PDA

View Full Version : Is it okay to ask for a new character for RP reasons?



Feddlefew
2014-12-23, 09:01 AM
I'll start by saying this is probably my fault because I picked a weird-ish back story and I had only a day's worth of prep time.

I was the new person in the group, although I know about half of the players from a previous gaming groups. The campaign was based off of a previous one, which everyone else in the group had been in.

The only things I knew about the campaign world was the following:
-Magic is low to mid.
-1000 years had passed since the last game, which had been about dragons and a war.
-The dragons had disappeared, and with them, most of the world's arcane magic.
-The campaign would be using a corruption/sanity system.
-The map and geography borrowed heavily from the Elderscrolls series.

They needed a cleric, so after a quick discussion with the DM about godless clerics (he said no) I made a human cleric of Farl who was from way down south, so that when I could ask for clarification on things everyone else knew in-character. So the DM said it was okay, and told me that the south was a tropical rainforest, with a desert much farther south than from the area my character comes from.

The campaign starts with everyone arriving, alone, in a small town out in the middle of nowhere. I'm creating a back story on the fly and improvising the entire session, so I needed to come up with a few things:
-How does my character react to a graveyard if she's from a culture where people cremate there dead?
-How does she feel about the weather?
-Why was a newly minted cleric traveling in a foreign land alone?
-How does she react to not being recognized as a noble-equivalent?

Now, I started playing my character as a little ax (or hammer, in this case) crazy when push came to shove, because at this point I'm thinking I'm going to uses Mayan and Aztec culture as my basis for this character's civilization. We wrap up, everyone in the party is getting a feel for each other's characters, I give the DM my contact information, we discuss the sanity system since two characters have earned/lost sanity points, including mine...

Then the next session, my DM informs me that my character is egyptian without consulting me. At all. Things start going down hill from here.

Now, three sessions in, I really, really hate my character despite the build being fun to play.
Problems:
- I am being told I am acting "Out of character" when I don't RP an egyptian noble woman. I did not plan on my character being an egyptian noble woman, rather an Aztec/Mayan priestess all the moral dissonance that would go with it (minus the human sacrifices).
-- The "you need to tone down the crazy" is also getting to me, since (from my perspective) what I'm doing is normal for what I pictured my character's home culture, just morally dissonant.
-DM keeps correcting me about my character's home culture, despite not really telling me much about it other than "EGYPT" and forcing me to guess, the most egregious of which has been telling me that my character does not know what an abacus is.
-- Also being constantly told that my character is superstitious and scientifically uneducated compared to everyone else doesn't help.

So, in short, despite getting along fine with the party and having interesting interactions, I don't feel comfortable RPing my own character because it's not really MY character at this point. I just don't want to play as them anymore. I haven't actually talked to the DM about this- I need to get my DM's contact information from a friend this week, because we've been having a hard time getting a hold of him and I never managed to get it from him during the game.

Yora
2014-12-23, 09:03 AM
If a character isn't fun, it isn't fun. Usually there is no problem with having a PC leave and another one taking the spot, as long as it doesn't interfere with the other characters in the campaign.

Feddlefew
2014-12-23, 09:21 AM
I forgot to mention that the DM has a "You can only play as each race, class, and aliment ONCE" rule for this campaign to prevent people from just replacing characters if they die. :smallredface:

The party is 3 meat shields (one of which is a monk), a ranger, and a bard without my character. Right now the only reason I haven't abandoned the character is that we desperately need the cleric utility spells and buffs, and healing to round out the party. No wizards, sorcerers, or warlocks allowed.

I'm thinking creating a gnomish Cloistered Cleric of Baccob and seeing if I can get that through.

Kalmageddon
2014-12-23, 09:45 AM
Changing character shouldn't be a big deal, considering how badly things turned out. Be open about it, the DM might learn a thing or two about providing timely setting details to his players.

On that note, if you make a new character ask the DM to provide written details on his slice of the setting. You wouldn't want to find out that Gnomes reproduce like parasites wasps after the first few sessions.

Gavran
2014-12-23, 10:57 AM
Changing character shouldn't be a big deal, considering how badly things turned out. Be open about it, the DM might learn a thing or two about providing timely setting details to his players.

On that note, if you make a new character ask the DM to provide written details on his slice of the setting. You wouldn't want to find out that Gnomes reproduce like parasites wasps after the first few sessions.

Well, I would... I've never had a reason to like gnomes before.

But I'd say it's perfectly okay. I think an argument could be made for sticking with a character to give it a chance sometimes, but this doesn't sound like that sort of situation at all. Having to play a character you're not enjoying is way more harmful to immersion and fun than whatever suspension of disbelief might be required to justify your new character.

Red Fel
2014-12-23, 11:08 AM
First step, in my mind, is to talk to the DM. Explain to him your frustration - that you thought you understood your character's background, and that when he tells you otherwise, it confuses you. Ask him to clarify what he expects you to know, because - point this out, it may mollify him - clearly you don't. Also, explain that you don't appreciate being told how your character works - it is, as you've noted, your character.

If that works, great. You understand what you have to be doing, and can do it.

If it doesn't, it's time to pick up those weights, because we're going to get heavy-handed. You say the party needs a Cleric that badly? Tell him you can't keep playing this character if he keeps changing what you have to do without telling you. Ask him for a new character, and point out, regretfully, that it leaves the party without a Cleric. Since, naturally, you can't play another Cleric, you'll have to play something else.

See, kids, that's called a "threat." He may back down and allow you to play your character. Or, he may bend the rule, and let you roll a new Cleric. Or, he may attempt to call your bluff. Let him, and roll a non-Cleric.

Alternatively, he may refuse to let you roll a new character at all. If he does that, ask him why he even has rules on rolling new characters if they aren't to be used.

And as always, the ultimate solution involves walking away. If he wants so badly to play this character himself, he can. No gaming is better than bad gaming.

Kalmageddon
2014-12-23, 11:18 AM
Well, I would... I've never had a reason to like gnomes before.

Yeah, as soon as I wrote it I thought "Actually, that's an awesome concept!" :smallbiggrin:
I've found out through past experiences that the best way to make gnomes interesting is really flashing out the creepy side of their fairy nature. After all, fairies in folklore weren't colourful buffoon, they were sadistic little aliens who occasionally had some redeeming qualities.

Vitruviansquid
2014-12-23, 12:02 PM
I don't see why it wouldn't be okay to *ask.* Even if you had a patently awful idea, you should never feel that *asking* is wrong.

I mean, what's the worst that could happen? Is your DM going to suddenly put on his ceremonial headdress as the other players restrain you, and then they'll drag you atop a pyramid where the the DM carves your still-beating heart out with a jade knife as offering to the Gods in order to ensure that good RP is had within the empire for the next season?

Mastikator
2014-12-23, 12:13 PM
You are under no obligation to play a character you don't like playing, it's not something you owe the other players. Ask the DM to play a new character, if it's not a healer then tough beans.

That being said, you need to know more about the world you're in, that means you need to have access to world info so you can make a character that makes sense in the setting and is yours. The character can be made with the help of the DM, but the DM should only serve to advice and inform you about the world setting.

cobaltstarfire
2014-12-23, 02:01 PM
You should have told your GM that no, your character is not an Egyptian, because your character is not an Egyptian. If you want to hold onto this character than next time your GM tries to correct you just ask them to stop and tell them who/what your character actually is. It shouldn't make your GM mad or anything. It's your character not his.

Although I do feel I should point out while the Aztecs did human sacrifices, the sacrifices were generally willing individuals because it was considered a great honor to be sacrificed for the continuing existence of the universe. It wasn't really a huge morally confusing thing at all. This of course has no bearing on your character, more just a tidbit I like to share about the culture that is too often misrepresented.

Solaris
2014-12-23, 03:17 PM
You should have told your GM that no, your character is not an Egyptian, because your character is not an Egyptian. If you want to hold onto this character than next time your GM tries to correct you just ask them to stop and tell them who/what your character actually is. It shouldn't make your GM mad or anything. It's your character not his.

Although I do feel I should point out while the Aztecs did human sacrifices, the sacrifices were generally willing individuals because it was considered a great honor to be sacrificed for the continuing existence of the universe. It wasn't really a huge morally confusing thing at all. This of course has no bearing on your character, more just a tidbit I like to share about the culture that is too often misrepresented.

This. Screw the DM. If he wanted your character to be pseudo-Egyptian, he should have established that before you established she was pseudo-Mayan. Invite him to take a healthy dose of STFU next time he tries telling you you're playing your character 'wrong'.

Feddlefew
2014-12-23, 04:57 PM
I still feel like I'm at least partially responsible for this, because 1) I sprang a weird character concept on him and had to improvise, and 2) I didn't put much effort into contacting him outside of game aside from giving him my contact information.

This doesn't excuse him basically retconing a couple of things I'd established about my character (She lives in a swampy area, common medicinal techniques (like a 10 on a heal check) covers a lot of advanced material for everyone else, and her people cremate their dead.

The tipping point for me was when one of the other characters (a half elf) got into trouble with a local faction, and he didn't have the skill to make a disguise check. OOC after game, I mentioned that my healing skill was high enough that she could reshape his ears so they looked human, and the DM immediately said that it was, in short, insane and against my alignment (NG) to even consider that. And that kind of floored me because, well, both egyptian and mesoamerican cultures were heavily into body modification, the later more so, and it was already establish she had loads of analgesics with her, so it wasn't like she would be torturing the half elf, and it was to help him avoid a horrific death.

Edit: Yes, I know this is pretty much a "classic PC plan".

Solaris
2014-12-23, 06:01 PM
I'm... guessing he thinks tattoo parlors would ping the ol' evildar like any other temple to the dark gods?

Feddlefew
2014-12-23, 06:50 PM
I'm thinking it's more he's squicked out by "heavier" body mods- he doesn't care that half the party is tattooed in one form or another, but he did call my plan mutilation and has a "scars are forever" theme in his campaign. I can kind of see where he's coming from, since it's an alteration to a body part that requires surgery for non-medical purposes. On the other hand people get their ears and noses reshaped IRL, and in many cultures (including aztec) radical body modification was commonplace.

Knaight
2014-12-23, 07:32 PM
The tipping point for me was when one of the other characters (a half elf) got into trouble with a local faction, and he didn't have the skill to make a disguise check. OOC after game, I mentioned that my healing skill was high enough that she could reshape his ears so they looked human, and the DM immediately said that it was, in short, insane and against my alignment (NG) to even consider that.

So what you're saying is that the DM is using their misinterpreation of your character as a cudgel to force you to play your character a different way. At this point, I recommend the really blunt option, wherein you explain a handle of things.

You know what your character is supposed to be like, and all of your DM's "out of character" complaints are from a misinterpretation on their end.
If they feel the alignment doesn't fit, then they can go ahead and change it.
You'd like to actually get to play your character, rather than have them be an NPC you borrow occasionally.


As for the DM having an unusual character sprung on them, I have no sympathy. I basically always GM, have had plenty of far more esoteric characters than yours, and somehow manage to resist telling the players how to play their characters. It's not hard.

JusticeZero
2014-12-23, 07:54 PM
Right, and part of the problem is that you played a Cleric, which tends to be the class that everyone feels is communal property of everyone BUT the person actually playing them.. *sigh* Is anyone else getting this sort of treatment?

Valameer
2014-12-24, 01:35 AM
It is okay to ask for a new character for any reason.

I mean it.

We play these games because we enjoy them. Make sure you are enjoying the game by playing your character in the way you are comfortable with.

If the DM isn't allowing you creative control of your own character, then perhaps consider whether gaming at their table is worth your time.

caden_varn
2014-12-24, 07:38 AM
I don't see why it wouldn't be okay to *ask.* Even if you had a patently awful idea, you should never feel that *asking* is wrong.

I mean, what's the worst that could happen? Is your DM going to suddenly put on his ceremonial headdress as the other players restrain you, and then they'll drag you atop a pyramid where the the DM carves your still-beating heart out with a jade knife as offering to the Gods in order to ensure that good RP is had within the empire for the next season?

Of course not - we have already established that the Mayan/Aztec culture is out. They would use Egyptian sacrifice methodology (I assume this would include mummification?)

Themrys
2014-12-24, 09:42 AM
I think the problem here is not your character, but the DM, and likely, the DM would do the same with a new character.
Egypt had lots of science, so, you DM is not even correct here. Methinks he wants to make your character look stupid, which is something you ... just don't do without the player's consent.

The only reasonable request you mentioned was the one to "tone down the crazy" - moral dissonance can get in the way of playing the game. Alone in a strange land, your character should be willing to adapt as far as possible, i.e. drop those traditions that are not a moral imperative for her, but cause moral dissonance with the group.

If you have the choice between a "They bury their dead, that is wrong, I must change it!" - reaction, and a "Strange, but whatever works for them. Better make sure they cremate me in the proper way, though.", use the one that is less likely to cause problems with the group.

So, talk to the DM and say that this is not acceptable, and you want this to change, and are willing to make a new character if he can't accept an "exotic" character who is educated and can use an abacus, but that this is it, and the new character will not be his to play.

goto124
2014-12-24, 10:29 AM
It sounds like the DM is trying to control the PC that isn't even his own, even trying to force his interpretation of the character upon the player. The other players aren't complaining that your character's personality is getting in the way right?

Solaris
2014-12-24, 05:46 PM
I'm thinking it's more he's squicked out by "heavier" body mods- he doesn't care that half the party is tattooed in one form or another, but he did call my plan mutilation and has a "scars are forever" theme in his campaign. I can kind of see where he's coming from, since it's an alteration to a body part that requires surgery for non-medical purposes. On the other hand people get their ears and noses reshaped IRL, and in many cultures (including aztec) radical body modification was commonplace.

I dunno, you could make a pretty compelling argument that "Not getting lynched" is a medical purpose. Still gonna call bullpucky unless he can come up with a reasoned argument that tattoos and boob jobs are the work of the devil.

Feddlefew
2014-12-24, 06:24 PM
I think the problem here is not your character, but the DM, and likely, the DM would do the same with a new character.
Egypt had lots of science, so, you DM is not even correct here. Methinks he wants to make your character look stupid, which is something you ... just don't do without the player's consent.

The only reasonable request you mentioned was the one to "tone down the crazy" - moral dissonance can get in the way of playing the game. Alone in a strange land, your character should be willing to adapt as far as possible, i.e. drop those traditions that are not a moral imperative for her, but cause moral dissonance with the group.

If you have the choice between a "They bury their dead, that is wrong, I must change it!" - reaction, and a "Strange, but whatever works for them. Better make sure they cremate me in the proper way, though.", use the one that is less likely to cause problems with the group.

So, talk to the DM and say that this is not acceptable, and you want this to change, and are willing to make a new character if he can't accept an "exotic" character who is educated and can use an abacus, but that this is it, and the new character will not be his to play.

I was already going with the "Okay, whatever works for you." option every time. I think the only genuine WTH reaction my character's having is friction with the knights for their lack of deference, since she's a minor noble equivalent and they're not treating her like it.

I haven't walked because he's been fantastic on literally every other aspect of the game so far.

dps
2014-12-25, 07:26 PM
If you're not having fun playing a character, I don't think it would ever be wrong to ask for a new one. That said, you really need to have an in-depth discussion with the DM about your experience; if he let's you roll up a new character but imposes his character concept on your character again, what's the point?

And IMO a GM should never tell a player that his or her character can't do something because it would be against the PC''s alignment. Instead, if PCs do too many things that go against their alignments, the DM should impose an alignment change (which might be trivial for many characters, but could be very bad news for a cleric). If a PC is getting near that point, it's OK for the DM to warn the player about actions that might cause an alignment change, but ever there, it's not the DM's place to forbid the player from going ahead and being the one making the decision about whether or not to proceed with the actions.

Feddlefew
2014-12-26, 09:51 PM
Okay, I have my DM's Phone number and sent him a text or two about this. Hopefully I'll hear back from him soon.

I'll keep you guys updated.

Edit: It's 3 pm (1500) and I still haven't heard back from him.

Kiero
2014-12-28, 11:47 AM
Then the next session, my DM informs me that my character is egyptian without consulting me. At all. Things start going down hill from here.

Now, three sessions in, I really, really hate my character despite the build being fun to play.
Problems:
- I am being told I am acting "Out of character" when I don't RP an egyptian noble woman. I did not plan on my character being an egyptian noble woman, rather an Aztec/Mayan priestess all the moral dissonance that would go with it (minus the human sacrifices).
-- The "you need to tone down the crazy" is also getting to me, since (from my perspective) what I'm doing is normal for what I pictured my character's home culture, just morally dissonant.
-DM keeps correcting me about my character's home culture, despite not really telling me much about it other than "EGYPT" and forcing me to guess, the most egregious of which has been telling me that my character does not know what an abacus is.
-- Also being constantly told that my character is superstitious and scientifically uneducated compared to everyone else doesn't help.

So, in short, despite getting along fine with the party and having interesting interactions, I don't feel comfortable RPing my own character because it's not really MY character at this point. I just don't want to play as them anymore. I haven't actually talked to the DM about this- I need to get my DM's contact information from a friend this week, because we've been having a hard time getting a hold of him and I never managed to get it from him during the game.

Emphasis mine at the start, but all of this is raising big, red flags. GMs do not get to unilaterally decide for you that your character is something else other than what you envisaged. That's a pretty fundamental breach of virtually every group's social contract, and the sort of thing that needs to be challenged right away.

All the stuff about the GM's own misconceptions and frankly ignorance about actual historical Egypt (and Egypt when, exactly?) is by the by compared to this cardinal offence.

goto124
2014-12-28, 12:22 PM
It also raises the question of 'Why did the GM change someone else's character without discussing it with the player first'...

If the GM had his reasons to change it (e.g. disrupt personality), he should've talked it over with the player before the change. It looks like he didn't even attempt to communicate with the OP.

Kiero
2014-12-28, 12:30 PM
It also raises the question of 'Why did the GM change someone else's character without discussing it with the player first'...

If the GM had his reasons to change it (e.g. disrupt personality), he should've talked it over with the player before the change. It looks like he didn't even attempt to communicate with the OP.

Even then, at most it's for the GM to discuss it with the player and suggest they change it. They don't have the right to make the change for the player, and certainly not unilaterally.

1337 b4k4
2014-12-28, 01:14 PM
It also raises the question of 'Why did the GM change someone else's character without discussing it with the player first'...

If the GM had his reasons to change it (e.g. disrupt personality), he should've talked it over with the player before the change. It looks like he didn't even attempt to communicate with the OP.

Well from what I got out of the OP's post, and specifically this section:


The only things I knew about the campaign world was the following:
-Magic is low to mid.
-1000 years had passed since the last game, which had been about dragons and a war.
-The dragons had disappeared, and with them, most of the world's arcane magic.
-The campaign would be using a corruption/sanity system.
-The map and geography borrowed heavily from the Elderscrolls series.

They needed a cleric, so after a quick discussion with the DM about godless clerics (he said no) I made a human cleric of Farl who was from way down south, so that when I could ask for clarification on things everyone else knew in-character. So the DM said it was okay, and told me that the south was a tropical rainforest, with a desert much farther south than from the area my character comes from.

it sounds to me like this is a case of Player expectation vs DM world design. Specifically, it sounds like the DM has their won custom or semi-custom world with various high level traits for cultures mapped out and that means they have certain expectations for PCs that hail from different areas. Feddlefew admits upfront not knowing a lot about the world in question, and specifically chooses a foreigner character to enable her to ask questions while seeming in character. It then seems to me like Feddlefew created her own culture and backstory for the character, expecting to be part of a "non-established" people, while the DM expected her to come from one of the cultures he'd already mapped out. In short, neither side communicated their expectations with the other. The DM didn't advise the player of the culture they were "choosing" when they chose to come from another area with an established culture, and the player didn't advise the DM of their plans to wholesale create or establish a new culture. None of that excuses the DM simply out and out telling Feddlefew how to play her character, but I think this is solvable by a bit more communication. It may even be that Feddlefew won't even have to take a new character, just re-arrange some of the back story a bit with the DM to establish a new point of origin and culture.

Feddlefew, hopefull your DM is responsive to your communications because it sounds to me like most of this could be resolved with a little out of game chat about your goal and expectations and your DMs. Explain your high level character concept and goals and explain that you aren't (assuming that you aren't) tied to your character being specifically from "the south" or any other place, just that you want to play a character from the culture you have in mind, and go over the high level stuff. Only if your DM becomes unresponsive to calm discussion should you begin going into threats of not hving a cleric (if one is needed) or stuff like that. Ultimately, you can always walk away, as these are games designed to be fun, and life is too short to play games if you're not having fun, but start with some communication first. 90% of the time it will get you where you want to go.

Gavran
2014-12-28, 01:34 PM
I feel like some people are missing the whole "character is from that setting" thing. It's not "your character is egyptian", it's "the culture where you said your character is from is an [perhaps poorly understood but that's not really relevant or even important] egyptian one."

Now, the DM not actually knowing a lot about Egypt makes "it's Egygptian" to someone who does, not very helpful obviously, but the real problem is communication anyway. DM didn't tell OP about the setting details, OP made something up, DM cares enough about his established setting to not just accept it*, and handles it not super well. We haven't at all even heard that the DM is objecting to the character change, only that the OP is worried about not being able to be a Cleric again maybe.

*Which is 100% as acceptable as not being super knowledgeable about Egypt but liking what you know/believe enough to use it in a game. It isn't how I tend to play, but then I tend to play and even think in very ad-hoc settings where players are encouraged to make stuff up for their backgrounds. Of course it's always a good idea to run that sort of thing by the DM, too. And the rest of the group for that matter.

Solaris
2014-12-28, 02:32 PM
It doesn't matter how much you care about 'your' setting - the moment you introduce it to players to game in, it's no longer yours. If you can't understand that, stick to writing novels and using published settings. Trying to retcon a character because the DM changed his mind isn't excused by the "But it doesn't fit in with my precious setting!" argument.

Gavran
2014-12-28, 02:40 PM
It doesn't matter how much you care about 'your' setting - the moment you introduce it to players to game in, it's no longer yours. If you can't understand that, stick to writing novels and using published settings. Trying to retcon a character because the DM changed his mind isn't excused by the "But it doesn't fit in with my precious setting!" argument.

How is a published setting at all more valid than an established homebrewed one? The setting IS the purview of the DM. The DM controls the entire world. If that means "the cultures in the south are kinda egyptians", that's okay, if that means "no your character is not a jedi, this is a fantasy setting", that's okay, and if that means "sorry you can't play a wizard there's no such thing as arcane magic" that's okay. Now, a DM has to ask "what's more important, this detail of my setting, or my players/friends being able to make the character they want to play?", and I personally would say in most cases making up something like a smallish culture for your character's background is very easy to work into most settings, but when it isn't, it isn't.

It's the DM's... let's say goal, to make a setting the players want to play in and are excited to create characters for. It should be the players' goal to create characters that fit that setting.

Solaris
2014-12-28, 03:03 PM
You misunderstand. It's not that the homebrew is less valid than the published, it's that the players will change the setting, regardless of who wrote it. If the DM cannot stand changing something in his precious setting to accommodate a player, he's doing it wrong. If he's so attached to the homebrew that he can't be flexible enough to have players create something for their character in it, then he should play a published setting and leave the homebrew for the novel where he doesn't have to worry about someone else messing it up.
Furthermore, the DM changed the setting after the character had been created and established. The jungle region where she was from was originally stated to be north of the Egyptian-expies, and that her character had never been to the Egypt-expy desert. This noodles towards the tangential problem of the homebrew world's information not being available to the players at the time.

That's not to say you should change everything for characters. A Jedi, for example, would not be a valid class on account of it not being in one of the permitted books. You could let it in (I've toyed with the notion, myself, and worked up a fantasy setting with a magic system replaced by the Force), but your consideration should be more for game balance and the other players than for the world you allegedly control.

The fault with the notion that the DM controls the entire world lies with the fact that games like D&D are collaborative affairs. It's more accurate to say he is a referee and runs the world - the group as a whole controls it. Players have little to no agency in NPCs, but that's not to say they should have so little agency in setting and worldbuilding that a DM thinks he can unilaterally retcon his setting and a character's backstory.

Gavran
2014-12-28, 03:42 PM
Okay, so there's some granularity here: if I move my drink off the coaster it is on, I have "changed the world" but obviously that means something very different from saying someone like <insert historically significant figure> changed the world. Yes every PC will do the former, but I disagree that it is a given PCs will do the latter. Lots of fun can be had in a low-scope campaign, that's a playstyle choice. Further, the game is meant to be fun for everyone. If the DM's fun is "I want you guys to explore my cool homebrew setting", that's perfectly fine. Now - obviously the players also need to have fun doing that - but if that's the agreed upon setting, I would, every time, fault the player who is unwilling to create a character that fits within it.

Now, at first I did think you were saying official settings did deserve strict adherence which... well is extremely dissonant with what else you've said (and my own preferences), but I believe I understand now that you're saying the hypothetical DM would not care about alterations to those and should instead use them for that reason. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Regarding the specifics of this thread, well, I'll freely admit I read the gist of it several days ago and perhaps I've lost some details as a result. My impression was that the OP had basically just picked an environment that suited the character's envisioned culture, and showed up expecting to reveal the details of that culture through play. Presumably had there been a chance to have more discussion than that on the subject, the whole issue would have been avoided. Upon play beginning, the DM made several notes along the lines of "that's not the culture of the area your character is from", which, given that the game was in session probably is objectively worse than just rolling with it or saying "okay you're actually from somewhere else, we'll work out the details later carry on", but is still far less malicious than "No you have to play an Egyptian priestess." You've used the term retcon, but from my understanding OP never got much real background on the setting so it's less retcon and more "actually this is the way it is." In fact, you're arguing that the DM should retcon the setting in order to match the player.

Anyway. All I'm really saying is, this issue sounds a lot more like "we didn't have a character creation session and there were some related communication/expectation violations" than "this DM is trying to write a book" and I think it's disingenuous to ascribe the latter to every DM who likes his homebrew setting.

And yes, I do think it would be quite egregious to show up to a standard D&D game with a character who is a Jedi and expect everyone to just accept that. And I'm not talking about mechanics or crunch at all. Now, if during a cooperative character creation session (which should probably always happen) a player said "I want to play a character who follows a Jedi-like philosophy and fights in a Jedi-like way", I'd probably not object. If someone said "Hey guys, I really want to play a Jedi. Like, literally a Jedi, sucked out of the SW canon and into this setting" - if the other players were game, and the setting generic D&D-ish lots of magic fantasy? I'd still probably be fine with it.

But trying to be a Jedi in a WW2 no-fantasy setting? Come on man. I can't imagine you'd argue that is acceptable. So, again, there's some granularity. And if, to the DM, having a Mesoamerican type culture is as inimical to his setting as Jedi to realistic WW2? Then you can provide a character that fits or find a different game. We don't know the degree to which OP's DM requires setting adherence, but we do know that OP said he's been a good DM in every regard but this one. Let's not paint him to be a terrible DM over a communication/planning issue.

Edit: Upon review of the thread, I am being somewhat too charitable in regards to how the DM is handling the situation, but I still firmly believe the problem is the lack of cooperative preparation rather than a desire that OP plays an Egyptian priestess. The desert is only mentioned to be further south than the jungle, we have no indication that the Egyptian culture lives there or there but not also the jungle. Nor any indication that the DM ever changed his mind on any of those details.

Solaris
2014-12-28, 04:01 PM
Okay, so there's some granularity here: if I move my drink off the coaster it is on, I have "changed the world" but obviously that means something very different from saying someone like <insert historically significant figure> changed the world. Yes every PC will do the former, but I disagree that it is a given PCs will do the latter. Lots of fun can be had in a low-scope campaign, that's a playstyle choice. Further, the game is meant to be fun for everyone. If the DM's fun is "I want you guys to explore my cool homebrew setting", that's perfectly fine. Now - obviously the players also need to have fun doing that - but if that's the agreed upon setting, I would, every time, fault the player who is unwilling to create a character that fits within it.

Now, at first I did think you were saying official settings did deserve strict adherence which... well is extremely dissonant with what else you've said (and my own preferences), but I believe I understand now that you're saying the hypothetical DM would not care about alterations to those and should instead use them for that reason. Correct me if I'm wrong.

You're reading me correctly.
Again, I'm not trying to say a player should be able to turn a world on its head - but pointing to an empty spot of jungle on the map a few thousand miles away during character creation and saying "My character, a Mesoamerican-type, comes from there!" is a perfectly acceptable thing to do. If the DM has a problem with that, he needs to mention it during character creation - not be okay with it during character creation (as he was) and then change his mind later on and reverse everything he'd said.


Upon play beginning, the DM made several notes along the lines of "that's not the culture of the area your character is from", which, given that the game was in session probably is objectively worse than just rolling with it or saying "okay you're actually from somewhere else, we'll work out the details later carry on", but is still far less malicious than "No you have to play an Egyptian priestess." You've used the term retcon, but from my understanding OP never got much real background on the setting so it's less retcon and more "actually this is the way it is." In fact, you're arguing that the DM should retcon the setting in order to match the player.

Yes, I'm saying the DM should retcon the setting - because he never established what was in the jungle her character comes from, and thus the only one who'd know it was a retcon is him. Altering the setting would have affected none of the players and none of the plot, and we wouldn't be here having this conversation because it wouldn't have upset his player so much the player sought advice on a forum.
Heck, he could have taken her aside and worked out that she was a feral jungle-child who worshiped animal totems, which would have been better than trying to relocate her character and still maintained the integrity of 'his' world by not adding in a player-created civilization.


Anyway. All I'm really saying is, this issue sounds a lot more like "we didn't have a character creation session and there were some related communication/expectation violations" than "this DM is trying to write a book" and I think it's disingenuous to ascribe the latter to every DM who likes his homebrew setting.

Not to every DM - just the ones who unilaterally retcon people's characters after a couple of sessions and try to tell them how they're played, and who refuse to entertain the notion that perhaps another person's enjoyment might be more important than temporarily modifying the fiction they've written to suit the game at hand.
That one smacks of trying to rob players of their agency, which is a symptom of the DM-Author.


And yes, I do think it would be quite egregious to show up to a standard D&D game with a character who is a Jedi and expect everyone to just accept that. And I'm not talking about mechanics or crunch at all. Now, if during a cooperative character creation session (which should probably always happen) a player said "I want to play a character who follows a Jedi-like philosophy and fights in a Jedi-like way", I'd probably not object. If someone said "Hey guys, I really want to play a Jedi. Like, literally a Jedi, sucked out of the SW canon and into this setting" - if the other players were game, and the setting generic D&D-ish lots of magic fantasy? I'd still probably be fine with it.

But trying to be a Jedi in a WW2 no-fantasy setting? Come on man. I can't imagine you'd argue that is acceptable. So, again, there's some granularity. And if, to the DM, having a Mesoamerican type culture is as inimical to his setting as Jedi to realistic WW2? Then you can provide a character that fits or find a different game. We don't know the degree to which OP's DM requires setting adherence, but we do know that OP said he's been a good DM in every regard but this one. Let's not paint him to be a terrible DM over a communication/planning issue.

If the DM can explain to the player why a Mesoamerican-type culture is as anathema to his setting as a Jedi in realistic WW II, then I'll buy it.
Considering he had established the jungle was there and we're talking about a fantasy setting that includes at least Egyptian-expies and presumably more standard Western European cultural archetypes, he's gonna have a tough time of it.

Gavran
2014-12-28, 04:14 PM
Well, alright, I think we'll have to call that good enough. I do agree that I don't think introducing that sort of culture, if perhaps not exactly right there, or not quite exactly like that, is at all unreasonable. My understanding of the OP's situation is the character creation in the sense that there's player-DM interaction and approval going on didn't happen for this game. Maybe I'm wrong, and if so then not being okay with it goes from "poor handling of a communication problem and a level of setting adherence that I do not understand but will respect" to something much more like what you're suggesting. Like I said, I think character creation sessions are a fantastic thing in general, and like to play in ad-hoc settings where those sessions include literal cooperative worldbuilding. I just want to give people who prefer a different kind of playstyle the same respect I'd give anyone who has fun in a different way than I do.

And yeah, I can't begin to fathom why this would be that level of a poor fit for the setting. I put a fair bit of effort into choosing the least reasonable setting I could think of for a Jedi, and then probably wrote way too many words to get you to agree with me that it was unreasonable, when you never would've disagreed. I've a bad habit of doing that. For that matter, OP has not at all given the impression that she doesn't want to fit her character to the setting, just that she wants to be the one to decide part of the setting her character fits into.

Knaight
2014-12-28, 09:08 PM
Well, alright, I think we'll have to call that good enough. I do agree that I don't think introducing that sort of culture, if perhaps not exactly right there, or not quite exactly like that, is at all unreasonable. My understanding of the OP's situation is the character creation in the sense that there's player-DM interaction and approval going on didn't happen for this game.

I could easily see it being a problem. What I can't see is somehow forgetting to ever communicate a detail that relevant. Whether it's "this is a Mediterranean style setting" or "if your character is from south, it's an Egyptian style culture*" something should have come up.

*Though some specifics on when would be really nice. Egypt is an extremely old center of civilization, and it's not like 1300 CE Egypt and 3000 BCE Egypt are even remotely the same place.

Feddlefew
2014-12-28, 10:03 PM
I don't remember if I mentioned this, but the are of the map my character came from was undefined- the only things the DM had decided about it was that it was 1) a tropical rainforest with some archipelagos, 2) the area had been annexed by the empire about 100 years ago, and 3) there was a major smuggling problem. So the Egypt thing, especially the version my DM is pushing, has actually reconnected a lot I'd established about my character.

Edit:

*Though some specifics on when would be really nice. Egypt is an extremely old center of civilization, and it's not like 1300 CE Egypt and 3000 CE Egypt are even remotely the same place.

Early enough that they don't have the mathematical or medical knowlage to be comparable to dark ages Europe. :smallsigh:

The experience has soured the character for me, and I just don't want to play them even if he retcons two sessions worth of stuff.

Edit 2: No one has been able to get a hold of him, but it's still Christmas-y time so I'm feeling understanding.

Feddlefew
2014-12-31, 12:43 AM
So I managed to get a hold of my DM this afternoon.

He's been sick, which is why he's been out of contact- he sounded awful on the phone. I chickened out and just told him I wasn't liking my character and gave him my email address so we could work something out, but I didn't tell him why since the call was already really awkward and I'm pretty certain I'd woken him up. :smallfrown:

So tomorrow I'll call him again and ask for his email address, since I should have done that the fist time I called.

AstralFire
2014-12-31, 09:11 AM
I think at the very least, you should be able to get around the "no repeat race/class combos" rule since your character isn't being retired because she's being killed, but because there was some fatal initial non-communication between you and him.

Feddlefew
2015-01-07, 09:56 PM
I have a new question: How available is normal for a DM? When I DM'd I was always reachable by email within a few hours, but I don't know if that's normal.

I haven't been able to get a hold of my DM since I called him. This wouldn't be such a big problem if I and another player didn't have questions we wanted to ask him BEFORE the next game started since they're build and backstory related, and we don't want to take away from playtime.

Raine_Sage
2015-01-07, 10:21 PM
I suppose it depends on how your communicate between games. Email can be slow. Skype groups are faster. Facebook groups are kind of a middle ground. Communication exclusively via forum can drag on for a while.

If you have his phone number have you tried texting him a reminder to check his email/whatever?

Feddlefew
2015-01-07, 10:27 PM
I suppose it depends on how your communicate between games. Email can be slow. Skype groups are faster. Facebook groups are kind of a middle ground. Communication exclusively via forum can drag on for a while.

If you have his phone number have you tried texting him a reminder to check his email/whatever?

Phone should be the primary contact, but he hasn't been replying to texts and I only got through to him once by calling him. He has several of our emails but none of us have his. We've been trying to arrange a game before we all get off break, but since none of us can get a hold of him it's been impossible.

He was pretty sick after the last time we played in early December, but it's been almost a month and we've been trying to contact him to work out stuff like which feats from non-core sources we can use and stuff.

ETA: I also think he lurks here. So, if you're reading this, we need to talk.

FabulousFizban
2015-01-07, 11:02 PM
sounds more like your dm needs to learn what his ****ing job is than it does you need to change characters. It is your character, he needs to back off.

Knaight
2015-01-08, 01:34 AM
I have a new question: How available is normal for a DM? When I DM'd I was always reachable by email within a few hours, but I don't know if that's normal.

It's hugely variable, and generally determined more by their occupation than anything. Personally I don't generally use email or similar to organize RPGs, and have nowhere near a few hour turnaround time.

GungHo
2015-01-08, 09:01 AM
I'd outright ask the DM for a do-over and to advise me what he wanted me to play. If all he provides is essentially a powerpoint with some bullets on the setting and actively retcons a character in the middle of play, it's likely because all he actually developed at that time was the powerpoint and he's filling things in between sessions. It's okay to make things up as you go along, but once people start playing, they are "locking in" that part of the setting, and the DM either needs to be able to adapt to that or directly let people know why it's not working and tell people what they want changed, up to rerolling and restarting. There's nothing wrong with providing people with a pick list of backgrounds that you're willing to consider or having a pre-game meeting/session to brainstorm what everyone is interested in playing. Heck, that sort of thing is why we have two DMs in my group that are operating on different sides of the "world".

Beta Centauri
2015-01-08, 10:39 AM
Ugh, where to begin.

You need to do more than ask for a new character. You need to talk to the GM about playstyle and the social contract at the table. This is because there's no reason to believe (what with the immersion level you're after. Thoughts about the weather? Seriously?) that the GM will be any different with a new character. Everyone involved sounds very controlling and set on the characters, story or setting going a certain way. That can't help but lead to conflict.

Feddlefew
2015-01-08, 03:40 PM
I'd outright ask the DM for a do-over and to advise me what he wanted me to play. If all he provides is essentially a powerpoint with some bullets on the setting and actively retcons a character in the middle of play, it's likely because all he actually developed at that time was the powerpoint and he's filling things in between sessions. It's okay to make things up as you go along, but once people start playing, they are "locking in" that part of the setting, and the DM either needs to be able to adapt to that or directly let people know why it's not working and tell people what they want changed, up to rerolling and restarting. There's nothing wrong with providing people with a pick list of backgrounds that you're willing to consider or having a pre-game meeting/session to brainstorm what everyone is interested in playing. Heck, that sort of thing is why we have two DMs in my group that are operating on different sides of the "world".

That's a good summary of why I'm upset, thank you. It's the lack of communication that's getting to me right now.



Ugh, where to begin.

You need to do more than ask for a new character. You need to talk to the GM about playstyle and the social contract at the table. This is because there's no reason to believe (what with the immersion level you're after. Thoughts about the weather? Seriously?) that the GM will be any different with a new character. Everyone involved sounds very controlling and set on the characters, story or setting going a certain way. That can't help but lead to conflict.


I don't remember if I mentioned this upthread, but the character fluff concept I came to the session with was summarily vetoed (I wanted to play as a bayou witch/cult member trying to recruit more people to their religion), so I had 10 minutes to come up with an entirely character concept that still fit the build while I finished up my character sheet and met the new players. I've never had to do 100% improve while RPing before, since I usually have a rough outline of what a character is like before I go in, so I'm very unhappy with my own performance and how weird my character ended up being. :smallfrown:

The campaign's been very RP heavy- I think we usually do a 60/40 RP/combat mix. The weather comment was me kind of flounder while trying to figure out a way to break the ice between my character and another, and was really stupid in retrospect.