Why shouldn’t a DM veto characters?

[Rondodu]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[JusticeZero]

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

[Delta]

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

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

[KillianHawkeye]

I agree with the way you do it.

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

[Mr Beer]

People who object to DM veto are probably doing so in a particular context.

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

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

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

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

[Craft (Cheese)]

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

[Mr Beer]

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

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

[Grim Portent]

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

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

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

[Tengu_temp]

Never vetoing characters is a part of this "if RAW, it's legal, if it's in a book, it's legal!" approach that seems to have been born when DND 3e became popular.

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

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

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

[Amphetryon]

The general tenor of many objections is "the DM controls every other thing in the universe; let me have the Character that fits the image in my head."

[comicshorse]

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

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

Definitely this

[NichG]

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

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

[Ravens_cry]

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

[valadil]

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

[Ravens_cry]

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

True enough. These things should certainly be discussed in advance, even before character creation even officially begins even, and GM's girlfriend syndrome is an absolute no-no.

[Tengu_temp]

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

[Tyndmyr]

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

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

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

[Ravens_cry]

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

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

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

[MikelaC1]

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

[Raum]

If you are reluctant to DM vetoing characters, why is that so?

Short version: it's a group decision.

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

[Tyndmyr]

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

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

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

[Gnoman]

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

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

[navar100]

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

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

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

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

[Mr Beer]

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

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

[Prince Raven]

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

[MikelaC1]

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

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

[Coidzor]

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

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

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

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

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

[Prince Raven]

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

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

[Coidzor]

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

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

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

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

[tasw]

theres a few things I veto. The gunslinger doesnt fit the worlds I like to run (no gunpowder) so he's out and the summoner is overpowered and the dang eidolon has a habit of vastly overshadowing the player.

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

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