Age of Worms has an NPC abusing Efreeti wishes

[magicalmagicman]

One of the BBEGs of the modules has an Efreeti ally that spammed Wish on him until all of his stats are +3.

So it seems planar binding efreetis and abusing their 3/day wish seems to be an intended feature.

[Psyren]

Not familiar with this module, but speaking generally this situation wouldn't be that remarkable - fantasy is full of examples of villains getting away with more than the heroes do, at least in the short term. An evil wish-granting creature like an Efreet or a Glabrezu could easily conclude that powering up a villain in the short term could cause much more harm and suffering for innocents in the long run than the quicker rush of betraying that villain. Alternatively, the villain could go to much more extreme lengths to coerce and cow these creatures than the heroes might be willing to. They might even be sponsored by/partnered with a more powerful evil being that the wish-granting entity ultimately reports to, like an evil deity, archdevil, or a demon lord.

[magicalmagicman]

They might even be sponsored by/partnered with a more powerful evil being that the wish-granting entity ultimately reports to, like an evil deity, archdevil, or a demon lord.

This is the case in the module. That doesn't change the fact that you can get an Efreeti Simulacrum and get the same result, and this is an officially intended function of Efreetis.

[CIDE]

Age of Worms is a Paizo written adventure path originally featured in DUngeon Magazine. It's about as close as you can get to first party without actually being first party but I don't think it's considered "official".

[Helluin]

This is the case in the module. That doesn't change the fact that you can get an Efreeti Simulacrum and get the same result, and this is an officially intended function of Efreetis.

It is a permissible function of Efreeti, for DMs, and no, you can’t pretend that DMs don’t get a bit of leeway in D&D, or that the players and the DMs must always have access to the same in-game resources. D&D is not meant to be a DM vs. player contest, despite what some people’s behaviours might have led you to believe, and the rules are in place not to ensure “fair competition” between the two participating sides, but to allow cohesive storytelling and interesting challenges to keep the players entertained.

[Psyren]

This is the case in the module. That doesn't change the fact that you can get an Efreeti Simulacrum and get the same result, and this is an officially intended function of Efreetis.

I'm not sure where to begin with all the ways I disagree with this. Though I strongly suspect it won't matter how much I articulate them either.


It is a permissible function of Efreeti, for DMs, and no, you can’t pretend that DMs don’t get a bit of leeway in D&D, or that the players and the DMs must always have access to the same in-game resources. D&D is not meant to be a DM vs. player contest, despite what some people’s behaviours might have led you to believe, and the rules are in place not to ensure “fair competition” between the two participating sides, but to allow cohesive storytelling and interesting challenges to keep the players entertained.

"Players are not DMs" should be elementary, yeah.

[magicalmagicman]

It is a permissible function of Efreeti, for DMs, and no, you can’t pretend that DMs don’t get a bit of leeway in D&D, or that the players and the DMs must always have access to the same in-game resources. D&D is not meant to be a DM vs. player contest, despite what some people’s behaviours might have led you to believe, and the rules are in place not to ensure “fair competition” between the two participating sides, but to allow cohesive storytelling and interesting challenges to keep the players entertained.

The best thing about d&d 3.5 is that players can do everything villains can do.

What you're saying here is equivalent to "players get less than core only, while DMs get 50 sourcebooks because "storytelling" so no, I disagree and I would never play at a table where the DM says only his NPCs can abuse spellcasting because "storytelling"

[GreatDane]

I remember chuckling about this when I ran the module: "I guess the writers hung out on character optimization forums."

Anecdote: This module is all about two teams (the PCs and BBEG + cronies) racing to complete tasks for a neutral entity in exchange for a MacGuffin. Naturally, the villains try to kill the PCs. When the tide of battle started turning against the villains (and the BBEG's escape seemed impossible), I had the efreeti in question offer to turn on his allies and grant a PC three wishes in exchange for access to the MacGuffin. Of course, the PCs took him up! We had a lot of fun with it, as this was the group's first encounter with wishes in D&D - I got to play the efreeti to a lot of classic tropes like accidental "I wish" statements and appearing when called. It was also a great opportunity to explore the abilities and limits of high-level magic, and set some standards. Ultimately, I believe the player in charge of the wishes (a duskblade) spent most of them expanding their limited spells known with some semi-custom spells to help circumvent the class' weaknesses.

[gogogome]

One of the BBEGs of the modules has an Efreeti ally that spammed Wish on him until all of his stats are +3.

So it seems planar binding efreetis and abusing their 3/day wish seems to be an intended feature.

You're talking about a module that had a cleric who was high enough level to cast create food and water go against his faith and cannibalized corpses to avoid starving to death. So I'd not take too much stock in that module.


The best thing about d&d 3.5 is that players can do everything villains can do.

What you're saying here is equivalent to "players get less than core only, while DMs get 50 sourcebooks because "storytelling" so no, I disagree and I would never play at a table where the DM says only his NPCs can abuse spellcasting because "storytelling"

One of the reasons I switched to tabletop is because I was sick and tired of NPC only special abilities in every single video game I played so i can't help but agree with this.

[Psyren]

The best thing about d&d 3.5 is that players can do everything villains can do.

They physically can but that doesn't mean it's equally viable or advisable. Villains can sell their souls and quickly gain the power to commit atrocities; PCs can do this too, but most GMs are narratively obligated to make doing such things as a PC have very negative consequences.


What you're saying here is equivalent to "players get less than core only, while DMs get 50 sourcebooks because "storytelling" so no, I disagree and I would never play at a table where the DM says only his NPCs can abuse spellcasting because "storytelling"

While I'm glad you at least recognize it as abuse, this is hyperbolic too.

[magicalmagicman]

While I'm glad you at least recognize it as abuse, this is hyperbolic too.

Hyberboles are necessary. In science we design experiments that use extremes to understand the physical laws of the world, not muddy grey areas that are open to interpretation.


They physically can but that doesn't mean it's equally viable or advisable. Villains can sell their souls and quickly gain the power to commit atrocities; PCs can do this too, but most GMs are narratively obligated to make doing such things as a PC have very negative consequences.

While i agree with this, and don't have a problem with facing NPCs who used BoVD and FCI&II to gain advantages at the expense of their soul and freedom, this is off-topic.

The scenario in question here is that an allied efreeti spammed his 3/day wish to give his master +3 insight bonus to all of his stats which means players who obtain an efreeti should also be allowed to spam his 3/day wish to gain stats and do other things like replicate 8th level and lower spells.

[TinyMushroom]

@magicalmagicman, I think you're trying a bit too hard to see a black-and-white definition of what the PCs are allowed to do. To me, it sounds like you're trying to define objective boundaries of how far players are allowed to exploit the mechanics, when that varies wildly with setting and group. At some tables, PCs abusing efreeti for maximum wishes would be seen as cheapening the experience, while at other tables it would just be your reward for managing to pull it off. In a super high-magic setting, every high-level wizard may have an efreeti pet, while in a low-magic setting efreeti are highly terrifying beings who will make the life of every fool who tries this a living hell.

I'm not sure what the point is you're trying to make. Are you trying to concretely prove that you should get to do this? Or is this just some thought experiment about what PCs should get to do?

[magicalmagicman]

@magicalmagicman, I think you're trying a bit too hard to see a black-and-white definition of what the PCs are allowed to do. To me, it sounds like you're trying to define objective boundaries of how far players are allowed to exploit the mechanics, when that varies wildly with setting and group. At some tables, PCs abusing efreeti for maximum wishes would be seen as cheapening the experience, while at other tables it would just be your reward for managing to pull it off. In a super high-magic setting, every high-level wizard may have an efreeti pet, while in a low-magic setting efreeti are highly terrifying beings who will make the life of every fool who tries this a living hell.

I'm not sure what the point is you're trying to make. Are you trying to concretely prove that you should get to do this? Or is this just some thought experiment about what PCs should get to do?

If Age of Worms is normal op, then using Efreetis 3/day wish to give everyone +3 stats is normal op. Is what I'm trying to say.
This Efreeti made 0 magic items with his wish so using Wish for item creation is still probably TO. But just replicating spells and boosting stats is normal op.

[Quertus]

You're talking about a module that had a cleric who was high enough level to cast create food and water go against his faith and cannibalized corpses to avoid starving to death. So I'd not take too much stock in that module.

Lol. Maybe the Cleric wasn't wise enough to utilize his spells so "optimally"?


The best thing about d&d 3.5 is that players can do everything villains can do.


One of the reasons I switched to tabletop is because I was sick and tired of NPC only special abilities in every single video game I played so i can't help but agree with this.

I'll third this sentiment. In fact, I'll go one step further:



They physically can but that doesn't mean it's equally viable or advisable. Villains can sell their souls and quickly gain the power to commit atrocities; PCs can do this too, but most GMs are narratively obligated to make doing such things as a PC have very negative consequences.

Be a fan of the PCs. The PCs should generally have more access to and be better at things than mere NPCs.

Doesn't that sound like a good "narrative obligation"?


The scenario in question here is that an allied efreeti spammed his 3/day wish to give his master +3 insight bonus to all of his stats which means players who obtain an efreeti should also be allowed to spam his 3/day wish to gain stats and do other things like replicate 8th level and lower spells.

"+3 to all his stats" seems suboptimal. As soon as I encountered an advanced HD Efreet, I made plans to make multiple Simulacra to add +5, not just to all my stats, not just to all the PCs stats, but to all the stats of every allied NPC in the entire world.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by magicalmagicman
In science we design experiments that use extremes to understand the physical laws of the world, not muddy grey areas that are open to interpretation.

I have no idea what kind of “science” you may be involved in, but this statement is absurd in every particular.

In the science that my colleagues and I practice, “muddy grey areas” are often what yield the most interesting results. “Extreme science” makes for great television shows, and high-budget items like supercolliders certainly have their place. But most of actual science is picky, tedious, inglorious slogging--and in my case I’ve literally slogged through some muddy grey areas. Both physically and metaphorically, those can be some of the most interesting and productive places to study.

It hardly needs saying that the “physical laws of the world,” or rather our understanding of underlying principles, can be approached with experimental designs which are not “extreme” in any sense, but rather carefully thought out to best approach the research question.


Originally Posted by Quertus
The PCs should generally have more access to and be better at things than mere NPCs.

I have to disagree with this, because it presumes the PCs are the most interesting and worthwhile individuals in the entire game world. To me this feels like the gaming equivalent of geocentrism, with a dash of elitism thrown in. A derogatory phrase like “mere NPCs” only heightens that impression.

In terms of access to specific rulesets, it quickly strains belief to imagine that the PCs, alone of all sentients in the world, have the ability to choose from the broadest possible selection of spells, abilities, materials and knowledge. This implies that every other sentient is somehow limited by comparison, which breaks down if there is any historical depth or geographical variation in the campaign world.

[tiercel]

The best thing about d&d 3.5 is that players can do everything villains can do.

See, I always saw this the other way around in terms of table balance: anything the PCs can do, the BBEG can do.

In particular, since the BBEG is usually higher level, s/he can usually do so first, which is where the table balance comes in: if a player asks “oh sweet, can I chain-bind efreeti for infinite wishes consequence-free?” then I can always answer, “well, you can, but.....” with an Evil DM Grin that lets them know I have a retroactive contingency plan for what the campaign world looks like if the BBEG already has had infinite wishes to play with (e.g. using some number of wishes to achieve a permanent divination effect that alerts the BBEG whenever anyone else tries the same combo).

[magicalmagicman]

I have no idea what kind of “science” you may be involved in, but this statement is absurd in every particular.

In the science that my colleagues and I practice, “muddy grey areas” are often what yield the most interesting results. “Extreme science” makes for great television shows, and high-budget items like supercolliders certainly have their place. But most of actual science is picky, tedious, inglorious slogging--and in my case I’ve literally slogged through some muddy grey areas. Both physically and metaphorically, those can be some of the most interesting and productive places to study.

It hardly needs saying that the “physical laws of the world,” or rather our understanding of underlying principles, can be approached with experimental designs which are not “extreme” in any sense, but rather carefully thought out to best approach the research question.

Right, so when we are trying to observe whether temperature accelerates or decelerates dissolution of salts, instead of using 10 and 90 we should use 20.0 and 20.1.

[Psyren]

Be a fan of the PCs. The PCs should generally have more access to and be better at things than mere NPCs.

Doesn't that sound like a good "narrative obligation"?

How is the BBEG a "mere NPC?" :smallconfused:


If Age of Worms is normal op, then using Efreetis 3/day wish to give everyone +3 stats is normal op. Is what I'm trying to say.

"The BBEG in a module did X" does not make X "normal op." Villains, especially important ones, do get to break rules/exceed player limits for narrative reasons - like Voldemort and Xykon having get-out-of-death-free cards, or Malack being a vampire who got to research a custom plot spell to ignore a vampire's main weakness.

[gogogome]

"The BBEG in a module did X" does not make X "normal op." Villains, especially important ones, do get to break rules/exceed player limits for narrative reasons - like Voldemort and Xykon having get-out-of-death-free cards, or Malack being a vampire who got to research a custom plot spell to ignore a vampire's main weakness.

I disagree. I haven't seen a module BBEG do anything out of the ordinary. They're intended to be defeated by a party of normal op PCs so it's not really surprising.

[NigelWalmsley]

I don't think this is a particularly compelling data point. As I see it, there are basically two ways you can approach this question.

First, you can talk about RAW. What do the rules actually say? In this case, that's pretty unambiguous: this is 100% RAW. None of the relevant text is ambiguous. At best you can spend some time screwing around with player's attempts to get Wishes, but eventually they can just cast the damn thing themselves.

Second, you can ask what's healthy for the game. What should the rules say? That's inherently murkier, but it still doesn't depend on designer intent. Once you've abandoned the idea that you're going to follow the rules exactly, getting caught up on the intent is kind of pedantic.


It is a permissible function of Efreeti, for DMs, and no, you can’t pretend that DMs don’t get a bit of leeway in D&D, or that the players and the DMs must always have access to the same in-game resources.

It is not at all unreasonable to feel that a DM saying "no, you can't use that, it's too hard for me to deal with", then turning around and using it against you is unfair.

[Psyren]

I disagree. I haven't seen a module BBEG do anything out of the ordinary. They're intended to be defeated by a party of normal op PCs so it's not really surprising.

The module BBEG used his wishes to get the equivalent of a bunch of stat tomes, not anything else like magicamagicman is trying to do.

[Troacctid]

The best thing about d&d 3.5 is that players can do everything villains can do.
Is that...is it actually the best thing? That's your #1, then? Not, like, optimization, or having fun with friends, or building characters, or designing adventures, or the wealth of rules material to explore? Feels like "Transparency between PCs and monsters" would be pretty low on the list, but to each their own, I guess.

I mean, it's also like, demonstrably false. Can you play as a pit fiend? No. Can you take the Brand of the Nine Hells feat? No. Can you use unique NPC abilities? Technically yes, but practically no. Can you advance by HD and have each hit die count as only 1/4 of a level? No.

[icefractal]

If Age of Worms is normal op, then using Efreetis 3/day wish to give everyone +3 stats is normal op. Is what I'm trying to say.
This Efreeti made 0 magic items with his wish so using Wish for item creation is still probably TO. But just replicating spells and boosting stats is normal op.
I mean, yes? I would consider it PO rather than TO if that's what you mean. Maybe too much for a particular group, but really, most uses of Wish aren't that crazy even for free.

For reference, I don't consider "age to venerable, then reincarnate to negate the penalties" TO either. Getting something for nothing doesn't make it TO until that "something" becomes overwhelming to normal challenges.

[tyckspoon]

... Can you take the Brand of the Nine Hells feat?

Sure. Be a Lawful Evil Devil. There are quite a number of them that are playable.

[magicalmagicman]

Is that...is it actually the best thing? That's your #1, then? Not, like, optimization, or having fun with friends, or building characters, or designing adventures, or the wealth of rules material to explore? Feels like "Transparency between PCs and monsters" would be pretty low on the list, but to each their own, I guess.

All those are incorporated in the transparency. Because transparency exists there is a wealth of rule materials and crazy amount of customization options.


I mean, it's also like, demonstrably false. Can you play as a pit fiend? No. Can you take the Brand of the Nine Hells feat? No. Can you use unique NPC abilities? Technically yes, but practically no. Can you advance by HD and have each hit die count as only 1/4 of a level? No.

Simulacrum and Planar Binding says yes, I can play as a Pit Fiend or any monster in existence. NWN's Gate got me into d&d, and d&d did not disappoint.

[icefractal]

Is that...is it actually the best thing? That's your #1, then? Not, like, optimization, or having fun with friends, or building characters, or designing adventures, or the wealth of rules material to explore? Feels like "Transparency between PCs and monsters" would be pretty low on the list, but to each their own, I guess.
Maybe not #1, but above purely gamist optimization, yes. If the end result is just "you follow the exact same path, but you're better in combat", that leaves me pretty lukewarm. I mean, there's fun there, but MtG or tactical video games scratch that same itch with a lot less overhead.

Being able to *be* "the wizard who did it" though? Being able to actually do those things that are usually reserved to be done by NPCs in the backstory, and without the GM just handing it over? That's pretty unique. That's worth some clunky rules wrangling.

[Psyren]

Simulacrum and Planar Binding says yes, I can play as a Pit Fiend or any monster in existence. NWN's Gate got me into d&d, and d&d did not disappoint.

Neither of those give you an actual monster. Simulacrum gives you an illusion that has half-HD and appropriate abilities (with the GM deciding what "appropriate" means.) Planar Binding is controlled by the GM, even when they agree to your orders, which is why a clever recipient can subvert some instructions.

[magicalmagicman]

Neither of those give you an actual monster. Simulacrum gives you an illusion that has half-HD and appropriate abilities (with the GM deciding what "appropriate" means.).

I recall us having a rather unpleasant and really long debate about making simulacra of advanced creatures whose hd is double that of the normal creatures so... why don't we just not open that can of worms.

[gogogome]

I recall us having a rather unpleasant and really long debate about making simulacra of advanced creatures whose hd is double that of the normal creatures so... why don't we just not open that can of worms.

Yes i recall that debate too. It involved eschew materials, the "existence" of advanced creatures, one side was claiming DM decides everything, another was saying in official greyhawk setting with no DM alterations they all exist, and something about shapechanging targeting generic creatures so simulacrum can too

I lost my temper there if I remember correctly, and participated in the derailment of that thread.

[Psyren]

I recall us having a rather unpleasant and really long debate about making simulacra of advanced creatures whose hd is double that of the normal creatures so... why don't we just not open that can of worms.

Oh I had no intention of rehashing that, beyond restating my disagreement with your assertion and agreement with Troacctid's.

What I'm more focused on is your seeming belief that PCs and BBEGs should always be on the same footing. I'm not saying that's an invalid way to play, but hopefully this thread and even fantasy media like the very comic this site is known for help you see that's neither a common nor intended way of playing.

[Helluin]

The best thing about d&d 3.5 is that players can do everything villains can do.

What you're saying here is equivalent to "players get less than core only, while DMs get 50 sourcebooks because "storytelling" so no, I disagree and I would never play at a table where the DM says only his NPCs can abuse spellcasting because "storytelling"

I literally said in-game resources just to avoid the “BUT DM USES ALL SOURCE BOOKS AND PLAYERS GET NONE” speech, and yet here we are.

You are free to use spellcasting to do what you want, you should just be prepared when your DM says no. In this case, feel free to use Planar Binding on an efreet, just don’t expect easy free wishes or know that there will be consequences story-wise. Essentially, nothing is free. Expect a shift in alignment for dealing with fiends, having to navigate the intricate politics and/or the direct retribution of Efreet sultan, and think of the “free” wishes as rewards for dealing with these situations. Otherwise, DMs are free to withhold any boons if they wish to avoid the challenges that come with them altogether.

[magicalmagicman]

The module BBEG used his wishes to get the equivalent of a bunch of stat tomes, not anything else like magicamagicman is trying to do.

What is this "anything else" you speak of? I'm saying getting a bunch of stat tome equivalent and replicating 8th level spells in direct combat is normal op.


"+3 to all his stats" seems suboptimal. As soon as I encountered an advanced HD Efreet, I made plans to make multiple Simulacra to add +5, not just to all my stats, not just to all the PCs stats, but to all the stats of every allied NPC in the entire world.

Suboptimal it maybe but normal op is suboptimal. Using multiple simulacra of efreetis for the +5 might be high-op or PO not normal op.

I'm trying to figure out what is the "normal usage" of efreetis is so my PC can use it without breaking the game, and AoW says it's getting +3 to stats and replicating spells in direct combat.

I've been playing Dragon's Crown recently and in one of the boss battles you and a million pirates fight each other for a lamp, and the one who has the lamp gets to summon a genie that does all these aoe combat spells and I've been thinking, I wanna try that.


What I'm more focused on is your seeming belief that PCs and BBEGs should always be on the same footing. I'm not saying that's an invalid way to play, but hopefully this thread and even fantasy media like the very comic this site is known for help you see that's neither a common nor intended way of playing.

How is it not the intended way of play when players can do everything NPCs can do by design? No, it is the DMs who say only his NPCs can do something the PCs cannot is betraying the way the game is intended to be played.

[gogogome]

See, I always saw this the other way around in terms of table balance: anything the PCs can do, the BBEG can do.

In particular, since the BBEG is usually higher level, s/he can usually do so first, which is where the table balance comes in: if a player asks “oh sweet, can I chain-bind efreeti for infinite wishes consequence-free?” then I can always answer, “well, you can, but.....” with an Evil DM Grin that lets them know I have a retroactive contingency plan for what the campaign world looks like if the BBEG already has had infinite wishes to play with (e.g. using some number of wishes to achieve a permanent divination effect that alerts the BBEG whenever anyone else tries the same combo).

Maybe I can use this to unban content.

If a player uses efreetis or mirror mephits for modest purposes, I use them for modest purposes too, and if they go full TO then my NPCs go full TO.

That gives the PCs incentive to use these creatures in the least abusive way possible, which lets me unban these monsters.

I'll give this a shot.

[Hellpyre]

How is it not the intended way of play when players can do everything NPCs can do by design? No, it is the DMs who say only his NPCs can do something the PCs cannot is betraying the way the game is intended to be played.

Generally speaking? Because the villain should have avenues available to them that they heroes either do not have (copious amounts of time to madly plot or devise unholy rituals), will not pursue (gifting tens of thousands of slaves to an evil outsider in hopes of an alliance), or are impossible to replicate (a major, world ending artifact).

In the context of this adventure, there is a world of difference between an effrit working with someone, or being forced to work for them. Allying with an evil outsider is something that should be morally repugnant to heroes, either on its face or because of the requirements. That would mean an effrit they bound for wishes would be under duress, and would attempt to undermine the wishes granted at every turn.

[Psyren]

What is this "anything else" you speak of? I'm saying getting a bunch of stat tome equivalent and replicating 8th level spells in direct combat is normal op.

You keep throwing in that second part when it is not part of the original premise. Does the BBEG use unlimited wishes in combat in the module?



How is it not the intended way of play when players can do everything NPCs can do by design? No, it is the DMs who say only his NPCs can do something the PCs cannot is betraying the way the game is intended to be played.

How many stories have you read where the protagonists have the exact same resources, connections and techniques as the main villain? Does Harry Potter have horcruxes, or Vaarsuvius a phylactery for example?

[tiercel]

If a player uses efreetis or mirror mephits for modest purposes, I use them for modest purposes too, and if they go full TO then my NPCs go full TO.

That gives the PCs incentive to use these creatures in the least abusive way possible, which lets me unban these monsters.

Glad you find it interesting - it just always seemed like a reasonably easy way to balance any given table (with the caveat that you have to be ready to implement if players want to go for a game where POWAA OVAH 9000!!!}

In particular, unless you’re literally playing a “First Age/dawn of magic” scenario, I’ve never understood the sometimes implicit assumption that PCs really are the first people in the entire world to figure out that there are TO tricks, given that BBEGs (A) exist (B) are not less power-hungry than PCs (C) presumably do not have more moral constraints than PCs. (In extreme cases, there’s basically an “Anthropic Principle of D&D” at work, i.e. the campaign world can only look something like a bog-standard Greyhawk/FR/Eberron/whatever world if certain infinite/TO/RAW combos don’t work, cf. Tippyverse.)

[Psyren]

In particular, unless you’re literally playing a “First Age/dawn of magic” scenario, I’ve never understood the sometimes implicit assumption that PCs really are the first people in the entire world to figure out that there are TO tricks, given that BBEGs (A) exist (B) are not less power-hungry than PCs (C) presumably do not have more moral constraints than PCs. (In extreme cases, there’s basically an “Anthropic Principle of D&D” at work, i.e. the campaign world can only look something like a bog-standard Greyhawk/FR/Eberron/whatever world if certain infinite/TO/RAW combos don’t work, cf. Tippyverse.)

Agreed - and this is a more elegant way of phrasing the Giant's quote in my sig. If these kind of TO tricks were widely available, the world would look very different, hence they must not be widely available.

[magicalmagicman]

You keep throwing in that second part when it is not part of the original premise. Does the BBEG use unlimited wishes in combat in the module?

It's not unilmited, it's 3 wishes and since you engage the BBEG, Efreeti, two monks and a Cornugon in mortal combat, yes he uses all 3 wishes in combat. It directly says the Efreeti uses the Wishes to revive fallen allies and completely heal dying allies when the battle gets tough, but he doesn't use wish on the Cornugon because he hates him.


How many stories have you read where the protagonists have the exact same resources, connections and techniques as the main villain? Does Harry Potter have horcruxes, or Vaarsuvius a phylactery for example?

D&D writers created the malconvoker and made enslaving demonic armies an intended central playstyle. D&D writers also created fiendbinders for players so they can just buy demonic minions.

How many popular fantasy fictions has the hero enslaving or buying demonic armies for good? And what does that have anything to do with d&d and PC characters who use not only the same resources, connections, and techniques, but better resources, connections, and techniques to pull an "i'm better than you" to the villain?

Are you saying malconvokers and fiendbinders are NPC only classes? Are you saying anyone who doesn't play like harry potter is playing d&d wrong? Are you saying the d&d writers did NOT intend for players to use planar binding to bind demons and it's just an NPC only spell?

This is just me, but I think d&d writers wanted players to have the same resources, connections, and techniques as the villain, which is why Fiendish Codex II goes into very great detail about the consequences to the player for accepting faustian bargains among other things.

[Hellpyre]

This is just me, but I think d&d writers wanted players to have the same resources, connections, and techniques as the villain, which is why Fiendish Codex II goes into very great detail about the consequences to the player for accepting faustian bargains among other things.

The Fiendish Codex II is your go-to to try and make this point? The one with multiple options ending with the line


This option is unavailable to player characters (unless a DM rules otherwise).?

[magicalmagicman]

The Fiendish Codex II is your go-to to try and make this point? The one with multiple options ending with the line

?

Only if your definition of "multiple" is 1.


Whether or not to place the PCs in temptation’s path is always your decision as DM. If you do so, be sure that the advantages balance well with the disadvantages in your world. In general, benefi ts granted by Faustian pacts are balanced by the recipient’s inability to be raised, reincarnated, or resurrected. Do not introduce Faustian pacts into a campaign where this limitation is not a meaningful disadvantage.

You're totally right. Faustian Pact rules were made for NPCs not PCs.

[Psyren]

It's not unilmited, it's 3 wishes and since you engage the BBEG, Efreeti, two monks and a Cornugon in mortal combat, yes he uses all 3 wishes in combat. It directly says the Efreeti uses the Wishes to revive fallen allies and completely heal dying allies when the battle gets tough, but he doesn't use wish on the Cornugon because he hates him.

Exactly - the tactics provide specific (and questionably optimal) things those wishes are used for. The efreet is not duplicating every 8th-level sor/wiz spell in creation. And once those three, far-from-GitP-optimal wishes you described are used up, there aren't any more and the PCs will likely win if they've survived that long.



Are you saying malconvokers and fiendbinders are NPC only classes?

...No? I didn't say anything about those classes at all :smallconfused:

But I'm quite glad you brought them up all the same, because they support my point perfectly. Nobody is saying that players can't can't control fiends or efreeti at all, but that there is risk to doing so. Let's read the intent for these classes:


The standard concept of the perpetual war between good and evil is cliched to some: a black-and-white vision of reality, suitable only for religious sermonizing. A few who understand the complexity of the battles that rage throughout the planes have taken up a dangerous path, entering into powerful pacts with the foulest abominations of the Lower Planes to turn evil against evil. These daring summoners are malconvokers, and they bargain with their lives.


...However, even the most gifted fiendbinder plays a dangerous game, for though she can enslave the wicked and compel fiends to act in accordance with her wishes, fiends are notoriously willful, disagreeable, and at times outright disobedient. A fiendbinder relies on her truespeaking ability to control her fiendish thrall, all the while knowing that it craves only its freedom and the fiendbinder's blood.

Now, these apply to the BBEG too, but because he's actually serving the fiends' interests by spreading evil and destruction, it's less likely to go badly. Or at the very least, if it does go badly for him, all that means usually is that you replace one villain with another - the PCs job doesn't change. Heroes using these tactics are playing a much more dangerous game, because they have the chance of making things worse than if they had done nothing at all. It is not a risk-free class feature the way you seem to be implying it should be.a

[Hellpyre]

Only if your definition of "multiple" is 1.

Fair enough. I misremebered the other nine feats in that section that are inaccessible to PCs as having that text instead of inheriting the restriction from the prerequisite.

Of course, there are other things, like the Mabrahoring language, scattered throughout the book and inacessible to PCs.

[magicalmagicman]

Exactly - the tactics provide specific (and questionably optimal) things those wishes are used for. The efreet is not duplicating every 8th-level sor/wiz spell in creation. And once those three, far-from-GitP-optimal wishes you described are used up, there aren't any more and the PCs will likely win if they've survived that long.

How is reviving every fallen ally in battle all at once inferior to replicating any 8th level or lower spell? FFS one is a safe option of wish and the other is a greater effect of Miracle.


...No? I didn't say anything about those classes at all :smallconfused:

But I'm quite glad you brought them up all the same, because they support my point perfectly. Nobody is saying that players can't can't control fiends or efreeti at all, but that there is risk to doing so. Let's read the intent for these classes:

Now, these apply to the BBEG too, but because he's actually serving the fiends' interests by spreading evil and destruction, it's less likely to go badly. Or at the very least, if it does go badly for him, all that means usually is that you replace one villain with another - the PCs job doesn't change. Heroes using these tactics are playing a much more dangerous game, because they have the chance of making things worse than if they had done nothing at all. It is not a risk-free class feature the way you seem to be implying it should be.a

Exactly. if the player wants to assume those risks he gets to do everything the BBEG did. I have not once said players get to do things risk free. It is you who said only NPCs get access to special story breaker powers because of 'storytelling".

[Reversefigure4]

I'm somewhat baffled by the idea that PCs should have 'fair' access to all the same resources as NPCs. This things tend to oppose what make up the usual sort of stories DnD is about.

- There's naked plot devices. These are usually hand-waved, ill-defined in the rules, and used to promote adventuring. The BBEG can travel in time, and the PCs get pulled back in time with him (no saves, no writeup of the spell, only an excuse to Adventure In The Past). The BBEG can only be killed by the Sword of Light (necessitating a quest to get the sword). The Sun Crusher draws on the power of the sun to obliterate the earth (an naked plot artifact with no rules support that the PCs are intended to prevent the use of, not gain as a casual magic item)

- There are rules-supported plot devices. These are theoretically available to the PCs, but practically speaking don't come up in a standard game. These can be plot-options, barely rules-touching abilities that are impossible for the PCs to access ("The High Priest, favoured of Lloth, receives a +2 to AC and all his saves while in the Defiled Temple"). Or rules that the PCs can use, like playing a lich, that they are expected not to (because mass-murder and becoming an abomination doesn't tend to work well in the usual group game - liches are the monsters the PCs oppose!). Or rules that PCs are not presumed to have access to (taking levels in the Red Mantis Assassin prestige class, a class designed specifically for those inducted into their secret order).

- There are rules combinations that the PCs (and NPCs) can use legally, but shouldn't because it defeats the fun of the game. Pun-Pun can be built legally... but what does Pun-Pun actually do in a game, beyond ruin it immediately for everyone? This also runs into the problem of "why didn't an NPC think to do this first?" (because then the world would be ruined).

So GMs get to "cheat", invent plot devices, create artifacts, and move the story in a variety of interesting ways. You'll see these kinds of abilities used over and over again in pre-published campaigns, because they make interesting stories. The GM doesn't use these powers to win, because the GM can win any time with ease (CR20 Dragon splatters the Level 1 party). The PCs don't get these powers because those don't produce interesting stories (a BBEG that can only be killed by the Sword of Light is a good excuse to go Questing For The Artifact, a PC that can only be killed by the Sword of Light means every encounter is uninteresting for them, except that deliberately designed to kill them).

The PCs also receive a bundle of narrative-convenient powers, too. They continually run into adventure and gain levels at a speed that would make Town Guard Bob green with envy. They conveniently run into CR-appropriate encounters (because a CR20 Red Dragon landing on the level 1 party and annihilating them is no fun for anyone). They often receive divine boons, rare artifacts, and special abilities not available to the world at large.

Specific splatbooks may lay out different options, but I don't think there's an expectation that all these options will be available all the time, nor that the GM is obliged to run a game for Pun-Pun, the lich, Wizard Infinite-Wishes, and Greatsword Bob The Fighter all at the same time just because those options can be taken.

[Psychoalpha]

Expect a shift in alignment for dealing with fiends , having to navigate the intricate politics and/or the direct retribution of Efreet sultan, and think of the “free” wishes as rewards for dealing with these situations.

Emphasis mine. Uh... Efreeti aren't fiends. They aren't even [Evil]. They're evil, sure, but they're outsiders born of fire who just happen to be evil jerks, not creatures whose very existence is drawn from captial-E-for-Evil. The guy who runs the corner store can be evil, but I'm not going to expect a shift in alignment for my character when I buy a bag of chips from him.

Morally repugnant (as Hellpyre says further down), maybe, but there's no inherent moral corruption in interacting with them.


Maybe I can use this to unban content.

If a player uses efreetis or mirror mephits for modest purposes, I use them for modest purposes too, and if they go full TO then my NPCs go full TO.

That gives the PCs incentive to use these creatures in the least abusive way possible, which lets me unban these monsters.

I'll give this a shot.

This is literally how every group I've played with for decades now has done it, and why as soon as a DM starts talking about banning a bunch of stuff 'for balance reasons' we just let somebody else DM.


I’ve never understood the sometimes implicit assumption that PCs really are the first people in the entire world to figure out that there are TO tricks

Plenty of pretty obvious inventions and ideas took centuries or more to occur to someone. Saying you don't understand this is like saying you don't understand how someone could not find their keys when they're on the table right in front of them: All of human history is full of examples of people walking right past their keys, even when they're looking for them. Quite often the obvious is not obvious until it is.

[Psyren]

How is reviving every fallen ally in battle all at once inferior to replicating any 8th level or lower spell? FFS one is a safe option of wish and the other is a greater effect of Miracle.

A wish can safely revive ONE fallen ally. "Every fallen ally all at once" is not a safe use, and is certainly beyond any 8th-level spell I've seen.


Exactly. if the player wants to assume those risks he gets to do everything the BBEG did. I have not once said players get to do things risk free. It is you who said only NPCs get access to special story breaker powers because of 'storytelling".

Wait, so you're actually fine with an efreet who resents you and twists your wishes because you're not the villain then? Because if so, then yes, we actually agree and can stop right here.





If a player uses efreetis or mirror mephits for modest purposes, I use them for modest purposes too, and if they go full TO then my NPCs go full TO.

That gives the PCs incentive to use these creatures in the least abusive way possible, which lets me unban these monsters.

I'll give this a shot.

This is literally how every group I've played with for decades now has done it, and why as soon as a DM starts talking about banning a bunch of stuff 'for balance reasons' we just let somebody else DM.

An end run around WBL doesn't seem like a "modest purpose" to me.

[magicalmagicman]

A wish can safely revive ONE fallen ally. "Every fallen ally all at once" is not a safe use, and is certainly beyond any 8th-level spell I've seen.

It's a greater effect of miracle. The module says he uses wish to "revive fallen allies" so i guess that can be interpreted as one at a time.


Wait, so you're actually fine with an efreet who resents you and twists your wishes because you're not the villain then? Because if so, then yes, we actually agree and can stop right here.

We could've stopped at post #3 when i specifically mentioned Efreeti Simulacrum to avoid the whole twisting thing. Yes I agree a planar bound efreeti should do everything in his power to royally screw over his enslaver. I never said otherwise. I have not once said players are entitled to ignore the risk of anything. The topic at hand is: is spamming an Efreeti's 3/day wish every day for safe wishes normal op or TO? And if it's normal op then level 11-13 PCs should be able to get an efreeti ally without people labeling them as TO munchkins.

Now granted the module is for PCs near 16-17 so maybe getting free wishes 3/day at level 11-13 might be more than normal op. But it's definitely not TO.

[Psyren]

We could've stopped at post #3 when i specifically mentioned Efreeti Simulacrum to avoid the whole twisting thing. Yes I agree a planar bound efreeti should do everything in his power to royally screw over his enslaver. I never said otherwise. I have not once said players are entitled to ignore the risk of anything. The topic at hand is: is spamming an Efreeti's 3/day wish every day for safe wishes normal op or TO? And if it's normal op then level 11-13 PCs should be able to get an efreeti ally without people labeling them as TO munchkins.

But I would still label them that way for even trying that in the first place. Because effectively you're trying to get an extra 495,000gp of wealth per PC at level 11. And I would be in favor of any GM who chose to screw with that, or ban it entirely.

[Troacctid]

But I would still label them that way for even trying that in the first place. Because effectively you're trying to get an extra 495,000gp of wealth per PC at level 11. And I would be in favor of any GM who chose to screw with that, or ban it entirely.
Technically, as a spellcasting service, it's only 477,540 gp of wealth!

[afroakuma]

I am deeply confused by the purpose of this thread... the OP is a statement of an opinion, and nothing I've seen yet explains to me what this opinion is intended to apply to - is it for a specific game and a specific DM? It reads like the conclusion of an argument, but without preamble or purpose, I don't understand what it's for. :smallconfused:

[Hellpyre]

Afro, I figure from the time this one started up that it was intended to address the question raised in this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?604165-Why-don-t-monsters-break-the-game) thread

[magicalmagicman]

I am deeply confused by the purpose of this thread... the OP is a statement of an opinion, and nothing I've seen yet explains to me what this opinion is intended to apply to - is it for a specific game and a specific DM? It reads like the conclusion of an argument, but without preamble or purpose, I don't understand what it's for. :smallconfused:

It's applied to every normal op or higher game. If a DM says efreetis are broken and banned from his game, simply tell him that age of worms "abused" efreetis and that module is normal op, so he's wrong.

Won't do anything because DMs who ban stuff are incredibly stubborn, but newer DMs might look into it and change their behavior to what tiercel and gogogome are suggesting instead of being ban happy.

[HeraldOfExius]

It's applied to every normal op or higher game. If a DM says efreetis are broken and banned from his game, simply tell him that age of worms "abused" efreetis and that module is normal op, so he's wrong.

Won't do anything because DMs who ban stuff are incredibly stubborn, but newer DMs might look into it and change their behavior to what tiercel and gogogome are suggesting instead of being ban happy.

You keep saying that it's "normal op" because the villain in a module did it, but you haven't really established why that makes it normal op. You have given one example of something, and you're saying that's enough to determine that players should always be able to do the same thing. If I reference a module where the villain uses an artifact to travel back in time and change things to their liking, then does that mean that I as a player am getting cheated out of the normal op strategy of time travel when most GMs don't ever give me the opportunity to use it?

[magicalmagicman]

You keep saying that it's "normal op" because the villain in a module did it, but you haven't really established why that makes it normal op.

Because it was created by WotC and Paizo? And they only make modules that normal people can beat? I can beat the entirety of Age of Worms solo with a PO character.

Just name one module WotC or Paizo has ever made that a DMM:Persistent Spell necropolitan cleric at WBL employing necromancy can't roflstomp through.

Hell I'm pretty sure a straight 20 pure fighter with no ranks in UMD can solo the entire module just by optimizing the magic items he buys.

[afroakuma]

It's applied to every normal op or higher game. If a DM says efreetis are broken and banned from his game, simply tell him that age of worms "abused" efreetis and that module is normal op, so he's wrong.

...so your purpose is to provide adversarial "evidence" for players to take to DMs to overrule them?

Why not just, you know, discuss with your DM beforehand about the kind of game each of you wants to play, and if your desires don't align, don't play together?

No DM is required to accede to your position because "it happened in a module this one time." In fact, part of a DM's job is defining what material will and will not be included in the game. Saying this magazine adventure is not applicable is no different from saying any other magazine content doesn't hold water, or that Magic of Incarnum won't be used, or Races of the Wild, or Serpent Kingdoms or whichever sourcebook.


Won't do anything because DMs who ban stuff are incredibly stubborn, but newer DMs might look into it and change their behavior to what tiercel and gogogome are suggesting

I'm not sure if this is coming from another thread as was pointed out above, but from what I've read in this one, I don't think either of them is voicing quite the same position you are.

In any event, if you view D&D as an adversarial experience in which DMs should get out of your way and let you do what you want, and what you want is to "roflstomp" through things, then I think you've lost the bead on the nature of the activity in question and I doubt there's anything to be gained in addressing this further.

[NigelWalmsley]

Banning things should neither be an adversarial discussion where players try to bully DMs into allowing what they want nor a unilateral one where the DM hands down a set of rules from on high. We're all adults, we can work together to figure out how to create an experience that's satisfying for all involved. But that can't happen if the DM insists on banning things because he doesn't like them, or players won't think about what's healthy for the game.

[magicalmagicman]

...so your purpose is to provide adversarial "evidence" for players to take to DMs to overrule them?

Why not just, you know, discuss with your DM beforehand about the kind of game each of you wants to play, and if your desires don't align, don't play together?

No DM is required to accede to your position because "it happened in a module this one time." In fact, part of a DM's job is defining what material will and will not be included in the game. Saying this magazine adventure is not applicable is no different from saying any other magazine content doesn't hold water, or that Magic of Incarnum won't be used, or Races of the Wild, or Serpent Kingdoms or whichever sourcebook.



I'm not sure if this is coming from another thread as was pointed out above, but from what I've read in this one, I don't think either of them is voicing quite the same position you are.

In any event, if you view D&D as an adversarial experience in which DMs should get out of your way and let you do what you want, and what you want is to "roflstomp" through things, then I think you've lost the bead on the nature of the activity in question and I doubt there's anything to be gained in addressing this further.

So I point out that efreetis aren't the untouchable unusable gamebreaker like sarrukhs are because paizo used it in a module for a normal party

Then one DM skims over my 2nd post and fails to see the world simulacrum, puts words in my mouth to make me look like I'm saying players are entitled to everything without any risk, misinterprets "replicates any 8th level or lower spell" as "cast every single 8th level spell in creation simultaneously at once" and gives me hell for that, and then cites harry potter and other fiction as reasoning as to why players don't get access to the darker things in d&d.

Then another DM comes in and says the best type of game is where there is no player npc transparency and DMs get to abuse things players have full access to while the players are banned from using the very same thing the DMs are slapping them in the face with.

Then another DM comes in and says I'm a bad guy for suggesting that perhaps efreetis aren't the untouchable unsuable gamebreaker like sarrukhs are and pointing to a module where Paizo abused efreetis themselves.

[Troacctid]

Again, the game does not have full player/DM transparency. PCs use ECL, NPCs use CR. If you've ever worked with CR, you'll know the optimization strategies for it are wildly different, because there are a whole lot of things you can do as an NPC that you could never do as a PC. You can stack templates, play weird races, pile on hit dice for cheap, all kinds of stuff.

[Psychoalpha]

Banning things should neither be an adversarial discussion where players try to bully DMs into allowing what they want nor a unilateral one where the DM hands down a set of rules from on high. We're all adults, we can work together to figure out how to create an experience that's satisfying for all involved. But that can't happen if the DM insists on banning things because he doesn't like them, or players won't think about what's healthy for the game.

If you're all adults thinking about what's healthy for the game, there's probably no need to actually ban anything. I've been in ongoing campaigns with several different RL groups since 3.5 came out and literally nothing is 'banned' except being a jerk and ruining everybody else's fun. Shockingly nobody has used infinite wishes or any other nonsense to break the game.

Even in a game where crazy nonsense was explicitly encouraged by the DM the worst thing anybody did was create an army of Simulacrum Solars to unleash in the middle of a war where powerful demons had already entered the fray, that they essentially got rid of immediately afterwards because having an army of Solars at your beck and call makes further adventuring pointless and we are still nominally adventurers playing a game about adventuring, despite the brief war time sidetrack.


If I reference a module where the villain uses an artifact to travel back in time and change things to their liking, then does that mean that I as a player am getting cheated out of the normal op strategy of time travel when most GMs don't ever give me the opportunity to use it?

Bad example, since the very existence of an artifact to travel back in time is both singular and heavily restricted by the nature of the setting, one assumes. If, however, you said that such artifacts were around and could be obtained by the PCs with the use of a spell or class feature, and then actually had a villain use one, it'd be pretty weird to get upset at PCs for thinking they might want to do the same.

It's neither exceptionally difficult nor dangerous for a party of a given level to bind, create, or buy access to an arbitrary number of wishes that would let them cheat the WBL levels of the game. They don't (at least in our games, see above) because that's not really the game we came to the table to play, but the flipside is that our DMs don't tend to do that either. All of which is to say that, oh my god maybe the module is just badly written gasp say it isn't so. This whole conversation would literally not even be happening if the involvement of a wish 'granting' Efreeti weren't put in the context it's been used in.

[NigelWalmsley]

Shockingly nobody has used infinite wishes or any other nonsense to break the game.

I don't think the distinction between "no one does it because we all agreed to ban it" and "no one does it because we all agreed not to use it" is an especially meaningful one.

[magicalmagicman]

Again, the game does not have full player/DM transparency. PCs use ECL, NPCs use CR. If you've ever worked with CR, you'll know the optimization strategies for it are wildly different, because there are a whole lot of things you can do as an NPC that you could never do as a PC. You can stack templates, play weird races, pile on hit dice for cheap, all kinds of stuff.

Simulacrum and Ice Assassin gives you access to NPCs.

d&d may not have 100% transparency but it is at least 99% transparent.

[Helluin]

Emphasis mine. Uh... Efreeti aren't fiends. They aren't even [Evil]. They're evil, sure, but they're outsiders born of fire who just happen to be evil jerks, not creatures whose very existence is drawn from captial-E-for-Evil. The guy who runs the corner store can be evil, but I'm not going to expect a shift in alignment for my character when I buy a bag of chips from him.

Yes, well aware, thank-you. I brought up fiends because of Glabrezu, Pit Fiend, or other Wish-granting soul-selling deals, not because of Efreeti. I addressed the possible consequences of dealing with Efreet in my next sentence.

[Psyren]

It's applied to every normal op or higher game. If a DM says efreetis are broken and banned from his game, simply tell him that age of worms "abused" efreetis and that module is normal op, so he's wrong.

Villains don't have WBL. That a villain was able to use an efreet to get an extra 500k of wealth does not mean you as a player should be allowed to do the same thing. This is not an unreasonable stance for any GM to take. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

[gogogome]

Villains don't have WBL. That a villain was able to use an efreet to get an extra 500k of wealth does not mean you as a player should be allowed to do the same thing. This is not an unreasonable stance for any GM to take. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

A DM could just eliminate all loot until their WBL catches up. It's an incentive to not do it. Might be a better approach than outright denying a monster the player might not use in that way.

edit: Personally, i think those stat tomes are overpriced. +3 to all stats don't really do anything which is why most people allow a higher point buy than 25 so i wouldn't really penalize the players for a +3 to all stats.

[NigelWalmsley]

Forcibly enforcing WBL is a bad idea. Telling the players "no, selling that castle actually caused all your enemies to have no money for the next three levels" is just discouraging creativity and breaking immersion. If the players get a giant pile of money, let them have the money! If that causes problems, fix those problems, don't try to artificially limit the amount of money players can pull out of the setting. That just leads to frustration, and an arms race (which, yes, you can't lose, but that turns out not to mean the PCs will stop trying to beat you).

[gogogome]

Forcibly enforcing WBL is a bad idea. Telling the players "no, selling that castle actually caused all your enemies to have no money for the next three levels" is just discouraging creativity and breaking immersion. If the players get a giant pile of money, let them have the money! If that causes problems, fix those problems, don't try to artificially limit the amount of money players can pull out of the setting. That just leads to frustration, and an arms race (which, yes, you can't lose, but that turns out not to mean the PCs will stop trying to beat you).

I disagree. The game is balanced around WBL. Too low is bad, too high is bad, and this is especially true for players who have really good system mastery. As DM you're supposed to forcibly enforce WBL.

[Pex]

How many stories have you read where the protagonists have the exact same resources, connections and techniques as the main villain? Does Harry Potter have horcruxes, or Vaarsuvius a phylactery for example?

Actually, yes. Harry Potter does have a horcrux. He is the horcrux.
:smallbiggrin:

[NigelWalmsley]

Also, Potter totally does come back from the dead. Or the kinda-dead. It's a big part of the climax.


I disagree. The game is balanced around WBL. Too low is bad, too high is bad, and this is especially true for players who have really good system mastery. As DM you're supposed to forcibly enforce WBL.

D&D makes a lot of assumptions that don't hold up super well. I think, in practice, trying to enforce WBL hurts the game more than it helps. There are things that break if people can get more (or less) than WBL, but in practice I think those things are broken anyway, and non-WBL gameplay supports better stories.

[Psyren]

A DM could just eliminate all loot until their WBL catches up.

So 19th level? That's a long time to go without any treasure.


Forcibly enforcing WBL is a bad idea. Telling the players "no, selling that castle actually caused all your enemies to have no money for the next three levels" is just discouraging creativity and breaking immersion. If the players get a giant pile of money, let them have the money! If that causes problems, fix those problems, don't try to artificially limit the amount of money players can pull out of the setting. That just leads to frustration, and an arms race (which, yes, you can't lose, but that turns out not to mean the PCs will stop trying to beat you).

Look, if a DM decides to run a Monty Haul, "sell-a-castle-and-become-obscenely-wealthy" campaign, then fine. What you don't get to do is tell a DM who doesn't want to run that campaign and would rather stick to printed WBL that they are the ones being unreasonable, end of.

[afroakuma]

As noted above, this sort of thing should be discussed before the inception of the game, among all parties. The DM is armed with rule 0, but the players (including the DM) should enter the game with an understanding of what they are each looking for. It's a game, a social activity, in which all participants are looking to have a good time.

[NigelWalmsley]

Look, if a DM decides to run a Monty Haul, "sell-a-castle-and-become-obscenely-wealthy" campaign, then fine. What you don't get to do is tell a DM who doesn't want to run that campaign and would rather stick to printed WBL that they are the ones being unreasonable, end of.

The DM shouldn't be deciding on his own either way. The group as a whole should be deciding. If the players want Monty Haul, the DM should run a Monty Haul campaign. Just as if the group agrees to play Pathfinder, the DM shouldn't show up with a Shadowrun adventure because he though Bright was a lot of fun.

[Psyren]

The DM shouldn't be deciding on his own either way. The group as a whole should be deciding. If the players want Monty Haul, the DM should run a Monty Haul campaign. Just as if the group agrees to play Pathfinder, the DM shouldn't show up with a Shadowrun adventure because he though Bright was a lot of fun.

Does this thread read like "the group deciding" to you?

[NigelWalmsley]

Does this thread read like "the group deciding" to you?

Do my posts read as particularly supportive of OP? I thought I was pretty clear from the beginning that what he's trying to do is, at best, pointless. It's not a binary between "bully people into accepting the ruling you want" and "the DM tells you what the ruling is with no negotiation".

[Quertus]

How is the BBEG a "mere NPC?" :smallconfused:

Because he's an NPC.


"The BBEG in a module did X" does not make X "normal op." Villains, especially important ones, do get to break rules/exceed player limits for narrative reasons - like Voldemort and Xykon having get-out-of-death-free cards, or Malack being a vampire who got to research a custom plot spell to ignore a vampire's main weakness.

And my PCs have done all of those.


What I'm more focused on is your seeming belief that PCs and BBEGs should always be on the same footing. I'm not saying that's an invalid way to play, but hopefully this thread and even fantasy media like the very comic this site is known for help you see that's neither a common nor intended way of playing.

My experience says it's common.

As for intended… do you believe that a GM should just arbitrarily add +10 BAB to a 6th level warrior (to give them 4 Iterative attacks, etc)?


I disagree. I haven't seen a module BBEG do anything out of the ordinary. They're intended to be defeated by a party of normal op PCs so it's not really surprising.

On top of that, don't forget that, these days, it would be considered bad form if the BBEG did have something unique that wasn't foreshadowed 10 ways to Sunday, so as not to be a "gotcha".


I have to disagree with this, because it presumes the PCs are the most interesting and worthwhile individuals in the entire game world. To me this feels like the gaming equivalent of geocentrism, with a dash of elitism thrown in. A derogatory phrase like “mere NPCs” only heightens that impression.

In terms of access to specific rulesets, it quickly strains belief to imagine that the PCs, alone of all sentients in the world, have the ability to choose from the broadest possible selection of spells, abilities, materials and knowledge. This implies that every other sentient is somehow limited by comparison, which breaks down if there is any historical depth or geographical variation in the campaign world.

So, now I'll circle back to your response.

Consider my response an exaggerated statement of one of two opposing endpoints on a spectrum.

Maybe no one gets to have free BAB, and every warrior has +6 BAB at 6th level. Everyone plays by the rules, and that's fine.

Or maybe someone in the world does get to be a 6th level Fighter with +16 BAB. One side says, "only my NPCs can be this cool; I cannot imagine your PCs being that cool". The other side says, "if we're going to make exceptions for someone being awesome, shouldn't that be the PCs who are awesome?".

Myself, I… OK, actually, I advocate everyone following the rules. But, if you're going to break the rules, IMO, you should do it because you are a fan of the PCs, and realize that how awesome they are isn't adequately covered by the rules.

So, the BBEG is a Necromancer, leading a nation-threatening army? Well, my PC Necromancer should one day have a better army than that NPC ever had. The BBEG uses time travel? My PC Chronomancer should come to understand the time steam better than he ever could. It not only makes for a better play experience, it also better matches the majority of such stories in other media. And, otherwise, you've relegated the PCs to being second-rate characters. And that, IMO, is the wrong answer. That way lies the stuff of bad DMPCs, the SUE Files, and madness.

So, be a fan of the PCs. Realize that everyone else is just mere NPCs. I contend it's better than the opposite.


I don't think this is a particularly compelling data point. As I see it, there are basically two ways you can approach this question.

First, you can talk about RAW. What do the rules actually say? In this case, that's pretty unambiguous: this is 100% RAW. None of the relevant text is ambiguous. At best you can spend some time screwing around with player's attempts to get Wishes, but eventually they can just cast the damn thing themselves.

Second, you can ask what's healthy for the game. What should the rules say? That's inherently murkier, but it still doesn't depend on designer intent. Once you've abandoned the idea that you're going to follow the rules exactly, getting caught up on the intent is kind of pedantic.

Mostly strongly agree. However, some GMs do actually benefit from seeing how the devs actually intended the game to be played - otherwise, there'd be no value in including things like examples of play.


Is that...is it actually the best thing? That's your #1, then? Not, like, optimization, or having fun with friends, or building characters, or designing adventures, or the wealth of rules material to explore? Feels like "Transparency between PCs and monsters" would be pretty low on the list, but to each their own, I guess.

I'm sure I've disagreed with you in the past, but this may be the first time I've ever seen you post something where you come off badly. I guess everyone has bad days.

If I tell my SO that the best thing about them is their eyes, one wouldn't normally expect them to respond with, "oh, so it's not that I'm real? Or in the same universe as you? Or the way I make you happy? Or…"

Perhaps you would appreciate the wording, "the biggest single thing that makes 3e better than other RPGs (I've played) is…”? (And, if you agree with that wording, I'll try and remember it should I get such an SO).

[Crake]

The DM shouldn't be deciding on his own either way. The group as a whole should be deciding. If the players want Monty Haul, the DM should run a Monty Haul campaign. Just as if the group agrees to play Pathfinder, the DM shouldn't show up with a Shadowrun adventure because he though Bright was a lot of fun.

As a primary DM, I disagree with this wholeheartedly. At no point is the DM ever ever obligated to run what the players want, if it's not something he also wishes to do. If the players want a monty haul game that badly, one of them can pick up the reins and DM it, but the DM is the first and foremost decider of what sort of game he is going to run. Obviously, the players are just as welcome to decline playing, if the game is not the sort of game they want to play, and generally speaking a compromise should be met where everyone is happy, but this is not majority rules.


And, otherwise, you've relegated the PCs to being second-rate characters.

Second rate characters who still come out on top are actually generally very popular. It's called being the underdog. If the PCs are the top dogs in every field they try their hand at, it ceases to be a tense story with real stakes, because the PCs, being so great as they are, are expected to win, and that's just a boring story to tell. Should a PC ever actually become the top dog, then you realistically should have retired that character a while ago.

[rel]

makes sense to me. When we include planar binding in a game one of the first things we do is bind an efreet and boost the stats of the party.

Stat boosts feel good, they are a fun upgrade. You notice them but they don't require bookkeeping. They don't break the game, a +1 to +2 isn't a big deal. And they don't slow down play like binding a powerful summon can.

As far as uses for planar binding go, binding an efreet to boost your stats is one of the coolest feeling options and it won't disrupt a 'fight the bigbad' adventure.

[Psyren]

Because he's an NPC.

As are kings and gods. In some campaigns ,the PCs can become their equals - but not in all, or even most.



And my PCs have done all of those.

Good for you then.



As for intended… do you believe that a GM should just arbitrarily add +10 BAB to a 6th level warrior (to give them 4 Iterative attacks, etc)?

No idea what this non sequitur has to do with anything.

[Psychoalpha]

Agree that WBL is mostly garbage and an unnecessary crutch that creates some serious suspension of disbelief issues. Everybody close to WBL? Sorry, you can go on a world tour of dragon slaying and each of their hordes will be empty or otherwise unavailable because WBL limits. Meh.

Personal anectdote:

When one of our DMs, who normally runs more standard games, decided to run one where the characters at level 5 almost literally stumbled into the lair of a Great Wyrm Red Dragon who had engaged in some mutually assured destruction with another adventuring group, he basically told them they could find pretty much anything they wanted there. Stat boosting items? Check. Staff of XYZ? Sure. Hundreds of millions of gold in gems, precious metals, art objects, etc? Absolutely. Rings of Wishes? And then some.

Due to scheduling conflicts I wasn't a part of this game until much later, but there was a much later because nobody broke the game world. Sure, they powered up where they could, but the characters were only level 5. They were smart enough know they had neither the experience nor the knowledge to wisely use or hold on to the resources, and they didn't go Lottery Crazy. He was willing to run with it to whatever zany end they went with if they did, but really they ultimately just used it to gear themselves up so that they could ease themselves into higher level challenges, and for world building their various interests in surprisingly 'normal' ways. No wishes for sudden castles, no attempts to ascend to godhood. They were adventurers, and so they went adventuring, doing their best to hide just how good their gear was and their apparent wealth so that nobody with both power and the experience to apply it would decide to strip them of it.

Sure, there was a period of adjustment where stuff was trivialized by their gear, but the DM adapted the campaign as they went and pulled them into more consequential and dangerous stuff, changed up the stakes, and otherwise did what a good DM does. By the time I joined, my character found the rest of the party to be surprisingly cautious, and dealing with events and creatures beyond what he would have expected of their relatively middling levels (I think they were 11 when I joined).

In game terms, the DM upp'd the CR of the things they got drawn into, or they went into things expecting X and got X+Z where Z is usually also a plot hook to draw them into something else, as well as a means of upping the CR of the encounter. Yes, it absolutely trivialized some things (never having to scramble for thousands of GP worth of diamonds for resurrection/etc spells after things went horribly wrong), but they didn't become unstoppable juggernauts who could topple the world for the same reasons that monsters with access to wish and vast hordes of wealth don't: That's not the game they wanted to play.

This is an extreme example, but only to illustrate the point: As both a player and a DM, I haven't found WBL to be useful for anything except the broadest idea of what characters can handle by CR, and even that is a grossly poor judge given the differences that can exist between parties. Four Fighters do not handle the same CR or type of challenges that four Clerics can, not by a long shot. A party that's a Barbarian, Wizard, Cleric, and Druid does not have the same ability to handle stuff as a party that's a Bard, a Monk, a Rogue, and an Alchemist. How closely those groups adhere to WBL is almost irrelevant at that point.

The most important part is that my groups (whether I'm player or DM) seem to understand that the DM will try to create stories and scenarios that will challenge them. The DM is okay with some stuff being trivialized by their cleverness or procurement of wealth, the players are okay with some stuff being so daunting that they have to retreat and come at it later from another angle (or with more experience and gear), but we all understand that somewhere between those extremes is where much of the actual game will take place. If that isn't possible, or isn't fun, because of actions at either side of the table, then the game ends and we start something new. This isn't to say that every game should be a Monty Haul type, but it's certainly the case that strict adherence to not letting players get over WBL is more indicative of a flaw in a DM's abilities as a DM than because it creates actual problems in how the game flows. Or that the players are jerks who will abuse that extra WBL to do stupid stuff that breaks the game, but once again that's a problem with those players.

The more I read these forums the more I wonder if the rest of the world only runs D&D games for tables full of rabid foxes and small children who haven't developed impulse control yet. Most of the problems people act as if are real issues are things I haven't seen much of since playing in high school.

[Talakeal]

Second rate characters who still come out on top are actually generally very popular. It's called being the underdog. If the PCs are the top dogs in every field they try their hand at, it ceases to be a tense story with real stakes, because the PCs, being so great as they are, are expected to win, and that's just a boring story to tell. Should a PC ever actually become the top dog, then you realistically should have retired that character a while ago.

This.

Also, D&D is normally a team game, so you will generally need some antagonists who can challenge the entire team at once.

[Zombimode]

The more I read these forums the more I wonder if the rest of the world only runs D&D games for tables full of rabid foxes and small children who haven't developed impulse control yet. Most of the problems people act as if are real issues are things I haven't seen much of since playing in high school.

You're not alone. This forum is full of endless crying and discussion about "problems" that are either non-issues or that evaporate if you play with people the aren't jerks or complete idiots.

At the most questions like "if creature/spell/ability X exists why condition Y is not true in this setting?" seemed to be important when I was just starting this hobby in my late teens so many years ago.

[Hellpyre]

The more I read these forums the more I wonder if the rest of the world only runs D&D games for tables full of rabid foxes and small children who haven't developed impulse control yet. Most of the problems people act as if are real issues are things I haven't seen much of since playing in high school.

I feel like part of it is that I, and presumably many others, give advice for tables on the assumption that they aren't working together well, because otherwise why would they need advice? A group of adults who know each other, spending time with friends and having fun generally understand that the point is, you know, for everyone to have a fun time. I find it's when you end up playing with people you don't know, who have wildly different concepts of what makes a good time, that personalities grind on one another and conflict rears its head.

Most games I've had that didn't go well have been online games played with people I've never met. As far as in-person games, I've never had one do worse than start to take a turn towards bad, and then get resolved as friends and reasonable adults.


As an aside: I don't think bamning things is an unreasonable stance per se. I agree that banning specific items for balance reasons is overboard when a gentleman's agreement will solve the same problem better and easier, but I have no problem with a DM banning things for flavor reasons, or because they don't feel comfortable trying to DM a campaign that contains them (for whatever reason it may do so). If a DM says, "No humans, feats and skill points are too generically good," that is something where I'd probably talk to the DM about what they want in terms of power and try to get the group all on the same level about power. If the DM says "No aarakocra, this world doesn't feature birdfolk," I'd generally shrug, nod, and move on with the campaign.

[noob]

I mean, yes? I would consider it PO rather than TO if that's what you mean. Maybe too much for a particular group, but really, most uses of Wish aren't that crazy even for free.

For reference, I don't consider "age to venerable, then reincarnate to negate the penalties" TO either. Getting something for nothing doesn't make it TO until that "something" becomes overwhelming to normal challenges.

The rules does not says you keep the bonuses from ageing when you use reincarnate nor that you lose the penalties when reincarnating.
Reincarnate can either cancel all ageing modifiers due or cancel none of those(or yet have other effects) all within legitimate interpretation of the rules.

[Troacctid]

Simulacrum and Ice Assassin gives you access to NPCs.

d&d may not have 100% transparency but it is at least 99% transparent.
So would you say that having another character create a simulacrum of half a marrutact at level 14 is equivalent to playing as one at level 5, or close enough as makes no difference?

[Xervous]

Surely I can’t have been the only one to realize the irony of the Necropolitan claim when the very module in question hands out an auto fail to all undead? Specifically the part where all undead in the demiplane fall into an unending torpor.

[magicalmagicman]

So would you say that having another character create a simulacrum of half a marrutact at level 14 is equivalent to playing as one at level 5, or close enough as makes no difference?

Close enough. A player using planar binding to have a vrock fight all his battles for him is virtually the same as playing a vrock yourself. Simulacrum expands this pool of monsters you can "play" as.

DMs have a much easier time but a dedicated player can get what he wants within the rules. For example, thanks to sublime chord, CL2 scrolls of lesser planar binding exist so a level 1 artificer can bind a mirror mephit which opens the door to pretty much anything. This character can create a half marrutact (w.e that is) simulacrum at level 5 and destroy it for a higher hd one every level.

PCs can do virtually everything NPCs can do in 3.5 and that's one of the main reasons I love 3.5. I'm failing to see what you're trying to prove here.

[Psychoalpha]

I feel like part of it is that I, and presumably many others, give advice for tables on the assumption that they aren't working together well, because otherwise why would they need advice?

See, to me it seems like people coming here with a screw and complaining that it's really hard to hammer into a board, and people are giving them all sorts of hammering and board advice while others (myself included) are trying to tell them that it's a screw and a hammer isn't the right tool for the job. You either need a nail or a screwdriver, because trying to brute force it is just going to ruin your project.


Most games I've had that didn't go well have been online games played with people I've never met.

Fair enough. I don't think it's any surprise that the internet is full of jerks and idiots in vast numbers. I used to be heavily into MU*ing and I'm very glad I never made any tabletop associations with how people behaved there. :p


I have no problem with a DM banning things for flavor reasons, or because they don't feel comfortable trying to DM a campaign that contains them (for whatever reason it may do so)

Agreed on the first part. I don't even think of that as banning things. A custom world setting not having birdfolk (or non-humans, or humans, or whatever) is generally fine. Most of the 3.5 games I was in didn't use Artificers or Warforged, not for power considerations but because my DMs at the time didn't like the flavor of the setting so didn't want to include its elements in their ongoing games.

It's when I start getting a whiff of "Players can't be trusted to play with these toys because they COULD be abused." that I start squinting at a DM and wondering if we need to have that talk. Luckily it's been many years since it even came up.

[Psyren]

Close enough. A player using planar binding to have a vrock fight all his battles for him is virtually the same as playing a vrock yourself.

Well, yes and no; you have some control over the creature's actions, but never its mindset or attitude like you would with a PC, the DM still controls those. PB doesn't give you a perfectly servile automaton; monsters, especially fiends, have goals, drives and designs of their own. If a demon is unquestionably doing everything you want it to without even an attempt at subversion, it's probably because you're doing things it wants to be done anyway. For most heroes, this seems unlikely (though it is possible, especially for short-term service.)

Simulacrum is a different story - there you do get full control over every aspect of the creature. Of course, Simulacrum is also balanced by not quite giving you the creature anyway, but we agreed not to rehash that one.

[Talakeal]

As a player I personally prefer bans to gentleman's agreements. The temptation to violate it is annoying, as is the frustration when someone else has a different interpretation of the limits than I do.

[magicalmagicman]

Well, yes and no; you have some control over the creature's actions, but never its mindset or attitude like you would with a PC, the DM still controls those. PB doesn't give you a perfectly servile automaton; monsters, especially fiends, have goals, drives and designs of their own. If a demon is unquestionably doing everything you want it to without even an attempt at subversion, it's probably because you're doing things it wants to be done anyway. For most heroes, this seems unlikely (though it is possible, especially for short-term service.)

I said virtually the same. I'm only interested in expendable beaters so my DM doesn't really care so I have full control over his actions. I noticed it's mostly new DMs who go crazy with the whole "roleplay" of PB and talk about interplanar hit squads while experienced DMs don't give a damn unless it's something gamebreaking like free wealth. You view +3 to all stats as free wealth so I understand your objection which is why I haven't been saying anything regarding that subject.

I talked with my DM about this topic and he agrees with me and said I can do whatever this NPC did as well, but only after level 17 because even combat-only usage of wish breaks the game at level 11. He said I can buff every party member's stats by +3 with no penalty but he won't stand for any magic item creation.


As a player I personally prefer bans to gentleman's agreements. The temptation to violate it is annoying, as is the frustration when someone else has a different interpretation of the limits than I do.

I prefer global house rules like a global limit on hd from PB or simulacrum, like animate dead has. In my DM's case he uses CR instead of hd.

[Quertus]

Second rate characters who still come out on top are actually generally very popular. It's called being the underdog. If the PCs are the top dogs in every field they try their hand at, it ceases to be a tense story with real stakes, because the PCs, being so great as they are, are expected to win, and that's just a boring story to tell. Should a PC ever actually become the top dog, then you realistically should have retired that character a while ago.

RPGs are not a conducive medium for stories where the "underdog" always triumphs. Most, however, are conducive to stories where a former underdog gains power sufficient to triumph.

Too many GMs walk into a game with the attitude that "your poor, pathetic PC will never be the equal of my awesome NPCs".

Calls for retirement? Once the PCs are the biggest fish, and have overthrown the gods, that's when things get interesting. Everything before that is just backstory.

Exaggeration? Maybe. But, hopefully, if I exaggerate enough, it'll be easier to see the direction of my point.


This.

Also, D&D is normally a team game, so you will generally need some antagonists who can challenge the entire team at once.


Sure. And, in the final confrontation, after we've grown, while your Fighter is out-fighting the Dragon, my Necromancer will be out-armying their Necromancer, our Bard's buffs will be outpacing the debuffs from their anti Paladin, and our Cleric will be out-healing the damage their Demon deals. Or, while your Fighter is out-fighting the anti Paladin, my Necromancer's creation will be eating the Dragon, the Cleric will be making the undead army go boom, and the Bard will be… convincing the Demon to sit this one out. Or, while your Fighter is slaying the Demon, my Necromancer will be out-debuffing the anti Paladin, the Cleric will be slinging spells at the Dragon, and the Bard will be leading the townsfolk against the undead horde. Depending on how we grow to defeat this threat.


The rules does not says you keep the bonuses from ageing when you use reincarnate nor that you lose the penalties when reincarnating.
Reincarnate can either cancel all ageing modifiers due or cancel none of those(or yet have other effects) all within legitimate interpretation of the rules.

Jim Butcher seems to favor losing all bonuses & penalties. I think realism mostly favors keeping bonuses, losing penalties. I think game balance favors either keeping all or losing all (assuming that the character was balanced to begin with).

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Quertus
But, if you're going to break the rules….

I never said I was going to break the rules, and if you’re proceeding from that assumption it invalidates the rest of your response.


Originally Posted by Quertus
I contend it's better than the opposite.

And your “opposite” tries to shoehorn my perspective into your preconceived notions about “bad DMPCs” and other favorite targets of Playground ire, when in fact I’m endorsing none of those.


Originally Posted by Crake
Second rate characters who still come out on top are actually generally very popular. It's called being the underdog. If the PCs are the top dogs in every field they try their hand at, it ceases to be a tense story with real stakes, because the PCs, being so great as they are, are expected to win, and that's just a boring story to tell.

Agreed entirely.


Originally Posted by Quertus
RPGs are not a conducive medium for stories where the "underdog" always triumphs.

A skilled GM can tell stories that transcend any supposed limitations of the gaming framework.

And no one else has mentioned always as a goal, or even a desirable factor.


Originally Posted by Quertus
Too many GMs walk into a game with the attitude that "your poor, pathetic PC will never be the equal of my awesome NPCs".

Never in my adult life have I encountered a GM with this attitude.

.

[magicalmagicman]

Never in my adult life have I encountered a GM with this attitude. ]

I have. The first thing they say is something along the lines of "actions have consequences" and "if you needlessly antagonize an NPC guards gonna come for your head". Then they make your PC his NPC's bitch not only by pulling his rank in some organization as the "biggest" criminal or mercenary or influencial or whatever which is identical to saying "you do as I say or die" but also being near epic or being actually epic and then "nonlethally" kicking your PC's ass to put your PC in his place.

So if the first two sentences out of a DM's mouth is "actions have conseuqences" and "antagonize NPCs" I bail.

[Deadline]

So if the first two sentences out of a DM's mouth is "actions have conseuqences" and "antagonize NPCs" I bail.

"If you don't heal what hurt you, you will bleed on people who didn't cut you."

[newguydude1]

Close enough. A player using planar binding to have a vrock fight all his battles for him is virtually the same as playing a vrock yourself. Simulacrum expands this pool of monsters you can "play" as.

DMs have a much easier time but a dedicated player can get what he wants within the rules. For example, thanks to sublime chord, CL2 scrolls of lesser planar binding exist so a level 1 artificer can bind a mirror mephit which opens the door to pretty much anything. This character can create a half marrutact (w.e that is) simulacrum at level 5 and destroy it for a higher hd one every level.

PCs can do virtually everything NPCs can do in 3.5 and that's one of the main reasons I love 3.5. I'm failing to see what you're trying to prove here.

Wow! that's amazing! I have much to learn.

[Crake]

I have. The first thing they say is something along the lines of "actions have consequences" and "if you needlessly antagonize an NPC guards gonna come for your head". Then they make your PC his NPC's bitch not only by pulling his rank in some organization as the "biggest" criminal or mercenary or influencial or whatever which is identical to saying "you do as I say or die" but also being near epic or being actually epic and then "nonlethally" kicking your PC's ass to put your PC in his place.

So if the first two sentences out of a DM's mouth is "actions have conseuqences" and "antagonize NPCs" I bail.

People don't just come out claiming that you're needlessly antagonizing an NPC if you're not, so I'll be honest, this sounds like a problem on your end, not your DM's. All you're doing is projecting your own problems onto your DM, who already has enough work on his plate running the game without that added burden. I've had players like you, who feel like they should be able to get away with whatever they do, and expect the DM to somehow seamlessly weave all their actions into the game and somehow make it all make sense. I'll have you know, the DMG specifically suggests that players like that be reminded of that in the section "Player Characters out of Control" on page 135:


Power can get out of hand. Power corrupts. PCs may do things that show their arrogance, or their contempt for those below them, as they advance in power. A 10th-level fighter may feel that he no longer has to treat the duke with respect since he can single-handedly defeat all the duke’s soldiers. A powerful wizard might feel so unstoppable that she wantonly tosses around fireballs in the middle of town. While it’s fine for PCs to enjoy their abilities as they advance in level (that’s the whole point), they shouldn’t be allowed to do whatever they wish. Even high-level characters shouldn’t run about completely unchecked.
Players should always remember one fact: There’s always someone more powerful. You should set up your world with the idea that the PCs, while special, are not unique. Other characters, many of them quite powerful, have come along before the PCs. Institutions of influence have had to deal with individuals of great power long before the PCs. The duke may have some powerful warrior or fighter on retainer as a champion for when someone gets out of line. The city constabulary probably has a rod of negation or a scroll of antimagic field to deal with out-of-control wizards. The point is that NPCs with resources will be prepared for great danger. The sooner the PCs realize this, the less likely they will run amok in your campaign world.

[magicalmagicman]

People don't just come out claiming that you're needlessly antagonizing an NPC if you're not, so I'll be honest, this sounds like a problem on your end, not your DM's. All you're doing is projecting your own problems onto your DM, who already has enough work on his plate running the game without that added burden. I've had players like you, who feel like they should be able to get away with whatever they do, and expect the DM to somehow seamlessly weave all their actions into the game and somehow make it all make sense. I'll have you know, the DMG specifically suggests that players like that be reminded of that in the section "Player Characters out of Control" on page 135:

Read my post again. First two sentences that come out of the DM's mouth.

If the first two sentences that come out of a DM's mouth is "actions have consequences" and "piss off my NPCs and you will die" then it's indicative of one of two things.
a. He recently had a murderhobo in a previous group.
b. His NPCs are "precious" and are running the show and the PCs are just there so he doesn't have to play alone, and his NPCs will always be stronger than the PCs to be able to kill them whenever one of them "acts out of line".

[Talakeal]

RPGs are not a conducive medium for stories where the "underdog" always triumphs. Most, however, are conducive to stories where a former underdog gains power sufficient to triumph.

Too many GMs walk into a game with the attitude that "your poor, pathetic PC will never be the equal of my awesome NPCs".

Calls for retirement? Once the PCs are the biggest fish, and have overthrown the gods, that's when things get interesting. Everything before that is just backstory.

Exaggeration? Maybe. But, hopefully, if I exaggerate enough, it'll be easier to see the direction of my point.




Sure. And, in the final confrontation, after we've grown, while your Fighter is out-fighting the Dragon, my Necromancer will be out-armying their Necromancer, our Bard's buffs will be outpacing the debuffs from their anti Paladin, and our Cleric will be out-healing the damage their Demon deals. Or, while your Fighter is out-fighting the anti Paladin, my Necromancer's creation will be eating the Dragon, the Cleric will be making the undead army go boom, and the Bard will be… convincing the Demon to sit this one out. Or, while your Fighter is slaying the Demon, my Necromancer will be out-debuffing the anti Paladin, the Cleric will be slinging spells at the Dragon, and the Bard will be leading the townsfolk against the undead horde. Depending on how we grow to defeat this threat.



Jim Butcher seems to favor losing all bonuses & penalties. I think realism mostly favors keeping bonuses, losing penalties. I think game balance favors either keeping all or losing all (assuming that the character was balanced to begin with).

I don’t like to needlessly restrict my game. Sometimes its fun to beat up a swarm of mooks, sometimes its fun to fight a team of equals, and sometimes its fun to team up to overcome someone too tough to handle alone.

I am not sure if exaggeration helps make your point, my take-away from this post is that Quertus enjoys an extremely niche style of gaming and what he is saying doesn’t apply to me or to most gamers.

[Crake]

Calls for retirement? Once the PCs are the biggest fish, and have overthrown the gods, that's when things get interesting. Everything before that is just backstory.

Sounds like you'd rather be playing spore or something like that, rather than an rpg if your idea of fun is being the undisputed overlord of the universe.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Crake, quoting DMG
Players should always remember one fact: There’s always someone more powerful. You should set up your world with the idea that the PCs, while special, are not unique.

Always worth remembering that this is right there in the DMG, as a vital reality check when players start talking about “mere” NPCs.


Originally Posted by Talakeal
I am not sure if exaggeration helps make your point, my take-away from this post is that Quertus enjoys an extremely niche style of gaming and what he is saying doesn’t apply to me or to most gamers.


Originally Posted by Crake
Sounds like you'd rather be playing spore or something like that, rather than an rpg if your idea of fun is being the undisputed overlord of the universe.

These sentiments indeed.

[Quertus]

I never said I was going to break the rules, and if you’re proceeding from that assumption it invalidates the rest of your response.

And your “opposite” tries to shoehorn my perspective into your preconceived notions about “bad DMPCs” and other favorite targets of Playground ire, when in fact I’m endorsing none of those.

The conversation is about giving NPCs things that the GM does not allow the PCs to have.

An NPC has a huge army of the undead? My PC Necromancer will build a stronger army, and beat him at his own game. An NPC is using time travel? My PC Chromancer will gain a deeper understanding of the flow of time, and beat him at his own game.

The question is, how do you respond to these? Do you say, "sounds like a great game!"? Then we have no quarrel. Do you say, "no, your PCs cannot play with my cool toys"? Then I liken the mindset to the source of bad DMPCs.

As for "cheating"… there are two issues. Are you breaking RAW? For example, it is physically impossible to get wishes out of a Simulacrum of a normal Efreet - thanks to Savage Species, one requires a specimen with sufficiently advanced HD for that tactic to bear (bare?) fruit. But, if the GM has their NPC do it anyway, they are cheating.

Are you breaking the social contract? For example, it can be outside the group's balance range / optimization level / whatever to have Efreet grant wishes. If the GM does so anyway, they are cheating.

"What's good for the goose is good for the gander". If you're going to make an exception to this, it should be to let the PCs break the rules.


Agreed entirely.

(I should probably pull in the quote from Crake, since this is really a reply to him…)

It's not about the PCs being "the best at everything that they attempt", it's about the PCs failing/struggling, having a training montage, and eventually overcoming whatever obstacles are in their path. Or not. I'm fine with not. But let's not complicate matters - let's just stick to games where the PCs eventually overcome the BBEG, and everything leading up to that final confrontation (because, in 3e, there's not many options beyond "win" or "TPK", for most parties under most GMs).

So, per my example for Talakeal, when the PCs face off against the BBEG Necromancer and their 3 lieutenants (a Demon, a Dragon, and an anti Paladin) in the final showdown, the party - which may well have been underdogs compared to them throughout the rest of the campaign - either has successfully trained and prepared to overpower them, or they lose. "Underdogs" don't win (Arangee notwithstanding).


A skilled GM can tell stories that transcend any supposed limitations of the gaming framework.

I'm not sure whether to be curious or horrified. Let's be hopeful, and try curious: what do you mean by this?


And no one else has mentioned always as a goal, or even a desirable factor.

The alternative (under most GMs, in most systems, and especially in 3e) is a TPK. I don't think most people consider that a desirable outcome; thus, yes, I'll contend not just some but most people consider "always" a desirable outcome. (I happen to be an exception, but that's another story)


Never in my adult life have I encountered a GM with this attitude.

Lucky.


I don’t like to needlessly restrict my game. Sometimes its fun to beat up a swarm of mooks, sometimes its fun to fight a team of equals, and sometimes its fun to team up to overcome someone too tough to handle alone.

Fully agreed. Too many GMs produce very samey content, and don't explore all of these varieties of fun.


I am not sure if exaggeration helps make your point, my take-away from this post is that Quertus enjoys an extremely niche style of gaming and what he is saying doesn’t apply to me or to most gamers.

Really? Your parties usually don't level up until they're powerful enough to defeat the BBEG(s), their army, etc? :smallconfused: Seems pretty standard to me.

Just, you know, I get bored of samey, "and then, with the power of Action Economy, the PCs defeat sub-sub-boss #42; on to the next encounter", and both prefer that variety we spoke of, and don't expect NPCs to be idiots and trickle in one-at-a-time. Especially not an enemy worthy of being a BBEG.


Sounds like you'd rather be playing spore or something like that, rather than an rpg if your idea of fun is being the undisputed overlord of the universe.

Tell that to all the GMs out there.

I'm interested in PCs making real change. Not just "defeating the BBEG" or "saving the world", but actual proactive change.

I've met a few GMs skilled enough to let PCs do so without being said "biggest fish"; most, sadly, IME, you have to beat them over the head with overwhelming power before they'll even consider the notion.

[gogogome]

All NPCs should be overcome able. If you have an undefeatable NPC that will always be stronger than the PCs then that's no different than a DMPC and we all know just how terrible that is.

[awa]

Its only a DMPC if it acts like a member of the party. If the party encounters a god at some point in a non combat encounter it does not make them a DMPC even if no member of the party is ever strong enough to kill the god in a one on one fight.

[Psyren]

Always worth remembering that this is right there in the DMG, as a vital reality check when players start talking about “mere” NPCs.





These sentiments indeed.

+1, and thanks for reminding folks of that DMG quote Crake. It clearly lays out the overall design intent for the game.


All NPCs should be overcome able. If you have an undefeatable NPC that will always be stronger than the PCs then that's no different than a DMPC and we all know just how terrible that is.

1) Gods are not (and shouldn't be) DMPCs. They generally don't adventure with the party.
2) DMPCs themselves are a tool like any other. Tools can be used well or poorly.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Psyren
DMPCs themselves are a tool like any other. Tools can be used well or poorly.

Rarely have I wanted a like button so much in this forum.

[gogogome]

1) Gods are not (and shouldn't be) DMPCs. They generally don't adventure with the party.
Back when I was a player I had a party member whose patron deity dictated all of the party's actions. Whatever that needed to be done it had to be run by the deity first for its opinion and whatever the deity decided the player, being lawful stupid, upheld zealously to the point it was either ditch the player or let the deity (aka DM) dictate all of the party's decisions. And since the DM did not allow us to ditch the player or his character...

Deities aren't supposed to directly communicate and direct PC actions, but this DM did. And even though this deity never engaged directly in combat, I fail to see the difference between a DMPC and how this DM played his deities. DM even changed the campaign's name to that cleric's crusade.


Rarely have I wanted a like button so much in this forum.

If it's not to fill a missing party role then there is no purpose of the DMPC except to make players watch the DM play with himself.

[Talakeal]

Back when I was a player I had a party member whose patron deity dictated all of the party's actions. Whatever that needed to be done it had to be run by the deity first for its opinion and whatever the deity decided the player, being lawful stupid, upheld zealously to the point it was either ditch the player or let the deity (aka DM) dictate all of the party's decisions. And since the DM did not allow us to ditch the player or his character...

Deities aren't supposed to directly communicate and direct PC actions, but this DM did. And even though this deity never engaged directly in combat, I fail to see the difference between a DMPC and how this DM played his deities. DM even changed the campaign's name to that cleric's crusade.

That doesn’t sound so much like a DMPC as a railroad.

[Psyren]

Deities aren't supposed to directly communicate and direct PC actions, but this DM did.

Sounds like you correctly recognized this DM was just being a bad DM, so there's nothing else to say about this extraordinary story.


If it's not to fill a missing party role then there is no purpose of the DMPC except to make players watch the DM play with himself.

Yes, filling a missing party role is probably the most common reason to use one. So... you agree there are circumstances where it could be useful then? :smallconfused:

"There's no purpose to this thing except for this purpose" is a tautology.

[Talakeal]

Yes, filling a missing party role is probably the most common reason to use one. So... you agree there are circumstances where it could be useful then? :smallconfused:

"There's no purpose to this thing except for this purpose" is a tautology.

Why do you need a DMPC for that? Cant a hireling or henchman work just as well?

[gogogome]

That doesn’t sound so much like a DMPC as a railroad.

It is a railroad. I suspect both magicalmagicman and Quertus have experienced railroads at the hands of invincible NPCs. IMO there is no difference between a DMPC that doesn't engage in combat and an invincible NPC that controls the party's actions. Assuming the "DMPC" isn't a party role filler but an actual PC played by the DM.


Sounds like you correctly recognized this DM was just being a bad DM, so there's nothing else to say about this extraordinary story.

We're just talking about few of the things bad DMs tend to do. One of the things is making an NPC the star of the show instead of a quest giver.


Yes, filling a missing party role is probably the most common reason to use one. So... you agree there are circumstances where it could be useful then? :smallconfused:

"There's no purpose to this thing except for this purpose" is a tautology.


Why do you need a DMPC for that? Cant a hireling or henchman work just as well?

Talakeal makes a good point. Perhaps an adventurer hireling would serve better than a full out DMPC. In that case since the hireling is the superior tool at handling party role deficiencies, there truly is no purpose of a DMPC.

[awa]

The problem is there is not a 100% agreed upon definition of what a DMPC even is.

For example whats the difference between a hireling with a personality and a DMPC?


All NPCs should be overcome able. If you have an undefeatable NPC that will always be stronger than the PCs then that's no different than a DMPC and we all know just how terrible that is.

Implies that the defining trait of being a DMPC is whether they can be killed or not which is pretty far removed from most definitions I am familiar with.

[Psyren]

We're just talking about few of the things bad DMs tend to do. One of the things is making an NPC the star of the show instead of a quest giver.

Again, that's unfortunate, but it's hardly representative of normal games either.


Why do you need a DMPC for that? Cant a hireling or henchman work just as well?

Putting aside that "need" is a bit of a weasel word there, I think that perhaps I see less distinction between those categories than you do. Hirelings and henchmen are still controlled by the GM, so if they have class levels then they are functionally DMPCs too.


The problem is there is not a 100% agreed upon definition of what a DMPC even is.

For example whats the difference between a hireling with a personality and a DMPC?

This. I'm genuinely confused as to the difference.

[tyckspoon]

Again, that's unfortunate, but it's hardly representative of normal games either.
Putting aside that "need" is a bit of a weasel word there, I think that perhaps I see less distinction between those categories than you do. Hirelings and henchmen are still controlled by the GM, so if they have class levels then they are functionally DMPCs too.


A DMPC is theoretically a co-equal member of the party, afforded the same privileges and accommodations, access to party resources, gets a full split of party treasure, has the same input on party decisions. Except since they're the DM's character they *can't* be equal to the rest of the player characters in these things - problems happen when the DM, intentionally or not, favors their own character. A hireling or henchman is explicitly subordinate to the party/their employer/the character with Leadership. The party may consult them for their opinion or for information if they have special relevant knowledge the party lacks, but they're not expected to have a voice in party deliberations, to have subplots or sidequests devoted to their particular character hooks unless that's something the actual players want to pursue, to make decisions about how party resources are spent.

[Talakeal]

Again, that's unfortunate, but it's hardly representative of normal games either.



Putting aside that "need" is a bit of a weasel word there, I think that perhaps I see less distinction between those categories than you do. Hirelings and henchmen are still controlled by the GM, so if they have class levels then they are functionally DMPCs too.



This. I'm genuinely confused as to the difference.

Its mostly a mindset. The DM thinks of the DMPC as their character and feels that they are both playing in and running the game at the same time.


It is a railroad. I suspect both magicalmagicman and Quertus have experienced railroads at the hands of invincible NPCs. IMO there is no difference between a DMPC that doesn't engage in combat and an invincible NPC that controls the party's actions. Assuming the "DMPC" isn't a party role filler but an actual PC played by the DM.

I don’t see it.

Plenty of fiction has a guy who delivers the mission to the protagonist, but I don’t think this makes the story “about” them. I would never consider someone like Zordon from Power Rangers or the Chief from Inspector Gadget to be part of the main cast.

[Psyren]

A DMPC is theoretically a co-equal member of the party, afforded the same privileges and accommodations, access to party resources, gets a full split of party treasure, has the same input on party decisions. Except since they're the DM's character they *can't* be equal to the rest of the player characters in these things - problems happen when the DM, intentionally or not, favors their own character. A hireling or henchman is explicitly subordinate to the party/their employer/the character with Leadership. The party may consult them for their opinion or for information if they have special relevant knowledge the party lacks, but they're not expected to have a voice in party deliberations, to have subplots or sidequests devoted to their particular character hooks unless that's something the actual players want to pursue, to make decisions about how party resources are spent.

As I mentioned earlier, a DMPC is a tool like any other, and can be used well or poorly.

My personal view of a DMPC is that they should be avoided if at all possible. But there is one scenario where I think a DMPC can be useful, and that is the very same scenario mentioned by gogogome - i.e. the party is terribly short-staffed/missing a key role, AND rebalancing all the encounters to account for that missing role would either be too time-consuming for the GM, or not make sense with the story being told. In such a case, adding a NPC to the party who can fill that necessary function in the party might make sense.

So with that said, let's tackle these one at a time:

1) Access to party resources - if you mean things like buffs, healing and gear, this is just common sense - an underprovisioned party member isn't just disadvantaged, they are a liability to the group as a whole.

2) Full split of treasure - As I mentioned, part of the point of a DMPC is that the party is either understaffed or missing a key role (or both.) The DMPC is there so you don't have to rebalance the encounters; having them siphon off some of the treasure saves the DM from having to rebalance that too.

3) Same input on party decisions - This one I agree should be out of bounds for a DMPC. As I mentioned, they are there for one purpose, namely as a balancing tool - the story ultimately belongs to the players alone.

4) Favoring their character - This should also be out of bounds. If anything, the DMPC (if used at all) should have worse luck/presence/tactics/etc than every other character in the party, so as to avoid even the appearance of favor.

TL;DR: the players' fun is the paramount concern - ANY tool you use, including a DMPC, should be used with that goal in mind. If you can't use a tool in a way that makes the game more fun and engaging for your players, don't use it.

[Talakeal]

As I mentioned earlier, a DMPC is a tool like any other, and can be used well or poorly.

3) Same input on party decisions - This one I agree should be out of bounds for a DMPC. As I mentioned, they are there for one purpose, namely as a balancing tool - the story ultimately belongs to the players alone.

4) Favoring their character - This should also be out of bounds. If anything, the DMPC (if used at all) should have worse luck/presence/tactics/etc than every other character in the party, so as to avoid even the appearance of favor. [/SPOILER]

TL;DR: the players' fun is the paramount concern - ANY tool you use, including a DMPC, should be used with that goal in mind. If you can't use a tool in a way that makes the game more fun and engaging for your players, don't use it.

This reinforces what I said earlier about a DMPC being more of a mindset.

The DM thinks they are playing and running the game at the same time, hence the P in DMPC. So the player’s story is also the DMs story, as he is one of the players, and his fun is the players fun because he is a player, etc.

[Asmotherion]

One of the BBEGs of the modules has an Efreeti ally that spammed Wish on him until all of his stats are +3.

So it seems planar binding efreetis and abusing their 3/day wish seems to be an intended feature.

It is. However when a PC does it it's like a Declaration to the DM that "I'm ok with this type of play and exxpect the appropriate level of challenge".

[Quertus]

2) DMPCs themselves are a tool like any other. Tools can be used well or poorly.


Rarely have I wanted a like button so much in this forum.

I'm glad to hear that we can agree on this.



We're just talking about few of the things bad DMs tend to do. One of the things is making an NPC the star of the show

So, to add in, my contention is that the mindset that makes the classic bad "star of the show" DMPC is the same mindset that gives NPCs cool toys that the PCs are not allowed to play with. That both are failing the "be a fan of the PCs" test.


It is a railroad. I suspect both magicalmagicman and Quertus have experienced railroads at the hands of invincible NPCs.

Fair to say.


I don’t see it.

Plenty of fiction has a guy who delivers the mission to the protagonist, but I don’t think this makes the story “about” them. I would never consider someone like Zordon from Power Rangers or the Chief from Inspector Gadget to be part of the main cast.

Lol. Now imagine making the Chief the star of the show… oh, and giving him (and only him) all the gadgets, and the computer, and the Sentient dog because PCs like Inspector Gadget cannot be allowed them. But Inspector Gadget and Penny are still the PCs.

[Crake]

So, to add in, my contention is that the mindset that makes the classic bad "star of the show" DMPC is the same mindset that gives NPCs cool toys that the PCs are not allowed to play with. That both are failing the "be a fan of the PCs" test.

I mean, the big bad guy having an evil macguffin that supercedes the conventional powers that players have access to is a fairly standard storytelling trope, as is evil villains dabbling in powers beyond their control, that haven't backfired yet, because it suits the story, but I'm fairly sure all that has been covered already earlier on in this thread, that players, for example, binding evil creatures, is different from villains doing it, because if the villain screws up, you're just replacing one villain with another, but if the players screw up, things can end up worse than where they would have been had they done nothing.

Villains also tend to just have more time than the players, they're higher level, and have a head start, usually because the omens of their plans don't start until their plans are already partway toward completion, so generally speaking, the villains are always going to have access to more and better toys than the player, and, unless you continue playing post campaign (which you seem to be more interested in apparently), the players will never actually get to play with said toys.

Your example of building a necromantic army is the perfect example, by the time the villain has an entire army ready, you're too late and don't have time to build your own to act as a counter, and your objective is killing the necromancer to dissolve his army. If you spend time trying to build an undead army of your own, by the time you're ready, the kingdom has already been overrun, and you've failed the campaign.


Tell that to all the GMs out there.

I'm interested in PCs making real change. Not just "defeating the BBEG" or "saving the world", but actual proactive change.

I've met a few GMs skilled enough to let PCs do so without being said "biggest fish"; most, sadly, IME, you have to beat them over the head with overwhelming power before they'll even consider the notion.

I've spent the last 15+ minutes trying to come up with a genuine, non-snarky sounding response to this, and I've finally settled on this: It sounds like you want to be a DM and do worldbuilding, rather than be a player. Maybe try that instead.

[NigelWalmsley]

Your example of building a necromantic army is the perfect example, by the time the villain has an entire army ready, you're too late and don't have time to build your own to act as a counter, and your objective is killing the necromancer to dissolve his army. If you spend time trying to build an undead army of your own, by the time you're ready, the kingdom has already been overrun, and you've failed the campaign.

"Your own army" not being an answer to "the bad guy's army" is the system failing, not the system succeeding. Obviously pulling a hit on the necromancer should be a path to victory, but I can't think of any reason building an army of your own and duking it out with him shouldn't be as well. Whether the system supports that is a different matter, but it's very difficult for me to see how what you're proposing is supposed to be a good paradigm.


I've spent the last 15+ minutes trying to come up with a genuine, non-snarky sounding response to this, and I've finally settled on this: It sounds like you want to be a DM and do worldbuilding, rather than be a player. Maybe try that instead.

It sounds like you have a view of the game that unhealthily binary. You've got one pile of "DM things" and another pile of "player things", and never the twain shall meet. The reality is that that isn't really a reasonable way of looking at the game, and people can, do, and should want to do things like "found a holy order" or "raise an army" or "run a country". The players saying "we'd like to go all French Revolution on the local nobility" isn't them attempting to take the DM's job, it's a sign that the DM has created a world that is deeply engaging and encourages people to think beyond "kill monster, get treasure".

[gogogome]

I've spent the last 15+ minutes trying to come up with a genuine, non-snarky sounding response to this, and I've finally settled on this: It sounds like you want to be a DM and do worldbuilding, rather than be a player. Maybe try that instead.

I disagree. I let my high level PCs shape my world be it creation of a new organization or nation, death of an archdevil or demon prince, etc.

[tiercel]

I disagree. I let my high level PCs shape my world be it creation of a new organization or nation, death of an archdevil or demon prince, etc.

I would think that high level PCs generally shape the world, though the way in which they do so depends on the playstyle of the game:

Is the DM running a module (prewritten, tweaked, or self-written)? Then to a certain degree, events will be at least somewhat laid out in a “here is what the bad guys / relevant possible parties of interest are doing, and what the PCs’ efforts might do.”

Is the DM running a sandbox? In this kind of campaign (or campaign session), the DM has notes about the relevant parts of the world and major NPCs, and lets the world react to whatever the PCs want to do on their own.

How much the DM runs one, the other, or both depends on (A) players’ desires and (B) what the DM can prepare for/is good at preparing for, and is a question of game choice, not one being strictly better than the other. Presumably, a well-written module will give the PCs challenges that, if partially or wholly overcome, will wind up having an effect upon the world in which the adventures take place; in sandbox mode, the PCs have whatever reasonable effect the DM adjudicates makes sense given their actions as a combination of the PCs’ mechanics and players’ roleplaying.

[rel]

People seem to be confused about the difference between a GMPC and an NPC.

A GMPC is just that, a player character controlled by the GM. In other words, the GM's avatar within the game world occupying the same mental space for the GM that a PC occupies for their player.

An NPC is a character that the GM controls but it isn't the GM's avatar.

A good analogy is the difference between a ranger and the rangers pet. Both are characters controlled by the same player but only one is a PC.

[Psyren]

This reinforces what I said earlier about a DMPC being more of a mindset.

The DM thinks they are playing and running the game at the same time, hence the P in DMPC. So the player’s story is also the DMs story, as he is one of the players, and his fun is the players fun because he is a player, etc.

If the players have no cleric and I stick a DMPC cleric in their party who does little of note but help to keep them alive until we can get another player to join the game... I'm immediately going to retire that character the moment he/she is no longer needed. And in-universe, that character is simply going to conclude that the adventuring life isn't for them, or that they don't mesh well with the PCs personalities and would rather do their own thing. Because it's not that character's story. I'm not sure what's so complicated about this idea.

A good example of a DMPC done well is Hilgya. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1105.html) Without her the Order would have almost certainly TPKed in that boss fight, and Loki knew it when he sent her. But the moment they had their real cleric back and she wasn't needed - she ditches them, because nothing they're doing actually matters to her, and even them failing utterly wouldn't impact her too much because she can metaphysically skip town. The character shows up, serves their purpose, and is promptly shuffled out of the narrative proper once that purpose is fulfilled, leaving the spotlight back on the PCs for the finale.



Lol. Now imagine making the Chief the star of the show… oh, and giving him (and only him) all the gadgets, and the computer, and the Sentient dog because PCs like Inspector Gadget cannot be allowed them. But Inspector Gadget and Penny are still the PCs.

No one is saying to give the Chief all the gadgets or make Zordon a ranger. But Zordon can still do some things the Rangers can't (as can Rita) - and that's okay, because it makes for a better story.


"Your own army" not being an answer to "the bad guy's army" is the system failing, not the system succeeding. Obviously pulling a hit on the necromancer should be a path to victory, but I can't think of any reason building an army of your own and duking it out with him shouldn't be as well.

If all you care about is defeating him at his own game, then sure, that's a win condition. If however you care about things like welfare of innocents and collateral damage (both from your clash itself, and the time you spend building it up), well then, a different tactic might be preferable.


It sounds like you have a view of the game that unhealthily binary. You've got one pile of "DM things" and another pile of "player things", and never the twain shall meet. The reality is that that isn't really a reasonable way of looking at the game, and people can, do, and should want to do things like "found a holy order" or "raise an army" or "run a country". The players saying "we'd like to go all French Revolution on the local nobility" isn't them attempting to take the DM's job, it's a sign that the DM has created a world that is deeply engaging and encourages people to think beyond "kill monster, get treasure".

The villain having access to resources or techniques the heroes don't is a well-worn trope of fantasy, so I don't see how you can be so surprised that people don't take issue with it. Voldemort having a bunch of phylacteries because he's the only one willing to commit the necessary atrocities to fragment his soul accordingly, is something that even children were able to quickly grasp, for example.

[Crake]

"Your own army" not being an answer to "the bad guy's army" is the system failing, not the system succeeding. Obviously pulling a hit on the necromancer should be a path to victory, but I can't think of any reason building an army of your own and duking it out with him shouldn't be as well. Whether the system supports that is a different matter, but it's very difficult for me to see how what you're proposing is supposed to be a good paradigm.

Raising an army takes time, and the villain already has his. Are you going to waste time building an army while his ravages the kingdom? Or are you going to go and stop him before the kingdom is in ruins? As Psyren said, if all you want to do is specifically beat the villain at his own game, sure, but if the kingdom is in ruins by the time you beat him, then you may have won your game, but you still lost the campaign.


It sounds like you have a view of the game that unhealthily binary. You've got one pile of "DM things" and another pile of "player things", and never the twain shall meet. The reality is that that isn't really a reasonable way of looking at the game, and people can, do, and should want to do things like "found a holy order" or "raise an army" or "run a country". The players saying "we'd like to go all French Revolution on the local nobility" isn't them attempting to take the DM's job, it's a sign that the DM has created a world that is deeply engaging and encourages people to think beyond "kill monster, get treasure".

Unless those things either a) are in direct service of the plot, or b) do not hinder the plot as they're happening, it's fine. For example, if there's a demonic invasion, and through the process of finding help, the paladin builds up a holy order of demon slaying crusaders, great. But if, on the other hand, the rogue wants to build a thieves guild, and his pursuit brings him at odds with the kingdom's officials, and now you're dealing with both external (the demon invasion) and internal (the kingdom's officials) threats, then no, I don't support players disrupting the plot for their own selfish side stories.

Generally speaking, things like this are relegated to the epilogue of the story ("Lyleth the rogue assassin would go on to make an order of mercenary killers who would send shivers down the spines of those who heard their mere names" for example), and the players are free to flesh out those organizations how they wish between the games, or even long after the next game has started, and those sorts of organizations will show up in future games, but I as a DM have no obligation to run "Guild Master Simulator 2019" for one player while the others all sit around twiddling their thumbs waiting to get back to the plot.

Now, of course, if the entire campaign is based around that, like say, kingmaker, great, but for that to happen, you need a) a willing GM, and b) a full table of willing players, and if you can achieve that, power to you. What you shouldn't do, is join a game where the campaign is about chasing down the BBEG, and then start complaining when the plot doesn't enable you to take 3 months aside and start building your kingdom halfway through it.

[Yahzi Coyote]

What I'm more focused on is your seeming belief that PCs and BBEGs should always be on the same footing. I'm not saying that's an invalid way to play, but hopefully this thread and even fantasy media like the very comic this site is known for help you see that's neither a common nor intended way of playing.
I don't know if it's common, but the existence of sandbox games means its certainly at least one intended way of playing.

I personally could not stand to play in a world where my character succeeded solely because they were born to the special class of PCs or where they were forever disadvantaged because of being a PC. There are certainly things players shouldn't be willing to do that NPCs will do, and any DM is free to say, "sorry you can't run a Pit Fiend today because that campaign is not fun for me," but in principle I think it should be possible for players to do these things. Otherwise the world just seems like a fake story instead of a real place.

[Crake]

I don't know if it's common, but the existence of sandbox games means its certainly at least one intended way of playing.

I personally could not stand to play in a world where my character succeeded solely because they were born to the special class of PCs or where they were forever disadvantaged because of being a PC. There are certainly things players shouldn't be willing to do that NPCs will do, and any DM is free to say, "sorry you can't run a Pit Fiend today because that campaign is not fun for me," but in principle I think it should be possible for players to do these things. Otherwise the world just seems like a fake story instead of a real place.

Of course if the villain can do it, the players can do it in principle, but you've very much outlined the exact reason that people say that players shouldn't be playing with those "toys" as people seem to want to refer to them as. Take the necromancer and his army example, with the level 1 wizard declaring "Ok, I'm gonna start working on necromancy and build my own army" the DM can, and should, if he feels it, respond with a simple "No, you guys are the heros, not villains, building an army of undead is not an acceptable solution", and bam, in an instant you have "a toy the villain can play with that the players can't", but it's entirely reasonable.

[NigelWalmsley]

Voldemort having a bunch of phylacteries because he's the only one willing to commit the necessary atrocities to fragment his soul accordingly, is something that even children were able to quickly grasp, for example.

But Voldemort wasn't the only one who could talk to snakes, or teleport, or use polyjuice. The fact that there are some things only he did does not mean there is a hard separation between "hero stuff" and "villain stuff". There's a great deal of overlap, and even to the degree that there is a separation, I don't think it's reasonable to put "leads an organization" or "effects the world" on the villain side. I can think of lots of stories where the heroes do that.


Raising an army takes time, and the villain already has his. Are you going to waste time building an army while his ravages the kingdom? Or are you going to go and stop him before the kingdom is in ruins?

I think if you have written your "invading army" story such that there is no possibility that the correct response is "raise an army", that seems like a problem with the adventure design.


I don't support players disrupting the plot for their own selfish side stories.

I don't understand how that's a meaningful distinction. The plot is just "the stuff the PCs do". In your example, couldn't we equally say that the DM is disrupting the plot by adding arbitrary obstacles to the Rogue's actions that aren't being added to the Paladin's? If you think the PCs saying "I care about the world and would like to do X to interact with it" is hurting the plot, I think that's a failure on your part, not theirs. They are handing you a giant pile of plot hooks, you should be able to do something with that.


I as a DM have no obligation to run "Guild Master Simulator 2019" for one player while the others all sit around twiddling their thumbs waiting to get back to the plot.

This is fallacious. It's true that the game shouldn't pause the adventure to do something only one player is interested in for an extended period, but that's true regardless of what that thing is. If three people want to build their organizations, and one wants to go murder orcs, then the game can have some organization-building. If three people want to do palace intrigue, and one wants to do magical research, then you should do some palace intrigue instead of magical research. It seems like a lot of your objections amount to "what if players did this in a disruptive way". Well, that would be bad. But that's because it's disruptive, not because it's inherently bad to do this.


What you shouldn't do, is join a game where the campaign is about chasing down the BBEG

What you shouldn't do is design campaigns that are "about" one particular thing to such a degree that a change in PC interests derails then. The whole point of playing a TTRPG rather than writing a book is that sometimes the other people at the table take things in a direction you didn't anticipate. If you view that as disruptive to the plot, you will end up having games that are less enjoyable for everyone involved.

[gogogome]

Of course if the villain can do it, the players can do it in principle, but you've very much outlined the exact reason that people say that players shouldn't be playing with those "toys" as people seem to want to refer to them as. Take the necromancer and his army example, with the level 1 wizard declaring "Ok, I'm gonna start working on necromancy and build my own army" the DM can, and should, if he feels it, respond with a simple "No, you guys are the heros, not villains, building an army of undead is not an acceptable solution", and bam, in an instant you have "a toy the villain can play with that the players can't", but it's entirely reasonable.

This is absolutely NOT reasonable. Cutting one of the biggest supported playstyles that not only exists in core but also has entire splatbooks dedicated to it with definitive non-evil spellcasters is unacceptable.

It's one thing to say necromancy is banned in-universe so the player has to do it in secret, it's an entirely other thing for you to force your moral views on players especially when your moral views differ greatly from d&d who says neutral and even good characters can utilize necromancy.

You don't get to tell players how to play their characters. This is no different than railroading characters under the banner of "morality". Next thing you know you're screaming at the players that they have to accept the quest or have to do what your NPCs say because that's what your definition of a "good" character does.

[Talakeal]

This is absolutely NOT reasonable. Cutting one of the biggest supported playstyles that not only exists in core but also has entire splatbooks dedicated to it with definitive non-evil spellcasters is unacceptable.

It's one thing to say necromancy is banned in-universe so the player has to do it in secret, it's an entirely other thing for you to force your moral views on players especially when your moral views differ greatly from d&d who says neutral and even good characters can utilize necromancy.

You don't get to tell players how to play their characters. This is no different than railroading characters under the banner of "morality". Next thing you know you're screaming at the players that they have to accept the quest or have to do what your NPCs say because that's what your definition of a "good" character does.

I agree with you that this should be how the fame is run.

In practice though, necromancy is evil by RAW and many DMs outright ban evil characters. I know the RPGA used to expel PCs for s single evil act.


Lol. Now imagine making the Chief the star of the show… oh, and giving him (and only him) all the gadgets, and the computer, and the Sentient dog because PCs like Inspector Gadget cannot be allowed them. But Inspector Gadget and Penny are still the PCs.

I agree, that would be pretty silly.

I wasn’t saying that DMPCs were a good thing, merely that they aren’t the same thing with an NPC who gives the players their missions, even if that NPC is more powerful than the PCs or they lack the ability and / or the motivation to kill said NPC.

[NigelWalmsley]

Necromancy is [Evil] by RAW, not "evil". All it really means is that you can't be a good Cleric (or maybe it's Cleric of a good god) and prepare Animate Dead. There's nothing that stops you from being a neutral Dread Necromancer who casts Animate Dead, a lawful good Wizard who does, or a chaotic good Warlock who throws around The Dead Walk.

[Crake]

I think if you have written your "invading army" story such that there is no possibility that the correct response is "raise an army", that seems like a problem with the adventure design.

A villain building an army of undead in secret, and then attacking the kingdom before a decent defense, living or otherwise, can be mounted is a perfectly acceptable scenario. Not every scenario has to be open to every solution, sometimes an option can just be wrong. If you want every idea you come up with to be an automatic success, then it sounds like you're more interested in just having your way than participating in a story.


I don't understand how that's a meaningful distinction. The plot is just "the stuff the PCs do". In your example, couldn't we equally say that the DM is disrupting the plot by adding arbitrary obstacles to the Rogue's actions that aren't being added to the Paladin's? If you think the PCs saying "I care about the world and would like to do X to interact with it" is hurting the plot, I think that's a failure on your part, not theirs. They are handing you a giant pile of plot hooks, you should be able to do something with that.



This is fallacious. It's true that the game shouldn't pause the adventure to do something only one player is interested in for an extended period, but that's true regardless of what that thing is. If three people want to build their organizations, and one wants to go murder orcs, then the game can have some organization-building. If three people want to do palace intrigue, and one wants to do magical research, then you should do some palace intrigue instead of magical research. It seems like a lot of your objections amount to "what if players did this in a disruptive way". Well, that would be bad. But that's because it's disruptive, not because it's inherently bad to do this.

I kinda feel like we're arguing past each other, because you jumped in to respond to secomthing I said to quertus, while seemingly ignoring the context of quertus saying he would "beat [the DM] over the head with overwhelming power before they'll even consider the notion. " of whatever side project he wanted to do. That's why i suggested he might prefer worldbuilding instead, if he wants to derail a game to that degree to enact his changes upon a setting.


What you shouldn't do is design campaigns that are "about" one particular thing to such a degree that a change in PC interests derails then. The whole point of playing a TTRPG rather than writing a book is that sometimes the other people at the table take things in a direction you didn't anticipate. If you view that as disruptive to the plot, you will end up having games that are less enjoyable for everyone involved.

A campaign is a long term scenario that involves a particular goal of some kind, in fantasy, that's typically stopping a villain of some kind, but it could be anything really, including building a kingdom of some kind. But no matter what the scenario is, the players buy into it when they join the game. If you buy into a game that involves a villain chase, then you don't get to complain that the game's going too fast and isn't giving you the time to build some kind of organization, because you bought into that. Not every game or campaign or scenario needs to accomodate every kind of gameplay, just hte same as how raising an army to counter a blitzkrieg is a failed solution, stopping for three months to build an organization while the villain finishes his evil machinations and destroys the world is also a failing solution.


This is absolutely NOT reasonable. Cutting one of the biggest supported playstyles that not only exists in core but also has entire splatbooks dedicated to it with definitive non-evil spellcasters is unacceptable.

It's one thing to say necromancy is banned in-universe so the player has to do it in secret, it's an entirely other thing for you to force your moral views on players especially when your moral views differ greatly from d&d who says neutral and even good characters can utilize necromancy.

You don't get to tell players how to play their characters. This is no different than railroading characters under the banner of "morality". Next thing you know you're screaming at the players that they have to accept the quest or have to do what your NPCs say because that's what your definition of a "good" character does.

Alternate headline: I demand to be able to play whatever I want, whenever I want. Next thing you know, you'll be telling me that the DM saying you can't play non-humanoid races is a breach of player rights.

As an aside, if your DM asks you to play a heroic character, and your answer to that is "**** you I do what I want", then the DM is equally within his rights to say "Sure, you can do what you want at home, I'll get someone who's interested in playing a heroic character". The DM sets the premise of the game, if you wanted to play a nercomancer then you should have signed up for a different campaign, or, if you're playing with a regular group, wait until the DM runs a game where anti-heros are an acceptable character choice. Not all character types are acceptable in all games.


Necromancy is [Evil] by RAW, not "evil". All it really means is that you can't be a good Cleric (or maybe it's Cleric of a good god) and prepare Animate Dead. There's nothing that stops you from being a neutral Dread Necromancer who casts Animate Dead, a lawful good Wizard who does, or a chaotic good Warlock who throws around The Dead Walk.

Casting an [Evil] spell is very clearly defined as an evil act. That spell tag means something. Repeated castings of evil spells result in an alignment change just the same as if you were performing other evil acts.

That being said, I personally remove the evil descriptor from most spells. For me, it's not about being good or evil, it's about fitting the theme of the campaign. If the premise of the game is that you're playing heroic characters performing valiant acts, but then someone comes along playing a necromancer, you shouldn't be surprised when the DM tells you to go back to the drawing board. There's a time and a place for every character concept, but not every character concept fits in every time and place.

[Talakeal]

Casting an [Evil] spell is very clearly defined as an evil act. That spell tag means something. Repeated castings of evil spells result in an alignment change just the same as if you were performing other evil acts.

That being said, I personally remove the evil descriptor from most spells. For me, it's not about being good or evil, it's about fitting the theme of the campaign. If the premise of the game is that you're playing heroic characters performing valiant acts, but then someone comes along playing a necromancer, you shouldn't be surprised when the DM tells you to go back to the drawing board. There's a time and a place for every character concept, but not every character concept fits in every time and place.

An easier solution is to just not use the coded morality that was introduced in the BoED and BoVD. Nothing in core implies that casting an evil spell changes your alignment, and the tag is still sometimes useful, but the failures of BoED morality goes wll beyond just a few spell tags.


If the players have no cleric and I stick a DMPC cleric in their party who does little of note but help to keep them alive until we can get another player to join the game... I'm immediately going to retire that character the moment he/she is no longer needed. And in-universe, that character is simply going to conclude that the adventuring life isn't for them, or that they don't mesh well with the PCs personalities and would rather do their own thing. Because it's not that character's story. I'm not sure what's so complicated about this idea.

A good example of a DMPC done well is Hilgya. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1105.html) Without her the Order would have almost certainly TPKed in that boss fight, and Loki knew it when he sent her. But the moment they had their real cleric back and she wasn't needed - she ditches them, because nothing they're doing actually matters to her, and even them failing utterly wouldn't impact her too much because she can metaphysically skip town. The character shows up, serves their purpose, and is promptly shuffled out of the narrative proper once that purpose is fulfilled, leaving the spotlight back on the PCs for the finale.

Its complicated because it is based on thought rather than action.

Its like asking if a jury is biased. Its hard to prove. And just because they are biased doesn’t mean that they will make the wrong decision (or vice versa).

How can you be sure that Hilgya is a DMPC? How do you know she isn’t just an NPC, or maybe played by Durkon’s player so he doesn’t get bored, or played by a friend who is gaming with them for the week? Or a rival created by Durkons player?
Does Rich show favoritism toward her? Does she speak as his mouthpiece? Should she be listed as an author avatar on TvTropes?

DMPC specifically refers to the DM also playing a character. It doesn't just mean NPC who joins the party.

Honestly this conversation is starting to remind me of the term Mary Sue, which specifically talks about author insert wish fulfillment characters in fan-fiction that warp the narrative around them, but now people use it to mean any overly competent character. Its debating a specific symptom rather than the underlying cause.

[gogogome]

Alternate headline: I demand to be able to play whatever I want, whenever I want. Next thing you know, you'll be telling me that the DM saying you can't play non-humanoid races is a breach of player rights.

Of course it is. If a player wants to play a monster it's his prerogative. A DM who stunts player creativity is not a good DM. A good DM would inform the player that there will be RP consequences for playing a monster but that's as far as it goes.


As an aside, if your DM asks you to play a heroic character, and your answer to that is "**** you I do what I want", then the DM is equally within his rights to say "Sure, you can do what you want at home, I'll get someone who's interested in playing a heroic character". The DM sets the premise of the game, if you wanted to play a nercomancer then you should have signed up for a different campaign, or, if you're playing with a regular group, wait until the DM runs a game where anti-heros are an acceptable character choice. Not all character types are acceptable in all games.

No gaming is better than bad gaming. A DM who house rules the morality system just so that only he and he alone gets to use one of the most supported and expanded playstyles in d&d that is explicitly usable by both neutral and good characters, which players have full access to, is terrible gaming.

You'd ban malconvokers too right? A class that literally cannot be evil. Because you'd house rule that binding demons and summoning fiendish creatures is evil and ban anyone who tries to be a malconvoker both in fluff and crunch.

I cannot condone a DM who believes the table is his and his alone, thinks he gets to do whatever the **** he wants because he's the DM, projects and forces his incorrect and juvenile views on morality on players for the sole purpose of getting exclusive access to content players have full access to as well, and claims players who rightly object to his conduct as problem players who say "**** you I do what I want".

[Talakeal]

Of course it is. If a player wants to play a monster it's his prerogative.

It absolutely is not.

Read pages 170-172 of the DMG, it says over and over again that it is the DM who decides what races are available in the game and gives many reasons why they should or should allow a PC to play a member of a given race.

[Crake]

Of course it is. If a player wants to play a monster it's his prerogative. A DM who stunts player creativity is not a good DM. A good DM would inform the player that there will be RP consequences for playing a monster but that's as far as it goes.

I dont see “allowing literally everything” as good DMing. Its a short sighted, player-centric view that would believe such a thing.


No gaming is better than bad gaming. A DM who house rules the morality system just so that only he and he alone gets to use one of the most supported and expanded playstyles in d&d that is explicitly usable by both neutral and good characters, which players have full access to, is terrible gaming.

You'd ban malconvokers too right? A class that literally cannot be evil. Because you'd house rule that binding demons and summoning fiendish creatures is evil and ban anyone who tries to be a malconvoker both in fluff and crunch.

I dont expect someone who thinks they should have access to literally all material in the game regardless of circumstance to understand the concept of theming.

Malconvoker would be banned in a heroic game, yes, but a more anti-villain acceptable game it would be fine, which is literally the same thing I said about necromancers in my previous post, had you taken the time to read it.


I cannot condone a DM who believes the table is his and his alone, thinks he gets to do whatever the **** he wants because he's the DM, projects and forces his incorrect and juvenile views on morality on players for the sole purpose of getting exclusive access to content players have full access to as well, and claims players who rightly objects to his conduct as problem players who say "**** you I do what I want".

All the things I've said have been just as much for the other players at the table as for myself. You see, when everyone else shows up with a heroic character after signing up to the premise of the game, you're also ruining their time when you bring an anti hero to the table.

[HeraldOfExius]

Of course it is. If a player wants to play a monster it's his prerogative. A DM who stunts player creativity is not a good DM. A good DM would inform the player that there will be RP consequences for playing a monster but that's as far as it goes.

There's player creativity, and then there's making a dwarven samurai when the group has decided to play in a humans-only setting based on medieval Europe. Not every game is going to allow every option, because sometimes people want to play something more narrowly themed than "fantasy kitchen sink."

[gogogome]

It absolutely is not.

Read pages 170-172 of the DMG, it says over and over again that it is the DM who decides what races are available in the game and gives many reasons why they should or should allow a PC to play a member of a given race.

I suppose you think the multiclass penalty should be enforced because the DMG also says so?


I dont see “allowing literally everything” as good DMing. Its a short sighted, player-centric view that would believe such a thing.

I have been on the receiving end of being rejected for not using an optimized meta build in multiplayer videogames. As such I don't reject players because of trivial reasons like "I don't allow everything".


I dont expect someone who thinks they should have access to literally all material in the game regardless of circumstance to understand the concept of theming.

Malconvoker would be banned in a heroic game, yes, but a more anti-villain acceptable game it would be fine, which is literally the same thing I said about necromancers in my previous post, had you taken the time to read it.



All the things I've said have been just as much for the other players at the table as for myself. You see, when everyone else shows up with a heroic character after signing up to the premise of the game, you're also ruining their time when you bring an anti hero to the table.

This is completely different from the first scenario.

In the first scenario you have a DM projecting his juvenile moral views on his players via house rules to obtain exclusive access to materials players have full access to.
In the second scenario you have an entire group of people who voluntarily chose sword wielding paladins over necromancers and the DM's exclusive access to undead minions is entirely due to voluntary player choice and not DM Fiat by "morality"

[magicalmagicman]

In the first scenario you have a DM projecting his juvenile moral views on his players via house rules to obtain exclusive access to materials players have full access to.
In the second scenario you have an entire group of people who voluntarily chose sword wielding paladins over necromancers and the DM's exclusive access to undead minions is entirely due to voluntary player choice and not DM Fiat by "morality"

To differentiate the two....
In the first scenario the DM advertises as looking for good characters only, and then has a huge list of what is good and what is evil.
In the second scenario the DM advertises as looking for a party of exalted good characters. No list of what is good and what is evil.

In the first scenario the DM rejects a necromancer by saying necromancy is evil and only evil characters use necromancy.
In the second scenario the DM rejects a necromancer by saying he's looking for a more good character.

[Talakeal]

I suppose you think the multiclass penalty should be enforced because the DMG also says so?

As I said earlier about necromancy being evil: What should be =/= what is.

[Crake]

I have been on the receiving end of being rejected for not using an optimized meta build in multiplayer videogames. As such I don't reject players because of trivial reasons like "I don't allow everything".

Im not sure what getting rejected for not playing an optimized meta build in an online, presumably competitive (and yes, if youre talking about an mmo, competing for raid spots or the equivilent is competitive) video game has to do with a story based, cooperative tabletop rpg. We’re trying to tell a story, and if your character doesnt fit in the story, then, what you expect the entire premise of the game to change just for you?


This is completely different from the first scenario.

In the first scenario you have a DM projecting his juvenile moral views on his players via house rules to obtain exclusive access to materials players have full access to.
In the second scenario you have an entire group of people who voluntarily chose sword wielding paladins over necromancers and the DM's exclusive access to undead minions is entirely due to voluntary player choice and not DM Fiat by "morality"

Its quite literally the same scenario. I havent changed the hypothetical scenario, perhaps I merely illuminated the fact that literally everyone else at the table is complaint with the notion that a game can have a theme, because I kinda assumed that in normal games, the DM at the very least gives the players a premise that gets bought into, and things outside that theme are essentially banned. Its not like, a hard ban, its like a “why are you dressed as captain picard at the medieval larp meetup” kind of ban.

[gogogome]

Im not sure what getting rejected for not playing an optimized meta build in an online, presumably competitive (and yes, if youre talking about an mmo, competing for raid spots or the equivilent is competitive) video game has to do with a story based, cooperative tabletop rpg. We’re trying to tell a story, and if your character doesnt fit in the story, then, what you expect the entire premise of the game to change just for you?

Rejection stings especially if the rejection is due to your personality or preferences. As such I don't inflict the same pain on others. If a player uses one thing from 30 different books, a mix and match between 3.0 and 3.5, as long as his character's strength is in line with the party I allow it. I don't reject him for a reason like I don't allow all of 3rd edition and make him feel like ****.


Its quite literally the same scenario. I havent changed the hypothetical scenario, perhaps I merely illuminated the fact that literally everyone else at the table is complaint with the notion that a game can have a theme, because I kinda assumed that in normal games, the DM at the very least gives the players a premise that gets bought into, and things outside that theme are essentially banned. Its not like, a hard ban, its like a “why are you dressed as captain picard at the medieval larp meetup” kind of ban.

You don't need a theme. I like parties of misfit weirdos who vastly differ from one and other and are completely unique. The only requirements is that they must have a reason to be interested in the quest which is something I leave up to them and they play a non-evil character unless I know the player well enough to know he won't be problematic when he RPs an evil character. Or lawful. Your character must NOT have any conflict with any other party member. I will not tolerate conflict within the party.

And it's not literally the same scenario. In one post you talk as if it's a hard ban justified by juvenile morality fiat which is justified by just being the DM. In another post you talk about how everyone wants to play an over the top good campaign and this one player brings in a necromancer for some reason.

The original conversation was about player transparency. Players intentionally forgoing something they can do because of theming is an entirely different scenario than a DM destroying the transparency with fiat because he wants to be the exclusive user of necromancy in the game.

[Psyren]

I don't know if it's common, but the existence of sandbox games means its certainly at least one intended way of playing.

I personally could not stand to play in a world where my character succeeded solely because they were born to the special class of PCs or where they were forever disadvantaged because of being a PC. There are certainly things players shouldn't be willing to do that NPCs will do, and any DM is free to say, "sorry you can't run a Pit Fiend today because that campaign is not fun for me," but in principle I think it should be possible for players to do these things. Otherwise the world just seems like a fake story instead of a real place.

It IS possible to do these things, just not in all (or even most) campaigns. And that's perfectly fine.

As for "intended" - Crake's quote from the DMG clearly lays out that the default intent is that some things should be out of reach of the PCs and/or that there is always a bigger fish. Your table has the freedom to change that for a more fun game if everyone is on board, nobody is saying otherwise - what I am saying though is that no player should go in feeling entitled to that change without having had the conversation first, however reasonable you view it to be.


But Voldemort wasn't the only one who could talk to snakes, or teleport, or use polyjuice. The fact that there are some things only he did does not mean there is a hard separation between "hero stuff" and "villain stuff". There's a great deal of overlap, and even to the degree that there is a separation, I don't think it's reasonable to put "leads an organization" or "effects the world" on the villain side. I can think of lots of stories where the heroes do that.

There's a level of nuance here that I think you're not capturing. A separation titled "Villain stuff" doesn't mean the heroes have no way to use that stuff whatsoever; sometimes it means that only the villain can make it, or use it fully - but the heroes can still get something out of it, even inadvertently. Horcruxes are a perfect example - even if he knew how, Harry would never willingly make one, because the atrocity needed to do so would mean he wouldn't be Harry Potter anymore. However, since he had one in his head anyway, he was able to get use out of it by tricking Voldemort into trying to murder him, which ended up not only destroying it, but fooling the villain into thinking his rival was dead and making him complacent at a critical moment.

Another example is the One Ring. The heroes can neither make one of their own, nor can they get the same use out of it that the villain can. But even with those limitations, it still saved Bilbo and Frodo's lives on several occasions, which ultimately allowed them to save the world. These are both clear examples of using "villain stuff" even if you don't have the same abilities they do.


This is absolutely NOT reasonable. Cutting one of the biggest supported playstyles that not only exists in core but also has entire splatbooks dedicated to it with definitive non-evil spellcasters is unacceptable.

Not all playstyles are created equal though. Putting aside that an army of undead requires things you can't guarantee are at hand in every campaign (e.g. a supply of intact corpses and onyxes), it can have consequences that other playstyles don't either. Those consequences may be involved enough that the GM would just rather not go down that road, and it is not unreasonable for them to veto under those circumstances. You might be in a nation that doesn't approve of necromancy for example, or trying to protect people that would view you as horribly as they do the villain for using it. As fun as it might be for you to play those events out, swaying the populace or fighting off roving paladins, there's only so much spotlight you should be entitled to from a playstyle choice, and once you cross a certain threshold the GM saying "I'd rather you just didn't do that in this campaign, sorry" is not unreasonable at all. Nor would your desire to leave that table because they can't accommodate your character concept, ultimately nobody should be forced to play a game they don't find fun.

[HeraldOfExius]

Rejection stings especially if the rejection is due to your personality or preferences. As such I don't inflict the same pain on others. If a player uses one thing from 30 different books, a mix and match between 3.0 and 3.5, as long as his character's strength is in line with the party I allow it. I don't reject him for a reason like I don't allow all of 3rd edition and make him feel like ****.

I feel that the list of geek social fallacies (http://www.plausiblydeniable.com/opinion/gsf.html) is applicable here, particularly #1. Being accommodating is good in moderation, but never saying no to anyone is just going to cause problems down the road.

[Tallyn]

You don't get to tell players how to play their characters.

Actually as a DM/GM you do... but it's a VERY bad tactic usually used by inexperienced GMs, or GMs that aren't very good.

[Tallyn]

No gaming is better than bad gaming. A DM who house rules the morality system just so that only he and he alone gets to use one of the most supported and expanded playstyles in d&d that is explicitly usable by both neutral and good characters, which players have full access to, is terrible gaming.

I cannot condone a DM who believes the table is his and his alone, thinks he gets to do whatever the **** he wants because he's the DM, projects and forces his incorrect and juvenile views on morality on players for the sole purpose of getting exclusive access to content players have full access to as well, and claims players who rightly object to his conduct as problem players who say "**** you I do what I want".

Have you ever thought that the DM may be trying to run a specific type of game/campaign, where what you want to play is incompatible? Yes, more experienced DMs may be able to handle whatever you throw at them, but even moderately skilled DMs may ask you to play something else, if it clashes in some major way with the campaign he has planned.

Honestly, your posts make you seem like you're really entitled as a player. I doubt you're quite as bad IRL/when you're at the table, probably just arguing the one side to prove a point makes it seem like you're over zealous.

[Tallyn]

I have been on the receiving end of being rejected for not using an optimized meta build in multiplayer videogames. As such I don't reject players because of trivial reasons like "I don't allow everything".


I don't think that this has anything to do with tabletop RPGs whatsoever (the being rejected from videogames part)

[gogogome]

I feel that the list of geek social fallacies (http://www.plausiblydeniable.com/opinion/gsf.html) is applicable here, particularly #1. Being accommodating is good in moderation, but never saying no to anyone is just going to cause problems down the road.

I say no to party conflict, pvp, and anything that is not on the party's optimization level. I think these are all legitimate reasons, but what I don't think is a legitimate reason is not allowing material in the system.


Have you ever thought that the DM may be trying to run a specific type of game/campaign, where what you want to play is incompatible? Yes, more experienced DMs may be able to handle whatever you throw at them, but even moderately skilled DMs may ask you to play something else, if it clashes in some major way with the campaign he has planned.

Honestly, your posts make you seem like you're really entitled as a player. I doubt you're quite as bad IRL/when you're at the table, probably just arguing the one side to prove a point makes it seem like you're over zealous.

I'm a DM, not a player.and you and Crake are confused by the topic of the conversation.

The topic is about player/DM transparency. Theming is where all parties involved agree on a specific style of game. Transparency is untouched. Everyone can use necromancy but they don't because they don't want to. Or the DM doesn't recruit players who want to use necromancy for this particular campaign because he's not in the mood to DM it.

Using house rules to define what is good and what is evil to prevent players from accessing content so that you and you alone have full exclusive access to on the other hand is destruction of player/DM transparency.

[Tallyn]

I'm a DM, not a player.and you and Crake are confused by the topic of the conversation.

The topic is about player/DM transparency. Theming is where all parties involved agree on a specific style of game. Transparency is untouched. Everyone can use necromancy but they don't because they don't want to. Or the DM doesn't recruit players who want to use necromancy for this particular campaign because he's not in the mood to DM it.

Using house rules to define what is good and what is evil to prevent players from accessing content so that you and you alone have full exclusive access to on the other hand is destruction of player/DM transparency.

Well then, as a DM arguing here you're coming off as "holier than thou", with a viewpoint that seemingly says "my way is the only right way." (not trying to be antagonizing here, maybe I'm reading your posts tone incorrectly)

I'm all about the transparency, but sometimes situations can arise that a DM/GM didn't even consider when he first started a campaign. I think I'm just advocating for the "talk to the DM" or "talk to your player" to work it out like adults. If the player wants to play something, then talk to them, and see if you can work out something that will achieve the desired result but may mesh with the campaign you have planned/what you have in mind. If the DM doesn't want to allow something that seems like it interferes with what you have planned for your character, talk to them and advise them of what you are trying to accomplish, and see if they can help you get to what you are trying to do, albeit, maybe from a slightly different angle than what you were planning.

Basically, communicate with each other (as players and GMs), and be willing to compromise (both GMs and players) and cooperate so everyone can have fun. That's my thoughts anyways.

[Xervous]

I don't think that this has anything to do with tabletop RPGs whatsoever (the being rejected from videogames part)

It’s a step removed but still vaguely relevant. If/when I hit yes on that kick vote it’s because not doing so would be detrimental to fun and enjoyment. I’m not obligated to carry some random scrublord who is just going to keel over left and right. Similarly you block the ill fitting character because some aspect of flavor or balance is a key component of the targeted mutual fun.

Kick the guy who doesn’t meet gear checks / setting conformity checks. Wait and see on the potential for skilled play to overcome non fatal gear deficiencies / oddball characters that would generally cause issues but can fit with proper RP

[Psyren]

I say no to party conflict, pvp, and anything that is not on the party's optimization level. I think these are all legitimate reasons, but what I don't think is a legitimate reason is not allowing material in the system.

If you don't agree that there can ever be legitimate reasons to disallow players from using certain material or concepts, there's not much left that we can discuss here, it becomes an "agree to disagree" situation.

[Aotrs Commander]

I have a very simple attitude if I'm going to offer to DM. I will say what it is I will be running, and what system. On the basis that I am going to be spending hours upon hours preparing stuff (I am just about done with my complete overhaul of the bybrid 3.5/PF1 system which has taken about three months of me putting in basically a full work-week's worth of hours after work 6/7 days; yes, I am insane, no, I very doubt any of you would be so inclined (or have the luxary of that amount of time), but the point I'm making is that is how seriously I take this stuff); so I thus expect the players to meet me at least half-way. (If it is a module, you are expected to, y'know, do the module and not decide you want run off to the Bay of Dancing Doplhins or something (even if you joke about doing that a lot).

If the players don't wish to do that - I am quite happy to have someone else DM and for me to just turn up each week. If I'm DMing, I'm running the game I want to run. You can have a wild-west game where you get to rob banks when someone else wants to run it, 'cos I won't.

My approach to what is allowed and what isn't is formed from Rolemaster first (where is it literally impossible to allow the use of entire supplementary books because they have mutually exclusive options). So, rather than "everything except anything I ban", it is "here is the list of what is allowed." It will often be a very big and extensive list of stuff. (3.Aotrs has, like, 50 character classes now and the list of feats runs to 48 pages. JUST the LIST.) (Except, likely, for races, and most especially anthropamorphic [animal]-people.) If it is not on the list, no, you can't have it. You can always ask, but remember the answer is likely going to be "no."

(If it is an Evil party, everyone is Evil, no exceptions. If it is a non-Evil party, no-one is Evil, no exceptions.)

If I consider something abusive, you, metaphorical player may not have it. It doesn't matter what is says in what book written by whom, what some gentleman, lady or small creature from Alpha Centauri said on the internet, seriously, three months re-writing the rules, I think we have established already that the only ruling we're playing when I run are mine.

(In the specific case of a non-evil Necromancer wanting his hordes of Undead minions, for example? The ONLY time I will consider NOT allowing you to take one (Dread Necromancer is right there on the list, between Dragon Shaman and Druid) is a) if I think the party is already too cumbersome due to being, like 7+ characters, b) I don't believe you are prepared (or able) to put the time and effort in to do all the necessary paper-work, 'cos I ain't doing it for you but, I will expect you to do it to my standard...)

No-one is allowed to spam infinite anything, ever (no, not even warlocks can eldritch blast forever, nor the fighter swing his sword1); but if the BBEG warrents higher stats, he'll... just have higher stats. I'd have just given this efreeti chap four points on his stats (why waste time with odd-numbers, right?) I don't need to rationalise it. Nor, come to that, do I feel obliged to not let the bad guys have things the PCs can't. (My defiant template, for instance, which allows us nice boss fights, is absolutely "PC flat never.") Conversely, I also don't feel the need to give all the NPCs, say, traits like the PCs get, nor to have them not die at 0 hp like PCs don't, special circumstances aside.



(Granted, fair point, Quercus probably wouldn't want to play my games because I do have a policy of there is no tipping over the apple-cart unless the quest is specifically about apple-cart tipping, you can call me a control freak for that if you will, but then you can also remember I'm a Lawful Evil Lich omnicidal megalomaniac NORMALLY, so why would you think I would be any different in that environment?

Also magicalmagicman might not get on with it either, since I definitely do run on "actions have consequences" and moreover, doing explictly stupid things like randomly murdering people WILL have consequences for said character. (Sometimes, in one case, two decades of real-time down the line...) You can reasonably level the justification that the only way to achieve permenant death in my games is explicitly via ignoring the "are you REALLY sure you want to do that?" after the first "are you sure you want to do that..."

This also includes having your character's souls eaten after the second or third time the DM tells you out of character "guys, seriously, stop with the in-fighting, in0character rivalry is fine, but you are just doing the same thing every session and it's gotten old, stop it, I will have your character's souls eaten2.")



All of which blither just proves that, ultimately, each group can only set it own metric and that the single most important thing I have ever taken away from RPG forums since I started is that the very first thing joining or starting a new group you mst do is ascertain exactly what that group is doing. Because (and this equally applies to wargames as roleplaying) under the generalised banner of "gaming" there is a wide a split in what people like and want as there is in, say "sports."



1Though the day in actual practise we have to ever actually dig out the long-term exhaustion rules will be a very novel one indeed...

2Okay, for reals, when those two characters actually got their souls eaten, it was only me nudging the players in the direction and letting the dice roll where they may (they did go after the soul-eating monster...), rather than a "rocks fall, your soul is destroyed," and had one of said players not killed another PC with a different character that same adventure, I HAD been prepared to have a high-enough level cleric to come along and fix it. But that player's character didn't want the res, so the problem characters didn't get it either...

(The two players are my oldest friends, fast friends themselves and one of them is one of the better roleplayers in the group, but they were seriously just being silly constantly with those characters and playing Chaotic Stupid and only getting away with it because Rolemaster doesn't actually have an alignment system...

...

Actually, they were the two players of two more PCs that I let get killed in a duel with another PC when they were a double-act because they wanted to be rape-pillage-murder-pirates (I think they wanted to ransom the NPC or something the party had explcitly just saved) when they both know flat-out I won't permit that sort of thing, so again, I just let the dice rolls decide and had a good laugh when the other PC (who probably relly shouldn't have won) cut them both to shreds.

But I digress.

More so than usual.

[NigelWalmsley]

A villain building an army of undead in secret, and then attacking the kingdom before a decent defense, living or otherwise, can be mounted is a perfectly acceptable scenario.

"It is acceptable to do this" is a weak defense of a thing. Is there a reason the story gets worse if you expand the solution set from "stab necromancer" to "stab necromancer, raise army"? Because that's the case you should be making, not just that you could do the first thing. No one is really arguing against that, just that you should probably avoid writing plots where the only solution is the one you thought of in advance.


A campaign is a long term scenario that involves a particular goal of some kind

Yes, and as something that has the potential to run for months or years, it needs to have the ability to evolve or adapt. As a DM, your job is to provide a story the players engage with. Yelling at the players for engaging with the story "wrong" is really missing the point.


I dont see “allowing literally everything” as good DMing. Its a short sighted, player-centric view that would believe such a thing.

There's a difference between "allow literally everything" and "don't take player input into consideration when deciding what to allow". If a player comes to the table wanting to play an Ogre Bard or a Raptoran Druid or a Dread Necromancer and you have to block that because otherwise your campaign would explode, you've made some mistakes writing your campaign. Those are not unreasonable concepts, and your players are not unreasonable in asking to play them.


Well then, as a DM arguing here you're coming off as "holier than thou", with a viewpoint that seemingly says "my way is the only right way." (not trying to be antagonizing here, maybe I'm reading your posts tone incorrectly)

And the people saying "I decide what gets to be in the game and you don't and if you want to do something I don't like you should leave" don't? I agree that gogogome is not being entirely reasonable, but neither are the people he's arguing with. Neither the player saying "RAW says it's okay, so let me do it or you're a jerk" or the DM saying "I say it's not okay, so drop it or leave" is being reasonable. The core of a good gaming experience is willingness to compromise and work together to create something everyone can enjoy.

[Crake]

"It is acceptable to do this" is a weak defense of a thing. Is there a reason the story gets worse if you expand the solution set from "stab necromancer" to "stab necromancer, raise army"? Because that's the case you should be making, not just that you could do the first thing. No one is really arguing against that, just that you should probably avoid writing plots where the only solution is the one you thought of in advance.

The solution parameters isn't "stab necromancer", the solution parameters is "something quick because the army is on a warpath through the kingdom". You can do anything you like that fit within those parameters, but "raising an undead army" falls outside of "something quick". I mean, i guess you could also do things that fall outside of "something quick", including build an army, but you shouldn't be surprised when you rock up a month later with your army, only to find the kingdom in ruins, and the villain's army ten times as large thanks to converting all the people he massacred into more soldiers, but that point was already brought up.


Yes, and as something that has the potential to run for months or years, it needs to have the ability to evolve or adapt. As a DM, your job is to provide a story the players engage with. Yelling at the players for engaging with the story "wrong" is really missing the point.

Yes, you're right, sometimes they can go for months to years, and sometimes they will allow for players to stop and engage in some side stories, but other times they won't. The issue isn't players partaking in worldbuilding, the issue is when said worldbuilding comes at the expense of the main story, like the aforementioned thieves guild vs the paladin's holy crusade. I've had players settle down and create businesses, establish a dojo, have romantic side stories, one character even established a cult to his demon girlfriend once. They all happened because the theme of the game allowed for it, but I've also had games where, after a certain point, it's been a race-to-the-finish style game, where such things just wouldn't have been possible, and it was only after the plot that the characters managed to establish such final goals, during the campaign epilogue. They didn't get to experience building those things first hand in character, but they got to define the outline of those kinds of organizations, and got to see how they impacted the campaign world in future games.

The point is, as I keep saying, there is a time and place for everything. In the paladin vs rogue example, the thieves guild is something that is more fitting to be done during the epilogue of the game, since once the demonic invasion is over, the rogue would actually be able to give his full attention to the building of that organization, and not have to worry about say, a revolt midway through the campaign, because he's been spending all his time, money and effort out killing demons, and buying relevant gear for that, rather than investing that time money and effort into the guild he's building.

Now, of course, if you notice the issue there is that "demonic invasion" is a rather pressing issue. If the campaign was more something along the lines of, say "Subverting cultists", a more slow-paced, investigation style game, sure, there'd be plenty of room for the rogue to build a theives guild, and in fact, doing so may well be in direct service of the plot, because his thieves guild could gather information on the cultists. Time and place.


There's a difference between "allow literally everything" and "don't take player input into consideration when deciding what to allow". If a player comes to the table wanting to play an Ogre Bard or a Raptoran Druid or a Dread Necromancer and you have to block that because otherwise your campaign would explode, you've made some mistakes writing your campaign. Those are not unreasonable concepts, and your players are not unreasonable in asking to play them.

I block those things because I have plenty of players who are willing to play something within the defined theme of the game, and so I can just pick someone who's more willing to play within that theme. As I've said multiple times now, there's a time and place for every character concept, but not every character concept fits in every time and place. It's not that the campaign would explode, but bringing a dread necromancer to the table when the theme is "valiant heros" is again, like rocking up to a medieval larp meetup dressed as captain picard, and wondering why everyone's giving you the cold shoulder.


And the people saying "I decide what gets to be in the game and you don't and if you want to do something I don't like you should leave" don't? I agree that gogogome is not being entirely reasonable, but neither are the people he's arguing with. Neither the player saying "RAW says it's okay, so let me do it or you're a jerk" or the DM saying "I say it's not okay, so drop it or leave" is being reasonable. The core of a good gaming experience is willingness to compromise and work together to create something everyone can enjoy.

There are plenty of games out there where you can take your character and have it be a better fit. For everyone's sake, it's better that you take your dread necromancer and join a game of anti-heros. It's not that the player is unwelcome at the table, is that the character doesn't fit the theme and isn't welcome in the game. Again and again, I'll keep saying it, time and place for everything, but not everything fits in every time and place.

The campaign is the DM's creative outlet, and so if the DM wants to tell a particular story, and has certain expectations of the kinds of characters he wants in his story, there's nothing wrong with setting those expectations, and by sitting down at the table to play with him, you are thusly agreeing to said terms. If you don't agree with those terms, then you shouldn't be joining the game to begin with. What you don't get to do is join a game where the character theme is "Valiant heros", come to the table with a dread necromancer, and then complain when the DM tells you to go back and create a new character that fits the theme.

[NigelWalmsley]

The campaign is the DM's creative outlet, and so if the DM wants to tell a particular story, and has certain expectations of the kinds of characters he wants in his story, there's nothing wrong with setting those expectations, and by sitting down at the table to play with him, you are thusly agreeing to said terms.

This is the core of the issue. The campaign is also the player's creative outlet. If you want to be able to decide exactly how the story works, write a book or make a video game. If you are going to play a TTRPG you - whether you are a player or a DM - have an obligation to be willing to put your ego aside and compromise with the other people you're playing with. If you are unable to do that, you are the problem regardless of whether you are a player or a DM.

[Crake]

This is the core of the issue. The campaign is also the player's creative outlet. If you want to be able to decide exactly how the story works, write a book or make a video game. If you are going to play a TTRPG you - whether you are a player or a DM - have an obligation to be willing to put your ego aside and compromise with the other people you're playing with. If you are unable to do that, you are the problem regardless of whether you are a player or a DM.

Bolded for emphasis. I never said anything about deciding how the story works, I said deciding on a theme for the campaign. Valiant heros fending off a demonic invasion could do it in a myriad of ways, hunting down the source of demonic portal and destroying it, rallying a defense and pushing back the horde of demons, or even leading an expedition into the demonic lands and striking a blow at the heart of evil itself are just a handful of ways that the valiant heros could go about solving the problem. The issue here isn't with player choice, the issue here is with players who want to break the theme of the game. Sure you could also solve the demonic invasion by summoning a horde of devils to fight the horde, or going to the town's graveyard and creating necromantic abominations to defend the city, but those aren't valiant acts, and thus break the theme of the game that the DM wants to run.

A DM wanting to run a story about valiant heros, only to have one player come in with his anti-hero and start doing all sorts of morally grey, questionable acts is the player equivilent of the DM who sees a player wanting to play a valiant paladin, and keeps trying to make him fall by pushing no-win moral quandries on him.

As a side note, you should look into the studies that show that constraints actually foster creativity. Themes as a constraint actually help people be more creative and build more interesting and deep characters. On another note, it also sounds to me like perhaps you build your character first, then try to find a game for the character, rather than finding a game, and building a character for that game?

[NigelWalmsley]

I never said anything about deciding how the story works, I said deciding on a theme for the campaign.

Your description of "deciding on a theme for the campaign" sounds exactly like "deciding what things are allowed in the story" to me, which I would absolutely consider a form of "deciding how the story works".


The issue here isn't with player choice, the issue here is with players who want to break the theme of the game.

That is an issue with player choice. Specifically, it is an issue with players making choices about the theme of the game. You should not come to the table with ideas set in stone. Yes, if the group as a whole has decided to do "shining heroes of justice", that's a bad table for your morally gray necromancer. But if the group as a whole is fine with your morally gray necromancer, that's a bad table to do "shining heroes of justice".


On another note, it also sounds to me like perhaps you build your character first, then try to find a game for the character, rather than finding a game, and building a character for that game?

It sounds to me like you write your adventure first then find some players for it, rather than finding some players and writing an adventure for them.

[Psyren]

The solution parameters isn't "stab necromancer", the solution parameters is "something quick because the army is on a warpath through the kingdom". You can do anything you like that fit within those parameters, but "raising an undead army" falls outside of "something quick". I mean, i guess you could also do things that fall outside of "something quick", including build an army, but you shouldn't be surprised when you rock up a month later with your army, only to find the kingdom in ruins, and the villain's army ten times as large thanks to converting all the people he massacred into more soldiers, but that point was already brought up.

I'll add to this that there are other practical concerns. Even if you can reliably show up with your own undead legions to oppose theirs in time to help, this may not be a setting conducive to those tactics. Now the GM has to figure out how the townsfolk you're trying to rescue might react to that - whether they can even tell your shambling legions apart from those of the enemy, their thoughts on you turning their dead pets and loved ones into raw materials, and the consequences that might result from digging up dozens of graves like disease. Or how the enemy necromancer himself might react, who might see your rival army as a bunch of resources he can steal (especially if he's equal or better at it than you, as many villains would be.) And then the GM has to think whether there might be undead-hating allied organizations around, like churches of Pelor, Wee Jas, Iomedae or Pharasma etc. And lest we forget, both default settings also ascribe metaphysical negative consequences to using too much undead even for reasons that may be good at first blush, ranging from alignment change for the caster to potential loss of control and tragedy.

A GM who feels that handwaving all of that would be immensely immersion-breaking, or who doesn't feel particularly compelled to tie his campaign into a pretzel to accommodate one player's unwillingness to budge, is not behaving unreasonably by simply saying "not this time, okay?" Or alternatively, the GM might allow them to go ahead with the plan but enforce consequences for doing so - provided they give copious and appropriate warnings beforehand, the player has little cause to complain. The latter could make for an extremely interesting campaign, even if it doesn't actually result in victory for the PCs, or a Pyrrhic victory.



It sounds to me like you write your adventure first then find some players for it, rather than finding some players and writing an adventure for them.

This is literally how every module and AP in a published setting works, so it shouldn't be that much of a shock.

[Crake]

Your description of "deciding on a theme for the campaign" sounds exactly like "deciding what things are allowed in the story" to me, which I would absolutely consider a form of "deciding how the story works".

Setting limits isn't deciding how the story works, it's deciding on the direction of the story. That's different from deciding the exact path of the story.


That is an issue with player choice. Specifically, it is an issue with players making choices about the theme of the game. You should not come to the table with ideas set in stone. Yes, if the group as a whole has decided to do "shining heroes of justice", that's a bad table for your morally gray necromancer. But if the group as a whole is fine with your morally gray necromancer, that's a bad table to do "shining heroes of justice".

Players make their choice by deciding which games they want to play at. If I advertise a shining heros of justice game, then the people coming to my table are those who want to play shining heros of justice. If you don't want to play shining heros of justice, then go to a different table that's running a theme that you want to play?


It sounds to me like you write your adventure first then find some players for it, rather than finding some players and writing an adventure for them.

Well, yeah, there's a lot of DMs and a lot of players, enough so that I can make a campaign premise and find players who want to play that, just like you can make a character and find a campaign premise where that character fits. Note that I didn't say that creating character first was bad, but if means you need to actually find a game where that character will fit. That obviously limits your selection of games to ones that fit your pre-made character, which seems to be something that irks you, you want to be able to bring your premade character to whatever game you want, but that's just not how it works. If you pre-make your character, you limit the choice of games you can join, which, depending on the availability of games in your area may well bring your choice of games down to 0, at which point I suppose you shelf that character until an appropriate game arises.

It works the exact same for a DM. He may have a campaign premise in mind, but not be able to find any players for that premise, at which point, just like the player, he shelves that premise and makes a new one that will hopefuly appeal to some players.

[NigelWalmsley]

I'll add to this that there are other practical concerns. Even if you can reliably show up with your own undead legions to oppose theirs in time to help, this may not be a setting conducive to those tactics.

Well, sure, but it also could be a setting that is conducive to those tactics. Like I said, I don't find "well, you could set things up so it doesn't work" an especially compelling argument. You could also set things up so it does work. Why not set things up that way? I'm not saying you absolutely have to re-write your entire setting to facilitate every single thing any player suggests, but I do think your default reaction as a DM should be to try to say yes, not to try to say no. Players taking the initiative is a blessing for the game, not a curse.


accommodate one player's unwillingness to budge

Hold on, no one said that. The question is "should this be a possible solution" not "should this be a possible solution given that only one player wants it". Obviously if you assume that everyone else at the table hates the idea, doing it is a bad idea, but making that assumption a priori is suspect at best. It wouldn't be very fair of me to try to defend "players should get to raise armies" by postulating that all four players want to do that and the DM is trying to smack them down, it doesn't seem fair of you to try to attack it by making the opposite assumption.


This is literally how every module and AP in a published setting works, so it shouldn't be that much of a shock.

Sure. But adventure paths make broad assumptions about character legality. Rise of the Runelords isn't going to explode if I show up with a Gunslinger or a Shifter.


Setting limits isn't deciding how the story works, it's deciding on the direction of the story. That's different from deciding the exact path of the story.

And saying "I would like to play a necromancer" is different from saying "I would like to play a Necropolitan (Human) Dread Necromancer 10/Pale Master 10 with Corpse Crafter". But just as you would claim that they are within a shared category, I think it is entirely reasonable to claim that "you can play these kinds of characters but not others" is within the category of "determining how the story works".


Players make their choice by deciding which games they want to play at.

In my experience this is not the case, and people typically have a relatively stable gaming group that exists before any particular campaign. It may be true that you opt to invite Mark rather than Dave if you're playing a gritty campaign, because Dave is into gonzo heroics, but it is very rare for there to be a deep enough pool of players for things to work as you are describing. Also, it's just not consistent with the way I've seen D&D games advertised. It's not at all uncommon, IME, for the first meeting of the group to start with "so who wants to DM" or even "so what game are we playing".


It works the exact same for a DM. He may have a campaign premise in mind, but not be able to find any players for that premise, at which point, just like the player, he shelves that premise and makes a new one that will hopefuly appeal to some players.

But isn't it better to start with some ideas, then work collaboratively with players to develop something that everyone's interested in? Seems a lot more efficient than just blind-firing fully-formed campaign concepts and hoping they happen to get enough buzz.

[Aotrs Commander]

I'll add to this that there are other practical concerns. Even if you can reliably show up with your own undead legions to oppose theirs in time to help, this may not be a setting conducive to those tactics. Now the GM has to figure out how the townsfolk you're trying to rescue might react to that - whether they can even tell your shambling legions apart from those of the enemy, their thoughts on you turning their dead pets and loved ones into raw materials, and the consequences that might result from digging up dozens of graves like disease. Or how the enemy necromancer himself might react, who might see your rival army as a bunch of resources he can steal (especially if he's equal or better at it than you, as many villains would be.) And then the GM has to think whether there might be undead-hating allied organizations around, like churches of Pelor, Wee Jas, Iomedae or Pharasma etc. And lest we forget, both default settings also ascribe metaphysical negative consequences to using too much undead even for reasons that may be good at first blush, ranging from alignment change for the caster to potential loss of control and tragedy.

A GM who feels that handwaving all of that would be immensely immersion-breaking, or who doesn't feel particularly compelled to tie his campaign into a pretzel to accommodate one player's unwillingness to budge, is not behaving unreasonably by simply saying "not this time, okay?" Or alternatively, the GM might allow them to go ahead with the plan but enforce consequences for doing so - provided they give copious and appropriate warnings beforehand, the player has little cause to complain. The latter could make for an extremely interesting campaign, even if it doesn't actually result in victory for the PCs, or a Pyrrhic victory.

Or there could be even more fundemental issues, like the game is being played in Ravenloft.

(Where, even if the DM was willing to let you play a Dread Necromancer, it wouldn't matter, because you'd likely be an NPC inside five minutes.)


This is literally how every module and AP in a published setting works, so it shouldn't be that much of a shock.

Yup.


It sounds to me like you write your adventure first then find some players for it, rather than finding some players and writing an adventure for them.

Yes. Yes, that is pretty much what I do, and it's worked fine for me for the past thirty years.

(Okay, rather I say "I'm intending to do [this AP] or [this next party] next" to my players - if it is something outlandish - "everyone is Lawful Evil magical space-Liches", I might ask the question whether they're interested, but that's pretty much as far as it goes.)


But isn't it better to start with some ideas, then work collaboratively with players to develop something that everyone's interested in? Seems a lot more efficient than just blind-firing fully-formed campaign concepts and hoping they happen to get enough buzz.

Personal, anecdotal experience? Nope, absolutely not. The one and only time I attempted to do something more sandbox-y, plus that one other time I asked the players of everyone's favourite party what they wanted to do next, all I got both times was the sound of crickets chirrping.

[Crake]

Well, sure, but it also could be a setting that is conducive to those tactics. Like I said, I don't find "well, you could set things up so it doesn't work" an especially compelling argument. You could also set things up so it does work. Why not set things up that way? I'm not saying you absolutely have to re-write your entire setting to facilitate every single thing any player suggests, but I do think your default reaction as a DM should be to try to say yes, not to try to say no. Players taking the initiative is a blessing for the game, not a curse.

What you're describing are actually two different kinds of DMing styles described in the DMG. One is called tailored, the other is called status quo. In a tailored scenario, the DM adjusts things in the background to make things work for the players, to give them specific challenges that are designed for the characters, both ones that play toward their strengths, and ones that play toward their weaknesses. Status quo games however have things as they are, and it's up to the players to devise a solution that works. In the status quo example the army is advancing, and destroying the kingdom regardless of what you do. How you might enable an army to be raised in fast enough time via a tailored approach would be difficult to do without breaking suspension of disbelief in some way, either having the enemy army halt for some convoluted reason, or the players just happening to stumble on enough corpses and onyx through unlikely happenstance.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying one is superior to the other, and if you want to go for a tailored approach to DMing, that's great, power to you, however, running a status quo game where not solution is considered equal is also perfectly fine, personally though I find tailored games strain suspension of disbelief, and I don't enjoy running them. I create a scenario based on the premise of the situation, not based on the party composition and the approach they want to take. As a note, you'll find that there are plenty of players who prefer a status quo kind of game, where failure due to inappropriate plans is a real possibility, meaning that a successful plan feels all the more rewarding, and it more closely mimics reality, where the world doesn't bend itself to accomodate whatever plans you want to enact, and also gives the players a better sense of stability, they know that the game world is in a constant state, not shifting behind the curtains to match whatever they do.


Hold on, no one said that. The question is "should this be a possible solution" not "should this be a possible solution given that only one player wants it". Obviously if you assume that everyone else at the table hates the idea, doing it is a bad idea, but making that assumption a priori is suspect at best. It wouldn't be very fair of me to try to defend "players should get to raise armies" by postulating that all four players want to do that and the DM is trying to smack them down, it doesn't seem fair of you to try to attack it by making the opposite assumption.

There's two different arguments going on here. One is about theming, and the other is about whether every and any possible solution should be entertained, see above, the tailored vs status quo discussion. If you agree that, when players have agreed on a theme, that breaking that theme is poor form, and acceptable of dm intervention to remind the player of the game's theme, then there's not really any further discussion to be had in that regard, as we agree.


Sure. But adventure paths make broad assumptions about character legality. Rise of the Runelords isn't going to explode if I show up with a Gunslinger or a Shifter.

Yes, but for example, playing a paladin in way of the wicked isn't going to fly.


And saying "I would like to play a necromancer" is different from saying "I would like to play a Necropolitan (Human) Dread Necromancer 10/Pale Master 10 with Corpse Crafter". But just as you would claim that they are within a shared category, I think it is entirely reasonable to claim that "you can play these kinds of characters but not others" is within the category of "determining how the story works".

Not really, because determining direction vs determining the exact path has a huge, one might say infinitely larger array of character freedom (after all anything is infinitely more than none). While it may not be absolute freedom, being able to choose your path in a direction is still vastly more freedom than being forced along a single path, and your analogy does not adequately convey that fact.


In my experience this is not the case, and people typically have a relatively stable gaming group that exists before any particular campaign. It may be true that you opt to invite Mark rather than Dave if you're playing a gritty campaign, because Dave is into gonzo heroics, but it is very rare for there to be a deep enough pool of players for things to work as you are describing. Also, it's just not consistent with the way I've seen D&D games advertised. It's not at all uncommon, IME, for the first meeting of the group to start with "so who wants to DM" or even "so what game are we playing".

Then in circumstances like that you have the option of collaborating on a story you all want to play in, with the person who wants to DM that stepping up and taking the hotseat. If you instead have a regular DM, and you all expect him to be the one running the game, then the least you can do is give him a greater stake in the story that's going to be run, because if he's not enthusiastic about the game, he'd really be better of just not running it, for both his own sake, and the players' sake. There's nothing worse as a DM than DMing a game you have little to no interest in, and I'm sure from a player's end, it probably sucks quite badly to see the game fall apart week by week as the DM gets more and more apathetic.


But isn't it better to start with some ideas, then work collaboratively with players to develop something that everyone's interested in? Seems a lot more efficient than just blind-firing fully-formed campaign concepts and hoping they happen to get enough buzz.

Sure, you can do that as a middle ground if there are compromises you're ambivalent about making. Generally speaking though, I've found that even asking my players to pick between a binray like "Do you want to play a treasure hunting, dungeon delving desert game, or would you rather play a frontier town development game" is met with "eh, I don't mind, whatever", let alone actually asking them such a broad question as "what kind of a game do you want to play this time around?". As such I've taken a more firm stance on the kinds of games I want to run, and I've given up on compromising the setting for players who act on barely concieved whims, haven't thought their actions through, and don't even really know what they want in the first place.

Now sure, that last sentence is a bit of projection onto the issue, but the fact remains, providing players with theme and direction isn't some kind of unholy sin, and is well within the rights of the DM to do so. If you feel that such things are unacceptable, then it sounds to me like you would simply be an incompatible match, and I would wish you luck at another table.

[tiercel]

But isn't it better to start with some ideas, then work collaboratively with players to develop something that everyone's interested in? Seems a lot more efficient than just blind-firing fully-formed campaign concepts and hoping they happen to get enough buzz.

As a practical matter, being a DM and preparing for sessions can take a lot of work, especially if it’s not running or even tweaking a premade module or AP, and especially if there is going to be any sandbox component of play. A DM has to create/customize/know enough of the world to be ready to, in reaction to PC actions, inject events that have both verisimilitude and various kinds of potential fun/interest for the players at the table.

Over the course of the campaign,should there be collaboration? Sure. If a player’s wizard aspires to be a Keeper of the Cerulean Sign, I’d like to include at least a dash of Cthulhu flavor, maybe tweak one of my minibosses to have really been working for an aboleth all along so when the PCs save the province of Pigswill from the encroaching menace, having the wizard achieve her dream and get an induction ceremony feels earned and not “just gaining another level.”

On the flipside, if I have been developing a Ravenloft campaign and getting to know its rules and mythos and flavor and denizens and the outline of a campaign arc which I will develop as PCs deal with each adventure, I’m not really ready to run Gamma World or an 18th level apocalyptic war campaign set in Thay (though the latter could lead to the former I suppose).

Getting a campaign world ready to run, especially for a potentially long term campaign, takes long enough that the only way I can do so in advance is if players “place their order” some months in advance while we are all playing with some other DM.

[The Insanity]

How you might enable an army to be raised in fast enough time via a tailored approach would be difficult to do without breaking suspension of disbelief in some way, either having the enemy army halt for some convoluted reason, or the players just happening to stumble on enough corpses and onyx through unlikely happenstance.
You can make it so that the army has already conquered the kingdom and now it's up to the PCs to raise a rebel army to drive of the occupants.

[Psyren]

Well, sure, but it also could be a setting that is conducive to those tactics. Like I said, I don't find "well, you could set things up so it doesn't work" an especially compelling argument. You could also set things up so it does work.

Except most published settings are set up the other way, such that large-scale necromancy is almost exclusively a villain tactic that is frowned on at best and can be actively persecuted at worst. So you're asking the GM to either put in the extra work of playing through the ramifications and implications of your choice, or put in the extra work of modifying those settings to avoid said ramifications and implications without snapping the setting in two over their knee. This is something the GM can certainly do as a favor to you, but you're by no means entitled to that effort just because you brought a mismatched concept to the table to begin with.



Yes, but for example, playing a paladin in way of the wicked isn't going to fly.

Exactly.


Hold on, no one said that. The question is "should this be a possible solution" not "should this be a possible solution given that only one player wants it". Obviously if you assume that everyone else at the table hates the idea, doing it is a bad idea, but making that assumption a priori is suspect at best.

If everyone hates it then it's right out, yeah. I'm more thinking of a scenario where a GM might not be opposed to the idea in principle but that allowing it would result in a lot more work than not. No hatred is needed in order for a "not this time" to still be reasonable.


Sure. But adventure paths make broad assumptions about character legality. Rise of the Runelords isn't going to explode if I show up with a Gunslinger or a Shifter.

There are some concepts that stretch even those broad boundaries. A gunslinger or shifter might not, sure, but an army-of-the-dead-necromancer is another story entirely.

[Zombimode]

It sounds to me like you write your adventure first then find some players for it, rather than finding some players and writing an adventure for them.

Yes. That is more or less how it works. A bit more concrete: the would-be DM pitches their idea to the players and asks "Are you in?". If the players express interesst, then the DM will flesh out the idea with the implicit understanding that the players actually accept the premise.
If there is not enough support among the players for the idea, the DM will either present a different idea or goes back to the drawing board.

To give you a live example from my group:
When my last campaign (set in real world mythological antiquity) ended it was clear that we would pick up the next chapter in our long running Eberron campaign (DM is player O). In order to avoid a vacuum after the Eberron chapter, we were discussion our future plans for after Eberron. Player T pitched an Elder Scrolls adventure that is a feature-length implementation of a one-shot he did earlier this year. And I pitched Red Hand of Doom in Greyhawk. Both ideas were met with approval. Now, as the Eberron chapter is nearing to its end we agreed to do the Elder Scrolls adventure frist. I'm not even close of being done with my preperations for RHoD and the Elder Scolls thing is much shorter in scope then RHoD so it makes sense to do that first.

Why am I telling you this, though? As you can see our campaigns are DM-driven in that the vision is the DM's and the presmise (and constrains) are set by the DM. The player can, of course not except the premise, but that only means that the campaigns will simply not be played.
Having the premise set by the DM does not mean there is no creative input from the players. Far to the contrary, actually. One of my greatest joys as a DM is to see the character concepts the players come up with, and to experience the narrative that emerges from campaign premise, DM, players and character concepts.



But isn't it better to start with some ideas, then work collaboratively with players to develop something that everyone's interested in? Seems a lot more efficient than just blind-firing fully-formed campaign concepts and hoping they happen to get enough buzz.

Uhm, no? Ignoring the issue that asking people what they want is terrible for creating any kind of original work, players in my experience are not so extremely picky that it would be hard to come up with something that sticks with everyone.
Players vetoing a campaign pitch is the exception.

[NigelWalmsley]

Personal, anecdotal experience? Nope, absolutely not. The one and only time I attempted to do something more sandbox-y, plus that one other time I asked the players of everyone's favourite party what they wanted to do next, all I got both times was the sound of crickets chirrping.

Okay, that's great. But it's also irrelevant. Because the question is how to deal with disagreements between the players and the DM about how the game should work. If those don't happen, great (and I mean that sincerely, the whole point of the discussion is "how do you reach consensus", being there at the start is a genuinely good thing). But it's not an especially helpful data point for understanding how to deal with disputes.


What you're describing are actually two different kinds of DMing styles described in the DMG.

I don't think the binary you're proposing is legitimate. It doesn't really matter if there's a term for it, refusing to allow players to play reasonable characters because you're unwilling to budge on your preconceived theme is bad practice.


If you agree that, when players have agreed on a theme, that breaking that theme is poor form, and acceptable of dm intervention to remind the player of the game's theme, then there's not really any further discussion to be had in that regard, as we agree.

That depends. Do you agree that if the players make reasonable requests, prior to the game, for modifications to the theme, the DM should consider them in good faith? Because otherwise, I think you're trying to smuggle an unreasonable point in under the guise of a reasonable one.


Yes, but for example, playing a paladin in way of the wicked isn't going to fly.

Sure it could. Most obliviously, you could whatever the Paladin archetype that makes you evil is (I assume one exists). Or you could play a Paladin whose particular code of ethics clashes with the kingdom and demands that it be destroyed (which is not at all implausible, seeing all the massive sectarian religious wars that exist in the real world). Certainly as a DM you could shut either of those down, but the player is coming to the table with a workable idea, so the blame is not 100% his. It's not 0% his either, but it's very much reasonable to expect things to bend somewhat to accommodate things players want to do.


There's nothing worse as a DM than DMing a game you have little to no interest in, and I'm sure from a player's end, it probably sucks quite badly to see the game fall apart week by week as the DM gets more and more apathetic.

And there's nothing worse from the player's end then playing a game you have little to no interest in. The idea that letting the players have what they want means the DM suffers is a false dichotomy, and to the degree that it holds for any particular DM, I suspect that's largely indicative of a failing on their part. If your enjoyment of the game is so fragile that Amy playing a necromancer seriously endangers it, I don't think you should be trying to coordinate a game for multiple other people.


Sure, you can do that as a middle ground if there are compromises you're ambivalent about making. Generally speaking though, I've found that even asking my players to pick between a binray like "Do you want to play a treasure hunting, dungeon delving desert game, or would you rather play a frontier town development game" is met with "eh, I don't mind, whatever", let alone actually asking them such a broad question as "what kind of a game do you want to play this time around?".

Then why have you spent so long expressing such strong opinions about a problem you don't have? Being willing to compromise doesn't necessarily mean compromising if people don't have divergent interests.


Except most published settings are set up the other way, such that large-scale necromancy is almost exclusively a villain tactic that is frowned on at best and can be actively persecuted at worst.

Eberron has a nation that does large-scale necromancy without being a pariah state. It has another that does something that's practically indistinguishable from necromancy. But even setting those obvious counterexamples aside, "frowned upon" is not really a massive problem. I'm sure Warlocks are "frowned upon" too, but that's just a roleplaying hook, not a stop the campaign event.


Yes. That is more or less how it works. A bit more concrete: the would-be DM pitches their idea to the players and asks "Are you in?". If the players express interesst, then the DM will flesh out the idea with the implicit understanding that the players actually accept the premise.

But "the premise" is usually fairly broad. Maybe it's something like "explore newly discovered continent". Some people are going to read that as "fish out of water adventures in new culture", others as "Indiana Jones", others as "conquer the local tribes". It behooves everyone for the DM to work with the players at least a little so he doesn't develop his premise in a direction that ends up disappointing them, and so that everyone has synchronized expectations come session one.

[Psyren]

Eberron has a nation that does large-scale necromancy without being a pariah state.

If you mean Aerenal, that just proves my point - the setting bends over backwards to make sure you know that what they're doing isn't real necromancy because they're creating Deathless (i.e. powered by positive energy), not undead. Pay no attention to the elf behind the curtain.

The actual necromancers meanwhile belong to the Blood of Vol or the Mockery, which are both different flavors of crazy death cult.



I don't think the binary you're proposing is legitimate. It doesn't really matter if there's a term for it, refusing to allow players to play reasonable characters because you're unwilling to budge on your preconceived theme is bad practice.

You can insist that your character's concept/premise is reasonable until you're blue in the face, but if it needs the setting or premise to be reconfigured from the ground up to make it fit, then disagreeing with that assessment is itself reasonable.

[Crake]

I don't think the binary you're proposing is legitimate. It doesn't really matter if there's a term for it, refusing to allow players to play reasonable characters because you're unwilling to budge on your preconceived theme is bad practice.

The part you're responding to was referring to character choices, not character concepts. Trying to take solution A, which is doomed to failure by it's very nature.


That depends. Do you agree that if the players make reasonable requests, prior to the game, for modifications to the theme, the DM should consider them in good faith? Because otherwise, I think you're trying to smuggle an unreasonable point in under the guise of a reasonable one.

This depends on your definition of reasonable. If you think asking to play the antithesis of the game's premise (a villainous character, or at best, morally grey, in a heroic/valiant game for example) is a reasonable request, then I don't think we can agree, but if you're talking, say, asking to play an exotic character in a more free-roaming game, sure.


Sure it could. Most obliviously, you could whatever the Paladin archetype that makes you evil is (I assume one exists). Or you could play a Paladin whose particular code of ethics clashes with the kingdom and demands that it be destroyed (which is not at all implausible, seeing all the massive sectarian religious wars that exist in the real world). Certainly as a DM you could shut either of those down, but the player is coming to the table with a workable idea, so the blame is not 100% his. It's not 0% his either, but it's very much reasonable to expect things to bend somewhat to accommodate things players want to do.

You mean an antipaladin, aka, not a paladin? An actual paladin would never enter into a deal with Asmodeus, as that is explicitly an evil act, and would cause the paladin to instantly fall, and characters who DON'T enter into the deal are promptly killed off. So no matter how you try to spin it, a standard paladin will simply not work in way of the wicked. It is premised around playing evil characters, and demands the characters to commit acts of depraved wickedness.


And there's nothing worse from the player's end then playing a game you have little to no interest in. The idea that letting the players have what they want means the DM suffers is a false dichotomy, and to the degree that it holds for any particular DM, I suspect that's largely indicative of a failing on their part. If your enjoyment of the game is so fragile that Amy playing a necromancer seriously endangers it, I don't think you should be trying to coordinate a game for multiple other people.

Letting players have what they want doesn't necessitate that the DM suffers (bit dramatic to says suffer, but whatever), but it can result in that outcome. The difference however is that a player not having fun can leave the table and join another one while letting the others continue. A DM not having fun has to shut down the entire game if he wants to stop, so the DM not having fun is far more of a concern, because it's far more detrimental to the health of the game. That's not to lessen the... suffering, for lack of a better word, of the player, just that the player's suffering is more easily and readily remedied.

That said, if Amy wants to play a necromancer in a game about valiant champions, yeah, it's kinda annoying, because it shows Amy has no consideration for the theme of the game I want to run, and is more interested in just doing her own thing than participating in the story that I, and everyone else who agreed to play a valiant champions game, wants to engage in.


Then why have you spent so long expressing such strong opinions about a problem you don't have? Being willing to compromise doesn't necessarily mean compromising if people don't have divergent interests.

The key part is the first line, compromises you're ambivalent about making. There are some things that, when designing a game, I'm happy to be flexible about, but there are others which I may feel are a key component to the game, and not want to diverge far from. For example, perhaps, in my valiant heros game, I might say okay to a sly rogue with a strong moral code, one who is maybe not valiant at face value, but has a heart of gold, but going to polar opposite of the theme, in playing a character who defiles and desecrates the dead, is not a compromise I'm willing to make for that sort of a game.


Eberron has a nation that does large-scale necromancy without being a pariah state. It has another that does something that's practically indistinguishable from necromancy. But even setting those obvious counterexamples aside, "frowned upon" is not really a massive problem. I'm sure Warlocks are "frowned upon" too, but that's just a roleplaying hook, not a stop the campaign event.

Responding to "most things are X" with "but here's an exception" doesn't change the truth of the first statement.


But "the premise" is usually fairly broad. Maybe it's something like "explore newly discovered continent". Some people are going to read that as "fish out of water adventures in new culture", others as "Indiana Jones", others as "conquer the local tribes".

The premise can be fairly broad. It can also be much more narrow. "Explore newly discovered continent" is pretty much the stereotypical sandbox premise, and such a broad premise would indeed allow for a wide variety of both character concepts and playstyles. However, not every player is interested in playing such a broad premise, and not every DM is interested in DM such a game.


It behooves everyone for the DM to work with the players at least a little so he doesn't develop his premise in a direction that ends up disappointing them, and so that everyone has synchronized expectations come session one.

Well, that's pretty much what saying "Hey guys, this is the game I want to run, are you in?" is. The issue seems to be centered around what you think is an acceptable deviation from the DM's initial intention, which you seem to think, if you think playing a necromancer in a valiant heros game is an acceptable "compromise", means a complete 180. You keep talking about compromises, yet all I've heard from you is about how the DM should change his game to accomodate the characters the players want to make. Why can't this hypothetical Amy instead use some other kind of less morally ambiguous sort of minionmancy, like say, crafting constructs, or binding elementals, or something like that.

[Tallyn]

And the people saying "I decide what gets to be in the game and you don't and if you want to do something I don't like you should leave" don't? I agree that gogogome is not being entirely reasonable, but neither are the people he's arguing with. Neither the player saying "RAW says it's okay, so let me do it or you're a jerk" or the DM saying "I say it's not okay, so drop it or leave" is being reasonable. The core of a good gaming experience is willingness to compromise and work together to create something everyone can enjoy.

I don't know, I think Psyren has been pretty reasonable... as always, I advocate the GM and the player working together. Maybe there is a hidden campaign reason that the exact thing that the player wants won't work, but in that instance (as a GM) I would work with the player to help them achieve their desired result in maybe a slightly different matter.

If something completely breaks the game, then I would probably disallow it. (Pun Pun probably being the most egregious example) The player would tell me what they wanted to do, and I would probably simply say "Hey man, that sounds like a really cool thought exercise and would probably be fun in very short bursts, but for the campaign I am running, I don't think I would have any fun, and I'm not going to allow it... sorry." Remember, I, as the GM, want to have fun too... but yeah for the most part I'm open to most players goals/aims for their characters.

Also, I wanted to add a little note to something you replied to Crake earlier... the GM should get a little bit of extra weight, since he has to prepare adventures for characters and be ready for them running off on tangents (ad lib when necessary)… when I used to run (when I had more time when I was younger), the preparation time I put into getting ready for my game and possible player options means that I put in 10 - 20x the amount of prep time that my players did, usually combined. So, I as a player, often give the GM a little leeway when it comes to what can be played/what fits with their game, since if I'm too demanding of them it really seems like I'm not valuing their time contribution... just my two cents

[gogogome]

I agree that gogogome is not being entirely reasonable.

I am reasonable. Crake and Psyren have derailed the original topic beyond recognition which is why it looks like I'm being unreasonable. I share magicalmagicman's frustration when Psyren painted him as an entitled player who demands benefits without risks when he said no such thing.

The original topic of conversation was transparency. Where a DM gives the player only a few books to work with while the DM uses the entirety of the 3.5 system. This is wrong. For example, if the DM abuses Efreetis and bans players from abusing the efreetis in the exact same way he did, he is a terrible DM.

Then Crake started complaining about player entitlement and used a terrible example where the DM house ruled good, evil and the entire morality system of d&d and claimed that this is a justified way of destroying transparency. It's not. This is juvenile DM fiat.

Then he changed the scenario to how the entire table agreed to play a typical good campaign and how there is this one problem player who brings in a necromancer. This situation has absolutely nothing to do with transparency.

Then Psyren chimes in and says if the DM isn't in the mood to handle a necromancer PC and asks the player to play something else, that DM should be allowed to ask the player to play something else, which again has absolutely nothing to do with transparency.

I don't know what Crake and Psyren are arguing, but it has nothing to do with transparency, and when i realized they were arguing something entirely different I dropped out of the conversation.

Transparency is when a DM uses necromancy and bans the PCs from using necromancy when they can and want to. "Theming" has absolutely nothing to do with transparency because an exalted good themed table doesn't have players who can and want to use necromancy. And when one of the PCs have a change of heart and use necromancy in a "themed" game, he can use necromancy until he gets killed by his own party members so there is no destruction of transparency here, therefore the entire "theming" discussion is one giant off-topic non-sequitur.

[Tallyn]

Transparency is when a DM uses necromancy and bans the PCs from using necromancy when they can and want to. "Theming" has absolutely nothing to do with transparency because an exalted good themed table doesn't have players who can and want to use necromancy. And when one of the PCs have a change of heart and use necromancy in a "themed" game, he can use necromancy until he gets killed by his own party members so there is no destruction of transparency here, therefore the entire "theming" discussion is one giant off-topic non-sequitur.

I don't know man, I just think that there is an assumption that the GM uses and has access to things that the players themselves will not.

Players can encounter gods or avatars of the gods in games. Does that mean the player can themselves become a god or an avatar of one? Probably not during a game itself, but maybe as the culmination of a long campaign. Generally speaking, if a character ascended to godhood in my game, that would be the end of the playability of that character and it would become an NPC, that I would try to run in the manner that the player played it. (Yes I know this is an extreme example, but one I wanted to point out)

I agree that transparency and communication are key, as well as avoiding an adversarial mindset (as GMs or players). The spirit of cooperation is key here. When I have spent hundreds, possibly thousands of hours on a campaign (where I took characters from level 1 to 20 over the course of nearly 3 years), I am going to feel a little entitled to ask a player joining late for justification of why they want to play something that was VERY not setting appropriate (it was a Rokugan//Oriental Adventures campaign), and possibly disallowing it, if it doesn't feel appropriate to the long established campaign. I used stuff that they didn't (Book of Vile Darkness, although no one really asked to), but on the flip side, I did allow them to use it's inverse(?) the Book of Exalted Deeds (which I didn't draw from for their foes).

I guess I'm arguing that you can have a game that a GM can use stuff that the players don't have access to, and still have it be a fun and fair game, as long as it's established, and not a surprise. I agree that I don't think a GM should be overzealous when banning stuff, and should probably try to keep the players options as open as possible.

Hopefully, I'm not missing your point, but to boil it down I would say communication and willingness to cooperate is key.

[gogogome]

Let me clarify.

DMs do have access to plot exclusive macguffins which give his NPCs power PCs don't have and the macguffin usually gets destroyed preventing players from using it. I'm not against this. It may technically be against "transparency" but I'm not against this.

What we are talking about however is Efreetis, and necromancy for some reason. Here players have access to efreetis and necromancy. The game intentionally designed it so players have access to efreetis and necromancy. Even in CORE players have the efreeti bottle which gets them 3 free wishes if they get lucky.

So what I am against is DMs using something players have full access to and deny them the access because only he wants to abuse it. Either everyone gets to abuse efreetis or no one does. That's transparency.

[Psyren]

I am reasonable. Crake and Psyren have derailed and butchered the original topic beyond recognition which is why it looks like I'm being unreasonable. I share magicalmagicman's frustration when Psyren painted him as an entitled player who demands benefits without risks when he said no such thing.

Er... I'm pretty sure we finished with the "risk-free" part of the discussion back on page 2 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?604194-Age-of-Worms-has-an-NPC-abusing-Efreeti-wishes&p=24298236&viewfull=1#post24298236) so where in the heck is this coming from now, 4+ pages later? :smallconfused: :smallconfused:


For example, if the DM abuses Efreetis and bans players from abusing the efreetis in the exact same way he did, he is a terrible DM.

I still disagree; it makes sense that an Always Evil creature might be more willing to bring its A-game for a main villain than for a hero, because in the long run the villain's goals are more likely to coincide with its own. Efreet are characters with agency, not vending machines, even when they're subject to a binding. This makes even more sense when you go back and read Afroakuma's post on the history of efreet, the City of Brass and their relationship to the wishes they grant.


Then Psyren chimes in and says if the DM isn't in the mood to handle a necromancer PC and asks the player to play something else, that DM should be allowed to ask the player to play something else, which again has absolutely nothing to do with transparency.
...
Transparency is when a DM uses necromancy and bans the PCs from using necromancy when they can and want to. "Theming" has absolutely nothing to do with transparency because an exalted good themed table doesn't have players who can and want to use necromancy.

As you yourself just mentioned, the specific scenario was a player wanting to use the villain's tactics to fight them (necromancy vs necromancy in this case) so your conclusion that it's not related to transparency doesn't make sense to me. And you don't have to be "Exalted Good" to anticipate problems with using it either.



What we are talking about however is Efreetis, and necromancy for some reason. Here players have access to efreetis and necromancy. The game intentionally designed it so players have access to efreetis and necromancy. Even in CORE players have the efreeti bottle which gets them 3 free wishes if they get lucky.

So what I am against is DMs using something players have full access to and deny them the access because only he wants to abuse it. Either everyone gets to abuse efreetis or no one does. That's transparency.

To reiterate my stance as clearly as possible:

Efreets. Are not. Vending machines. A villain getting X out of them for a nefarious purpose does not, and should not, guarantee that a hero is entitled to get X as well.

I'd also ask - how is the character actually wording that wish? Are they saying to the efreet "give me +3 to each of my six ability scores over the course of several days?"

[Tallyn]

Let me clarify.

DMs do have access to plot exclusive macguffins which give his NPCs power PCs don't have and the macguffin usually gets destroyed preventing players from using it. I'm not against this. It may technically be against "transparency" but I'm not against this.

What we are talking about however is Efreetis, and necromancy for some reason. Here players have access to efreetis and necromancy. The game intentionally designed it so players have access to efreetis and necromancy. Even in CORE players have the efreeti bottle which gets them 3 free wishes if they get lucky.

So what I am against is DMs using something players have full access to and deny them the access because only he wants to abuse it. Either everyone gets to abuse efreetis or no one does. That's transparency.

Ok, I can agree with that. I haven't looked at that particular adventure path, but I probably wouldn't use the NPC the way they had him with +3 to all abilities scores (or whatever it did with all those wishes)… I'd probably modify him in some other more appropriate way to be at the appropriate challenge. I think Efreeti's would be like Devils in a way... they'll try to pervert your wish, as they probably are not big on servitude, especially to creatures/races they view as beneath them.

As for the necromancy, I think it depends to me. I think it would be more limited by the other players in the group, and if they are ok with one of them doing necromancy. Necromancy is usually evil, so the player will have to deal with that, especially if they REALLY start doing other evil stuff as well. It would also depend on the game I'm running, but most I would have allowed it

[gogogome]

I still disagree; it makes sense that an Always Evil creature might be more willing to bring its A-game for a main villain than for a hero, because in the long run the villain's goals are more likely to coincide with its own. Efreet are characters with agency, not vending machines, even when they're subject to a binding. This makes even more sense when you go back and read Afroakuma's post on the history of efreet, the City of Brass and their relationship to the wishes they grant.

What does this have to do with transparency? You can dominate an efreeti. You can create a simulacrum of an efreeti, You can lie and trick the efreeti. You can even mindrape an efreeti. The means of getting an efreeti's support is irrelevant. With enough optimization and with all the tools at the PC's disposal the PCs will get the efreeti's support and his 3/day wishes one way or another. The topic is about: if the DM uses all 3 wishes everyday to get stuff, should the players be allowed to use all 3 wishes everyday to get the same stuff?

Evil NPCs having an easier time getting an efreeti to cooperate with him is an off-topic non-sequitur.


As you yourself just mentioned, the specific scenario was a player wanting to use the villain's tactics to fight them (necromancy vs necromancy in this case) so your conclusion that it's not related to transparency doesn't make sense to me. And you don't have to be "Exalted Good" to anticipate problems with using it either.

In a good party there is no good reason to disallow a good necromancer. A DM not wanting to deal with that or the player might stealing too much spotlight are acceptable reasons but not good. It has to be an exalted good party to have a reason to disallow a good necromancer in the party.

[Tallyn]

What does this have to do with transparency? You can dominate an efreeti. You can create a simulacrum of an efreeti, You can lie and trick the efreeti. You can even mindrape an efreeti. The means of getting an efreeti's support is irrelevant. With enough optimization and with all the tools at the PC's disposal the PCs will get the efreeti's support and his 3/day wishes one way or another. The topic is about: if the DM uses all 3 wishes everyday to get stuff, should the players be allowed to use all 3 wishes everyday to get the same stuff?



Some of the spells and powers you are mentioning, well, wishes 3x a day would already be fairly easy to get. So it depends on how game breaking those wishes became.

If the PC emulated the +3 to all ability scores that the NPC in this adventure path, that's not particularly game breaking, just a nice benefit.

If the PC started going deeper than that, the powers that be (the one that gives the power to the efreeti to grant those wishes) may not grant the wish, intervene, or possibly send divine agents to stop the player.

[Quertus]

Well, this thread has been pretty painful and disappointing to read for a while. And the number of assumptions I'd have to unpack to have meaningful conversations, in some cases, is quite daunting.

Personally, I was and am only interested in talking about certain toys being "GM only". Any talk about theme or other players being onboard or anything else comes off as trying to put a fig leaf of respectability on practices the speaker know to be bad (whether it was intended that way or not). So I'll not engage in such discussions.

Now, are these other reasons worthy of discussion? Yes, absolutely. And I have opinions about them. Probably. But bringing them up is not valid a response to my particular point, so I'll not be engaging with those points.

So, to remove all the fig leaves, suppose there is an undead army coming to destroy the kingdom. Suppose the PCs have the "power" (Diplomacy) to successfully convince the kingdom to sacrifice one third of those who would have died to create an army 3x bigger than that of the Necromancer, and beat him at his own game. Suppose there are no fig leaves - this matches everything agreed upon, the players are all onboard, they mechanically can create the army in time, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc.

If the GM cannot accept the players wielding an undead army, "because that's GM's toys", - and especially not one bigger and better than the Necromancer wields, "because my cool NPC" - then they are failing in the way I am discussing.

Now, one thing I will respond to, because it's a completely separate topic, is



Yes, you're right, sometimes they can go for months to years, and sometimes they will allow for players to stop and engage in some side stories, but other times they won't. The issue isn't players partaking in worldbuilding, the issue is when said worldbuilding comes at the expense of the main story, like the aforementioned thieves guild vs the paladin's holy crusade. I've had players settle down and create businesses, establish a dojo, have romantic side stories, one character even established a cult to his demon girlfriend once. They all happened because the theme of the game allowed for it, but I've also had games where, after a certain point, it's been a race-to-the-finish style game, where such things just wouldn't have been possible, and it was only after the plot that the characters managed to establish such final goals, during the campaign epilogue. They didn't get to experience building those things first hand in character, but they got to define the outline of those kinds of organizations, and got to see how they impacted the campaign world in future games.

The point is, as I keep saying, there is a time and place for everything. In the paladin vs rogue example, the thieves guild is something that is more fitting to be done during the epilogue of the game, since once the demonic invasion is over, the rogue would actually be able to give his full attention to the building of that organization, and not have to worry about say, a revolt midway through the campaign, because he's been spending all his time, money and effort out killing demons, and buying relevant gear for that, rather than investing that time money and effort into the guild he's building.

Now, of course, if you notice the issue there is that "demonic invasion" is a rather pressing issue. If the campaign was more something along the lines of, say "Subverting cultists", a more slow-paced, investigation style game, sure, there'd be plenty of room for the rogue to build a theives guild, and in fact, doing so may well be in direct service of the plot, because his thieves guild could gather information on the cultists. Time and place.

This is a great example of a reason why my characters have an expected lifespan greater than one campaign. I have no interest in having such things handled "in epilog" - in such a scenario, I would continue playing the character until they can actually (attempt to) achieve their goals.

[Tallyn]

Personally, I was and am only interested in talking about certain toys being "GM only". Any talk about theme or other players being onboard or anything else comes off as trying to put a fig leaf of respectability on practices the speaker know to be bad (whether it was intended that way or not). So I'll not engage in such discussions.


There is only one thing I can think of in my games that I'd almost certainly keep GM only: Godhood. Nearly everything else could be negotiable to some degree.

[Psyren]

What does this have to do with transparency? You can dominate an efreeti. You can create a simulacrum of an efreeti, You can lie and trick the efreeti. You can even mindrape an efreeti. The means of getting an efreeti's support is irrelevant. The topic is about: if the DM uses all 3 wishes everyday to get stuff, should the players be allowed to use all 3 wishes everyday to get the same stuff?

No, it's very relevant. Every one of those tactics you just listed has important considerations, requirements, effectiveness, and potential consequences of their own.

As long as you continue to view an efreet as nothing more than a wish-dispenser, we'll probably never see eye to eye.


Evil NPCs having an easier time getting an efreeti to cooperate with him is an off-topic non-sequitur.

It's not off-topic at all. It's a direct answer to the question asked in the thread - "should the players be allowed to use their powers in the same way the villain does?" Cooperation or antagonism from the being providing that ability is directly relevant to that question.


In a good party there is no good reason to disallow a good necromancer. A DM not wanting to deal with that or the player might stealing too much spotlight are acceptable reasons but not good. It has to be an exalted good party to have a reason to disallow a good necromancer in the party.

First, you're assuming "good necromancers" are even possible, which several settings would disagree with.
Second, you're assuming that the party's approval of their tactics is the only approval that matters for a given situation.
Third and final, you can allow something, but still have there be consequences or require precautions when using it.

[gogogome]

No, it's very relevant. Every one of those tactics you just listed has important considerations, requirements, effectiveness, and potential consequences of their own.

How is this relevant? All I'm hearing is "it's harder for PCs to obtain 3/day wishes everyday."


As long as you continue to view an efreet as nothing more than a wish-dispenser, we'll probably never see eye to eye.

PCs can turn an efreeti into a wish vending machine with mindrape, dominate monster, or even charm monster assuming you succed the charisma checks, or create one with ice assassin or simulacrum.

So the PCs will get those 3/day wishes if they work hard enough. So how is this relevant?


It's not off-topic at all. It's a direct answer to the question asked in the thread - "should the players be allowed to use their powers in the same way the villain does?" Cooperation or antagonism from the being providing that ability is directly relevant to that question.

PCs can lobotomize any and all creatures into a zealot slave that will die for them. Which means PCs can get cooperation without antagonism.


First, you're assuming "good necromancers" are even possible, which several settings would disagree with.

If Malconvokers can be good, so can necromancers. And they can get their undead without using an Evil spell.



Second, you're assuming that the party's approval of their tactics is the only approval that matters for a given situation.
Third and final, you can allow something, but still have there be consequences or require precautions when using it.

Which part of my post disagrees with this?

[Psyren]

How is this relevant? All I'm hearing is "it's harder for PCs to obtain 3/day wishes everyday."

Harder than it is for a villain? Yes, absolutely, that's what I'm saying.


PCs can turn an efreeti into a wish vending machine with mindrape, dominate monster, or even charm monster assuming you succed the charisma checks, or create one with ice assassin or simulacrum.
...
PCs can lobotomize any and all creatures into a zealot slave that will die for them. Which means PCs can get cooperation without antagonism.

As mentioned, I think we can stop here.

[gogogome]

Harder than it is for a villain? Yes, absolutely, that's what I'm saying.

It being harder is related to transparency how? If players have access to it even though it's harder, that's full transparency right there. What part are you exactly objecting to?

[Deadline]

PCs can turn an efreeti into a wish vending machine with mindrape, dominate monster, or even charm monster assuming you succed the charisma checks, or create one with ice assassin or simulacrum.

So the PCs will get those 3/day wishes if they work hard enough. So how is this relevant?



PCs can lobotomize any and all creatures into a zealot slave that will die for them. Which means PCs can get cooperation without antagonism.

I thought you were claiming that you weren't advocating for risk free unlimited wishes. Did I mistake that position, or have you reversed it?




If Malconvokers can be good, so can necromancers. And they can get their undead without using an Evil spell.

I'll bite, what are you basing this on? Malconvokers have a specific exemption to the "casting an [Evil] spell is an evil action" for conjuring [Evil] creatures. I'm not aware of something similar for Necromancers. Are you referring to the psuedo-undead in the BoED?

And as for actual undead armies without casting an [Evil] spell, what methods are you suggesting? I can think of a couple, but neither are all that great, and certainly aren't suitable for the usual "custom undead horde" that PC Necromancers usually want to build (because they rely on the GM putting specific foes against the PCs).

[gogogome]

I thought you were claiming that you weren't advocating for risk free unlimited wishes. Did I mistake that position, or have you reversed it?

I banned efreetis in my game because unlimited wishes break games. But this thread has convinced me to allow unlimited wishes and use NPCs copying the PC's usage of wish to give incentive to PCs to not abuse it.

If players use planar binding then there will be a risk. They need to out lawyer me. But that doesn't change the fact that there are a myriad of ways of eliminating that risk. And if I'm allowing efreetis into the game then I'm gonna allow the players to lobotomize them, at which point the only real risk of using unlimited wishes is that my NPCs are gonna get tougher because they too will do everything the PCs did.

This is just theory though, I will implement this idea in my next game but if it fails then I'm going back to banning efreetis.

I mentioned those methods because Psyren is being very confusing. Can you explain what he is trying to say? How is efreetis' wish being harder to obtain have anything to do with player/DM transparency? NPCs can get them easier because of the RP aspect, Players have a harder time because of the RP aspect, so what? What does that have to do with transparency? I'm honestly drawing a blank here. What was Psyren trying to say? How is this whole discussion not a giant off-topic non-sequitur?


And as for actual undead armies without casting an [Evil] spell, what methods are you suggesting? I can think of a couple, but neither are all that great, and certainly aren't suitable for the usual "custom undead horde" that PC Necromancers usually want to build (because they rely on the GM putting specific foes against the PCs).

Fell Animate doesn't add [Evil] to spells it modifies, and it doesn't have an upper hd limit. So it's useful all the way to the end. And then you can apply any one of the myriad undead templates to make it tougher. Dread Necromancers can rebuke while being good-aligned and he can get other. Night Caller is an item that raises the dead and doesn't modify the player's alignment in any way.

There's plenty of ways of raising dead.

And of course there's always doing way more good to the point you can cast evil spells without changing your alignment.


I'll bite, what are you basing this on? Malconvokers have a specific exemption to the "casting an [Evil] spell is an evil action" for conjuring [Evil] creatures. I'm not aware of something similar for Necromancers. Are you referring to the psuedo-undead in the BoED?

I was referring to a PC raising undead without casting an evil spell.

[Tallyn]

Fell Animate doesn't add [Evil] to spells it modifies, and it doesn't have an upper hd limit. So it's useful all the way to the end. And then you can apply any one of the myriad undead templates to make it tougher. Dread Necromancers can rebuke while being good-aligned and he can get other. Night Caller is an item that raises the dead and doesn't modify the player's alignment in any way.

There's plenty of ways of raising dead.

And of course there's always doing way more good to the point you can cast evil spells without changing your alignment.

I was referring to a PC raising undead without casting an evil spell.

While I may allow them to be neutral, any PC animating corpses (whether by spell or by item) to fight for him or do tasks for him on a regular basis .. well I would have trouble with them being a good alignment. A good necromancer is fine (generally uses necromantic energies to destroy undead).

In nearly every culture, messing with the dead/corpses is considered disrespectful of the dead themselves and/or of their relatives. Again, I'll reiterate, I think you can probably be neutral and animate the dead on a semi regular basis, but I would raise an eyebrow about being good.

Also, I would question the player who's actions are guided by a philosophy of "I've done all these good acts, so I can cast a few evil spells, no problem." Once you start down the dark path.... well you know the rest... ;)

Edit: Honestly though, since Animate Dead has the evil descriptor, it was most likely an oversight that use of the feat "Fell Animate" to animate undead is not considered evil. Also, given the feat comes from Libris Mortis.. well... I'd be upfront about it, but I'd rule that repeated use of it (in my games mind you) would be evil.

Second edit: I'd also say that repeated use of an item that duplicates a spell with the evil descriptor, would have an appropriate affect on alignment over time.

Not trying to be super argumentative with you, just stating what I would do.. you do what you like, and have fun in your own games :)

[Quertus]

There is only one thing I can think of in my games that I'd almost certainly keep GM only: Godhood. Nearly everything else could be negotiable to some degree.

Lol. The ultimate goal for most¹ of my characters is to overthrow the gods². So that's rough.

That said, very few of my characters have ever achieved their ultimate goal, most are run under multiple GMs, and, one of my worlds, "deity" is a race, not an ascendable position. So It's not actually a… lost the phrase… a no sale? A hard fail? It's not a deal breaker!

¹ although, curiously, very few of the characters I usually talk about have that particular goal
² well, some subset of kill one or more gods, and/or ascend to godhood, to make the world a better place.

[Psyren]

I mentioned those methods because Psyren is being very confusing.

I don't see what's confusing about this:




PCs can turn an efreeti into a wish vending machine with mindrape, dominate monster, or even charm monster assuming you succed the charisma checks, or create one with ice assassin or simulacrum.
...
PCs can lobotomize any and all creatures into a zealot slave that will die for them. Which means PCs can get cooperation without antagonism.

As mentioned, I think we can stop here.

It means our playstyles and goals for gaming are so fundamentally different that there's nothing else to discuss.

[Tallyn]

Lol. The ultimate goal for most¹ of my characters is to overthrow the gods². So that's rough.

That said, very few of my characters have ever achieved their ultimate goal, most are run under multiple GMs, and, one of my worlds, "deity" is a race, not an ascendable position. So It's not actually a… lost the phrase… a no sale? A hard fail? It's not a deal breaker!

¹ although, curiously, very few of the characters I usually talk about have that particular goal
² well, some subset of kill one or more gods, and/or ascend to godhood, to make the world a better place.

Oh, I'd definitely allow it as a player goal! But it would usually be the culmination of a campaign, and the player may not get any time to actually play as a god (or have power to rival the gods). (Too much temptation to absolutely warp areas of my campaign, and me having to step in as the overgod saying "no you can't do that" would lead to a feels bad situation)

I may let them do a last session play around a little bit, say some goodbyes or wrap up some last things. But once they've formally ascended to godhood, then I would probably ask the player a couple questions about what they would try to do with their newfound power (also advising them to understand that other divine beings may assist, or try to fight your plans), and have the affects of their reached goal touch upon subsequent campaigns that I run in my setting (maybe I'd develop a new god you can worship and customize abilities, domains, deific obediences, etc for the new god with a little input from the old PC themselves)

[magicalmagicman]

I mentioned those methods because Psyren is being very confusing. Can you explain what he is trying to say? How is efreetis' wish being harder to obtain have anything to do with player/DM transparency? NPCs can get them easier because of the RP aspect, Players have a harder time because of the RP aspect, so what? What does that have to do with transparency? I'm honestly drawing a blank here. What was Psyren trying to say? How is this whole discussion not a giant off-topic non-sequitur?

Yeah, I haven't been following him either. Maybe his definition for transparency includes ease of access?

[gogogome]

Yeah, I haven't been following him either. Maybe his definition for transparency includes ease of access?

I think we can figure this out. I couldn't understand a thing he was saying in that simulacrum thread as well and it really bothered me. So if you're willing, let's figure this out together so this thread doesn't bother me too.



Transparency means whatever the DM has access to, player has access to as well.
Psyren is anti-transparency. He's against transparency.

So the premise of the argument is that we have a DM who used an Efreeti in combat to revive fallen allies and to boost the BBEG's stats by 3.
My stance is that the players, if they get access to an Efreeti ally, should also be allowed to increase their stats by 3 because of transparency.

Psyren says players should not be allowed to use an efreeti ally to increase their stats by 3 because of RP reasons.
You and I both point out there are a myriad of ways around the RP. You said simulacrum, I said mindrape.
And then he falls silent and says we should stop discussing.



So in order to break transparency, the DM has to say "no" when the player wants to call or create an efreeti.
Psyren doesn't say this, he says player can call or create and efreeti, but because of RP reasons they can't get the 3 to all stats.
You and I mentioned Simulacrum and mindbreak to overcome the RP.
Psyren falls silent and says we should stop discussing.



So points of confusion for me are
1. How is RPing to make it harder for PCs to get access to efreeti wishes breaking transparency? As far as I can see there is no breach of transparency here.

2. and this.


I don't see what's confusing about this:



It means our playstyles and goals for gaming are so fundamentally different that there's nothing else to discuss.

We're talking about transparency. That players should be allowed to use efreetis if the DM uses one first. And somehow our goals for gaming are so fundamentally different?
So I'm talking about transparency, that if DMs don't want players using efreetis then they shouldn't either. And suddenly he brings out my goals for gaming?

I haven't mentioned my goals for gaming. For the record my goal for gaming is to have a fun adventure with everyone's uniquely built character, and say "no" as little as possible. I want to also ban as few things as possible. And I think telling my players that I get to use things they have full access to but they can't causes an atmosphere of unfairness and unreasonableness so I'm against it and believe that anything I use my players can use too.



So from my point of view, Psyren is saying:
"Player's don't get efreetis because of RP and DMs get efreetis because of RP"
We point out the RP can be bypassed.
He falls silent and tells me our goals for gaming is different.



Wait, I think I understand now. He's saying he will do whatever he can to prevent players from using an efreeti. He will have an interplanar hit squad whack the player mindraping an efreeti. And this is good DMing.

I see it now. Instead of banning efreetis, he will pull a railroad. If they bypass RP he will do something else. There is a 0% chance a player will successfully mindrape an efreeti in his game and he believes it's justified railroad because DMs get to use things players have access to while the players can't, and that's where the transparency breaks!

Am I correct? What do you think?

[Tallyn]

Wait, I think I understand now. He's saying he will do whatever he can to prevent players from using an efreeti. He will have an interplanar hit squad whack the player mindraping an efreeti. And this is good DMing.

I see it now. Instead of banning efreetis, he will pull a railroad. If they bypass RP he will do something else. There is a 0% chance a player will successfully mindrape an efreeti in his game and he believes it's justified railroad because DMs get to use things players have access to while the players can't, and that's where the transparency breaks!

Am I correct? What do you think?

I know you're talking to someone else, but I think that is a bit of reductio ad absurdum...

I can be transparent to my players upfront in a game by telling them that their may be some options that may be available to villains and NPCs that may not be easily available to their characters. This could be due to the npcs willingness to commit acts of atrocity, hidden lore, etc. If they have a problem with something that comes up to please take the time to discuss it with them after game that way they can work it out and work with the player to see if they can bridge the gap to see if they can achieve their desired result through another mean

Edited to reduce the quote size...

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Edit: Honestly though, since Animate Dead has the evil descriptor, it was most likely an oversight that use of the feat "Fell Animate" to animate undead is not considered evil. Also, given the feat comes from Libris Mortis.. well... I'd be upfront about it, but I'd rule that repeated use of it (in my games mind you) would be evil.

Undead and the animation thereof veered between "How dare you commit such unforgivably evil acts?" and "Eh, if you're comfortable using summons and constructs, undead are fine" over the lifetime (heh) of 3e, because various authors had different takes on the morality. In AD&D, non-sapient undead were neutral and basically stood around doing nothing if uncontrolled, intelligent undead had a small tendency toward evil but were as often as not a natural phenomenon, positive and negative energy were completely morally neutral, animating undead was fine (or at least no more evil than fireballing orcs or summoning monsters to use as trap-springers), and so forth.

In 3e, healing spells were moved from Necromancy to Conjuration because some of the devs viewed Necromancy as the school of icky spookiness, non-sapient undead became Always Evil and sapient undead were given a much more negative slant, animate dead and similar spells got the [Evil] tag (but inconsistently so, and some non-evil spells like deathwatch got the same tag because Necromancy), some splats started associating the Negative Energy Plane with Evil (when in fact negative energy is basically just entropy and AD&D clerics only had an affinity for negative energy because they liked harming people and not because it's intrinsically evil), and so forth.

The lich is a prime example of the differences between editions, since it's an iconic sapient undead and shows up in core in all three. Compare their entries in different MMs:


Alignment: Neutral (evil)

A lich exists because of its own desires and the use of powerful and arcane magic. The lich passes from a state of humanity to a non-human, nonliving existence through force of will. It retains this status by certain conjurations, enchantments, and a phylactery. A lich is most often encountered within its hidden chambers, this lair typically being in some wilderness area or vast underground labyrinth, and in any case both solidly constructed of stone and very dark.


Alignment: Any evil

A lich is an undead spellcaster, usually a wizard or sorcerer but sometimes a cleric or other spellcaster, who has used its magical powers to unnaturally extend its life.

As a rule, these creatures are scheming and, some say, insane. They hunger for ever greater power, long-forgotten knowledge, and the most terrible of arcane secrets. Because the shadow of death does not hang over them, they often conceive plans taking years, decades, or even centuries to come to fruition.

As portrayed in AD&D, liches are largely neutral with evil tendencies, they become undead mostly as a means of life extension, and necromancy isn't even mentioned in their fluff. In 3e, meanwhile, liches are always evil, they become undead mostly as a means to carry out nefarious plots, and there's a flavor emphasis on insanity and That Which Man Was Not Meant To Know.

Contrast, also, the means of becoming a lich:


In order to become a lich, the wizard must prepare its phylactery by the use of the enchant an item, magic jar, permanency and reincarnation spells. The phylactery, which can be almost any manner of object, must be of the finest craftsmanship and materials with a value of not less than 1,500 gold pieces per level of the wizard. Once this object is created, the would-be lich must craft a potion of extreme toxicity, which is then enchanted with the following spells: wraithform, permanency, cone of cold, feign death, and animate dead. When next the moon is full, the potion is imbibed. Rather than death, the potion causes the wizard to undergo a transformation into its new state. A system shock survival throw is required, with failure indicating an error in the creation of the potion which kills the wizard and renders him forever dead.


The process of becoming a lich is unspeakably evil and can be undertaken only by a willing character.
[...]
Each lich must make its own phylactery, which requires the Craft Wondrous Item feat. The character must be able to cast spells and have a caster level of 11th or higher. The phylactery costs 120,000 gp and 4,800 XP to create and has a caster level equal to that of its creator at the time of creation.

AD&D liches basically brew themselves a big ol' potion of lichification, no more evil than a potion of polymorph any object, while 3e liches have to do something undefined but "unspeakably" evil to achieve lichhood. Pretty significant difference there, and the lack of moral judgment on 2e liches is particularly notable considering that 2e was published during the "Satanic" panic era where the devs sanitized a lot of material, renamed the fiends from demons/daemons/devils to tanar'ri/yugoloths/baatezu, and so forth.


So even within 3e material there's a debate on whether undead and animation are evil and exactly how evil that is, Fell Animate not giving the [Evil] tag is as likely to result from whoever wrote it not considering it to be evil rather than that being an oversight, and players who started on AD&D are quite justified in finding nothing evil whatsoever in creating and controlling undead.

Personally, I'd consider golem creation to be evil before I considered animating skeletons to be evil, since the latter are explicitly "mindless automatons" with no mention of binding dead creatures' souls into them (that's more of a thing with sapient undead) whereas creating a golem explicitly takes a spirit from the Inner Planes and "binds the unwilling spirit to the artificial body and subjects it to the will of the golem's creator"...but no one raises moral objections to golem-focused artificers and few people consider the rights of the elementals bound into Eberron vehicles and magic items. :smallamused:

[magicalmagicman]

There is a 0% chance a player will successfully mindrape an efreeti in his game

I think that's what he's saying in this quote.


No, it's very relevant. Every one of those tactics you just listed has important considerations, requirements, effectiveness, and potential consequences of their own.

[Talakeal]

Dread necromancers can’t be good.

[gogogome]

I know you're talking to someone else, but I think that is a bit of reductio ad absurdum...

I can be transparent to my players upfront in a game by telling them that their may be some options that may be available to villains and NPCs that may not be easily available to their characters. This could be due to the npcs willingness to commit acts of atrocity, hidden lore, etc. If they have a problem with something that comes up to please take the time to discuss it with them after game that way they can work it out and work with the player to see if they can bridge the gap to see if they can achieve their desired result through another mean

Edited to reduce the quote size...

I think you misunderstood me because I don't disagree with anything you said.

For example, BoVD has a lot of powerful options, especially the sacrifice rules, but my players don't use it not because they can't, because they don't want to commit these really evil acts. But my NPCs use them liberally because they're evil.

The option and rewards of evil are available to my players and they voluntarily reject it. And me using them for my evil NPCs does not break transparency in anyway.

So I don't really understand what you're objecting to here....


Dread necromancers can’t be good.

My bad for using an online resource. I stand corrected.


I think that's what he's saying in this quote.

Yeah I see that now. For the record, I'm against DMs who don't say they're banning something when they clearly are. If they don't want the players to do something, they should be clear and upfront instead of saying that there will be consequences and then killing the PC with a railroad.

[Tallyn]

Undead and the animation thereof veered between "How dare you commit such unforgivably evil acts?" and "Eh, if you're comfortable using summons and constructs, undead are fine" over the lifetime (heh) of 3e, because various authors had different takes on the morality....

Yeah I definitely agree with you on some points there.. not sure why they changed the whole liches phylactery thing needing to be "unspeakably" evil or whatever. It does make us lose out on a few neutral undead from 2nd ed (Baelnorns). Generally speaking, I can understand that the process to become a lich would mostly attract people that are evil, but if you aren't harming anyone (other than yourself possibly?) in becoming a lich, it didn't make a whole lot of sense for them to be evil only.

I agree that the act of binding a soul potentially to a unlifetime of torment (making intelligent undead) is definitely way more evil than making non-intelligent skeletons and zombies. I hadn't given much thought to golem creation, as no one ever does it in any of my games (way too expensive for what you actually get).

[Tallyn]

I think you misunderstood me because I don't disagree with anything you said.

For example, BoVD has a lot of powerful options, especially the sacrifice rules, but my players don't use it not because they can't, because they don't want to commit these really evil acts. But my NPCs use them liberally because they're evil.

The option and rewards of evil are available to my players and they voluntarily reject it. And me using them for my evil NPCs does not break transparency in anyway.

So I don't really understand what you're objecting to here....



I'm just playing counterpoint/devil's advocate here I guess. Trying to paint Psyren as not being as psycho as he's being painted to be. Just as some options are more available/tempting to NPCs (villains), some options are more available/tempting to PCs.

Think about this: The Book of Exalted Deeds is available to all my players (should they abide by the restrictions thereof), but my villains don't use it, not because they can't, but because they don't want to commit to the moral code that would be required. But the PCs use them liberally because they are good.

I don't know, I may be rambling... I'm bored at work because there isn't a whole lot to do today, so I'm jumping in the discussion more than I should be ;)

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Generally speaking, I can understand that the process to become a lich would mostly attract people that are evil, but if you aren't harming anyone (other than yourself possibly?) in becoming a lich, it didn't make a whole lot of sense for them to be evil only.

Actually, I can see as many or more good people than evil people being attracted to lichdom if you don't mind the whole "becoming a skeleton" part, since the main benefit to becoming a lich is that you get to keep being you and it's all done "under your own power," so to speak. Other means of immortality generally come with pretty severe drawbacks or limitations: they wipe your memory (being transformed into an elan), require constant body-swapping and have you keep aging in the meantime (reincarnate, repeated true mind switch, etc.), tie you to certain places or people (coming back as a ghost, becoming a Cloud Anchorite), require active upkeep and/or harming other people (being a Thief of Life, raising Living Zombies, vampirism, and many more), require strict codes of behavior and/or devotion to a higher power (becoming a Beloved of Valarian or various druid PrCs that turn you into fey or cleric PrCs that turn you into outsiders), and so on.

Only lichdom keeps you "you" in mind and (albeit undeadified) body and imposes no physical, vital, temporal, or spiritual bonds on you to interfere with your unlife. A Good-aligned lich is perfectly capable of becoming a lich without harming anyone, doing whatever it wants to for the remainder of its unlife with no obligations to gods or other higher powers, and existing indefinitely without harming or feeding upon any other beings. Sure, most liches tend toward the deeper end of the alignment pool, but if you wanted to be a crusader for goodness and light for eternity without being the lapdog of a Good deity (and don't mind keeping to yourself so you don't freak out commoners on a daily basis), there are much worse options out there.

(On a side note, that's why I hate the 5e interpretation of the lich. Not only did 5e triple down on the "Undead are eeeeevil!" thing from 3e and get rid of any lingering traces of the "Undead aren't evil, just vitally-challenged" view from AD&D, but 5e retconned liches into (A) having to bow and scrape to evil gods and planar powers to achieve lichdom, thereby undercutting the whole "DIY immortality" thing that makes it so appealing to self-sufficient wizards, and (B) having to feed souls to their phylactery on a regular basis to maintain immortality--something even evil outsiders consider beyond the pale--thereby forcing liches to be evil and removing the possibility of the iconic lich who sits in his tomb for centuries doing magical research with absolutely no contact with the outside world. C'mon, guys, you missed the entire point of lichdom!)

[SquidFighter]

You guys are awesome to read, and in all kinds of thought provoking good ways !

That said, here's my take on it :

For one thing, while I tend to agree that using RAW player-accessible means to create your BBEG is best, I don't think players are actually entitled to reciprocity of means when it comes to gameplay (what I gathered was called Transparency so far). Because something was used by the BBEG doesn't mean every and all players can (at least in a practical way).

For the meta-game aspect, I think it in poor form to game the rules system to grant your character infinite amounts of world-shattering abilities because it basically ends the game. If allowed, it becomes an ''I win'' button, and with respect to the spirit of the hobby counter-productive. You don't win at D&D, you succeed in sharing fun times with fellow players through D&D. To paraphrase Fharlanghn : The fun is in the journey.

For the RAW aspect, how is receiving six days worth of efreeti infinite ? How can we infer that the BBEG in Age of Worms received its wishes for free, or through any other optimized way of preventing any cost of those wishes ? How are we to know it hasn't paid its RP value of bad times because of it ? So far we can only tell the BBEG has access to many wishes. That by itself poses no problem to a DM that wants to grant its players reciprocity of means. The players could also receive many wishes, perhaps as many as the BBEG. The issue here is that the DM still has to control the amounts of wishes available, and the cost of these wishes. Granting them a gamey way of getting infinite wishes is a good way of ending the game in an unsatisfactory fashion if only one player lacks the restraint to ''not go there''.

That brings us to the RP aspect. How does your players, and by extent the characters, even know that the BBEG has received +3 on all its stats, and so that is where the line is drawn concerning wishes ? They don't. How can they know the wishes are granted for free, or through other means of coercion such as mindrape ? They don't. So wishes don't have to be free. You can already have worked in the (RP or other) cost of these wishes, and for all intents and purposes, they're fair.

Of course, you could let your players read the module before running it, so they already know exactly was is available to them and what falls within the boundary of ''gaming the system in good taste''. But while exactly Transparent, it doesn't seem the best way to play D&D to me.

[magicalmagicman]

For the meta-game aspect, I think it in poor form to game the rules system to grant your character infinite amounts of world-shattering abilities because it basically ends the game. If allowed, it becomes an ''I win'' button, and with respect to the spirit of the hobby counter-productive. You don't win at D&D, you succeed in sharing fun times with fellow players through D&D. To paraphrase Fharlanghn : The fun is in the journey.

My argument is that using Efreetis the way Paizo did in Age of Worms is a way to use Efreetis in a non-world-shattering way. If Paizo did it without making overpowered unbeatable NPCs, then PCs should also be allowed to do it because they won't be overpowered and unbeatable.

The only thing Paizo did with Efreetis was +3 to 6 stats and in-combat resurrection or full heal. I'm saying players doing the exact same thing is normal optimization, not TO or world-shattering.


For the RAW aspect, how is receiving six days worth of efreeti infinite ? How can we infer that the BBEG in Age of Worms received its wishes for free, or through any other optimized way of preventing any cost of those wishes ? How are we to know it hasn't paid its RP value of bad times because of it ? So far we can only tell the BBEG has access to many wishes. That by itself poses no problem to a DM that wants to grant its players reciprocity of means. The players could also receive many wishes, perhaps as many as the BBEG. The issue here is that the DM still has to control the amounts of wishes available, and the cost of these wishes. Granting them a gamey way of getting infinite wishes is a good way of ending the game in an unsatisfactory fashion if only one player lacks the restraint to ''not go there''.

The Efreeti and the BBEG knew each other for a very long time.


That brings us to the RP aspect. How does your players, and by extent the characters, even know that the BBEG has received +3 on all its stats, and so that is where the line is drawn concerning wishes ? They don't. How can they know the wishes are granted for free, or through other means of coercion such as mindrape ? They don't. So wishes don't have to be free. You can already have worked in the (RP or other) cost of these wishes, and for all intents and purposes, they're fair.

Banning Efreetis is a meta thing, not a RP thing. So is limiting their use. If we remove the meta thing then we have PCs who know of a wish granting creature and might get ideas of their own of obtaining one.


Of course, you could let your players read the module before running it, so they already know exactly was is available to them and what falls within the boundary of ''gaming the system in good taste''. But while exactly Transparent, it doesn't seem the best way to play D&D to me.

I don't think anyone is suggesting to play the way you are against.

I'm saying using Efreetis for resurrections and stat boost is normal op, not TO.
The transparency thing is, if the DM does it the PC gets to do it too if they can get access to it. In this case they can.

And we have a bunch of side discussions about theming and restricting content and such. I didn't read those posts so can't really summarize them.

[NigelWalmsley]

If you mean Aerenal, that just proves my point - the setting bends over backwards to make sure you know that what they're doing isn't real necromancy because they're creating Deathless (i.e. powered by positive energy), not undead. Pay no attention to the elf behind the curtain.

Aerenal pays a great deal of attention to the metaphysical differences, but practically the peasants of your previous example are not going to tell the difference. And Karrnath just has straight up zombie armies (even in the present day). Neither group is supposed to be kill on sight.


You can insist that your character's concept/premise is reasonable until you're blue in the face, but if it needs the setting or premise to be reconfigured from the ground up to make it fit, then disagreeing with that assessment is itself reasonable.

But it doesn't. It's like the quote in your sig. You can make assumptions where the necromancer destroys the game. But those assumptions aren't set in stone, and the game does a great deal to make "undead" an option available to players. Instead of complaining about the player breaking your campaign, just make different assumptions so the campaign isn't broken. Neither the setting nor the rules nor the players demand that necromancers be cast out, it's all you.


You mean an antipaladin, aka, not a paladin?

I mean a Paladin of Slaughter (or Tyranny). Maybe that's an Antipaladin in PF parlance, I don't actually know (I never got into PF, and have little interest in Paladins of any stripe). But the point is ultimately semantic. The issue I'm raising is that you're reading something into "Paladin" that isn't necessarily present. Maybe the aspects of the Paladin the player likes are mechanical. You don't know, because you're so dead set on "the DM's theme" that you don't bother to make sure you can't reconcile before kicking people out.


An actual paladin would never enter into a deal with Asmodeus, as that is explicitly an evil act, and would cause the paladin to instantly fall, and characters who DON'T enter into the deal are promptly killed off. So no matter how you try to spin it, a standard paladin will simply not work in way of the wicked.

That's an implementation detail. The player has presented a backstory and character arc that are entirely compatible with the campaign (templar who does evil in pursuit of a misguided understanding of good). In fact, that's a pretty compelling character when you get down to it. Yes, it requires a mechanical tweak, but that's absolutely something you can do. That you're unwilling to do it indicates that the problem is, at least in part, your fault.


That said, if Amy wants to play a necromancer in a game about valiant champions, yeah, it's kinda annoying, because it shows Amy has no consideration for the theme of the game I want to run, and is more interested in just doing her own thing than participating in the story that I, and everyone else who agreed to play a valiant champions game, wants to engage in.

How do you know that? All we know is that Amy wants to play a necromancer. Maybe she has a really compelling backstory where she's riffing on Valkyries and she leads the souls of the noble dead to protect their descendants. Maybe she just likes the mechanics and would be totally happy refluffing it as golem magic. You've got one piece of information, and you've decided based on your preconceptions that it's entirely incompatible with what you want to do.


I don't know, I think Psyren has been pretty reasonable... as always, I advocate the GM and the player working together.

For the record, that's the position Psyren and Crake are arguing against.


Also, I wanted to add a little note to something you replied to Crake earlier... the GM should get a little bit of extra weight, since he has to prepare adventures for characters and be ready for them running off on tangents

Crake seems to thing the DM should not be ready for people to run off on tangents, because that would disrupt his "theme" and therefore be unacceptable. In any case, my view is that "with great power comes great responsibility". Part of being a good DM is being willing to subordinate your own interests to the rest of the group. No, that doesn't mean running a game you hate. But it does mean not demanding that the story be precisely as you've envisioned it on any particular axis. Maybe the "valiant heroes" only look that way from the outside, and the reality is that they're as morally compromised as anyone in person.


In nearly every culture, messing with the dead/corpses is considered disrespectful of the dead themselves and/or of their relatives.

"Messing with", sure, but that's because you're using a culturally agnostic term that means "doing things people don't like', so it's a tautology. It's true that the dead are almost-universally important, but it's not as true that how they are supposed to be treated is anywhere near as universal. Our own culture has doctors and medical researchers that do things to corpses that would have been considered abominable in other times and places. Other cultures engage in ritual cannibalism. If animating the dead was a thing you could actually do, it would not be at all surprising for that to be the way some cultures treated their dead. It probably wouldn't be done casually, but it wouldn't be reviled either.


few people consider the rights of the elementals bound into Eberron vehicles and magic items. :smallamused:

I suspect no small part of that comes down to people just not knowing. People do not pay all that much attention to fluff, and they pay even less attention to how fluff that makes implicit callouts to other things behaves. I imagine most people who read about Eberron's magical planes and trains aren't really paying enough attention to realize that those are basically powered by slavery.


Dread necromancers can’t be good.

But Wizards, Sorcerers, Warlocks, and Bone Knights can. The game has given players a lot of tools for using undead. It is not at all unreasonable to say that we should make assumptions that do not cause people using those tools to blow up the campaign.

[SquidFighter]

My argument is that using Efreetis the way Paizo did in Age of Worms is a way to use Efreetis in a non-world-shattering way. If Paizo did it without making overpowered unbeatable NPCs, then PCs should also be allowed to do it because they won't be overpowered and unbeatable.

The only thing Paizo did with Efreetis was +3 to 6 stats and in-combat resurrection or full heal. I'm saying players doing the exact same thing is normal optimization, not TO or world-shattering.

Banning Efreetis is a meta thing, not a RP thing. So is limiting their use. If we remove the meta thing then we have PCs who know of a wish granting creature and might get ideas of their own of obtaining one.

I'm saying using Efreetis for resurrections and stat boost is normal op, not TO.


I agree with you that in this context, it would be reasonable to use wishes to do such limited things.

The thing with wishes is that they can do other things too, and it's difficult to convey to your players that buffing stats is fine, but not the other TO stuff they may try, without it being seemingly arbitrary. Basically, you'd have to justify to your players how that is, which means revealing how the BBEG gets (some of) its powers, in a Meta-game conversation. So, yeah, it's a complicated problem, and one is not a bad DM for choosing to not deal with that by ruling that ''free wishes are not a thing in my game''.

The issue with claiming that ''Paizo abuses wishes, therefore I could do it too'' is that Paizo doesn't abuse wishes in a TO sense. Therefore the players aren't entitled to TO ways of abusing wishes, be it in their effects or the way they get them, based on Transparency.

Also, the solution is Meta, because you can't avoid such problems within the RP of a character.
The only rational way of explaining in RP that your character doesn't use a free, easy to use, absolutely effective all-powerful ability to stop the BBEG can only be because it is impossible to do so. That or you're meta-gaming your restraint in the character.

[HeraldOfExius]

Transparency means whatever the DM has access to, player has access to as well.

Using this definition of transparency, I do not believe that it is an inherent part of the game.

In the Monster Manual's definition of LA, it says:

This line is included in the entries of creatures suitable for use as player characters or as cohorts (usually creatures with Intelligence scores of at least 3 and possessing opposable thumbs).
Obviously there will be some variation on how much weight people give this definition of suitable, but it seems reasonable to infer that the developers did not intend for players to use anything with "Level Adjustment: —" (not that this has stopped them; there's a reason that we have seven full threads of discussion about assigning new LAs to everything including the creatures with LA:—). The DM, of course, can use these creatures because it would be ridiculous to publish game content that isn't supposed to be used by anybody. Despite the fact that these creatures aren't meant to be used by players, there are feats and classes where the prerequisites include being one of them, such as the infamous beholder mage class. Operating off of the previous assumption that players aren't intended to play as creatures that don't have any LA, beholder mage is pretty clearly a tool for the DM to use (most likely to give beholders high level spellcasting without stacking a bunch of wizard levels onto their 11 RHD). The inclusion of a beholder mage by the DM as a high level enemy doesn't mean that the players are entitled to access the class. Of course there are ways to cheese into it early or the DM might just let a player be a beholder, but I don't see this as something which a player would automatically "have access to" in most situations.

Of course, players can just dominate an existing beholder mage, or make an Ice Assassin of it, etc.. If this counts as the players "having access to" something, then yeah, I guess that's transparency. It just isn't an inherent attribute of D&D as much as it's a particular quirk of certain spells.

[NigelWalmsley]

I mean you could just nerf Wish? No need to beat around trying to figure out how to convey "doing this is okay but that is not", just figure out what is okay and then take out the other parts. Wish would be fine if you just phrased the XP cost slightly differently so being a SLA didn't negate it.

[Psyren]

I'm just playing counterpoint/devil's advocate here I guess. Trying to paint Psyren as not being as psycho as he's being painted to be.

I mean, they're having such a good time talking to each other about me (and getting straw everywhere) that I'd really hate to interrupt :smalltongue: Not that I'd expect to change their minds, or care to play the way they play, even if they weren't.

The one thing they actually got right though is that Mindrape would be banned in my games - but not at all because of efreet; rather, it's because I don't think it's something players should be using at all. In fact, the first page of the book quite literally says:


Book of Vile Darkness is for Dungeon Masters (DMs) only.

Gosh, if only we had some way of divining designer intent...


Aerenal pays a great deal of attention to the metaphysical differences, but practically the peasants of your previous example are not going to tell the difference. And Karrnath just has straight up zombie armies (even in the present day). Neither group is supposed to be kill on sight.

Karrnath is secretly ruled by an evil Vol cultist, so not exactly helping your case there :smalltongue:

And as mentioned, Aerenal doesn't actually use undead. Eberron peasants might not be able to tell the difference (or who knows, it might be well-known enough that they might) but even if they don't, even a 1st-level paladin would and s/he could reassure them pretty easily.


But it doesn't. It's like the quote in your sig. You can make assumptions where the necromancer destroys the game. But those assumptions aren't set in stone, and the game does a great deal to make "undead" an option available to players. Instead of complaining about the player breaking your campaign, just make different assumptions so the campaign isn't broken. Neither the setting nor the rules nor the players demand that necromancers be cast out, it's all you.

I didn't say anything about "destroy the game." I said that the default attitudes to undead in most printed settings are negative, and that expecting the GM to go out of their way to change that isn't something you should feel entitled to. It can certainly happen. (As for my sig, thanks for mentioning it - the operative words in it, you may have noticed, are "fit with the text.")


For the record, that's the position Psyren and Crake are arguing against.

For the record, you're wrong.

[NigelWalmsley]

I said that the default attitudes to undead in most printed settings are negative, and that expecting the GM to go out of their way to change that isn't something you should feel entitled to.

If that's all you're saying, I think your point is almost entirely irrelevant. "Default attitudes are negative" describes "people make signs against evil when you walk by" as well as it does "you get run out of every town you visit". If you want to chose the second one, that's fine, but at that point any issues arising from people playing necromancers are as much your fault as they are the players.

[Psyren]

If that's all you're saying, I think your point is almost entirely irrelevant. "Default attitudes are negative" describes "people make signs against evil when you walk by" as well as it does "you get run out of every town you visit". If you want to chose the second one, that's fine, but at that point any issues arising from people playing necromancers are as much your fault as they are the players.

When you walk by with your army of corpses? Okay... good talk.

[magicalmagicman]

I mean, they're having such a good time talking to each other about me (and getting straw everywhere) that I'd really hate to interrupt :smalltongue: Not that I'd expect to change their minds, or care to play the way they play, even if they weren't.

The one thing they actually got right though is that Mindrape would be banned in my games - but not at all because of efreet; rather, it's because I don't think it's something players should be using at all. In fact, the first page of the book quite literally says:

You're saying RPing efreeti breaks transparency so I don't think how we can arrive at any other conclusion than you're going to use RP to "male chicken" block all of the PC's efforts, even if it involves Ice Assassin or Dominate Monster.

[Aotrs Commander]

The one thing they actually got right though is that Mindrape would be banned in my games - but not at all because of efreet; rather, it's because I don't think it's something players should be using at all.

Concur. Ditto for that spell that forces things to be good too.




(On a side note, that's why I hate the 5e interpretation of the lich. Not only did 5e triple down on the "Undead are eeeeevil!" thing from 3e and get rid of any lingering traces of the "Undead aren't evil, just vitally-challenged" view from AD&D, but 5e retconned liches into (A) having to bow and scrape to evil gods and planar powers to achieve lichdom, thereby undercutting the whole "DIY immortality" thing that makes it so appealing to self-sufficient wizards, and (B) having to feed souls to their phylactery on a regular basis to maintain immortality--something even evil outsiders consider beyond the pale--thereby forcing liches to be evil and removing the possibility of the iconic lich who sits in his tomb for centuries doing magical research with absolutely no contact with the outside world. C'mon, guys, you missed the entire point of lichdom!)

...

Okay, NOW, 5E, now, you have officially crossed the border from "sustained meh" to "have personally offended me, prepare for angry lich with rocket launcher."

[NigelWalmsley]

When you walk by with your army of corpses?

Sure. In the same way that you could have the villagers generally positive reaction to a Paladin showing up be a flavor text "the villagers are in awe of you" or a campaign-derailing "the villagers all demand you solve all their problems, which I will describe in exacting detail every time you approach a settlement". You are making the assumption that "negative" means violent. That assumption is the only reason the necromancer is an issue, which puts a big chunk the blame for the issue on you, rather than the guy who is just using an option the game says is okay.

[Hellpyre]

l
The only thing Paizo did with Efreetis was +3 to 6 stats and in-combat resurrection or full heal. I'm saying players doing the exact same thing is normal optimization, not TO or world-shattering.

And people are disagreeing that free stats and massive healing represents a normal level of optimization in most games.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

A point I forgot to address in my prior post:


In nearly every culture, messing with the dead/corpses is considered disrespectful of the dead themselves and/or of their relatives. Again, I'll reiterate, I think you can probably be neutral and animate the dead on a semi regular basis, but I would raise an eyebrow about being good.

Note that those are real-world cultures you're talking about, and applying real-world morality to D&D necromancy doesn't always translate 'cause it's not a question real-world moral authorities have ever had to address. In-game cultures' reactions to handling dead bodies and raising the dead might vary quite a bit, being...
...very negative, e.g. the Fourth Lich War just ended and evil wandering necromancers are common in the area, so the culture universally cremates their dead instead of burying them and anyone even suspected of corpse-stealing is put to death;
...somewhat negative, e.g. the culture is led by druids who teach that once you die it is right and proper for your body to nourish the soil as part of the circle of life, so raising the dead is not considered evil, exactly, but it is both heretical and socially frowned upon in the same way that hogging the good grazing land for your herds is frowned upon;
...relatively neutral, e.g. there is definitive proof that the souls of the deceased are in a happy afterlife, so the culture merely views raising someone's corpse as the moral equivalent of driving someone's favorite car after they die;
...somewhat positive, e.g. the culture is one with strong traditions of honoring one's family and giving back to the larger community, so the elite forces in its armies are made up of fallen soldiers who have been reanimated to continue serving in death and the families of the deceased are honored for contributing to the cause;
...very positive, e.g. the culture is ruled by a noble caste who all have strong sorcerer bloodlines inclined toward necromancy and every single citizen is reanimated after death to serve society, from commoner skeletons sweeping the streets to merchant skeletons carrying freight between cities (and doing so in carts pulled by oxen skeletons) to noble skeletons maintaining city wards around-the-sundial and so forth.
All of those examples come from cultures in games I've run before--some of those in the same settings as one another and geographically near each other--and there are plenty of other examples in published settings.


The one thing they actually got right though is that Mindrape would be banned in my games - but not at all because of efreet; rather, it's because I don't think it's something players should be using at all. In fact, the first page of the book quite literally says:

Gosh, if only we had some way of divining designer intent...

In defense of using BoVD as a player, most of the material is barely evil at all, or at least not more so than core material. This is the book that thinks BDSM is evil, turning your arms into snakes or shooting your fingers at people is evil, you have to devote yourself to evil to enhance your weapons in certain ways, and so forth...and BoED is the book that claims getting possessed by an outsider and making targeted bioweapons are both totally fine so long as the ones doing the possessing are "good guys" and the ones getting poisoned and afflicted are the "bad guys."

In defense of using mindrape specifically, in addition to the whole rewriting-someone's-personality bit it happens to be the only spell that lets you basically copy all of someone else's knowledge and memories right out of their head or rewrite more than 5 minutes of memory at a time. Of the PCs in my games who've cast the spell, many more have used it to wipe someone's memory of their presence, get first-hand experience of what a hired spy saw on his mission, and similar than have used it to create fanatically devoted mind-slaves...and, looking at BoED again, the "good" version of mindrape (sanctify the wicked) doesn't just rewrite someone's personality instantly and painlessly, it imprisons them and basically subjects them to mental torture and brainwashing for a year.

So just like animating undead, going by the designers' opinions of what's good or [Good] vs. what's evil or [Evil] isn't necessarily better than figuring out what a player wants to do with a given thing and judging that on its own merits.

[Crake]

If the GM cannot accept the players wielding an undead army, "because that's GM's toys", - and especially not one bigger and better than the Necromancer wields, "because my cool NPC" - then they are failing in the way I am discussing.

I think, at least in my case, it's more that I cannot accept the players wielding an undead army "in this specific game because it doesn't fit the theme, but in a future game where such a theme would fit, it's a-okay". An undead army isn't a "gm toy", it's a "villainous toy". Villainous characters aren't GM exclusive, it totally works in the hands of anti-heros, or even just villainous characters in evil campaigns, both of which I have run in the past, and am open to running more in the future, but if I'm running a heroic game, then don't you think it's reasonable to not allow villainous characters who wield villainous tools?


This is a great example of a reason why my characters have an expected lifespan greater than one campaign. I have no interest in having such things handled "in epilog" - in such a scenario, I would continue playing the character until they can actually (attempt to) achieve their goals.

It's hard to play a level 16+ character from the end of the previous campaign when the new characters in the new campaign are level 1.


which is why it looks like I'm being unreasonable.

[...]

where the DM house ruled good, evil and the entire morality system of d&d and claimed that this is a justified way of destroying transparency. It's not. This is juvenile DM fiat.

Actually, it's when you say stuff like this that's blatant strawmans and ad homs that makes you look unreasonable. If you genuinely think that a DM isn't allowed to set the theme of his game as "heroic characters", and thusly ban villainous character concepts such as a necromancer who defiles and desecrates the dead into animated monstrosities, and you call that "juvenile DM fiat", then you don't look unreasonable, you are unreasonable.


and BoED is the book that claims getting possessed by an outsider totally fine so long as the ones doing the possessing are "good guys"

I mean, in their defense, celestial channeling requires that the possessee be a willing participant, so I'm not sure why that's an issue.


I mean a Paladin of Slaughter (or Tyranny). Maybe that's an Antipaladin in PF parlance, I don't actually know (I never got into PF, and have little interest in Paladins of any stripe). But the point is ultimately semantic. The issue I'm raising is that you're reading something into "Paladin" that isn't necessarily present. Maybe the aspects of the Paladin the player likes are mechanical. You don't know, because you're so dead set on "the DM's theme" that you don't bother to make sure you can't reconcile before kicking people out.

I'm not sure if you're being willfully ignorant or not, but the supposition was that a standard paladin would not work in way of the wicked. Saying that a paladin of tyranny or slaughter would work is just being facetious, because that's a completely different character concept, and we're not talking about the mechanics, we're talking about the theme of the character. A shining knight paladin. Trying to divert the discussion by saying "well, maybe it's not a shining knight paladin" is like saying "well, maybe it's not actually a necromancer" when talking about the flip side of villainous character in heroic game.


That's an implementation detail. The player has presented a backstory and character arc that are entirely compatible with the campaign (templar who does evil in pursuit of a misguided understanding of good). In fact, that's a pretty compelling character when you get down to it. Yes, it requires a mechanical tweak, but that's absolutely something you can do. That you're unwilling to do it indicates that the problem is, at least in part, your fault.

What you're describing a) isn't a paladin, and b) is pretty much the stereotypical description of an antihero, and yes, that is a totally compelling character, but it's not the character being discussed. A shining knight, lawful good, standard paladin simply will not work in way of the wicked.


How do you know that? All we know is that Amy wants to play a necromancer. Maybe she has a really compelling backstory where she's riffing on Valkyries and she leads the souls of the noble dead to protect their descendants. Maybe she just likes the mechanics and would be totally happy refluffing it as golem magic. You've got one piece of information, and you've decided based on your preconceptions that it's entirely incompatible with what you want to do.

How do I know what? Necromancy by defintion involves desecrating and defiling the dead, you can't change that. Talking about refluffing is irrelevant here, because we're talking about character theme, not the crunch of how the character is run, so refluffing, whatever floats your boat, but I literally already covered the use case of suggesting a golemancer, but if Amy wants to play a necromancer because that's the theme she wants to go with, not because of the mechanics, then if it doesn't fit, I'll simply say "play that when I run a more villainous game, not this time".



For the record, that's the position Psyren and Crake are arguing [I]against.

For the record, you're wrong.

I'd also agree that you're wrong, considering that your stance seems to be "The DM should allow the player to play whatever he wants". That doesn't strike me as the player working with the DM, that strikes me as the player making demands of the DM. One of the signs of a player working with the DM is a player not crossing the hard lines in the sand that the DM draws. If "No villainous character concepts" is one of the lines for a particular game, then a player saying "Yeah, but what about this villainous character concept?" is a player just being antagonistic.


Crake seems to thing the DM should not be ready for people to run off on tangents, because that would disrupt his "theme" and therefore be unacceptable. In any case, my view is that "with great power comes great responsibility". Part of being a good DM is being willing to subordinate your own interests to the rest of the group. No, that doesn't mean running a game you hate. But it does mean not demanding that the story be precisely as you've envisioned it on any particular axis. Maybe the "valiant heroes" only look that way from the outside, and the reality is that they're as morally compromised as anyone in person.

One character wanting to break theme at the expense of the whole table doesn't strike me as a DM issue. There's 3-4 other players at the table, and they all joined the game under a single premise, and you trying to raise an undead army imposes that upon everyone else at the table, not just the DM. The responsibility however, falls upon the DM to remedy the problem player, which is why I'm talking about it from a DM perspective.

[NigelWalmsley]

I think, at least in my case, it's more that I cannot accept the players wielding an undead army "in this specific game because it doesn't fit the theme, but in a future game where such a theme would fit, it's a-okay". An undead army isn't a "gm toy", it's a "villainous toy".

But you understand that's a constraint you've added, right? The rules don't describe it that way. The Warlock's Animate Dead equivalent (The Dead Walk) doesn't get the [Evil] tag. You can be a Chaotic Good Warlock with an army of undead, that's totally fine. You can choose to declare that to be not fine, but in making that choice you have made character concepts the game says are valid invalid. Which means you bear some responsibility for the conflicts that occur when people want to play those concepts.


Trying to divert the discussion by saying "well, maybe it's not a shining knight paladin" is like saying "well, maybe it's not actually a necromancer" when talking about the flip side of villainous character in heroic game.

Yes, that's the point. You're assuming that very broad character concepts that do a huge variety of things are inherently incompatible with your "theme", but that's not the case. You're creating problems by being unwilling to compromise.


What you're describing a) isn't a paladin, and b) is pretty much the stereotypical description of an antihero, and yes, that is a totally compelling character, but it's not the character being discussed. A shining knight, lawful good, standard paladin simply will not work in way of the wicked.

That character is absolutely a Paladin. The concept fits "Paladin" to a T. If you think the "is Good" aspect of "Paladin" is the only important one, that's fine, but that's absolutely not the only view of Paladins that it is possible to have. What character class fits "blinded by his moral code" better than Paladin? Crucially, what character class would you expect someone with only a passing knowledge of the game to use to express that concept if not Paladin?


I'd also agree that you're wrong, considering that your stance seems to be "The DM should allow the player to play whatever he wants".

The DM should try to allow the player to play what he wants. Also that the DM should assume at least some responsibility for how the choices he makes effect the viability of characters. In 99% percent of cases, any mismatch between what the DM wants to allow and what the player wants to play is not fundamental. Your point is true, in that there are some things that are fundamentally incompatible, but it's so vanishingly rare that actually endorsing it is going to cause more problems than it solves. There are some tables where Pun-Pun is a good idea. But saying "Pun-Pun is a good idea" is still misleading to the point of being malpractice.


One character wanting to break theme at the expense of the whole table doesn't strike me as a DM issue. There's 3-4 other players at the table, and they all joined the game under a single premise,

But that doesn't say anything about how important the premise is. What if we assume the other three players buy that the necromancer is a positive addition to their experience? Maybe they disagree with you that there's absolutely no way for someone who uses zombies as minions to be a hero. It seems to me that you are trying to defend your point with unambiguous examples, but describe your point with ambiguous ones. I think that disconnect is unconvincing at best and argumentative malpractice at worst.

[Crake]

But you understand that's a constraint you've added, right? The rules don't describe it that way. The Warlock's Animate Dead equivalent (The Dead Walk) doesn't get the [Evil] tag. You can be a Chaotic Good Warlock with an army of undead, that's totally fine. You can choose to declare that to be not fine, but in making that choice you have made character concepts the game says are valid invalid. Which means you bear some responsibility for the conflicts that occur when people want to play those concepts.

Firstly, it says it animates the dead "as the animate dead spell", which means it inherits the qualities of animate dead, including the evil tag.

Secondly, when talking about theme, the crunch behind things is irrelevant. Whether you "technically" don't cast a single evil spell doesn't matter, necromancy is villainous, and finding a loophole in the rules doesn't change that. Also, I say villainous and heroic for a reason, becase sure, maybe there is technically a way you can make a pragmatic, good-aligned necromancer who raises the corpses of his foes to fight against them, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a desecration and defilement of the dead, a decidedly anti-heroic act.


Yes, that's the point. You're assuming that very broad character concepts that do a huge variety of things are inherently incompatible with your "theme", but that's not the case. You're creating problems by being unwilling to compromise.

That character is absolutely a Paladin. The concept fits "Paladin" to a T. If you think the "is Good" aspect of "Paladin" is the only important one, that's fine, but that's absolutely not the only view of Paladins that it is possible to have. What character class fits "blinded by his moral code" better than Paladin? Crucially, what character class would you expect someone with only a passing knowledge of the game to use to express that concept if not Paladin?

"Paladin" and "Paladin of Tyranny" are very much not the same character concept, they are in fact polar opposites. You're essentially using semantics (the all have "paladin" in the name) to try and justify a seemingly intentionally obtuse, or antagonistically facetious argument.


The DM should try to allow the player to play what he wants. Also that the DM should assume at least some responsibility for how the choices he makes effect the viability of characters. In 99% percent of cases, any mismatch between what the DM wants to allow and what the player wants to play is not fundamental. Your point is true, in that there are some things that are fundamentally incompatible, but it's so vanishingly rare that actually endorsing it is going to cause more problems than it solves. There are some tables where Pun-Pun is a good idea. But saying "Pun-Pun is a good idea" is still misleading to the point of being malpractice.

Can you name one problem that endorsing the polar opposite of the theme of game you want to run will solve? Because it seems to me like your argument boils down to "well, if the player wants to play a necromancer, why doesnt the DM change the campaign theme so that he can play a necromancer?" If that is your argument, I would counter it with "If the DM wants to run a heroic game, why doesn't the player change his character concept to a heroic character?" Which one do you think is easier? For a player to change a single character? Or for the DM to change their entire campaign? If every change is considered a problem that is caused, then naturally forcing a player to change their character solves a thousand problems, but only causes one, while forcing the DM to change their entire campaign solves 1 problem, but causes a thousand.


But that doesn't say anything about how important the premise is. What if we assume the other three players buy that the necromancer is a positive addition to their experience? Maybe they disagree with you that there's absolutely no way for someone who uses zombies as minions to be a hero. It seems to me that you are trying to defend your point with unambiguous examples, but describe your point with ambiguous ones. I think that disconnect is unconvincing at best and argumentative malpractice at worst.

Because the argument here isn't about whether you can shoehorn a necromancer into a heroic game or not, the argument here is whether it's okay to say no to a player about what they want to play. Examples are there to illustrate the point being demonstrated. The fact that you keep delving into minutia rather than looking at the actual discussion is honestly rather irritating.

Now, if your stance is unambiguously, unequivocably that no, the DM cannot, under any circumstances ever tell a player that something they want to play is off limits, as gogogome seems to feel, and there's absolutely no way you will ever believe otherwise, then, as psyren would say, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I don't feel like setting limits for a particular campaign is an issue, nor do I feel that using the things that are outside of the player's limits at the time is a bad thing, for example saying no villainous characters, necromancy included, while simultaneously including a necromancer as the campaign's villain.

Come back with your necromancer character next time I run a villainous game, though if you're the sort of person who complains every time you don't get your way before we've even started the game because you couldn't play the singular character you wanted, and you couldn't possibly entertain a different, more in-theme character idea for this game, then you probably wouldn't be invited to my next game regardless.

[NigelWalmsley]

Firstly, it says it animates the dead "as the animate dead spell", which means it inherits the qualities of animate dead, including the evil tag.

No, that is not what it means. The animation is as the spell, the other things are not. Or we could move on to Fell Animate. There are ways to do necromancy that don't have the [Evil] tag.


Secondly, when talking about theme, the crunch behind things is irrelevant. Whether you "technically" don't cast a single evil spell doesn't matter, necromancy is villainous

You believe necromancy is villainous. The rules provide us with numerous ways for heroes to do it. If you would like to ignore those things, that is your right, but at that point you can no longer put the blame for the conflict solely on the player. The rules do not say that it is "desecration" or "defilement". You say that. If you were saying "Greg, your character doesn't get XP", we would all understand that the problem isn't with Greg.


If that is your argument, I would counter it with "If the DM wants to run a heroic game, why doesn't the player change his character concept to a heroic character?"

The character's concept is heroic. They've written a heroic backstory, they have a heroic alignment, they plan to do heroic things. You're just telling them you can't be heroic because you've made unsupported assumptions about the morality of the tools they choose to use.


Or for the DM to change their entire campaign?

The DM doesn't need to change their entire campaign, they need to change as single minor assumption they've added about how something should be treated. Something that isn't even in the rules or the setting. The appropriate analogy would be if the player specifically wanted to play a character with a particular backstory that doesn't fit a key element of the setting (maybe they claim to be the lost prince of somewhere, but that place is actually a republic and has been since it's inception).


Because the argument here isn't about whether you can shoehorn a necromancer into a heroic game or not, the argument here is whether it's okay to say no to a player about what they want to play.

It's really not. Because that claim is uncontroversial. But it's also incredibly weak. Is it ever okay to say no? Sure. You should say no to a 12th level character in a 1st level party. You should say no to a Shadowrun character in a D&D game (I'm pretty sure gogogome would agree to both of those examples). The question is when it's appropriate to say no. And I contend that the examples you have given - where the DM makes an assumption the player didn't make and complains about the player "breaking theme" - are not appropriate. The DM should stop making assumptions that invalidate characters people want to play.

[Crake]

No, that is not what it means. The animation is as the spell, the other things are not. Or we could move on to Fell Animate. There are ways to do necromancy that don't have the [Evil] tag.

And that is largely irrelevant, because good and evil aren't the topic for discussion.


You believe necromancy is villainous. The rules provide us with numerous ways for heroes to do it. If you would like to ignore those things, that is your right, but at that point you can no longer put the blame for the conflict solely on the player. The rules do not say that it is "desecration" or "defilement". You say that. If you were saying "Greg, your character doesn't get XP", we would all understand that the problem isn't with Greg.

Whether you're a hero or a villain isn't an objective fact, it's about the perception of those around you. If the entire township hates you for defiling the corpses of the dead to raise an army to fight for you, then you're a villain, regardless of whether you're cosmologically good or not. Also, the rules very much do say that animating dead is desecration and defilement, the least of which is supported merely by the fact that the desecrate spell empowers undead. You're literally animating decaying corpses with negative energy to do your bidding, and should any of them get loose, their only objective would be to seek out and kill living beings, not to mention undead are mostly by default automatically evil, even the mindless ones, and register on detect evil, even if they're intelligent and non-evil.


The character's concept is heroic. They've written a heroic backstory, they have a heroic alignment, they plan to do heroic things. You're just telling them you can't be heroic because you've made unsupported assumptions about the morality of the tools they choose to use.

A defiler is, by nature, not going to be seen as a hero by the people, and thus is not a hero. A necromancer may, at best, be tolerated by the people, and at worst, be actively hunted and sought out to be brought to justice, unless you're running some sort of vastly-nonstandard setting, or region within a setting where the basic assumptions of necromancy are drastically changed from the expectations of the game.


The DM doesn't need to change their entire campaign, they need to change as single minor assumption they've added about how something should be treated. Something that isn't even in the rules or the setting. The appropriate analogy would be if the player specifically wanted to play a character with a particular backstory that doesn't fit a key element of the setting (maybe they claim to be the lost prince of somewhere, but that place is actually a republic and has been since it's inception).

If a DM wants necromancy to be an actively hated practise, or even an outlawed one, they're under no requirement to change that. In a different kind of game, such a limitation may even be seen as a challenge that the player may enjoy actively evading, however, other times, that limitation may be detrimental toward the flow of the game, at which point it's gone from a fun challenge to an issue for everyone at the table that they now have to deal with.


It's really not. Because that claim is uncontroversial. But it's also incredibly weak. Is it ever okay to say no? Sure. You should say no to a 12th level character in a 1st level party. You should say no to a Shadowrun character in a D&D game (I'm pretty sure gogogome would agree to both of those examples). The question is when it's appropriate to say no. And I contend that the examples you have given - where the DM makes an assumption the player didn't make and complains about the player "breaking theme" - are not appropriate. The DM should stop making assumptions that invalidate characters people want to play.

Again, you're delving into minutia. We're on the discussion of character concepts, and you start talking about bringing in high level characters, or characters from different systems.

That aside, the DM technically cannot make any assmuptions about a setting, as an assumption is an idea that's taken for granted, without proof, but since the DM is the ultimate decider of facts about the setting, his choice is proof enough that "This nation hates necromancy" is not an assumption, it's a statement of fact. What you call "assumptions", I call "established setting lore".

So ultimately, what you're asking isn't to change "assumptions", it's to "change the facts of the setting". I once had a player come to me asking if they could play a spiritual character who had discovered the true nature of the universe and unlocked nirvana, or something along those lines, I can't remember exactly (the player in question had been doing a lot of personal spiritual reading out of game), but basically for the character to work the entire cosmology of the setting would need to be tossed in the bin. Would you say that was was an appropriate time to say no? Or should I have tossed out years of worldbuilding to accomodate one character concept? And before you start talking about how I should have made XYZ suggestion, no, the character concept was entirely, fundamentally incompatible with the established lore, to a degree that no amount of minor, or even major tweaking could get it to work.

And that's not even to mention maintaining continuity between games. Maybe in the above, the cosmology could be entirely reworked, if it had never actually come into play at any point (personally I wouldn't throw away months of work though for one character, but maybe you would), but what if, through previous games, it had been well established that necromancy was avidly hated in the region, outlawed, and punishable by death? Are we supposed to retcon the setting history for this character?

[Xervous]

So as a hypothetical let’s say I desired to play a villainous character who comes from a culture of fey peddlers that craft shoes that harvest the souls of those who die while wearing them. Let’s say they have thinuan in the soles. Except the world at large is aware of this and has developed some odd behaviors and superstitions relating to shoes, many cultures forgoing them entirely out of fear. The npcs must react to my casual wearing of shoes as either a sign of awesomeness or a strong clue that I’m one of those evil fey who is immune or otherwise knows how to work around the soul stealing nature of the boots.

Will the campaign be redesigned to fit my character, will you tell John he can’t expect a warm reception for his Jumpman build with shiny red magical boots?

Or more reasonably. Valiant campaign against undead. One player is an inquisitor that hunts down necromancers because as per their character concept necromancy is evil. Another is a necromancer who raises undead armies for good causes because as per their character concept creating undead is not explicitly evil. What do you ban? Choice A, choice B, or choice C: coherency?

[Quertus]

An undead army isn't a "gm toy", it's a "villainous toy".

I'll grant that that's usually true. Do note that exceptions (systems, campaign worlds, editions, and even custom spells) exist, where undead are neutral (or even good!). But, yes, I am usually using them as an [evil] tool when playing 3e.


Villainous characters aren't GM exclusive, it totally works in the hands of anti-heros, or even just villainous characters in evil campaigns, both of which I have run in the past, and am open to running more in the future, but if I'm running a heroic game, then don't you think it's reasonable to not allow villainous characters who wield villainous tools?

That question is irrelevant to my point, and, thus, as I said, comes off as trying to put a fig leaf of respectability on bad practices.

As a completely separate topic… is it fair? IME, I would have to call it "fair, but short-sighted". Many of the best "heroic" campaigns I've been involved with have had at least one character who did the "dirty work", poisoning people the party couldn't face in a fair fight, hiring the best assassins specifically to get them killed so that our enemies can only send the second-best assassins against us, etc.

Also, it prevents the really cool "fall" stories, when you know that, for metagame reasons, "turning to the dark side for more power" is off the table. Quite often, I've been picturing this PC Necromancer as a good Cleric, who knows that he is unable to save both his people and his soul, and is forced to make that choice. Wouldn't that cool story be off the table in your version of a "heroic" campaign?

I would say that a GM disallowing villainous characters from heroic campaigns means that their group is missing out. But I will in no way say that a GM is doing anything wrong by doing so. Depending on the group, it may be an optimal or a suboptimal move, but not an inexcusable, wrong, bad, etc one.


It's hard to play a level 16+ character from the end of the previous campaign when the new characters in the new campaign are level 1.

I mean, if the GM's gonna be a ****, and explicitly try to avoid letting me run my goal (EDIT: especially after letting the paladin run theirs, and letting other people run similar goals in other campaigns) that's on them.

Me, I tend to save my characters for when I can run them.

All that said, it's really easy for me to run a 16th level character I'm familiar with, regardless of the current campaign. :smallwink: Making doing so fun for everyone in a(n otherwise) 1st level campaign just requires a group with the right mindset and expectations.

[Crake]

I'll grant that that's usually true. Do note that exceptions (systems, campaign worlds, editions, and even custom spells) exist, where undead are neutral (or even good!). But, yes, I am usually using them as an [evil] tool when playing 3e.

While that's true, whether said exceptions apply to the game in question (and they don't always apply) is important, and if they don't, then it's largely irrelevant.


That question is irrelevant to my point, and, thus, as I said, comes off as trying to put a fig leaf of respectability on bad practices.

As a completely separate topic… is it fair? IME, I would have to call it "fair, but short-sighted". Many of the best "heroic" campaigns I've been involved with have had at least one character who did the "dirty work", poisoning people the party couldn't face in a fair fight, hiring the best assassins specifically to get them killed so that our enemies can only send the second-best assassins against us, etc.

Also, it prevents the really cool "fall" stories, when you know that, for metagame reasons, "turning to the dark side for more power" is off the table. Quite often, I've been picturing this PC Necromancer as a good Cleric, who knows that he is unable to save both his people and his soul, and is forced to make that choice. Wouldn't that cool story be off the table in your version of a "heroic" campaign?

While I can appreciate all of those points, the fact remains that sometimes, as a GM, I simply don't want those elements in the story I'm running, for one reason or another. Maybe I've been running far too many evil campaigns recently, and I want a story about pure-hearted heros performing valiant acts once in a while, or maybe I have something else in mind. Perhaps a story of falling from grace is still on the table, but you can't fall from grace if you never had grace to begin with.


I would say that a GM disallowing villainous characters from heroic campaigns means that their group is missing out. But I will in no way say that a GM is doing anything wrong by doing so. Depending on the group, it may be an optimal or a suboptimal move, but not an inexcusable, wrong, bad, etc one.

I do appreciate you saying that, and I agree that limiting character options can sometimes be a poor decision, and shouldn't often apply, but I firmly reserve the rights to do so, should I feel it necessary for the health of the game, or my sanity as a DM.


I mean, if the GM's gonna be a ****, and explicitly try to avoid letting me run my goal, that's on them.

Me, I tend to save my characters for when I can run them.

All that said, it's really easy for me to run a 16th level character I'm familiar with, regardless of the current campaign. :smallwink: Making doing so fun for everyone in a(n otherwise) 1st level campaign just requires a group with the right mindset and expectations.

I mean, I'm the sort of DM who runs solo side campaigns with my more enthusiastic players all the time, and that sounds like a better way to continue playing a character like that, but I imagine, as you put it, a group with the right mindset and expectations would be rather hard to come by, if at all possible.

Regarding the issue of continuing to play a high level character post-campaign, I know most of my players typically aren't interested in starting a new campaign with already high-level characters, because, would you know it, one of the benefits of making a character based on the theme of the game being run, is that the character invariably becomes intertwined with the campaign, and thus their story closes when the campaign closes.

If you want your character to tell a story about toppling the gods, then ask your DM to run that story, and get the players on board. Something like that isn't a side story done by your character. Likewise, starting an organization, while it could be argued as being a plausible side story, is a very large time sink for both player and DM, and so, if not directly relevant to the campaign, by it's very nature detracts from the campaign, because that time and effort could be instead spent on the main story. Now, if both player and DM are happy to spend that time away from the table to develop it, rather than making everyone else at the table sit around while the player and DM discuss a marketing campaign for hiring new members, and the in game consequences of spending that much time and effort doesn't impact the other players to a degree that detracts from their enjoyment of the game, then go ahead, though I'll be honest, I've had players show dissatisfaction in the fact that one player has done so much more stuff off-screen than the rest simply because he has more free time. Whether that's an issue with the player, or a expected consequence of such things, I can't say, though I'll admit, I have since stopped playing with that player.

[Psyren]

Also, it prevents the really cool "fall" stories, when you know that, for metagame reasons, "turning to the dark side for more power" is off the table. Quite often, I've been picturing this PC Necromancer as a good Cleric, who knows that he is unable to save both his people and his soul, and is forced to make that choice. Wouldn't that cool story be off the table in your version of a "heroic" campaign?

No one is taking that off the table, just saying you shouldn't show up to that table expecting or feeling entitled to that. Even putting all other practical and narrative considerations aside, you're not the only star of the show in a D&D game, and tracking your character's tragic rise and fall or their heel-face-heel turns is not necessarily what I and everyone else at that table is there to do. This is why D&D prefers straightforward heroic stories to be the default for their settings, because then you don't have someone jockeying for screentime with a wildly different arc than everyone else.


I mean, if the GM's gonna be a ****, and explicitly try to avoid letting me run my goal (EDIT: especially after letting the paladin run theirs, and letting other people run similar goals in other campaigns) that's on them.

I wouldn't let that Paladin have an army either (i.e. I ban things like Leadership), so not seeing the unfairness argument. And if anything it's even more unfair for him since his army wouldn't have all the additional negative setting baggage that a mass of corpses would.


Me, I tend to save my characters for when I can run them.

This sounds eminently wise.

[Quertus]

I imagine, as you put it, a group with the right mindset and expectations would be rather hard to come by, if at all possible.

Sigh. This is why I talk about my characters by name, so people will stop telling me that what I've done is impossible. So, to explicitly spell it out, it is possible - I have gamed in multiple such groups before.


Regarding the issue of continuing to play a high level character post-campaign, I know most of my players typically aren't interested in starting a new campaign with already high-level characters, because, would you know it, one of the benefits of making a character based on the theme of the game being run, is that the character invariably becomes intertwined with the campaign, and thus their story closes when the campaign closes.

If you want your character to tell a story about toppling the gods, then ask your DM to run that story, and get the players on board.

That very much goes against everything I game for. I have no interest in toppling the gods in a game about toppling the gods. I have no interest in the GM custom tailoring the content for me - I want to come by my victories (and my defeats) honest. I have no interest in building a 2d character who cannot have a life outside a particular campaign.


Something like that isn't a side story done by your character. Likewise, starting an organization, while it could be argued as being a plausible side story, is a very large time sink for both player and DM, and so, if not directly relevant to the campaign, by it's very nature detracts from the campaign, because that time and effort could be instead spent on the main story. .

You've got this strange assumption that all gaming occurs in campaigns that are about something. I greatly prefer sandbox play, where, sure, there are things going on, but the game is about the PCs, and what they choose to do.

The undead army is attacking the kingdom.

"The PCs kill the Necromancer (somehow)" is, I suppose, an acceptable plot¹. But so is "the PCs raise an even bigger army", "the PCs face internal struggles, and one or more PCs fall to the dark side", "the PCs flee", "the PCs join the Necromancer", "the PCs profit off looting the abandoned villages", or even "the PCs die". And there are doubtless many more perfectly acceptable plots that use that invasion as a springboard or backdrop.

¹ although, given that you have, I think, at various times, mentioned both "1st level PCs" and "Necromancer topples the kingdom within a month", it sounds rather… not my cup of tea, in the "straining versimilitude" direction.


Now, if both player and DM are happy to spend that time away from the table to develop it, rather than making everyone else at the table sit around while the player and DM discuss a marketing campaign for hiring new members, and the in game consequences of spending that much time and effort doesn't impact the other players to a degree that detracts from their enjoyment of the game, then go ahead, though I'll be honest, I've had players show dissatisfaction in the fact that one player has done so much more stuff off-screen than the rest simply because he has more free time. Whether that's an issue with the player, or a expected consequence of such things, I can't say, though I'll admit, I have since stopped playing with that player.

I've had issues with players (and GMs) who wanted to waste time in-game on things it was clear that the table wasn't enjoying. Though, I've had enough bad GMs, I suppose it should come as no surprise anymore when I respond to "bad GMing practice" with "I've seen that". :smalltongue: :smallfrown:

I'm not sure I can accept the complaints of those with less free time - so long as the amount of time that passed in game was the same for each character, and their opportunities were handled accordingly, not "OK, a year has passed…” "But I've only told you what my character had planned for the first week!".

But I did have a GM once who was trying to railroad information into his campaign. He started telling my character, then, because I didn't respond quickly enough, told someone else instead, wouldn't tell me more, and just pretended the whole conversation never happened. That was bad.

[Dimers]

The rules do not say that it is "desecration" or "defilement".

That's because the words "desecration" and "defilement" aren't defined in the rules. The desecrate spell is as close as you'll get. It has the Evil tag and four of its five effects are solely the empowerment of undead or of their creation. Frostburn's defile snow and ice has the Evil tag and also empowers undead.

Are you really going to argue that just because there's no official 3.5 definition of "desecration" that corpse animation is inherently morally neutral? In the absence of specific hard rules, we fall back on related game terms/objects and real-world cultural values, both of which suggest that it's villainous.

[Quertus]

No one is taking that off the table, just saying you shouldn't show up to that table expecting or feeling entitled to that.

… what? Seriously, explain what you mean here, in the context of a response to me discussing things being removed as options for metagame reasons.

Because it sounds like you just said, "it's not 'off the table for metagame reasons', but here's the metagame reasons that it's off the table". :smallconfused:

[Crake]

Sigh. This is why I talk about my characters by name, so people will stop telling me that what I've done is impossible. So, to explicitly spell it out, it is possible - I have gamed in multiple such groups before.

Possible for you doesn't mean possible for everyone else, just sayin'.


That very much goes against everything I game for. I have no interest in toppling the gods in a game about toppling the gods. I have no interest in the GM custom tailoring the content for me - I want to come by my victories (and my defeats) honest. I have no interest in building a 2d character who cannot have a life outside a particular campaign.

Different strokes for different folks I guess?


You've got this strange assumption that all gaming occurs in campaigns that are about something. I greatly prefer sandbox play, where, sure, there are things going on, but the game is about the PCs, and what they choose to do.

I mean, you said it yourself, a sandbox game is still about something, it's just that what it's about is up to the players, not the DM. As an aside, personally I would love to run a sandbox game, but every time I've tried it, my players meander about, don't really do much, get bored due to having no goals or motivations to do anything, and then we just toss the game and do something else. I spent ages basically being the exact DM I would want for myself, only to realise that my players had no interest in playing a sandbox game.

Point is that while sandbox games exist, and doing all those things is perfectly fine in a sandbox game, more directed games exist, and sometimes, just sometimes, doing those things isn't appropriate, and it's up to the DM to recognise that and do something about it.

As a side note, you say you don't want to play a campaign about toppling the gods, but you're okay in playing a sandbox game.... which is about whatever the players make it... where you topple the gods? Care to explain to me how that's different? Because to me it sounds like a distinction without a difference.


The undead army is attacking the kingdom.

"The PCs kill the Necromancer (somehow)" is, I suppose, an acceptable plot¹. But so is "the PCs raise an even bigger army", "the PCs face internal struggles, and one or more PCs fall to the dark side", "the PCs flee", "the PCs join the Necromancer", "the PCs profit off looting the abandoned villages", or even "the PCs die". And there are doubtless many more perfectly acceptable plots that use that invasion as a springboard or backdrop.

¹ although, given that you have, I think, at various times, mentioned both "1st level PCs" and "Necromancer topples the kingdom within a month", it sounds rather… not my cup of tea, in the "straining versimilitude" direction.

While many of those may be perfectly acceptable plots, not all are ones that the DM is willing to indulge, such as the PCs fleeing or joining the necromancer, as both of those strike me as "game over" situations. Meanwhile others may simply be infeasable, like raising a bigger army in time, and others still aren't even related to the plot, like a PC falling to the dark side. The PC falling to the dark side doesn't actually affect situation with the necromancer, though it can be a complelling side-story. Likewise, killing the necromancer need not be the only solution either, perhaps the PCs journey to the positive energy plane to harvest some lightstone (or whatever the opposite of voidstone is called), and use it to carve through the undead army like butter, or whatever other solution the PCs might decide to concoct.

In response to your footnote here, I would never have 1st level PCs fending off an army wielding necromancer. While my new campaigns typically start at 1st level, something like a necromancer unleashing his army strikes me as more of an Act 2 stagepiece, not the PCs' intializing conflict.


I've had issues with players (and GMs) who wanted to waste time in-game on things it was clear that the table wasn't enjoying. Though, I've had enough bad GMs, I suppose it should come as no surprise anymore when I respond to "bad GMing practice" with "I've seen that". :smalltongue: :smallfrown:

I'm not sure I can accept the complaints of those with less free time - so long as the amount of time that passed in game was the same for each character, and their opportunities were handled accordingly, not "OK, a year has passed…” "But I've only told you what my character had planned for the first week!".

I mean, it's an argument I can understand, even if it's not one I necessarily agree with. A player with less time to engage in off-table development will naturally be at a disadvantage to a player who has developed more, and thus has more in-character relationships to rely on, or perhaps even a whole organization to back them up, simply because every week for the last 5 months, that player has been building that up in the background between sessions.

We just remedied that by having the between session stuff be different characters entirely, in solo side campaigns.


But I did have a GM once who was trying to railroad information into his campaign. He started telling my character, then, because I didn't respond quickly enough, told someone else instead, wouldn't tell me more, and just pretended the whole conversation never happened. That was bad.

Yeah, when i try to railroad information into a game, I at least have the courtesy to wait for the person to respond :smalltongue:

[Tallyn]

"Messing with", sure, but that's because you're using a culturally agnostic term that means "doing things people don't like', so it's a tautology. It's true that the dead are almost-universally important, but it's not as true that how they are supposed to be treated is anywhere near as universal. Our own culture has doctors and medical researchers that do things to corpses that would have been considered abominable in other times and places. Other cultures engage in ritual cannibalism. If animating the dead was a thing you could actually do, it would not be at all surprising for that to be the way some cultures treated their dead. It probably wouldn't be done casually, but it wouldn't be reviled either.


As a side note, for the doctors to do their research in an autopsy, they generally have to have the permission from the decedents living relatives to do that. if the relatives aren't willing, then it would require a warrant granted by a judge to force an autopsy.

As for general medical research, I think that would come from "donated" corpses, where perhaps the individual didn't have a choice listed before death (I think you can sign some kind of "will" to have it where they can't perform an autopsy on you after death) partially, as well as anonymous (weren't identified after death) corpses too... I haven' t looked into it too much.

[Crake]

As a side note, for the doctors to do their research in an autopsy, they generally have to have the permission from the decedents living relatives to do that. if the relatives aren't willing, then it would require a warrant granted by a judge to force an autopsy.

As for general medical research, I think that would come from "donated" corpses, where perhaps the individual didn't have a choice listed before death (I think you can sign some kind of "will" to have it where they can't perform an autopsy on you after death) partially, as well as anonymous (weren't identified after death) corpses too... I haven' t looked into it too much.

Also worth noting is that "In other places this might be considered fine" isn't a valid argument to "Its causing an issue because it's not considered fine here". That's like saying "Burping at the table is fine in germany" when you get disgusted glances from everyone around the table in japan.

[Psyren]

… what? Seriously, explain what you mean here, in the context of a response to me discussing things being removed as options for metagame reasons.

Because it sounds like you just said, "it's not 'off the table for metagame reasons', but here's the metagame reasons that it's off the table". :smallconfused:

What I mean is that you should expect it to be off the table in most campaigns by default, but that you can have a conversation with the DM about incorporating it. There is little difference mechanically, but the GM shouldn't have to feel like they are being unreasonable for saying no, just like they shouldn't feel unreasonable about not letting you play a monster race or taking Leadership.


Also worth noting is that "In other places this might be considered fine" isn't a valid argument to "Its causing an issue because it's not considered fine here". That's like saying "Burping at the table is fine in germany" when you get disgusted glances from everyone around the table in japan.

Or conversely, loudly slurping your noodles in Germany just because it is reasonable in Japan.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Quertus
I have no interest in the GM custom tailoring the content for me….


Originally Posted by Quertus
I greatly prefer sandbox play, where…the game is about the PCs, and what they choose to do.

These statements seem completely incompatible. I’m not sure how a game can be “about the PCs” without tailoring the content for them.

[NigelWalmsley]

Or more reasonably. Valiant campaign against undead. One player is an inquisitor that hunts down necromancers because as per their character concept necromancy is evil. Another is a necromancer who raises undead armies for good causes because as per their character concept creating undead is not explicitly evil. What do you ban? Choice A, choice B, or choice C: coherency?

That, I think, is an interesting question. The best answer depends on a lot of factors. Is one player more strongly attached to their concept than the other? Is there a compromise where we hot swap Animate Dead into a Create Deathless that has exactly the same mechanics but for positive energy? Maybe it's possible to have an arc where the characters come to understand eachother and grow as people.


Are you really going to argue that just because there's no official 3.5 definition of "desecration" that corpse animation is inherently morally neutral? In the absence of specific hard rules, we fall back on related game terms/objects and real-world cultural values, both of which suggest that it's villainous.

No. I'm making the same point Pair'o'dice made earlier: that the treatment of undead is inconsistent. Some sources depict it as unambiguously evil, but others don't. Can you make a set of choices where necromancy is evil and unacceptable in a nominally heroic campaign? Sure. But you can also make a set of choices where that isn't true. Given that we can make choices that make the character work, I think we should try to make those choices, and that not making them means you bear some of the responsibility for the conflict caused by a player who wants to play a necromancer.


Again, you're delving into minutia. We're on the discussion of character concepts, and you start talking about bringing in high level characters, or characters from different systems.

Yes, I picked intentionally extreme examples, because you were claiming that you thought the question was "is this ever acceptable". The fact that there exist obvious examples where it is means it isn't. Because the question is, and always has been, not "is this acceptable", but "is this a good idea".

[Psychoalpha]

Firstly, it says it animates the dead "as the animate dead spell", which means it inherits the qualities of animate dead, including the evil tag.
No, that is not what it means. The animation is as the spell, the other things are not. Or we could move on to Fell Animate. There are ways to do necromancy that don't have the [Evil] tag.

O_____o

It shouldn't even have to be said, but Crake is correct here. When something says 'as the <x> spell' it functions as that spell except as otherwise noted in the specific example or for the type of ability (i.e. supernatural and spell-like abilities not requiring material components). That includes all mechanical descriptors for the spell, such as targets, range, duration, saving throws, spell resistance, and descriptors.


the GM shouldn't have to feel like they are being unreasonable for saying no, just like they shouldn't feel unreasonable about not letting you play a monster race or taking Leadership.

You had me until Leadership.


These statements seem completely incompatible. I’m not sure how a game can be “about the PCs” without tailoring the content for them.

Adventure Paths are about specific adventures. If a DM sets up to run Wrath of the Righteous as a campaign, 1-20, the game is about the Wrath of the Righteous and the events that happen therin. Your options as a character are to follow that adventure path, because if you say "Screw it, we teleport to the other side of the world." then the campaign is over. That's not what the DM was there to run, etc.

Contrast this to a sandbox game where the DM has fleshed out or otherwise made notes about much of the surrounding world (or can at least ad lib on the fly) and while there may be an instigating event, what the characters do about it or do afterwards is entirely up to them and the DM runs with it. Screw off and teleport to the other side of the world and the game just continues. It's not 'about' anything, except what the PCs get up to.

[Talakeal]

You had me until Leadership.

Leadership explicitly says you need to check with your DM before selecting it.

[Psychoalpha]

Leadership explicitly says you need to check with your DM before selecting it.

First, it was mostly a joke. Mostly. ;D

Second, where does it say that? I'm not disagreeing, even though I don't remember the last time we played a 3.x or PF game around here that disallowed it, but... does it actually say that? I'm assuming it's in the actual book somewhere, but I haven't used physical books or even PDFs since we started playing Pathfinder. I don't see anything about that in the Archives of Nethys or D20PFSRD sites. I assume people check with their DMs about anything with more complex game interactions outside of their specific character sheet (and sometimes even then), but I didn't recall it specifically calling out needing to check with your DM first in the rules. What a weird waste of text space.

[Talakeal]

First, it was mostly a joke. Mostly. ;D

Second, where does it say that? I'm not disagreeing, even though I don't remember the last time we played a 3.x or PF game around here that disallowed it, but... does it actually say that? I'm assuming it's in the actual book somewhere, but I haven't used physical books or even PDFs since we started playing Pathfinder. I don't see anything about that in the Archives of Nethys or D20PFSRD sites. I assume people check with their DMs about anything with more complex game interactions outside of their specific character sheet (and sometimes even then), but I didn't recall it specifically calling out needing to check with your DM first in the rules. What a weird waste of text space.

Yes, in the feat description on page 97 of the 3.5 PHB. I do not know if PF has similar wording.

I would assume it is because the feat is significantly more powerful and more complex than other feats, and thus is in a kind of "semi-optional" state.

[Psychoalpha]

Yes, in the feat description on page 97 of the 3.5 PHB. I do not know if PF has similar wording.


I don't think it's in the 3.5 SRD, either, so it may be in the PF book but not the PF SRD in the same way. Either way, my confusion was purely semantic since this is more or less accurate:


I would assume it is because the feat is significantly more powerful and more complex than other feats, and thus is in a kind of "semi-optional" state.

It's not really semi-optional for us since, as noted elsewhere, we don't really ban things over power concerns. As long as nobody's being a jerk, trying to break the game, and whatever gets done with it allows everybody to keep having fun, it's all good. A DM could say it's not appropriate for a particular campaign, but the sort of person who'd disallow it over it being too powerful probably wouldn't have ended up being a DM for us in the first place.

Not that you or anybody else asked. ;D I just hadn't really thought about it outside the context of people on these boards griping about it, and the 'ask your dm' thing in actual rules text surprised me.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Talakeal
Yes, in the feat description on page 97 of the 3.5 PHB. I do not know if PF has similar wording.

The Pathfinder version of Leadership doesn’t include that wording. There’s nothing about checking with your DM, no more than any other feat.


Originally Posted by Psychoalpha
It's not 'about' anything, except what the PCs get up to.

If a campaign isn’t about anything other than the PCs, it seems axiomatic that the campaign will be designed around the PCs. Otherwise it’ll just be a very long series of random encounters.

[Xervous]

That, I think, is an interesting question. The best answer depends on a lot of factors. Is one player more strongly attached to their concept than the other? Is there a compromise where we hot swap Animate Dead into a Create Deathless that has exactly the same mechanics but for positive energy? Maybe it's possible to have an arc where the characters come to understand eachother and grow as people.

So if it's players in conflict it's okay to end up shooting down one of the ideas, but it's the DM's job to bend over for each and every concept that is proposed? Said necromancer wants raise dead, he wants fell animate, he's packing metamagic on enervation for wights, and he wants this to be not automatically evil. Undead hunter wants his lore to be reality in a similar fashion, that undead is Evil regardless, and anyone dabbling in it is Evil all the same.

This situation is intentionally something where there is no compromise on the DM's part that lets it work, at least one player must give ground in what they are inflicting on the noodle-for-a-backbone DM's world. The players have arrived with their characters and are coming in with the mindset you proposed, that the DM's world will have nothing blocking their existence however fanciful or discordant said character concept is.

At its simplest this is a logical absurdity where any input (character) must yield a true output (acceptance to the game). Combining necromancer and undead hunter in the above fashion is (A& notA) = true. Logically one of the players characters will be invalid and the DM cannot warp the setting to make everything fit.

[Quertus]

Possible for you doesn't mean possible for everyone else, just sayin'.

It's not like I live in another universe, so, yes, it should be possible for anyone to find such groups.

Now, maybe not everyone has my exemplary charisma and management skills to be able to train whatever arbitrary groups they happen to be in to appreciate a wider range of fun activities, but I don't recall making that claim. Only that it can be fun for the group if they have the right attitude. Not that anyone can get them there, or even that everyone is capable of approaching elf games with the right attitude.


I mean, you said it yourself, a sandbox game is still about something, it's just that what it's about is up to the players, not the DM. As an aside, personally I would love to run a sandbox game, but every time I've tried it, my players meander about, don't really do much, get bored due to having no goals or motivations to do anything, and then we just toss the game and do something else. I spent ages basically being the exact DM I would want for myself, only to realise that my players had no interest in playing a sandbox game.

So, let's take this invading Necromancer, and make him more sandboxy.

To make him a good sandbox element, he needs to exist at the start of the game. Which means that he's subject to Bardic Lore, Gather Information, knowledge checks, etc. And modern gamers are whiners, so if you don't foreshadow him repeatedly in act I, they'll complain.

Next, let's work on his timeline. Is there anything in the sandbox that could affect his actions? If so, make sure that act I actions that alter those elements have their correct impact. Also, make his timeline in act 2 much longer. For example, if he can be the subject of Divinations, if scouts / other parties / the gods / Quertus' "ambient worldwide Necromancy level monitor" / anything at all could realistically notice him, have them do so. Have act 2 start when he's noticed, not when he's already hip bone deep in corpses the PCs' countrymen. Give the party plenty of time to decide what - if anything - they are going to do about it.

Finally, let go of the foregone conclusion that, if the PCs don't do something, the kingdom falls. If you're into customizing content for the players, ask them what they would like to happen - especially if they don't engage the Necromancer. Maybe they want to tell the story of heroes whose growing fame was upstaged when some other heroes killed the Necromancer. Maybe they want to tell the story of the fall of the kingdom. Maybe they want to tell the story of the kingdom turing to them in its hour of greatest need - perhaps once the king is on the run. Maybe they want to tell the story of saving the kingdom from an evil god after The Church turns to the dark side and sacrifices ⅓ of its citizens to beat back the Necromancer. Maybe they want to tell the story of how the Rogue's new spy network let the party know about the fallen Clerics' plans in time to have the Paladin's new order help convince and maneuver (through the Fighter's new river fleet) the old paladin order into position to kill off the Clerics (immediately after the Necromancer's defeat)… sacrificing the old paladin order to the man in the process, leaving a power vacuum for the party to fill. Maybe they just want to use the Necromancer invasion as a backdrop to tell a tale of economics and politics, as they vie to position themselves as famous, "kingdom-saving" arms dealers.

Point is, in a proper sandbox, you give them toys to play with.

Think of it as giving them paint. Now, maybe you've only given them green, brown, and blue. And maybe they make a tree and sky. But if they make a stripy flag, an algae-coverted muddy river, brown rocks & blue flowers on rolling green hills, or Green Lantern fighting Quicksilver in mudville, that's fine, too.

The point is to limit them in ways that increase creativity, not to try to limit their creative expression. Understanding the difference is the essence of the sandbox.

(Not that I would personally implement a sandbox the way I just described, as I'm not into modifying content for the players - this example is purely for illustrative purposes.)


Point is that while sandbox games exist, and doing all those things is perfectly fine in a sandbox game, more directed games exist, and sometimes, just sometimes, doing those things isn't appropriate, and it's up to the DM to recognise that and do something about it.

Published modules, video games, and such are often "directed games" by necessity. But why would you limit yourself in cases where it was not a necessity?


As a side note, you say you don't want to play a campaign about toppling the gods, but you're okay in playing a sandbox game.... which is about whatever the players make it... where you topple the gods? Care to explain to me how that's different? Because to me it sounds like a distinction without a difference.

Sure. I want the GM to set the stage, and then run the world honest. If Indy has a gun, let him shoot the great swordsman. It may not be the cinematography you were expecting, but it's still one of the great moments in movie history.

So, to flip that (because it's easier, IMO, to see from the opposite direction), I'm not interested in the rails of "thing the GM intends me to shoot". I just want "thing". And then I'll interact with it in accordance with the rules.

If we're playing a normal D&D game, there are gods in the world, and, by RAW, they have rules. They are game objects. Now, sadly, in 3e, they're much stronger game objects than they were in earlier editions.

At the start of the game, most of my characters will have as a goal either "kill one or more gods" or "make the world a better place (which, under many GMs, necessitates killing the gods, as nothing short of being the biggest fish allows the PCs any ability to make lasting change to the campaign world (outside of rails the GM has already laid for particular changes, like 'killing the rampaging Necromancer'))". And that may well be the only starting goal my character has. As the campaign progresses, if the GM provided a variety of interesting objects to interact with, my characters will almost certainly acquire more goals, like "create Undead army", "found guild", "burn down library", "protect cool farmer who stood up for us", or "flirt with cute Pokémon daycare receptionist".

I don't want the GM to create a "burn down the library" module. I want the results of my attempts to burn down the library to follow automatically and logically from the inclusion of the library in the universe.

Now, if I succeed, and, by doing so, make it impossible for Gandalf to research the secret of the One Ring, and that causes the whole campaign to fall apart? Then I'll refer to the Rule of Three, and suggest that, anything that the GM needs to railroad to be true shouldn't rely on any one thing (or even any two things).

Further, personally, I prefer games where the players have agency, and burning down the library can have that huge impact on the game… but where the game is not so fragile that that ends the campaign. I want the GM to learn that, in an RPG, the one story about the one Gandalf reading the one document, gathering the one Aragorn, and dropping the One Ring into the one volcano is one dumb set of contrivances.


While many of those may be perfectly acceptable plots, not all are ones that the DM is willing to indulge

Including "kill the Necromancer". So that's a moot point.

What, IMO, you should be asking yourself is, why won't one or more players (including the GM) indulge a particular story, especially if everyone else is hyped about it?

Bob is deathly afraid of spiders, so no Drider? Sure, perfectly reasonable. You've got an idea for a furry ursine Druid, combining green bond summoning, training your animal companion, boosting your healing power, and Vow of Nudity, because you want to play a bareback war bear riding, barely-recognizable bear-summoning, bare naked anthropomorphized bear / werebear care bear? But Joe's uncle was mauled by a bear, and it would be considered in poor taste? If you say so.

For anything else, you should seriously ask yourself why your preferences should be allowed to be detrimental to the fun of others.

In one game, there was a player who did a fantastic job playing a cultist of Slanesh. Had he directed any of that at any of the PCs, it almost certainly would have gone past my limits, but he kept it to the NPCs, so it was fine (in that creepy Slanesh cultist kind of way).

I don't think any one player, including the GM, has the right to prioritize their fun over - and at the expense of - everyone else's. Any player has discomfort with certain topics? Sure. That's a "minority rights" issue. But otherwise? No, let people have their fun.


, such as the PCs fleeing or joining the necromancer, as both of those strike me as "game over" situations.

Not at all!

Sure, it's "kingdom over". And that's fine. But I've played enjoyable games of "run from overwhelming odds" and of "lead army against opposition (try to earn fame / brownie points from boss, ideally without getting killed)". These are great games - if that's what people want to play. They're terrible games if that's not what people want to play. Just like "kill the Necromancer" is a terrible game, if that's not what people want to play. That's probably true of any game.


Meanwhile others may simply be infeasable, like raising a bigger army in time,

If one month was plenty of time for the one lone Necromancer to increase his army by an order of magnitude, it's plenty of time for the entire bloody kingdom's newly fallen clergy to sacrifice and animate the "evacuated to 'safety' in the church" population themselves instead.


and others still aren't even related to the plot, like a PC falling to the dark side. The PC falling to the dark side doesn't actually affect situation with the necromancer, though it can be a complelling side-story.

I've gotta admit, I'm more a war gamer, and personally not a huge fan of this kind of "chick flick" RPG, but it's a perfectly valid to tell and explore the story of the psychological impact of impending doom, without ever actually touching on the Necromancer story itself. Melancholia, for example, doesn't but touch on the science / physics of the… rogue planet (?) on a (maybe) collision course with earth, only with the psychological impact this event has on various individuals - how they cope (or fail to) with their own mortality.

And that's a perfectly valid game.

A bit… much… even for my tastes, maybe, but still valid.


In response to your footnote here, I would never have 1st level PCs fending off an army wielding necromancer. While my new campaigns typically start at 1st level, something like a necromancer unleashing his army strikes me as more of an Act 2 stagepiece, not the PCs' intializing conflict.

Sounds like that would give plenty of time to establish the character's grave in preparation for the story of their fall… uh… there from whence? What's the proper "there" word to use here? The opposite number to "thereunto"?


What I mean is that you should expect it to be off the table in most campaigns by default, but that you can have a conversation with the DM about incorporating it. There is little difference mechanically, but the GM shouldn't have to feel like they are being unreasonable for saying no, just like they shouldn't feel unreasonable about not letting you play a monster race or taking Leadership.

Or play a Fighter? It's been banned at tables, so you shouldn't feel it's on the table by default either, right?

Personally, I'm not a fan of that line of thought. It (subtractive world-building) makes evaluating characters and the world too much of a chore - additive world-building (everything in the books, plus…) is much more engaging. And I'm kinda on team "learn to say yes", which is why I stole (and repurposed/abused) the phrase, "be a fan of the PCs".

(But, yeah, that definitely sounds like "taken off the table" to me.)

[Quertus]

These statements seem completely incompatible. I’m not sure how a game can be “about the PCs” without tailoring the content for them.

Suppose we follow you around with a video camera, narrating while you visit… the Eiffel Tower, the Great Wall of China, and Disneyland.

This video was about you.

Yet, the Eiffel Tower, the Great Wall of China, and Disneyland were not created for or even custom tailored for you.

These statements seem completely incompatible.

-----

The game is about the PCs. It's about how they react to, change, and are changed by the events of the campaign.

The campaign does not need to be custom-tailored to the PCs for that to be true.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

When it comes to tailoring things to the PCs, there's two main axes you can look at. There's your "plotted" vs. "sandbox" axis, where moving the slider all the way to the "plotted" end means the DM has a specific plot he's running, come Baator or high water, and moving it all the way to the "sandbox" end means there's no predefined plot at all, just a bunch of sites and NPCs and plot hooks from which an overarching story might be woven. Then there's your "PC-centered" vs. "PC-agnostic" axis, where moving the slider all the way to the "PC-centered" end means the campaign is built around the PCs' backstories and goals, the players' playstyles and goals, and so forth, and moving it all the way to the "PC-agnostic" end means the campaign doesn't take those into account at all.

A PC-centered plotted campaign (case "A") would be a campaign where the DM asks the party what PCs they want to make and what kind of plot they want to play through and constructs a campaign around that, or tells the party about the module he wants to run and the party is built around that, or similar.

A PC-centered sandbox campaign (case "B") would be a campaign where the DM solicits PC backstories and peppers a sandbox with plot hooks based on those, or creates a sandbox around a bunch of starting plot hooks and then once the PCs latch onto certain ones he populates the rest of the sandbox with related hooks to cater to that, or similar

A PC-agnostic plotted campaign (case "C") would be a campaign where the DM comes up with a plot and the players come up with PCs and the two might not immediately have anything to do with one another, or runs a module for an existing party without making any effort to adapt it to them, or similar.

A PC-agnostic sandbox campaign (case "D") would be a campaign where the DM creates a very detailed sandbox and doesn't rewrite things based on party desires or activities, or has a "rotating roster" game where there's lots of PCs and the party composition changes a lot so customizing things to a given party isn't possible, or similar.

The way I'm reading things, when Quertus says "tailoring content" he means "writing a predetermined plot around topic X" (cases A and C) while when Palanan says "tailoring content" he means "taking the PCs' desires and actions into consideration" (cases A and B), and it's the conflation of not liking A with not wanting B that's causing the confusion.

[Crake]

Published modules, video games, and such are often "directed games" by necessity. But why would you limit yourself in cases where it was not a necessity?

Because a) they're easier to DM, and b) sometimes the extra effort of DMing a sandbox is simply wasted on the group you're running the game for because they're just not that interested in such a game.


Sure. I want the GM to set the stage, and then run the world honest. If Indy has a gun, let him shoot the great swordsman. It may not be the cinematography you were expecting, but it's still one of the great moments in movie history.

So, to flip that (because it's easier, IMO, to see from the opposite direction), I'm not interested in the rails of "thing the GM intends me to shoot". I just want "thing". And then I'll interact with it in accordance with the rules.

I mean, that's not sandbox, that's just called a status quo GMing. You don't need to be running a sandbox game to have "This is what's there, how do you go about interacting with it". Sandboxes are about the game's story on a macro-scale being player driven, rather than being driven by some external threat.


If we're playing a normal D&D game, there are gods in the world, and, by RAW, they have rules. They are game objects. Now, sadly, in 3e, they're much stronger game objects than they were in earlier editions.

At the start of the game, most of my characters will have as a goal either "kill one or more gods" or "make the world a better place (which, under many GMs, necessitates killing the gods, as nothing short of being the biggest fish allows the PCs any ability to make lasting change to the campaign world (outside of rails the GM has already laid for particular changes, like 'killing the rampaging Necromancer'))". And that may well be the only starting goal my character has. As the campaign progresses, if the GM provided a variety of interesting objects to interact with, my characters will almost certainly acquire more goals, like "create Undead army", "found guild", "burn down library", "protect cool farmer who stood up for us", or "flirt with cute Pokémon daycare receptionist".

I don't want the GM to create a "burn down the library" module. I want the results of my attempts to burn down the library to follow automatically and logically from the inclusion of the library in the universe.

I mean, when you announce to the GM "I intend to burn down the library", that's exactly what's going to happen. The same goes for when you announce "I intend to kill the gods" at the start of the game. The DM is going to start planning for that. So there's ultimately no difference between playing a game that's about killing the gods, vs playing a sandbox game where you decide to kill the gods. In both, all those other things can happen along the way just as much in a sandbox game as in a themed game, so I'm not sure how those examples all add anything to the point anyway. They're just signs of a more in depth character and campaign world, and not really anything to do with theme or plot.


Including "kill the Necromancer". So that's a moot point.

What, IMO, you should be asking yourself is, why won't one or more players (including the GM) indulge a particular story, especially if everyone else is hyped about it?

Bob is deathly afraid of spiders, so no Drider? Sure, perfectly reasonable. You've got an idea for a furry ursine Druid, combining green bond summoning, training your animal companion, boosting your healing power, and Vow of Nudity, because you want to play a bareback war bear riding, barely-recognizable bear-summoning, bare naked anthropomorphized bear / werebear care bear? But Joe's uncle was mauled by a bear, and it would be considered in poor taste? If you say so.

For anything else, you should seriously ask yourself why your preferences should be allowed to be detrimental to the fun of others.

In one game, there was a player who did a fantastic job playing a cultist of Slanesh. Had he directed any of that at any of the PCs, it almost certainly would have gone past my limits, but he kept it to the NPCs, so it was fine (in that creepy Slanesh cultist kind of way).

I don't think any one player, including the GM, has the right to prioritize their fun over - and at the expense of - everyone else's. Any player has discomfort with certain topics? Sure. That's a "minority rights" issue. But otherwise? No, let people have their fun.

I mean, sure, that's all true, and there are plenty of valid and invalid reasons to say no. You'd have to look at each individual reason at the time and decide whether it's reasonable or not. Maybe the DM's burnt out on villainous characters and wanted a change, I'd say that's a valid reason. Sometimes you just need a story about the good guys doing good things and coming out on top once in a while.

In other circumstances, saying no isn't appropriate, but having the plan result in failure is. For example, if the necromancer's army is expected to wipe out the kingdom in a month, and the PCs intention is to save the kingdom, then naturally any plan that takes longer than a month will result in a failed state of the kingdom being destroyed, and even plans that take less than a month will result in more of the kingdom being destroyed the longer they take. Now, making changes to the scenario before-the-fact is fine to perhaps give other plans more leeway in being successful, but sometimes players can just be incredibly dense, and work themselves into a corner. Maybe the necromancer's been building his army for months beforehand, and the players have been investigating his actions, but never actually followed through with anything, and that's why it's come to this, etc etc. If you yourself are a supporter of player agency, then that means that players' inaction as well as their action should have consequences. If players take a longer plan because that's what they want to do, rather than what they need to do, then that's reflected by more of the kingdom being burned down, simple as that.


Not at all!

Sure, it's "kingdom over". And that's fine. But I've played enjoyable games of "run from overwhelming odds" and of "lead army against opposition (try to earn fame / brownie points from boss, ideally without getting killed)". These are great games - if that's what people want to play. They're terrible games if that's not what people want to play. Just like "kill the Necromancer" is a terrible game, if that's not what people want to play. That's probably true of any game.

Sure, the kingdom being destroyed isn't necessarily a game-over state, it it could be. A GM may not at all be interested in GMing a post-zombie-apocalypse game and put that game on the shelf. Maybe another DM will pick it up, maybe it'll never carry on. If it never gets played again though, that's pretty much the definition of a game over state.


If one month was plenty of time for the one lone Necromancer to increase his army by an order of magnitude, it's plenty of time for the entire bloody kingdom's newly fallen clergy to sacrifice and animate the "evacuated to 'safety' in the church" population themselves instead.

A fallen cleric doesn't suddenly just get access to evil spells and rebuke undead you know. Also, such a clergy likely lacks the stockpile of onyx to go about doing such a thing even if they did.


I've gotta admit, I'm more a war gamer, and personally not a huge fan of this kind of "chick flick" RPG, but it's a perfectly valid to tell and explore the story of the psychological impact of impending doom, without ever actually touching on the Necromancer story itself. Melancholia, for example, doesn't but touch on the science / physics of the… rogue planet (?) on a (maybe) collision course with earth, only with the psychological impact this event has on various individuals - how they cope (or fail to) with their own mortality.

And that's a perfectly valid game.

A bit… much… even for my tastes, maybe, but still valid.

Well, yeah, but it's also likely not the game the players signed up for? That'd be an interesting story to play out, if say, the DM had advertised the game as a survival horror game though.


Sounds like that would give plenty of time to establish the character's grave in preparation for the story of their fall… uh… there from whence? What's the proper "there" word to use here? The opposite number to "thereunto"?

Not exactly sure what you're trying to say here. Are you implying that the players are doomed to failure from the get-go in this scenario? What, because if the necromancer succeeds in raising his army, the players have a limited time and capability to stop him? Sometimes players just corner themselves to a bloody end honestly. If you're a fan of player agency, then you should equally be a fan of the fact that if players screw themselves over, they may find themselves in a no-win scenario.


Or play a Fighter? It's been banned at tables, so you shouldn't feel it's on the table by default either, right?

Personally, I'm not a fan of that line of thought. It (subtractive world-building) makes evaluating characters and the world too much of a chore - additive world-building (everything in the books, plus…) is much more engaging. And I'm kinda on team "learn to say yes", which is why I stole (and repurposed/abused) the phrase, "be a fan of the PCs".

(But, yeah, that definitely sounds like "taken off the table" to me.)

I mean "leadership" isn't really a world building tool. Neither is say, power attack, or combat expertise, or really any mechanical choice the players make. What is the story difference between a fighter and, say, a warblade? Practically none. Likewise, for example, you don't have to be the paladin class to be a "Paladin" in name. Or the ranger class, to be a ranger in name. You could be a beguiler and call yourself a sorcerer, you could be a wilder and call yourself a psion. World building and character concepts can be done before any mechanical choices have been made whatsoever, and neither need to be directly related to anything found in any of the books. You're also likewise not necessarily expected to have every concept in every world. My campaign setting for example lacks an astral plane, and thusly lacks gith, and it's chaos plane isn't limbo, but natural anarchy, an overgrown verdance, so there's no slaad either, but rather fey live there.

Personally for me, it should be both. Keep what you like, throw away what you don't, and add what you want.

[Crake]

When it comes to tailoring things to the PCs, there's two main axes you can look at. There's your "plotted" vs. "sandbox" axis, where moving the slider all the way to the "plotted" end means the DM has a specific plot he's running, come Baator or high water, and moving it all the way to the "sandbox" end means there's no predefined plot at all, just a bunch of sites and NPCs and plot hooks from which an overarching story might be woven. Then there's your "PC-centered" vs. "PC-agnostic" axis, where moving the slider all the way to the "PC-centered" end means the campaign is built around the PCs' backstories and goals, the players' playstyles and goals, and so forth, and moving it all the way to the "PC-agnostic" end means the campaign doesn't take those into account at all.

A PC-centered plotted campaign (case "A") would be a campaign where the DM asks the party what PCs they want to make and what kind of plot they want to play through and constructs a campaign around that, or tells the party about the module he wants to run and the party is built around that, or similar.

A PC-centered sandbox campaign (case "B") would be a campaign where the DM solicits PC backstories and peppers a sandbox with plot hooks based on those, or creates a sandbox around a bunch of starting plot hooks and then once the PCs latch onto certain ones he populates the rest of the sandbox with related hooks to cater to that, or similar

A PC-agnostic plotted campaign (case "C") would be a campaign where the DM comes up with a plot and the players come up with PCs and the two might not immediately have anything to do with one another, or runs a module for an existing party without making any effort to adapt it to them, or similar.

A PC-agnostic sandbox campaign (case "D") would be a campaign where the DM creates a very detailed sandbox and doesn't rewrite things based on party desires or activities, or has a "rotating roster" game where there's lots of PCs and the party composition changes a lot so customizing things to a given party isn't possible, or similar.

The way I'm reading things, when Quertus says "tailoring content" he means "writing a predetermined plot around topic X" (cases A and C) while when Palanan says "tailoring content" he means "taking the PCs' desires and actions into consideration" (cases A and B), and it's the conflation of not liking A with not wanting B that's causing the confusion.

Very astute observation, I was sensing a miscommunication arising, but I couldn't quite nail it down.

[Quertus]

When it comes to tailoring things to the PCs, there's two main axes you can look at. There's your "plotted" vs. "sandbox" axis, where moving the slider all the way to the "plotted" end means the DM has a specific plot he's running, come Baator or high water, and moving it all the way to the "sandbox" end means there's no predefined plot at all, just a bunch of sites and NPCs and plot hooks from which an overarching story might be woven. Then there's your "PC-centered" vs. "PC-agnostic" axis, where moving the slider all the way to the "PC-centered" end means the campaign is built around the PCs' backstories and goals, the players' playstyles and goals, and so forth, and moving it all the way to the "PC-agnostic" end means the campaign doesn't take those into account at all.

A PC-centered plotted campaign (case "A") would be a campaign where the DM asks the party what PCs they want to make and what kind of plot they want to play through and constructs a campaign around that, or tells the party about the module he wants to run and the party is built around that, or similar.

A PC-centered sandbox campaign (case "B") would be a campaign where the DM solicits PC backstories and peppers a sandbox with plot hooks based on those, or creates a sandbox around a bunch of starting plot hooks and then once the PCs latch onto certain ones he populates the rest of the sandbox with related hooks to cater to that, or similar

A PC-agnostic plotted campaign (case "C") would be a campaign where the DM comes up with a plot and the players come up with PCs and the two might not immediately have anything to do with one another, or runs a module for an existing party without making any effort to adapt it to them, or similar.

A PC-agnostic sandbox campaign (case "D") would be a campaign where the DM creates a very detailed sandbox and doesn't rewrite things based on party desires or activities, or has a "rotating roster" game where there's lots of PCs and the party composition changes a lot so customizing things to a given party isn't possible, or similar.

The way I'm reading things, when Quertus says "tailoring content" he means "writing a predetermined plot around topic X" (cases A and C) while when Palanan says "tailoring content" he means "taking the PCs' desires and actions into consideration" (cases A and B), and it's the conflation of not liking A with not wanting B that's causing the confusion.

… … … so, while this is an awesome tool, I'm not sure that it's actually the correct tool for the current issue.

When I say "tailoring content", I mean "modifying content based on player desires".

As to what I like… it's not well captured by your divisions.

So, if someone says that they're going to run "Necromancy on Bone Hill", and they tell me what we'll know going in, and I choose a character who would actually engage the plot hooks (say, Ikou, the Valent Hero), that's case A, right? I'm fine with that.

But, when the GM realizes that Ikou the Valent Hero is poorly equipped to handle (or really care about) the module, and changes the content and plot to match my character, that's still case A right? But I'm not fine with that.


Because a) they're easier to DM, and b) sometimes the extra effort of DMing a sandbox is simply wasted on the group you're running the game for because they're just not that interested in such a game.



I mean, that's not sandbox, that's just called a status quo GMing. You don't need to be running a sandbox game to have "This is what's there, how do you go about interacting with it". Sandboxes are about the game's story on a macro-scale being player driven, rather than being driven by some external threat.

Huh. We're using our words differently. That's a problem.

I use "sandbox" to mean… (boy, it's hard to define)… creating content, and letting players build their own story with that content within the rules of the game. Just like a real physical sandbox contains toys that the user can use to build whatever they want, within the realm of physics.

Now, a sandbox can be passive (a hex crawl) or active (an invading Necromancer), so long as there is plenty of content for the players to choose from, and all content is optional.

So, tell me more about this "status quo GMing" (and refinements to your definition of "sandbox", if relevant).


I mean, when you announce to the GM "I intend to burn down the library", that's exactly what's going to happen. The same goes for when you announce "I intend to kill the gods" at the start of the game. The DM is going to start planning for that.

Exactly. That's why I absolutely do not, under any circumstances, announce to the GM that I intend to burn down the library, or overthrow the gods. I simply take actions that should, from my perspective, have the logical consequences of the library burning down, or the gods being overthrown, or whatever other goal my character has developed.

I want to come by my victories (and defeats) honest, through interactions with game objects, and the logical consequences thereof.

When Armus draws his sword, and moves to protect someone with better defenses than himself, I want the world to react to what it sees, not to some metagame construct statement about what Armus is attempting to accomplish.


Now, making changes to the scenario before-the-fact is fine to perhaps give other plans more leeway in being successful, but sometimes players can just be incredibly dense, and work themselves into a corner. Maybe the necromancer's been building his army for months beforehand, and the players have been investigating his actions, but never actually followed through with anything, and that's why it's come to this, etc etc. If you yourself are a supporter of player agency, then that means that players' inaction as well as their action should have consequences. If players take a longer plan because that's what they want to do, rather than what they need to do, then that's reflected by more of the kingdom being burned down, simple as that.

Absolutely. That's the way I roll.

But, if you're willing to change the content for your players, rather than playing reality honest, it opens up those options.


A fallen cleric doesn't suddenly just get access to evil spells and rebuke undead you know. Also, such a clergy likely lacks the stockpile of onyx to go about doing such a thing even if they did.

3e may be bad for OP deities, but it has rules for availability of goods, and rebuild quests (let alone just changing deities). By RAW, this isn't a problem.


Well, yeah, but it's also likely not the game the players signed up for? That'd be an interesting story to play out, if say, the DM had advertised the game as a survival horror game though.

Again, I'm discussing where it is the game that the players signed up for - or, to be more precise, preferably where it is what the players chose to make of the content.


Not exactly sure what you're trying to say here. Are you implying that the players are doomed to failure from the get-go in this scenario?

I'm saying that, if that's the way that they perceive it, and they're all excited about running "the Invading Necromancer" as a soul-searching horror game, more power to them.


Sometimes players just corner themselves to a bloody end honestly. If you're a fan of player agency, then you should equally be a fan of the fact that if players screw themselves over, they may find themselves in a no-win scenario.

Absolutely.


World building and character concepts can be done before any mechanical choices have been made whatsoever, and neither need to be directly related to anything found in any of the books.

Yes and no.

If your concept is "Pyromancer", but they're are no fire spells in this world / system - or even you're playing cp2020, with no magic whatsoever - I think you've hit a fail state.

Or, if I had tried to run Quertus, my signature academia mage for whom this account is named, exactly as is, but hailed him as "a tactical prodigy from imperial military academy", there would be some dissonance between the concept and the implementation.

So… kinda? "Yes, but…”? I see what you are saying, and agree in some dimensions, but not in others.


You're also likewise not necessarily expected to have every concept in every world. My campaign setting for example lacks an astral plane, and thusly lacks gith, and it's chaos plane isn't limbo, but natural anarchy, an overgrown verdance, so there's no slaad either, but rather fey live there.

Personally for me, it should be both. Keep what you like, throw away what you don't, and add what you want.

That's fair. Perhaps I should say, "it's a known pitfall that most GMs handle subtractive world-building poorly". See "low magic 3e" as a prime example.

[Crake]

Huh. We're using our words differently. That's a problem.

I use "sandbox" to mean… (boy, it's hard to define)… creating content, and letting players build their own story with that content within the rules of the game. Just like a real physical sandbox contains toys that the user can use to build whatever they want, within the realm of physics.

Now, a sandbox can be passive (a hex crawl) or active (an invading Necromancer), so long as there is plenty of content for the players to choose from, and all content is optional.

So, tell me more about this "status quo GMing" (and refinements to your definition of "sandbox", if relevant).

Well, I had a whole bunch of replies lined up, but accidentally hit the back button on my browser, so I'm gonna try and re-write it, but probably in less detail.

I believe I actually brought this up a few pages back in regards to something else, but status quo is basically the opposite of what you (and the DMG) describe as tailored content. Status quo design is basically "What's there is there", vs tailored which is "One of the players has XYZ ability, so lets make an encounter that can be solved with that ability" or "One of the players has XYZ weakness, so let's create an encounter that interacts with that weakness".

This is actually a topic described in the DMG on page 48, if you're interested in reading what the DMG has to say on the topic.


Exactly. That's why I absolutely do not, under any circumstances, announce to the GM that I intend to burn down the library, or overthrow the gods. I simply take actions that should, from my perspective, have the logical consequences of the library burning down, or the gods being overthrown, or whatever other goal my character has developed.

I want to come by my victories (and defeats) honest, through interactions with game objects, and the logical consequences thereof.

When Armus draws his sword, and moves to protect someone with better defenses than himself, I want the world to react to what it sees, not to some metagame construct statement about what Armus is attempting to accomplish.

So, I think this comes down to whether or not you trust your DM to design the encounters in a status quo method or not. If you feel like telling your DM what you plan to do will make the outcome more honest, then it means you don't trust your DM to design things as they should be, as opposed to helping (or hindering) you through his designs. If your DM is truly running a status quo game, it wouldn't matter whether you told him at the start of the game, or just moments before you engage your plan, the only difference is how much time he would have to prepare content for your actions. So, if you trust your DM, then there's no reason to not give him an early heads up so he can design content, and if you don't trust your DM, then you should be aware, even improvising DMs can tailor content on the fly, so catching them off guard isn't going to make the content any less tailored.

Personally, when I'm running a more open kind of game, I ask the players at the end of each session what they plan to do the next session so I can plan content accordingly, and I like to have a good idea of their character's goals and motivations, both in a long term sense, but also at a moment by moment level. The more I know, the more I can work with.


Absolutely. That's the way I roll.

But, if you're willing to change the content for your players, rather than playing reality honest, it opens up those options.

This is just another example of status quo vs tailored content. Changing content to invalidate failure is just as bad, in my opinion, as changing content to invalidate success, because on both sides, it cheapens the actions of the players, but some people more prefer a story to entertain themselves, rather than a sense of agency and control. Different strokes for different folks.


3e may be bad for OP deities, but it has rules for availability of goods, and rebuild quests (let alone just changing deities). By RAW, this isn't a problem.

I'm aware of rebuild quests, though they aren't necessarily available at a whim, and are entirely up to the DM if they should be included or not. I'm not, however, aware of rules that allow a cleric to just flip flop between faiths.


Again, I'm discussing where it is the game that the players signed up for - or, to be more precise, preferably where it is what the players chose to make of the content.

I'm saying that, if that's the way that they perceive it, and they're all excited about running "the Invading Necromancer" as a soul-searching horror game, more power to them.

I mean, sure, but if the players just decide to swap theme on a dime, I wouldn't call it unreasonable for the DM to say "Uh... guys, weren't we running a heroic game, not a horror game? What gives?" Now maybe the DM is down to run that sort of a game, sure, but maybe he's not, and I don't advocate a DM running a game he doesn't want to.


Yes and no.

If your concept is "Pyromancer", but they're are no fire spells in this world / system - or even you're playing cp2020, with no magic whatsoever - I think you've hit a fail state.

Or, if I had tried to run Quertus, my signature academia mage for whom this account is named, exactly as is, but hailed him as "a tactical prodigy from imperial military academy", there would be some dissonance between the concept and the implementation.

So… kinda? "Yes, but…”? I see what you are saying, and agree in some dimensions, but not in others.

Dissonance between concept and implementation is a separate issue entirely, but, in the context of worldbuilding.... well, if the DM wants a pyromancer in a non-magic setting, he can find a way to make it work. Homebrew is a powerful tool that I actually strongly advocate for. Now, of course, if you're world building as a player, then every step involves DM approval, but if your DM was down for it, there's no reason, again, why you couldn't figure it out.


That's fair. Perhaps I should say, "it's a known pitfall that most GMs handle subtractive world-building poorly". See "low magic 3e" as a prime example.

I suppose if you're just doing purely subtractive, that can be an issue. For example, cutting down on magic without doing something to make up for it, like using pathfinder's automatic bonus progression or the like, or implementing the wounds/vitality system to make healing far less of an issue.

[Psyren]

The Pathfinder version of Leadership doesn’t include that wording. There’s nothing about checking with your DM, no more than any other feat.

That's because it's in Game Mastery Guide, page 66:

"The Leadership feat gives a character the option to attract subordinates drawn to his personality and legend...
Work with your players to create NPCs that are both valuable to the group and interesting and plausible within the ongoing story. How cohorts and followers are run in a game warrants discussion before a character simply takes this feat, however. Before allowing a player to take the Leadership feat, you should discuss such concerns with the player and make sure you’re both on the same page regarding how the feat functions, and how to keep a bevy of followers from becoming a burden."

But really, they shouldn't have to write this down anywhere, it's just common sense that you would check with the GM before adding a pile of NPCs to their campaign.



You had me until Leadership.

See above.



Or play a Fighter? It's been banned at tables, so you shouldn't feel it's on the table by default either, right?

I don't have a scientific polling of tables by any means, but I'm willing to bet that every single edition having a Fighter in core suggests that it's a concept most people like, and that the tables that ban it are outliers.

Besides which, "Fighter" is a concept that can be rebalanced to fit a table's/setting's/campaign's needs far more easily than something like mass minionmancy or Leadership.

So your attempt at reductio ad absurdum is just that - absurd.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Psyren
That's because it's in Game Mastery Guide, page 66….

Never knew that was there. I’d be willing to bet that many fewer GMs have this book than the CRB, APG and the Ultimates.

I certainly agree it’s common sense to check with your GM about this one, but I have to wonder why they didn’t just use the wording from 3.5 when they printed the feat in the CRB.


Originally Posted by Quertus
It's not like I live in another universe, so, yes, it should be possible for anyone to find such groups.

The Playground has plenty of people who have described how difficult it is to find any groups, usually owing to their geography and cultural context. It’s not fair to these people to flippantly claim they should be able to find, not simply a group, but a specific type of group.


Originally Posted by Quertus
Suppose we follow you around with a video camera, narrating while you visit… the Eiffel Tower, the Great Wall of China, and Disneyland.

Already been to those, or at least two out of three. I was stuck in the conference center in Beijing, working on my presentation, while the rest of my colleagues went to see the Great Wall.

So, call it 2.5 of those.


Originally Posted by Quertus
The game is about the PCs. It's about how they react to, change, and are changed by the events of the campaign.

The campaign does not need to be custom-tailored to the PCs for that to be true.

So, if you’re not running a story-based campaign, and not adapting the campaign to the PCs, that really does sound like a series of random encounters, since non-random encounters would either be fitted to the PCs or following the progression of a broader storyline.

In practical terms, I think any DM running a campaign will try to adapt to the PCs, most obviously by tweaking the CR of encounters up or down depending on how well they do in combat, but also by playing to their strengths and interests as characters.

[Psyren]

Never knew that was there. I’d be willing to bet that many fewer GMs have this book than the CRB, APG and the Ultimates.

I certainly agree it’s common sense to check with your GM about this one, but I have to wonder why they didn’t just use the wording from 3.5 when they printed the feat in the CRB.

You have to remember that back when they made the CRB, they weren't sure this whole "Pathfinder" game-cloning experiment would even work (never mind take off), or worse, invite wrath of WotC if they strayed even a millimeter outside the OGL. The DMG and PHB are chock full of excellent advice for GMs and players alike, but almost none of it is actually covered by the OGL, so even writing their own back when they started core would have been dicey (heh). Add to that the fact that they were cramming two rather meaty books together into one huge volume for their new game, and you end up with two very compelling reasons to keep this sort of guidance/intent outside the core rulebook and include it later on in the game's life.

As for GMs not having Game Mastery Guide, the wonderful thing about Pathfinder is that all of it is OGL, so you can find this guidance online too (https://aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?Name=Party%20Composition&Category=The%20Life%20of%20a%20Party), free of charge. While "I don't have that book" was a valid excuse in 3.5 where they were charging for errata and advice in things like Rules Compendium and DMG2, PF is a lot more accessible.

[Talakeal]

Exactly. That's why I absolutely do not, under any circumstances, announce to the GM that I intend to burn down the library, or overthrow the gods. I simply take actions that should, from my perspective, have the logical consequences of the library burning down, or the gods being overthrown, or whatever other goal my character has developed.

I want to come by my victories (and defeats) honest, through interactions with game objects, and the logical consequences thereof.

When Armus draws his sword, and moves to protect someone with better defenses than himself, I want the world to react to what it sees, not to some metagame construct statement about what Armus is attempting to accomplish.

I am not sure if blindsiding the DM with something out of the blue is really a good way to get a logical outcome.

[Warmjenkins]

I've seen a lot of people on the side of "the dm should allow everything whenever possible and compromise the campaign setting if necessary, or a campaign where it isn't an option is poorly designed" side say that the disallow things like playing an evil character in a good party or pvp.

This doesn't make sense to me. I'm currently running a campaign in a custom world. The party started at level 3 with a neutral good, lawful good, chaotic good, and chaotic evil party members. Players attempting to hurt or sabotage each other was a thing that actually happened. The campaign was in no way built around these things but it also never broke down. (I can go into more detail upon request but I don't feel its necessary for the point at hand.)

The point is evil characters can work, pvp can work, and if you restrict those things it's no different from restricting a player from playing a necromancer or restricting any other choice.

For the record I'm strongly on the side that the dm can and should restrict whatever content makes them the most comfortable running their game. The custom campaign world I spent years creating has only one god who can grant healing magic, only druids have healing magic outside of this religion (for plot reasons, the planes are currently disconnected) so if you want to play a cleric you must worship this diety or have no magic at all for example. My world simply cannot have a certain characters exist for reasons I cannot tell my players and we all agree that makes for a far more interesting world.

TLDR: either no restrictions are ever ok on player choices, or restrictions can be ok if they make sense or serve the campaign or the fun of the table. Also it is not ok to force or expect a dm to run a game he isn't comfortable running, be that pvp or necromancy.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Psyren
While "I don't have that book" was a valid excuse in 3.5 where they were charging for errata and advice in things like Rules Compendium and DMG2, PF is a lot more accessible.

I wasn’t making an excuse. The issue is less the availability than the practical matter of not having time to read every line of every single source Paizo has put out.

It simply makes sense to put a caution about a complex feat right in the text of that feat, rather than buried in another book that came out a couple years later, and which was targeted for GMs rather than players. If you want to advise players to check with their GM--and it's certainly good advice--it seems more sensible to put that advice in the one book the players are most likely to read, rather than a supplement they're more likely not to read.


Originally Posted by Talakeal
I am not sure if blindsiding the DM with something out of the blue is really a good way to get a logical outcome.

This, in spades. Blindsiding is more apt to cause snowballing problems than anything positive.