is 100% analogous that this scenario.

AMFV
2014-08-05, 06:17 PM
I can't say I "blame" the OP, or that he/she was "in the wrong", but it looks like there are quite a few people who here whose opinion is "You were 100% in the right to expect to play your character concept and to walk when you couldn't", and I'd like to ask you all a question:

Imagine you're going to a restaurant one evening. You don't know what sort fo restaurant it is, because a friend recommended it and you didn't want to waste time looking up its homepage or its menu. As it were, you suddenly get quite a hankering for bacon while you're on the way. You haven't had bacon in a while, and the mood suddenly struck you. "Hmmm, I'm gonna have some real nice bacon when we get there!" - you keep saying to yourself. Now, are you "in the right" to expect to be served steak when you get there?

And if you answered "Yes", then also answer this: what if it's a Kosher Jewish or Halal restaurant where they can't cook or eat pork for religious reasons? What if it's a vegetarian place? What if it's a restaurant famed for only having seafood? Are you still "fully in the right" expecting them to make serve you bacon nevertheless?

Because the way I see it, what happened here is 100% analogous that this scenario.

That is analogous, but your analogy has one glaring, and I mean glaring error. The OP didn't expect them to serve her (him?) Bacon, they left. For example if I go to a restaurant with my friend and it turns out to be a hot dog place, and I only eat Kosher, it isn't wrong for me to leave.

The issue the OP was having is that their friend felt bad about going back to the game and having fun, which is more difficult to fix, outside of reassuring your friend that you don't mind that they have different tastes there's not much you can do. But it's completely fine to not want to play in a game that doesn't suit your tastes.

Knaight
2014-08-05, 06:23 PM
And if you answered "Yes", then also answer this: what if it's a Kosher Jewish or Halal restaurant where they can't cook or eat pork for religious reasons? What if it's a vegetarian place? What if it's a restaurant famed for only having seafood? Are you still "fully in the right" expecting them to make serve you bacon nevertheless?

The game was explicitly Pathfinder. It's more like the person having a craving for meat going to a place that calls itself a steakhouse, only to find out that there are only seafood steaks.

Angelalex242
2014-08-05, 06:31 PM
I support the decision to walk. I'm actually fairly strict with what games I'll play in. If the point buy is too lean, or the dicerolling not to my tastes, I'll just get up and walk.

CombatOwl
2014-08-05, 06:56 PM
When we got together I found out that we could only roll for stats (and no rerolls) presumably to prevent minmaxing, that I couldn't play the class I wanted (Oracle) because there was a 2 caster limit on the party and those slots were filled (caster defined here as anything that gets above 4th level spells), and that rolling your backgrounds using the random background tables was "heavily encouraged" to prevent "special snowflake" characters. I was slightly miffed because the whole thing came off sort of like him saying "I don't trust my players not to **** the bed if I let them have any kind of choice about things." And I told him as much. Predictably I got the 'if you don't like it you don't have to play' response which was fair enough so I walked.

Only now my friend feels guilty about playing without me despite constant reassurances that no I'm ok with it really, if they're having fun that's great! But now I'm just wondering if I overreacted. How strict is a deal breaker for you guys generally?

I've seen worse. Way, way worse.

Hell, I've run worse! I've never actually imposed a limit on the number of casters though. If the party wants to roll up nothing but wizards, that's fine by me. They know in advance that I'm not giving them a fifteen minute adventuring day...

VoxRationis
2014-08-05, 08:47 PM
The player has exactly one major thing in the game - their character. The DM has basically everything. As such, I'd expect a lot more flexibility from the DM regarding making at least minor changes and trying to make things work*. Obviously there's a limit to this; a player trying to bring a Samus knockoff into D&D needs to switch characters pronto, but the situation is meaningfully different regarding how flexible things should be.

*I generally GM, and while there are generally setting elements that are very core to the setting or campaign and can't be changed, there are also generally peripheral things where I just don't care. For instance, I had a recent campaign (not D&D) where a player wanted to play a dragon. I didn't plan on having any dragons in the setting, but it's not like it conflicted with anything important, so I stuck some dragons in and called it a day.

That's about the opposite of the way I see it. The player only has one character. One set of numbers, a couple of hours' work or less. The DM has a huge amount of effort and backstory into their campaign setting, and to boot likely have a particular feel in mind for the tone of their adventure and setting. Bringing in something that doesn't fit the setting can throw that entirely off.

Jeff the Green
2014-08-05, 08:56 PM
Rolling stats: Ick, but not a deal-breaker.

No more than two casters: No. I don't get this. It sounds like something the DM could be talked down from, particularly if you point out the fact that he's guaranteeing two powerful characters and two mediocre ones.

Random backgrounds to prevent 'special snowflakes': Oh hell no! Why would anyone think this is a good idea for a game where players are supposed to identify with their characters and care about them.


That's about the opposite of the way I see it. The player only has one character. One set of numbers, a couple of hours' work or less. The DM has a huge amount of effort and backstory into their campaign setting, and to boot likely have a particular feel in mind for the tone of their adventure and setting. Bringing in something that doesn't fit the setting can throw that entirely off.

There are degrees of incompatibility, though. Like Knaight, my homebrew setting has no dragons, but unlike his that fact pretty central to one of the main religions. On the other hand, as written it has no Drow, but I'd be fine writing in a small group of subterranean elves. As a player, I find it reasonable for the DM to be inflexible on the first point, but not at all on the second.

Knaight
2014-08-05, 08:58 PM
That's about the opposite of the way I see it. The player only has one character. One set of numbers, a couple of hours' work or less. The DM has a huge amount of effort and backstory into their campaign setting, and to boot likely have a particular feel in mind for the tone of their adventure and setting. Bringing in something that doesn't fit the setting can throw that entirely off.

Sure, but what fits the setting is often fairly flexible - it depends on what the focus is. I've also found that where it's more restricted it also generally makes way more sense to have things upfront. I've run a game where the PCs were all a particular model of robot fresh off the assembly line - that was pretty much how the game was pitched, so there was no issue. If that sort of specificity is going to happen, it tends to be really obvious.

I'd also say that the whole concept of "their adventure" is a major red flag for me. A game where the GM makes an adventure and the players just have to follow it holds zero interest.

CombatOwl
2014-08-05, 09:01 PM
Rolling stats: Ick, but not a deal-breaker.

No more than two casters: No. I don't get this. It sounds like something the DM could be talked down from, particularly if you point out the fact that he's guaranteeing two powerful characters and two mediocre ones.

Random backgrounds to prevent 'special snowflakes': Oh hell no! Why would anyone think this is a good idea for a game where players are supposed to identify with their characters and care about them.



There are degrees of incompatibility, though. Like Knaight, my homebrew setting has no dragons, but unlike his that fact pretty central to one of the main religions. On the other hand, as written it has no Drow, but I'd be fine writing in a small group of subterranean elves. As a player, I find it reasonable for the DM to be inflexible on the first point, but not at all on the second.

My group often does random backgrounds because they enjoy the improv aspect.

kyoryu
2014-08-05, 09:42 PM
My group often does random backgrounds because they enjoy the improv aspect.

As I've said, the longest running game I've been a part of (which definitely encouraged being attached to your characters) had random *everything*.

It can work.

Slipperychicken
2014-08-05, 09:46 PM
I can hardly blame him for not wanting special snowflakes. I personally get tired after hearing the same "runaway noble kid" backstory rehashed in every campaign I've played. My best guess is that he'll probably be cool with your backstory as long as it isn't cheesy or overdone, your character isn't a complete Mary Sue, and you don't try to milk it for mechanical benefits (i.e. "I beg my royal parents for 100 grand", "I shouldn't have to roll Bluff checks because I spent my whole life lying to people", "Being a royal means that I should have a small army of bodyguards at all times", and so on).

Cikomyr
2014-08-05, 11:53 PM
I can hardly blame him for not wanting special snowflakes. I personally get tired after hearing the same "runaway noble kid" backstory rehashed in every campaign I've played. My best guess is that he'll probably be cool with your backstory as long as it isn't cheesy or overdone, your character isn't a complete Mary Sue, and you don't try to milk it for mechanical benefits (i.e. "I beg my royal parents for 100 grand", "I shouldn't have to roll Bluff checks because I spent my whole life lying to people", "Being a royal means that I should have a small army of bodyguards at all times", and so on).

Rolling for background, or even for classes, is something I love and I encourage my players to always do it. Why? because it helps them get out of their zone of comfort.

Rule number 1: We can make it work, mkay? Come on, player. I know you wanted to play a Magician and you rolled a Squire. How about you are an apprentice in the Templar Order of Verena (goddess of Knowledge), and we will describe how you have been sent to retrieve a certain grimoire.. and you may have gotten more out of that quest than you expected.

I prefer the story being about how you reach what you want to become, instead of automatically being handed the path of your choice in life.

- I beg my parents for 100 grands --> Oh.. All right. You put on hold your adventure and go to the family's home? do you bring your fine friends with you? Are you ready to put yourself vulnerable to the control of your parents?

- You spent your whole life lying? Where are your bluff skill points then? Maybe your parenst/family patronized you into thinking you are a good liar

- Sure, a small army of bodyguard. No problem. Obviously, THEY get all the experience, they will never allow you to go into harm's way as you are of royal blood. What, you think you can order them away? They obey the King, not you.. :smallamused:


I am the sort of GM that likes to "roll with it" when players have a great concept they managed to pull, but I then try to find strings to make them hesitate to abuse their good ideas. Kind of how, at character creation, you can somehow minmax your character with a flaw that gives you bonus; then imagine a special background circumstance might give you certain bonuses, but it also mean there are now strings attached. You will never get anything for free.

BWR
2014-08-06, 02:20 AM
The game was explicitly Pathfinder. It's more like the person having a craving for meat going to a place that calls itself a steakhouse, only to find out that there are only seafood steaks.

Oh come on! Every time a DM alters some rules or deviates from RAW it doesn't become an entirely different game.
In this case it's more like "sorry, the exact type of meat done the exact way you wanted isn't available right now, please try again later" or "just the stuff on the menu, please"

Frankly, I'm shocked at how petty so many people seem to be. Is playing exactly what you want in exactly the way you want so damn important that the DM should never try anything that might conflict with your vision? That they can't try to do something new without pissy players whining and saying 'screw you, I'm going home'? That playing one narrow, specific form of the game is more important that hanging out with friends? Is being told to change anything on the character tantamount to blasphemy?

huttj509
2014-08-06, 05:08 AM
Oh come on! Every time a DM alters some rules or deviates from RAW it doesn't become an entirely different game.
In this case it's more like "sorry, the exact type of meat done the exact way you wanted isn't available right now, please try again later" or "just the stuff on the menu, please"

Frankly, I'm shocked at how petty so many people seem to be. Is playing exactly what you want in exactly the way you want so damn important that the DM should never try anything that might conflict with your vision? That they can't try to do something new without pissy players whining and saying 'screw you, I'm going home'? That playing one narrow, specific form of the game is more important that hanging out with friends? Is being told to change anything on the character tantamount to blasphemy?

It's not what was changed, it's when and why. And for whom.

Oh, all that preparation you did? It's null and void because I'm changing stuff. And didn't tell you. But I told them. So they have dibs.

I haven't been in a campaign that had a "character creation session" since college, when getting together to make characters wasn't much more than "walk down to the living room, because we were living together." Scheduling's gotten difficult enough over the last 10 years that going into the first session completely unprepared would be thumbing my nose at my friends, unless it had been explicitly set up as such.

Different people, in different situations, have different expectations of what's meant to be communicated/done when. Communication nowadays is easier than ever. Put the players/gm on an e-mail list, type what you're expecting people to have at the first session (be it everything, nothing, or anywhere in between), maybe include a bit about the intended playstyle, and hit send. So much better than trying to call people to keep everyone in the loop.

I don't think the OP's GM is a horrible terribad person. I think most folks in this thread don't think that (though some do). I think he made a gaffe. I think the OP was understandably disappointed, and made a fair choice to step away instead of staying and sulking (I think we've all had moments of "in an hour it'll be fine, but right now I'm rather miffed").

OP was expecting X. It was actually Y. The unexpected change was a bit jarring.

Terraoblivion
2014-08-06, 06:45 AM
Ummm, one question...Why do so many people a priori assume that playing a noble is a bad thing, to the point where they don't even need to explain why? I mean, even sticking to D&D, it draws pretty heavily on source material where most or even all of the major characters are nobility and stories about dispossessed nobles or even royalty wanting to reclaim their lands and titles seems entirely in genre. And that's not even going into all the nobility that isn't and never was particularly rich. For that matter, what about the kin of successful merchants? They're wealthy and have a lot of clout too.

I'm not saying nobility would work in every game ever, I've been in games where everybody were peasants from the same village for example, but I fail to see why it's automatically or even usually a problem.

CombatOwl
2014-08-06, 07:18 AM
As I've said, the longest running game I've been a part of (which definitely encouraged being attached to your characters) had random *everything*.

It can work.

Heh. I remember doing a 2e Planescape game with 3d6 in-order stats. And in 2e that basically means random limits on what classes you can pick. That game was both hilarious and memorable. Good times. "But... but I got a 4 intelligence!" "Hey, play a fighter! It'll be fun!"


I can hardly blame him for not wanting special snowflakes. I personally get tired after hearing the same "runaway noble kid" backstory rehashed in every campaign I've played.

The last noble character I played was an obnoxious ass to pretty much everyone and threw money around on pointless frivolities like a small army of retainers and a troupe of bards to provide a personal theme song. Towards the end of the game he even had a dozen armed hirelings who did nothing but haul his mithral water clock around with the party--a reward for years of loyal and competent service. I paid for it all, in spades, because this was back in the days when prices were listed for every ****ing thing in the dungeon, and I would have my hirelings strip the place and sell everything once the party cleared it.

Aedilred
2014-08-06, 08:30 AM
Ummm, one question...Why do so many people a priori assume that playing a noble is a bad thing, to the point where they don't even need to explain why? I mean, even sticking to D&D, it draws pretty heavily on source material where most or even all of the major characters are nobility and stories about dispossessed nobles or even royalty wanting to reclaim their lands and titles seems entirely in genre. And that's not even going into all the nobility that isn't and never was particularly rich. For that matter, what about the kin of successful merchants? They're wealthy and have a lot of clout too.

I'm not saying nobility would work in every game ever, I've been in games where everybody were peasants from the same village for example, but I fail to see why it's automatically or even usually a problem.
I don't think people automatically assume it's a problem. I think the problems are: first, it happens so often that some GMs are tired of it; second, it's often done in quite a lazy and unimaginative manner without thought being put into what it would actually entail; third, players can try to leverage that background for shortcuts.

You can deal with some of this by building in restrictions of your own, of course, like Cikomyr suggests. I seem to remember somewhere in one of the WFRP games there was a requirement for noble characters to spend a minimum amount of money pretty much constantly in order to maintain their status and lifestyle.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with it in principle and it can be done very well. But it's also one of the more common and trite background choices, and it's often not done well, which I think was Slipperychicken's issue.

Cikomyr
2014-08-06, 09:03 AM
And now i have this idea for a in-universe business: a company that is ready sponsor adventurers for some help, but in exchange the adventurers have to point out the now-cleared manors, castles, etc that could be targeted for Furniture and Decoration Reclamation.

Terraoblivion
2014-08-06, 09:04 AM
Multiple people brought it up as a self-evident indicator of a special snowflake. Which, by your own words, it isn't. Yes, it's often used by people making special snowflakes, but lots of things are and many of them are it in a more consistent fashion, so I find it odd that nobility specifically gets brought up.

CombatOwl
2014-08-06, 09:10 AM
And now i have this idea for a in-universe business: a company that is ready sponsor adventurers for some help, but in exchange the adventurers have to point out the now-cleared manors, castles, etc that could be targeted for Furniture and Decoration Reclamation.

Dungeon Wars, a show where people bid for the right to take all the random furniture and decorations in cleared dungeons...

Cikomyr
2014-08-06, 10:02 AM
Dungeon Wars, a show where people bid for the right to take all the random furniture and decorations in cleared dungeons...

"Well, we know the previous owner was a Vampire, so its likely previous nobility and good antique tastes. However, his hordes of zombies that rampaged the countryside have probably destroyed the carpets. 10,000 gold bid!"

Segev
2014-08-06, 10:04 AM
Oh come on! Every time a DM alters some rules or deviates from RAW it doesn't become an entirely different game.
In this case it's more like "sorry, the exact type of meat done the exact way you wanted isn't available right now, please try again later" or "just the stuff on the menu, please"

Frankly, I'm shocked at how petty so many people seem to be. Is playing exactly what you want in exactly the way you want so damn important that the DM should never try anything that might conflict with your vision? That they can't try to do something new without pissy players whining and saying 'screw you, I'm going home'? That playing one narrow, specific form of the game is more important that hanging out with friends? Is being told to change anything on the character tantamount to blasphemy?

I'm not sure where you're getting this.

"I don't like Mexican, and didn't know we were going to a Mexican place. Sorry, guys; I'll catch you next time," is hardly unreasonable.

Could he try the mexican food? Sure. But it's not what he wants and he doesn't think he'll enjoy it. Rather than sitting there and risking his own and others' enjoyment, he left.

Note that nobody is faulting the GM for running a Mexican restaurant, either.

Jay R
2014-08-06, 10:12 AM
Imagine you're going to a restaurant one evening. You don't know what sort fo restaurant it is, because a friend recommended it and you didn't want to waste time looking up its homepage or its menu. As it were, you suddenly get quite a hankering for bacon while you're on the way. You haven't had bacon in a while, and the mood suddenly struck you. "Hmmm, I'm gonna have some real nice bacon when we get there!" - you keep saying to yourself. Now, are you "in the right" to expect to be served steak when you get there?

No, but if I've decided I want bacon for dinner, I am certainly in the right to leave a restaurant that doesn't serve it.


And if you answered "Yes", then also answer this: what if it's a Kosher Jewish or Halal restaurant where they can't cook or eat pork for religious reasons? What if it's a vegetarian place? What if it's a restaurant famed for only having seafood? Are you still "fully in the right" expecting them to make serve you bacon nevertheless?

Your analogy has stopped being analogous. They had just served two other people bacon; they just had a policy that they would only feed two people bacon at the table, and two others had already ordered it. [Note: they weren't out of bacon. According to the analogous situation, it was a policy decision.].

In any event, in all such places, I will buy a meal if they have a meal I'm willing to buy, and I will not buy a meal l if they don't have a meal I'm willing to buy. It's that simple.


Because the way I see it, what happened here is 100% analogous that this scenario.

Absolutely not. What happened here is *not* analogous to demanding bacon; it's analogous to leaving the restaurant and buying bacon elsewhere.

Also, you left the following out of the analogy, which I'm making as close as possible to the OP's original description: I was slightly miffed because the whole thing came off sort of like the restaurant saying "I don't trust my diners not to **** the bed if I let them have any kind of choice about food."

As I said before:

If you can have fun playing a non-caster, then play a non-caster and have fun.

If you cannot have fun playing a non-caster, then this game isn't for you. Go do something else.

It's that simple.

CombatOwl
2014-08-06, 10:25 AM
"Well, we know the previous owner was a Vampire, so its likely previous nobility and good antique tastes. However, his hordes of zombies that rampaged the countryside have probably destroyed the carpets. 10,000 gold bid!"

"Unfortunately the team that cleared it had a Barbarian, so we can also expect significant damage to the walls and books."

Knaight
2014-08-06, 03:46 PM
Oh come on! Every time a DM alters some rules or deviates from RAW it doesn't become an entirely different game.
In this case it's more like "sorry, the exact type of meat done the exact way you wanted isn't available right now, please try again later" or "just the stuff on the menu, please"

Frankly, I'm shocked at how petty so many people seem to be. Is playing exactly what you want in exactly the way you want so damn important that the DM should never try anything that might conflict with your vision? That they can't try to do something new without pissy players whining and saying 'screw you, I'm going home'? That playing one narrow, specific form of the game is more important that hanging out with friends? Is being told to change anything on the character tantamount to blasphemy?

Way to stuff words in our mouths. The issue isn't that the DM altered things. I'm entirely fine with the DM altering things. The issue is that the DM's communication is terrible. I mean, he apparently didn't even tell the OP that they were doing a character creation session and not to bring a pre-made character. Then, he let the two people he knew better have first dibs to block the character. Then, he demanded that characters be randomized, on the basis of "I don't trust you lot to make characters".

That's a clear sign that the GM sees the game as his game to which the players are observers, and not the game of the group as a whole. That's not something I've ever seen end well.

As for your "hanging out with friends" bit, read the OP again. These aren't friends, they're acquaintances who happen to have a shared hobby. It's a group of near strangers that happen to have friends who've vouched for each other, who are forming explicitly to game. Under those circumstances, being picky makes sense. Leaving after a bunch of obvious signs of GM favoritism and impending railroading isn't even being picky.

mig el pig
2014-08-06, 04:46 PM
I'm not against restrictions per se. I've even imposed some myself when I DM but I do explain before starting the campaign.
When Iron Kingdoms just came I out I ran a 4 session demo for some people. Even before we all got together I told I was running a wilderness campaign for a special operations party. I asked not to make a crafter like alchemist or arcane mechanick because I didn't want to burden my players and I with the crafting rules and elves because they did not fit the setting for the mini-campaign. Still, if one of those players had a good suggestion why they wanted to do either I would probably have allowed it. Because in the end, as a DM you can make a lot of things work.

cougon
2014-08-06, 09:24 PM
The issue is that the DM's communication is terrible. I mean, he apparently didn't even tell the OP that they were doing a character creation session and not to bring a pre-made character. Then, he let the two people he knew better have first dibs to block the character. Then, he demanded that characters be randomized, on the basis of "I don't trust you lot to make characters".

That's a clear sign that the GM sees the game as his game to which the players are observers, and not the game of the group as a whole. That's not something I've ever seen end well.

As for your "hanging out with friends" bit, read the OP again. These aren't friends, they're acquaintances who happen to have a shared hobby. It's a group of near strangers that happen to have friends who've vouched for each other, who are forming explicitly to game. Under those circumstances, being picky makes sense. Leaving after a bunch of obvious signs of GM favoritism and impending railroading isn't even being picky.

Read the original post again. He knew it was going to be a character creation session. He came up with his idea and figured out what it would take to pull it off ahead of time. He didn't actually take the final step of creating the character. It also sounds like he heard about the game through the friend and didn't talk to the DM ahead of time since he was planning to ask questions about character creation during the character creation session. When he arrived at that session, the DM told him what the character creation rules for that campaign would be. The OP doesn't specify how much after the other players got there that he arrived. It's entirely possible that the first two people to arrive said they wanted to play casters. There's no indication from the original post that the players had spoken to the DM about this prior to the character creation session.

As for not having a discussion or debate about his reasons for disallowing something, I can understand where the DM is coming from. He has a new player show up that he's never even talked to before, and that player wants to do something that has already been stated is outside the restrictions set for character creation. Even if the two caster limit had been set only a few minutes prior (we don't know how soon those roles were taken since the OP doesn't tell us), those roles had been taken by the time the OP spoke up. As a DM, I've had conversations with players regarding stuff that I'm not allowing that session, and it almost always turns into a very lengthy discussion. In that discussion, the players are almost always trying to beg or otherwise persuade me to change my mind in order to play something that for one reason or another doesn't fit the setting. Since the DM doesn't know the person and likely has had similar arguments, then his response is completely justified to me. Rather than bargain with the player, he simply says that the restrictions are in place and if the player doesn't want to work within those restrictions then he doesn't have to play.

Kaun
2014-08-06, 09:56 PM
His restrictions are well into the strict side of things but you didn't even give the game a chance.

From what i can tell, before you turned up all you actually knew about the game was that it was Pathfinder. The game was still Pathfinder when you left.

Personally i think you should have given it a try. Work with in the restrictions, try to build something which you can enjoy.

To quote Mordin Solus; "Working with limited facilities presents challenge."

If after a session or two your weren't enjoying it then bow out or have a chat with the GM.



Re the special snowflake chat;

PC's should be special snowflakes, but often what the GM thinks qualifies as special and what some players do are light years apart.

I love an interesting PC in my game but some of the stuff that gets suggested to me is annoying.

Things like;
GM: "hey guys i want to run a game where all the PC's are Vikings, heading out on their first voyage! do you want to play?"
Players: "YEAH!"
GM: "cool lets come up with some character!"
Player 1: "I want to be a Samurai who visited the Vikings home and befriended them and is now coming on their journey!"
GM: "...."
Player 1: "I have a back story to justify it! plus i love Katanas!"

and next thing you know your party of Vikings has only one Viking in it.

And i don't think you can use a good back story to justify any character... thats the thing about back stories, they are fiction and can be used to justify bloody anything!

Make a character that is a special snowflake within the parameters of the game. Make your viking by freakishly tall with a silver white mane of hair. Or character has a strange tattoo that appeared on their body and glows in the presence of daemons.

If your character is so special it becomes jarring to the theme of the game, your special is now bad.

WarKitty
2014-08-07, 05:02 AM
Honestly I think what's the case is what's been said before - this happens. Not everyone wants to play every game, and that's fine.

Personally, I hate rolling for stats. Well I hate rolling for individual stats, because I don't like the risk of coming out significantly more or less powerful than the guy next to me who does the exact same thing.

Random backgrounds could be interesting.

No casters would be an absolute dealbreaker unless I was convinced there would be a LOT of non-combat stuff, much more than most D&D games have. I detest any playstyle that makes me use a weapon as my primary thing. Just a personal matter.

Premier
2014-08-07, 10:28 AM
Your analogy has stopped being analogous. They had just served two other people bacon; they just had a policy that they would only feed two people bacon at the table, and two others had already ordered it. [Note: they weren't out of bacon. According to the analogous situation, it was a policy decision.].

You've been misunderstanding the analogy all along. "Bacon" is not "a spellcaster PC". "Bacon" is "I am entitled to play whatever character concept I've come up with before I even learned about the house rules or the general style of the campaign that's being played here". That's the equivalent of "bacon". Now please go and read the analogy again with that in mind.

Cikomyr
2014-08-07, 10:57 AM
I like bacon

Segev
2014-08-07, 11:19 AM
You've been misunderstanding the analogy all along. "Bacon" is not "a spellcaster PC". "Bacon" is "I am entitled to play whatever character concept I've come up with before I even learned about the house rules or the general style of the campaign that's being played here". That's the equivalent of "bacon". Now please go and read the analogy again with that in mind.

He went to a sandwich shop with an idea in mind of what kind of sandwich he wanted. He may have expected something like Subway, where you custom-construct the sandwich ingredient-by-ingredient, and he probably would have been okay with a place like Schlotzkey's, with identified sandwiches but the ability to choose features to include or exclude from it. What he found was Jimmy John's, which hands you a fixed list of sandwiches exactly as-is. He didn't want what was offered on that fixed list, so he left. He didn't stand there and demand that Jimmy John's change its policy or its sandwiches.

Your efforts to paint him as somehow a bad or immature person for not wanting to play a randomized background in a class in which he wasn't interested in playing are ... weird, to me. Why must he be a bad person for not liking the game that was offered when he found out what it was, and choosing to leave rather than frustrate himself or the other players or the GM with his discontent?

Guizonde
2014-08-07, 11:22 AM
my dnd dm wanted to do a quick session away from our main campaign and told us: 3 man band near this area. i was looking forward to bring out my own "special snowflake" character (insomuch as that character became a special snowflake due to the dm having a twisted mind: lvl4 amnesic TN halfling necropolitan ranger hell-bent on revenge, fyi). i scrapped the idea when he told me that it was lvl1, so i thought about making a gnome engineer (or equivalent... i prefer to give my characters a career and look at classes later) he told me that he'd already drawn up a character for me because he was afraid i was gonna make a lethal joke character as usual. i was pissed off because he gave me a dwarf wizard (and i do not like wizards). we did the session, and it went fine.

this is what i consider too strict, and despite the dm apologizing for giving me that character, i found the experience interesting since it forced me out of my comfort zone. i would not recommend this to less close-knit bands of roleplayers however. it requires a level of trust you cannot find in simple acquaintances.

(and he'll ready a campaign so my necropolitan halfling can have her glorious death, but that's another can of worms for now)

Demons_eye
2014-08-07, 05:18 PM
His restrictions are well into the strict side of things but you didn't even give the game a chance.

From what i can tell, before you turned up all you actually knew about the game was that it was Pathfinder. The game was still Pathfinder when you left.

Personally i think you should have given it a try. Work with in the restrictions, try to build something which you can enjoy.

To quote Mordin Solus; "Working with limited facilities presents challenge."

If after a session or two your weren't enjoying it then bow out or have a chat with the GM.


But its not only about playing the class you want. Its playing the character you want. If you are forced to play a sailor or nobleman's offspring because of a roll of the dice that's not fun. They told the DM what they thought of not trusting the players and the response was ''if you don't like it you don't have to play." This doesn't seem to me a good start.

Even if Raine stayed I am lead to believe that a chat with them would do no good.


Your efforts to paint him as somehow a bad or immature person for not wanting to play a randomized background in a class in which he wasn't interested in playing are ... weird, to me. Why must he be a bad person for not liking the game that was offered when he found out what it was, and choosing to leave rather than frustrate himself or the other players or the GM with his discontent?

This

Kaun
2014-08-07, 05:25 PM
If you are forced to play a sailor or nobleman's offspring because of a roll of the dice that's not fun.

See this is the statement i don't get. Why is it not fun?

kyoryu
2014-08-07, 05:34 PM
See this is the statement i don't get. Why is it not fun?

It's not fun to them. Presumably, creating "their" character is a big part of their enjoyment.

I'd probably think it's perfectly okay.

Some people juggle geese.

Terraoblivion
2014-08-07, 05:42 PM
Also, the reasoning given for the random backgrounds is kinda awful. It was explicitly not for the challenge or because there was a fun random background table the GM wanted to check out, but because he didn't trust the players. That's really the big thing here. Outright stating that you don't trust your players is hardly a welcoming gesture to a newcomer, nor in any way a nice or polite way to treat others in general.

AMFV
2014-08-07, 05:48 PM
Also, the reasoning given for the random backgrounds is kinda awful. It was explicitly not for the challenge or because there was a fun random background table the GM wanted to check out, but because he didn't trust the players. That's really the big thing here. Outright stating that you don't trust your players is hardly a welcoming gesture to a newcomer, nor in any way a nice or polite way to treat others in general.

Well some people don't trust other people... And not trusting strangers to behave isn't exactly impolite, not politic certainly, but not really impolite. Maybe the DM has had specific bad experiences potentially with people in this group (excluding our OP), we don't know. We don't know enough about the group to say if it was a good call or a bad call. And we don't have the DM's reasoning, we have somebody's description of how they described their reasoning, so there could be a lot more there than we see.

Kaun
2014-08-07, 05:55 PM
Jeez i have plenty of players i don't trust... generally with good reason.:smallwink:

The GM in question may lack tact, that seems evident.

But honestly the situation still seems like.

GM was offering X
Player wanted Y
Player told GM he didn't like X and wanted Y
GM told player that they were playing X
Player decided not to play.

Was the GM being too strict? well he was for the OP evidently.
Was the player doing something wrong?. no
Was the GM doing something wrong?. no

fin.

EDIT: I realized i have yet to answer the original questions.

As long as i can find an element to interest me in the game and i have the time to play i will give it a go. I have stepped out of a few games 1 or two sessions in because they weren't for me. I have turned down game offers because they were using a system i didn't wish to play (most recently a Pathfinder game, because im just DnD'd out.) While i don't like using pre-made characters i will generally not turn down a game because it is going to involve them.

kyoryu
2014-08-07, 05:57 PM
Also, the reasoning given for the random backgrounds is kinda awful. It was explicitly not for the challenge or because there was a fun random background table the GM wanted to check out, but because he didn't trust the players. That's really the big thing here. Outright stating that you don't trust your players is hardly a welcoming gesture to a newcomer, nor in any way a nice or polite way to treat others in general.

We don't know what was actually said. Given what we were told:


and that rolling your backgrounds using the random background tables was "heavily encouraged" to prevent "special snowflake" characters.

I could see this being anywhere from "yeah, I usually like it if you roll your background randomly, since I've had a few people do completely bizarre stuff in the past, and random backgrounds keeps everyone on the same page" to "You'll roll random backgrounds, because I hate special snowflake characters. I'll determine what you're allowed to play, and I don't care if you think differently."

At any rate, it's not a game the OP wants to play, so they shouldn't. Seems simple enough, and I really don't think there's reason (or evidence) enough to say that either the GM or the OP are bad, just that they like different things in their gaming.

Terraoblivion
2014-08-07, 06:53 PM
There really isn't anyway to say that randomness is to prevent special snowflakes without it saying that you don't trust the players. It is explicitly saying that players can't be trusted to make good characters and that rather than give them the benefit of the doubt and say no if things get stupid, he'd rather just not give them the opportunity. There just isn't any way around that and if it is due to specific people, then don't play with said people rather than cast suspicion on everybody.

Sartharina
2014-08-07, 08:27 PM
Something I've found about Randomly-generated backgrounds vs. Player-chosen backgrounds. The former surprisingly work better for long-term games than the latter. You grow into a randomly-generated character. No, you don't care about them at first, but as they adventure and succeed, you grow a stronger attachment to them. Meanwhile, a player-chosen background has a tendency to burn the player out if the game doesn't go in the way they thought it would, or if they lose their passion for the idea they thought up.

Frankly - "Only two casters" is awkward, but I wouldn't hesitate to have the party have to fill specific roles. Having "Only two Casters", though, does put more power, but also more responsibility, in the hands of those casters (But only Full casters should count against that two-caster limit).

Kaun
2014-08-07, 08:27 PM
There really isn't anyway to say that randomness is to prevent special snowflakes without it saying that you don't trust the players. It is explicitly saying that players can't be trusted to make good characters and that rather than give them the benefit of the doubt and say no if things get stupid, he'd rather just not give them the opportunity. There just isn't any way around that and if it is due to specific people, then don't play with said people rather than cast suspicion on everybody.

Well firstly it means that no one is singled out. And from the OP it was only highly recommended rather then enforced.

This would be an entirely different conversation if the OP had started by saying; "The GM ok'd every bodies character except mine! are they being to strict!"

Secondly "don't play with said people" is a little on the rough side especially when we are talking about overly creative character backgrounds isn't it?

Mr Beer
2014-08-07, 10:00 PM
Player doesn't like the stated game setup, player leaves, sounds like the system works to me.

I'd play the game myself, sounds a bit restrictive but not a dealbreaker considering some of the BS DMs get to experience over any significant period of gaming. Of course, maybe the DM was super douchey about it, I don't know, in which case I might pass.

Terraoblivion
2014-08-07, 10:05 PM
We're not just talking overly creative, Kaun. We're talking overly creative to the point of being disruptive and an unwillingness to adapt when told it's unfitting. Unless the GM is just very touchy. The former certainly suggests people you shouldn't game with, it suggests a rather high degree of self-centeredness to insist on a background that's disruptive, while the latter doesn't speak well of the GM.

Demons_eye
2014-08-08, 07:03 AM
See this is the statement i don't get. Why is it not fun?

Because I don't know how to be a sailor, or maybe I don't want to explain how my fighter sailor doesn't have ranks in swim. Or maybe how a sailor became a mage or something else. I'd rather have creative control over my background to make it better than to randomly roll stuff.

I just checked out the background generator; Controls who your family is, where you live, how well off to do you are, events in childhood, influences, and relationships. To top it off I am now a slave, kidnapped, started a humiliating conflict over love but my relationship status is "No Experience
You have never experienced any kind of romantic connection whatsoever"

Not only do I not like playing characters with romance in their lives but I hate playing slaves and last the conflict part seems pointless to me. Conflict isn't always needed in backgrounds. Also I have to fight injustice with this, which I might not care for one way or another if there is injustice.

Can it be fun? Yes. Would I personally do it? Yes. Would a lot of people do it? Probably. Doesn't mean its for everyone and you can't blame people that don't find it fun.


Well firstly it means that no one is singled out. And from the OP it was only highly recommended rather then enforced.

Its the reason that it was made in the first place that's the problem, not the 'suggestion' itself. Also I don't know about you but in my life anytime an authority figure said highly suggested/recommended they were either being A. helpful or B. some what politely telling you to do something.

Because there was not explanation behind why the 'suggestion' is in effect, even in defense when the OP told the DM why they thought it was, leads me to believe that its more of a B. than an A.

Jay R
2014-08-08, 07:15 AM
You've been misunderstanding the analogy all along. "Bacon" is not "a spellcaster PC". "Bacon" is "I am entitled to play whatever character concept I've come up with before I even learned about the house rules or the general style of the campaign that's being played here". That's the equivalent of "bacon". Now please go and read the analogy again with that in mind.

Done. Now, with the new definition,

A. Other people got to play the class they wanted to, and that's why I don't.

and

B. If I've decided I want bacon for dinner, I am still in the right to leave a restaurant that doesn't serve it.


See this is the statement i don't get. Why is it not fun?

It doesn't matter. Some people don't have fun playing D&D at all. They don't have to play it. Some people don't have fun watching football. They don't have to watch it.

And if somebody won't have fun playing with a randomly rolled background, then she doesn't have to play.

As I've said before, if you can have fun in this game, sit down and have fun.

If you won't have fun in this game, go do something else instead.

And it doesn't matter why you won't have fun. It's a fact to observe and base decisions on, not a theory to be critiqued.

Cikomyr
2014-08-08, 08:06 AM
Stop talking about bacon, it gives me a hankering!!!

Jarawara
2014-08-08, 10:46 AM
You guys are missing a key element in the restaurant analogy:

You are invited by some new acquantainces to go to a restaurant. You want bacon. It's a fishhouse. You're alergic to fish, and you're not fond of fries. They have good coleslaw though. You're up for dinner, as fries and coleslaw will tied you over while you visit with these new guys.

And then your friends say they are going to meet here every week for the next 2-3 years! Every week, bad fries and a small dish of coleslaw. Just so you can visit with a group of people you had only recently met.

Is putting up with bad fries and a hungry belly worth it just to get some good coleslaw? For 2+ years?

And of course, if you know you're going to tire of coleslaw and are going to bail... why not do it now, instead of after the group had come to rely on your fighting techniques when engaging the Koa-Toa that this particular restaurant has on its menu?

OP was right to bail. If he knows he's going to be unhappy, best to bail now than break up a group mid-campaign.

Premier
2014-08-08, 11:32 AM
Your efforts to paint him as somehow a bad or immature person for not wanting to play a randomized background in a class in which he wasn't interested in playing are ... Weird, to me. Why must he be a bad person for not liking the game that was offered when he found out what it was, and choosing to leave rather than frustrate himself or the other players or the GM with his discontent?

I was not doing that. I did not try to paint the OP as a bad or immature person for that. This is how I started my first relevant post:


I can't say I "blame" the OP, or that he/she was "in the wrong", but it looks like there are quite a few people who here whose opinion is "You were 100% in the right to expect to play your character concept and to walk when you couldn't", and I'd like to ask you all a question:

I have explicitly said that I don't think the OP was in the wrong, but rather I'm picking a bone with those posters who assume that always expecting to play whatever you came up with beforehand is some sort of absolute right and that DM's who don't allow that are automatically bad or tyrannical. That's the assumptions I've been arguing against.

Coidzor
2014-08-09, 09:36 PM
I can't say I "blame" the OP, or that he/she was "in the wrong", but it looks like there are quite a few people who here whose opinion is "You were 100% in the right to expect to play your character concept and to walk when you couldn't", and I'd like to ask you all a question:

I think your use of quotations to try to distance yourself from expressing disapproval of the OP as an individual has backfired here.


Imagine you're going to a restaurant one evening. You don't know what sort fo restaurant it is, because a friend recommended it and you didn't want to waste time looking up its homepage or its menu.

Are you kidding me? What kind of friend recommends a restaurant and says nothing of what kind of restaurant it is? Why would you not ask "oh, what sort of place is it?" if you were going to bother remembering the name of the place if they didn't tell you as part of the initial statement? I know I would ask. So why wouldn't you?

And you clearly wouldn't, else you wouldn't include not asking as part of your premise... :smallconfused:


As it were, you suddenly get quite a hankering for bacon while you're on the way. You haven't had bacon in a while, and the mood suddenly struck you. "Hmmm, I'm gonna have some real nice bacon when we get there!" - you keep saying to yourself. Now, are you "in the right" to expect to be served steak when you get there?

You commonly eat bacon-wrapped steak then, that you automatically think of steak as bacon-wrapped? Else, what's with this strange bacon > steak connection? :smallconfused:

Or did at some point bacon transmute into steak? :smallconfused:


And if you answered "Yes", then also answer this: what if it's a Kosher Jewish or Halal restaurant where they can't cook or eat pork for religious reasons?

Well, I'd explain to them that steak isn't actually from a pig unless it's hamsteak. :smallconfused: Then ask why we were having this conversation since I would most likely be able to order something made out of beef and analogous to steak.


What if it's a vegetarian place?

I'd hunt down my friend for their betrayal in trying to get me to go to a Vegetarian place without warning. Wouldn't anyone? :smallconfused:


What if it's a restaurant famed for only having seafood?

A seafood place without surf-and-turf? That's just weird. Unless I took a wrong turn and ended up some place like... Japan or something...


Are you still "fully in the right" expecting them to make serve you bacon nevertheless?

Are they fully in the right expecting me to want to eat their food if I don't like it?


Because the way I see it, what happened here is 100% analogous that this scenario.

Then... you either need to double check the scenario or your understanding of analogous because one night at a restaurant that was misrepresented to you is quite different from making a regular commitment to a game when the DM's a jerk to you as a person even before you're a player. :smallconfused:


I think it's more accurate to say that the DM is playing a different sort of game than the game you prefer. That's not "bad", unless you mean to imply that there's only one "good" way to play. It's just a different taste.

No, there can be bad DMs even without there being one true playstyle.

kyoryu
2014-08-10, 07:11 PM
No, there can be bad DMs even without there being one true playstyle.

Yes, but I find it's generally more useful to look for misunderstandings/differences in perceptions first before putting people into the "bad" category.

And I think this case *likely* qualifies.

Coidzor
2014-08-10, 07:21 PM
Yes, but I find it's generally more useful to look for misunderstandings/differences in perceptions first before putting people into the "bad" category.

And I think this case *likely* qualifies.

To some degree or another, sure. But, then, I've already considered things and it smells largely like a load of tripe or that doesn't quite apply due to the contexts being different.

Certainly didn't do himself any favors though.

Premier
2014-08-11, 08:27 AM
I think your use of quotations to try to distance yourself from expressing disapproval of the OP as an individual has backfired here.

Whatever. Are you going to actually address my point about how people (not the OP) who believe that a player has an absolute entitlement to always play whatever character he wants and that a DM is categorically in the wrong for putting limitations on character creation are wrong? Because I think it was quite clear that that was the point of my post.



Are you kidding me? What kind of friend recommends a restaurant and says nothing of what kind of restaurant it is? Why would you not ask "oh, what sort of place is it?" if you were going to bother remembering the name of the place if they didn't tell you as part of the initial statement? I know I would ask. So why wouldn't you?

It's a hypothetical example, and I think the fact that you're splitting hairs* about it rather than engaging with the actual point I made re. player entitlement is proof that you're not arguing in good faith here, so once I finish this post I'll ignore your further comments unless they're actually about the point.

* Because seriously, this is like someone telling you Plato's Allegory of the Cave, and your reaction being "But what idiot lets himself get tied up in a cave, and what do they eat, anyway?"



You commonly eat bacon-wrapped steak then, that you automatically think of steak as bacon-wrapped? Else, what's with this strange bacon > steak connection? :smallconfused:

Or did at some point bacon transmute into steak? :smallconfused:

*SNIP several paragraphs about restaurants*


It was faulty editing, and the beef should have been bacon. Thanks for more hairsplitting.

Segev
2014-08-11, 10:40 AM
Whatever. Are you going to actually address my point about how people (not the OP) who believe that a player has an absolute entitlement to always play whatever character he wants and that a DM is categorically in the wrong for putting limitations on character creation are wrong? Because I think it was quite clear that that was the point of my post.

I don't think people are arguing this. It is a straw man. Such are usually employed to discredit people by saying "see how ridiculous this obviously ridiculous position is?" and then conflating that with what others ACTUALLY were saying.

Since your question was raised with a hostile tone against those who agree that the OP did the right thing - regardless of your distancing language - people reacted to the hostility and the straw man as if it were an attack on the right of a player to choose to leave.

Using your restaurant analogy, are you claiming that people who leave upon realizing the restaurant does not serve what they want to eat are doing something wrong?

Because that's what happened here: the OP discovered that this game was not for him, so he left rather than join it.

I don't think the people disputing with you support the idea that the DM somehow should be forced to change his rules for the hypothetical player-who-is-not-the-OP-but-wants-to-play-what-the-OP-wanted-to-play who doesn't leave but instead insists things change to suit him.

I know my response to that hypothetical person would be: find a different game.

Raine_Sage
2014-08-12, 01:50 PM
Huh I did not expect this to get as many replies as it did. I do thank you all for your input it's been very helpful. Not for this particular game which my friend has now left for reasons I'll get to in a moment, but for the future certainly.

Some clarifications for anyone still interested.

- While I'm not "friends" persay with this DM we do know each other, not besties, not enemies, just sort of "Oh yeah that guy they're pretty cool I guess" and I did know most of the other people playing so it wasn't me going in completely blind. It was less DM kept me in the dark and more DM gave us kind of patchy updates on what to expect, and a lot of rules were only introduced once we got there.

- Not being able to play an Oracle was basically the result of the others getting there first. I got held up in traffic and, while I would have preferred they wait before deciding who got those two slots, I understand that waiting on late players can be boring for everyone especially if you don't know how late they're going to be. I wasn't too salty about this, it happens.

- An example of a background that got vetoed when it was brought up. "A strix Cavalier who lost his wings and now gets around on the back of a magnificent elk as a means of overcoming his lack of flight." Vetoed because apparently the DM just didn't like Strix as a player race for some reason. Not that they didn't exist in his world, just didn't like players playing them. All non-human appearing races were then banned shortly after (so elves and dwarves were ok, anything that looked otherworldly in an obvious way was not). When the player then tried to rework his character to fit by asking if he could have lost a leg or something, this was also vetoed as "unrealistic" because...reasons? This is what I meant by "heavily encouraged" because I'm pretty sure if he'd rolled the same thing on a table it wouldn't have been declined. I was much saltier about this and it wasn't even my character.

- My friend later walked because it turns out the GM just kills characters he thinks are behaving stupidly. Not in a "you did a stupid thing here are the consequences" sort of way but in a literal "your character has a heart attack, roll a new one" sort of way. So yeah dodged a bullet on that one.