Players Rights Do they even exist

I have often wonder why players have never been given any offical rights other then simply leave and start up your own game, you would think a players fantasy roleplaying game they would have offical rights, But it seems that the only person who has any rights and power what so ever is the Dm...

Official Warning From this point in time I will no longer deal with people who want to turn my post into flame war's, if you cannot respond in a civilized matter Then simply do not respond, all troll  implications or just plain rudeness will  no longer be tolerated and will reported to the mod as soon as I see the reply...

After discussing running a stone age/prehistoric campaign (dinosaurs and crap) with your players, and they are all thrilled at the idea, how would you react to one of them saying I want to play a Tiefling Gunslinger?



I would ask if he was really thrilled at the idea of a stone age/prehistoric campaign and how he thought a tiefling gunslinger made sense in that context.



Right on, that's cutting through the crap, I like that, but, just out of curiosity, what would you come up with to contrive my example (just out of fun curiosity)?



My best thought is Sleestak using crystal tech weapons.   Land of the Lost FTW!





Ha, that's actually kinda cool.

Have you ever heard of the RPG Space:1889


I've seen it advertised but that's about it.  Thought it was a steampunk type setting from the art.
After discussing running a stone age/prehistoric campaign (dinosaurs and crap) with your players, and they are all thrilled at the idea, how would you react to one of them saying I want to play a Tiefling Gunslinger?



I would ask if he was really thrilled at the idea of a stone age/prehistoric campaign and how he thought a tiefling gunslinger made sense in that context.



Right on, that's cutting through the crap, I like that, but, just out of curiosity, what would you come up with to contrive my example (just out of fun curiosity)?



My best thought is Sleestak using crystal tech weapons.   Land of the Lost FTW!





Ha, that's actually kinda cool.

Have you ever heard of the RPG Space:1889


I've seen it advertised but that's about it.  Thought it was a steampunk type setting from the art.



Victorian space, you got real Martians, and Venusians, Venus has dinosaurs, you sail through the Ether/Space, you could definitely be a dinosaur shooting cowboy in that setting.
how does your dinosaur shoot out a cowboy? Which part of the dino does he shoot it from? that could get messy.
DMG pg 263 "No matter what a rule's source, a rule serves you, not the other way around."
how does your dinosaur shoot out a cowboy? 



Anthropomorphic dinosaur that's packing.
as oposed to the "here wash this" that the wording conjured. 3:15

DMG pg 263 "No matter what a rule's source, a rule serves you, not the other way around."
I think any campaign setting is going to offer tons of choices.  I think it's disingenuous when a player says he can't find something in your campaign to play because you won't allow X.   It really doesn't matter what X is either.

No, I don't design campaign worlds for specific groups.  I design good fun worlds that I think will appeal broadly to D&D players that frequent my games in general.  But I never know in advance who is going to be up for my campaign and I also know that it's likely I will have to turn away some players merely because we are full up.   So no I don't feel a lot of sympathy for someone who comes in having been fully notified of the campaign parameters and demands to break those parameters on day one.  

I am certain that a full motivated DM will provide a far superior campaign than one who reluctantly caves to a bunch of ideas that don't gell with his original concept.   The world just went from exciting and rich to doesn't really matter and thats because it's been illustrated already that it doesn't really matter.

Pretty much DemoMonkey fully represents my view.  He's made some great points on here.  If they aren't convincing I'm not sure I can add much to convince you.  

And of course if the world is really good it will transcend groups.  And it will be the same world.  It won't be a mirror world with changes.  If I can't fit the characters into the game then I am not going to create a mirror world to solve the problem.   I'm coming to think that in the arena of gaming, I'm pretty much the polar opposite of Crimson on everything.

 

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

You can always question the DM.... If gnomes don't exist in my campaign world, then they don't exist. It doesn't matter my reasons.

Yes, it does matter. That is exactly the thing being questioned. Or do you not see how that contradicts the first part of what you said.


I meant that the reason it didn't matter, is the specific reason doesn't matter for my point. It would matter to the game and the player, and unless there was a story reason, I would tell my player why. He may not agree or like the answer, but he's still able to ask. You seem to believe that asking the DM means they have to give in to the player. That is total bullcrap.

if you're going to insist on something just to spite me (which your example player did, IMO)

That's not what happened in the example at all. That that's where everybody's assumptions go whenever a player disagrees, that the player must just be doing it to spite the DM,  just further illustrates the extend of the problem. There was nothing to suggest that the player was doing it to spite the DM, but that's still where everybody turned as a defense tactic, assuming the worst rather than seeing what was really there.


Your example was terrible. Both the characters presented were horribly flawed and unrealistic. The player didn't just disagree. The player insisted that because he didn't feel the DM had a good reason, he had to allow the gnome. That's seems pretty spiteful to me.

I didn't find your example player to be whiny. I did find him to be a jerk, however, for insisting that the DM change his world to accommodate him.

Yes, how dare anyone expect DMs do anything with their players in mind.


Yes, how dare anyone expect Players to play according to the accepted campaign idea in mind

Why should the DM give over to the player in your example?

Because no good reason was presented for them not to. If the only reason that you're going to stand in somebody's way is because you can, that doesn't say much positive about you as a person, must less about your ability to be a good leader or a good DM.


I will agree the DM had no good reason and was being stubborn. He is an flawed and unrealistic character. I never claimed to be like the DM, merely that I felt the player was a jerk. YOU made the assumption about me and you are wrong. While I am not the best DM I know, I am considered quite popular by my game group. You would never agree to me in one of my games, and I would never allow you to play in one. Our styles are too different and neither one of us would compromise with the other (we have no middle ground).

That is your perception of the so called "DM-are-gods" crowd.

Because that's where everybody always turns. Everybody's willing to say that DMs can be jerks sometimes too, but whenever an actual example of it is demonstrated, it's always "Oh, no, that was the player's fault for not realizing that the DM is infallable." They're like politicisns that say "Oh, yes, we definitely want to work toward X!" but then turn around and find some reason to strike down every piece of legislation actually doing that.


You are correct. I didn't mention that the DM in your REALLY BAD EXAMPLE was a jerk. However, you twist the argument just like a politican

You appear to feel that a DM that doesn't give you what they want is a dick.

And even though I've explaned numerous times that's that's not that case and how that's not the case, everybody still ignores all of that and goes right back to that crap about players feeling entitled to get whatever they want even though that has little to nothing to do with it.


You have explained this, but your arguments run contrary to it. That does not feel very convincing.

Why does it miss the point?

Because it fails to meaningfully address at all what was demonstrated. It just goes off into its own random, unrelated tangent.


It's a far better example of what happens in the real world than your crappy example. DMs have preferences. Players have preferences. If they can't get along, they don't play in the same game. That doesn't change their attitudes as people. The player asked to play a forbidden race and was refused. The player left the game but remained friends with the DM.

2) Right on, what domain?  Funnily I've never really been into lycanthropes, more prefer the constant hybrid types.


The campaign crossed domains, but it started out in Darkon.  There was some nice werewolf on wolfwere violence in Kartakass, and one arc where one of the characters was abducted by Mordenheim so he could vivisect him and figure out what made lycanthropy work.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

#BoobsNotBlood

When people start talking about social contracts and applying it to D&D or other games I start to walk out the door.

Stop the H4TE

Pretty much DemoMonkey fully represents my view.  He's made some great points on here.  If they aren't convincing I'm not sure I can add much to convince you.

For what its worth, you don't have to convince me of anything.  Your style of DMing makes perfect sense given the way you describe your group.

It actually fits with supply and demand economics.  You have said that typically you end up with more players wanting to join your game than you can possibly accomodate.  That shifts the power, for lack of a better word, to you.  You are free to set the terms of the game, knowing that you will still end up with a full table.
And of course if the world is really good it will transcend groups.  And it will be the same world.  It won't be a mirror world with changes.  If I can't fit the characters into the game then I am not going to create a mirror world to solve the problem.

This is true for me as well, so it isn't something that depends on your style of DMing.  The world I am using for the game I'm about to start uses the same world that I have used in two past campaigns.  Each time I develop the world a little bit more.  And just like the real world, things change over time.  It is the same world, but that doesn't mean it is static.  There is no need to create a "mirror world", I just refine the actual world.

Thus the addition of Dwarven monastaries whose monks adhere to the Paths of the Phoenix and Stone's Endurance.  They are the keepers of Dwarven lore and law, and are the ones you consult for weddings, funerals, festivals, or questions about Dwarven lore or law.  My world changed, but it is also the same.

And of course if the world is really good it will transcend groups.  And it will be the same world.  It won't be a mirror world with changes.  If I can't fit the characters into the game then I am not going to create a mirror world to solve the problem.

This is true for me as well, so it isn't something that depends on your style of DMing.  The world I am using for the game I'm about to start uses the same world that I have used in two past campaigns.  Each time I develop the world a little bit more.  And just like the real world, things change over time.  It is the same world, but that doesn't mean it is static.  There is no need to create a "mirror world", I just refine the actual world.

Thus the addition of Dwarven monastaries whose monks adhere to the Paths of the Phoenix and Stone's Endurance.  They are the keepers of Dwarven lore and law, and are the ones you consult for weddings, funerals, festivals, or questions about Dwarven lore or law.  My world changed, but it is also the same.



Yes of course I bring greater focus on areas I had only detailed to a higher level as the game progresses.   I also have time pass so things happen even in parts of the world that the players didn't visit.   Five years into a campaign the King of Aragon might be dead and his daughter now rules as Queen.



My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.


And of course if the world is really good it will transcend groups.  And it will be the same world.  It won't be a mirror world with changes.  If I can't fit the characters into the game then I am not going to create a mirror world to solve the problem.

This is true for me as well, so it isn't something that depends on your style of DMing.  The world I am using for the game I'm about to start uses the same world that I have used in two past campaigns.  Each time I develop the world a little bit more.  And just like the real world, things change over time.  It is the same world, but that doesn't mean it is static.  There is no need to create a "mirror world", I just refine the actual world.

Thus the addition of Dwarven monastaries whose monks adhere to the Paths of the Phoenix and Stone's Endurance.  They are the keepers of Dwarven lore and law, and are the ones you consult for weddings, funerals, festivals, or questions about Dwarven lore or law.  My world changed, but it is also the same.



Yes of course I bring greater focus on areas I had only detailed to a higher level as the game progresses.   I also have time pass so things happen even in parts of the world that the players didn't visit.   Five years into a campaign the King of Aragon might be dead and his daughter now rules as Queen.

Awesome.  Then I expect you understand what I am getting at.  When a new player comes in with a character concept that has never been in your world, rather than saying, "But this has never been in my world!" you can ask yourself, "Hmm...how can this exist in my world NOW?"

In a world of magic, litterally ANYTHING is possible.  Time travel, interplanar travel, souls returning from the Realm of the Dead, magical experiment gone wrong, etc.

 Awesome.  Then I expect you understand what I am getting at.  When a new player comes in with a character concept that has never been in your world, rather than saying, "But this has never been in my world!" you can ask yourself, "Hmm...how can this exist in my world NOW?"

In a world of magic, litterally ANYTHING is possible.  Time travel, interplanar travel, souls returning from the Realm of the Dead, magical experiment gone wrong, etc.



Yeah my previous post was essentially an agreement.  I was just adding some examples.

Within reason, I allow a lot.  I think most DM's do.  But I have some guiding visions for a particular campaign world.  They do change from campaign to campaign so a lot of times it's a flavor choice but I think variety is fun.   Limitations in some ways force people to explore areas they've ignored in the past.

If I put in a rule to fix the director mechanic for example, then thats not negotiable at all.  But thats not really what we are talking about here so much.
 

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

Awesome.  Then I expect you understand what I am getting at.  When a new player comes in with a character concept that has never been in your world, rather than saying, "But this has never been in my world!" you can ask yourself, "Hmm...how can this exist in my world NOW?"

In a world of magic, litterally ANYTHING is possible.  Time travel, interplanar travel, souls returning from the Realm of the Dead, magical experiment gone wrong, etc.




The important question that I consider, before deciding on a way if it's possible, is:

How will adding this improve my world?  Will adding this make my world worse?


If I can't think of a way to say 'yes' to the first, then I will be hesitant to add it.  If I can say 'yes' to the second, then I will not add it, period.  Some concepts are so jarring that they damage the world.  No single player is important enough to justify damaging the world to support their concept.  Everyone loses when the world is made worse.
The difference between madness and genius is determined only by degrees of success.
Awesome.  Then I expect you understand what I am getting at.  When a new player comes in with a character concept that has never been in your world, rather than saying, "But this has never been in my world!" you can ask yourself, "Hmm...how can this exist in my world NOW?"

In a world of magic, litterally ANYTHING is possible.  Time travel, interplanar travel, souls returning from the Realm of the Dead, magical experiment gone wrong, etc.

The important question that I consider, before deciding on a way if it's possible, is:

How will adding this improve my world?  Will adding this make my world worse?


If I can't think of a way to say 'yes' to the first, then I will be hesitant to add it.  If I can say 'yes' to the second, then I will not add it, period.  Some concepts are so jarring that they damage the world.  No single player is important enough to justify damaging the world to support their concept.  Everyone loses when the world is made worse.

For me, it would be if it would either improve my world (makes it a no-brainer to add it, I think) or has no effect.

Certainly if adding it makes things worse I would also not add it.  For example, if one of my players said they wanted to make a 300-foot mechanical dragon from the future named Mr Wiggles (he is also a clown).  But I have yet to say no to any reasonable request, even when it involved a race or class that wasn't initially a part of the world (like a Cleric in Dark Sun).

For me, it would be if it would either improve my world (makes it a no-brainer to add it, I think) or has no effect.

Certainly if adding it makes things worse I would also not add it.  For example, if one of my players said they wanted to make a 300-foot mechanical dragon from the future named Mr Wiggles (he is also a clown).  But I have yet to say no to any reasonable request, even when it involved a race or class that wasn't initially a part of the world (like a Cleric in Dark Sun).




There's a difference between "not defined" and "defined to not exist".

The lack of clerics in Dark Sun is a defined part of the world.  The hopelessness of man, the knowledge that there is no afterlife, that it doesn't get better than this, and 'this' pretty much sucks; these are themes of Dark Sun.  Adding a cleric ruins all of that.  A benevolent divine power (even one that is only benevolent to a chosen few and wants to kill the rest) is suddenly a huge difference to the theme and flavor of the world.


For that reason, I would not allow a player to play a cleric in Dark Sun, because it damages the world to add a cleric.  What I would do is ask why they want to play a cleric.

If they don't want to play "a cleric", they want to play "the only cleric in Dark Sun", then I deny them completely.  Your character is special because he is your character.  You don't need to be unique, you don't need to be the only one of your kind, and in my experience the only time a player wants to be unique for the sake of being unique it's for a bad reason.

If, on the other hand, they want to play a tanky melee spellcaster, then we can work something out.  If the system doesn't support it I will homebrew something for them.  A desire to play a tanky melee spellcaster is a playstyle thing, not a desire to be a special snowflake, and I will work to make sure the mechanics can handle that.



If they want to play a warlock from a desert tribe that they want to flavor made a pact with the demon Rahab, and they want to provide the details of the Rahabim, then awesome.  That's an example of something that was not previously defined but fits into the existing world.
The difference between madness and genius is determined only by degrees of success.
For me, if a player wants to play a cleric in dark sun because be likes the mechanics, then together we refluff the mechanics into something palatable to the setting, and have fun.

Nothing about dark sun says there can't be a moderately armored warrior who has some supernatural means of healing and/or supporting allies.
For that reason, I would not allow a player to play a cleric in Dark Sun, because it damages the world to add a cleric.


I respect that you have a different opinion, but I don't think allowing a cleric ruins Dark Sun.  Dark Sun is basically an atheist pessimist dictatorial dream, but allowing a cleric doesn't really change this so long as the religion doesn't take hold beyond the PC.  The rest of the world will just think the PC cleric is some kind of charlatan trying to con people into believing for his own ends.  And, since the deity probably wouldn't be able to materialize in Dark Sun, the cleric would have no real way to prove that his power is divine.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

#BoobsNotBlood

Dark Sun for 4e had a sidebar (on page 9) that adressed the possibility of divine characters in Athas.  No temples or other priests, your PC is, for all intents and purposes, one of a kind.  DM and player work it out.

That's how I've handled 'half-elves' in my 3.5 homebrew, as one of a kind.  They're still super-rare, so the intregrity of the setting was maintained (important to me) and the player got to have some fun with her idea of a character caught between two worlds (she didn't like muls or half-orcs, but elves were cool ;)).  So, we worked it out.
/\ Art
For me, it would be if it would either improve my world (makes it a no-brainer to add it, I think) or has no effect.

Certainly if adding it makes things worse I would also not add it.  For example, if one of my players said they wanted to make a 300-foot mechanical dragon from the future named Mr Wiggles (he is also a clown).  But I have yet to say no to any reasonable request, even when it involved a race or class that wasn't initially a part of the world (like a Cleric in Dark Sun).

The lack of clerics in Dark Sun is a defined part of the world.  The hopeless of man, the knowledge that there is no afterlife, that it doesn't get better than this, and 'this' pretty much sucks; these are themes of Dark Sun.  Adding a cleric ruins all of that.  A benevolent divine power (even one that is only benevolent to a chosen few and wants to kill the rest) is suddenly a huge difference to the theme and flavor of the world.

For that reason, I would not allow a player to play a cleric in Dark Sun, because it damages the world to add a cleric.  What I would do is ask why they want to play a cleric.

I completely disagree.  In fact, I did exactly that in my last campaign.  Not only did it NOT ruin the game, it actually made for a really cool plot line, one that I would never have thought about.

And yes, they were the only divine character in the entire world.

I completely disagree.  In fact, I did exactly that in my last campaign.  Not only did it NOT ruin the game, it actually made for a really cool plot line, one that I would never have thought about.

And yes, they were the only divine character in the entire world.




Different people will have a different bar on what makes the world worse.  Not just different groups, but different people, period.  That's because it is a matter purely of taste.

If you want to run a DS game with a PC cleric who is the only divine character in the world, awesome.  Go nuts.  But that is not a standard DS game, and if I tell you I'm running a standard DS game, you should not expect me to drastically alter the world just so you can be special.




(To others who said it doesn't alter the world:  We clearly have very different definitions of what constitutes 'the world'.  It doesn't matter whether or not other people believe him.  His very existence alters the fundamental themes of the campaign setting.  It's no longer 'this is hopeless and it's not going to get better', it's 'there is hope but most people don't believe it'.  Those campaigns are completely different.)

edit:  BTW I edited my previous post, somehow, though I was pretty sure I had never posted the unedited version.  Whatever!
The difference between madness and genius is determined only by degrees of success.
I completely disagree.  In fact, I did exactly that in my last campaign.  Not only did it NOT ruin the game, it actually made for a really cool plot line, one that I would never have thought about.

And yes, they were the only divine character in the entire world.

If you want to run a DS game with a PC cleric who is the only divine character in the world, awesome.  Go nuts.  But that is not a standard DS game, and if I tell you I'm running a standard DS game, you should not expect me to drastically alter the world just so you can be special.

I wouldn't expect YOU to, because you have made it very clear that you wouldn't.

But even if I was running a "standard" DS game, I would still allow a single player to make a cleric, and I would not think of that as drastically altering the game world.

I completely disagree.  In fact, I did exactly that in my last campaign.  Not only did it NOT ruin the game, it actually made for a really cool plot line, one that I would never have thought about.

And yes, they were the only divine character in the entire world.

If you want to run a DS game with a PC cleric who is the only divine character in the world, awesome.  Go nuts.  But that is not a standard DS game, and if I tell you I'm running a standard DS game, you should not expect me to drastically alter the world just so you can be special.

I wouldn't expect YOU to, because you have made it very clear that you wouldn't.

But even if I was running a "standard" DS game, I would still allow a single player to make a cleric, and I would not think of that as drastically altering the game world.


Actually, if you think about it, the occasional cleric actually reinforces Dark Sun.  Because, even when legitimate divine power manages to leak in, the people are so disillusioned by their faith in godlessness and the crapsack world they live in that real divine power can't gain any footholds or lay down any roots.  It's like dangling hope in front of someone who's so jaded they only see it as a trick.  It's practically definitive of the bleak nature of DS.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

#BoobsNotBlood

I wouldn't expect YOU to, because you have made it very clear that you wouldn't.

But even if I was running a "standard" DS game, I would still allow a single player to make a cleric, and I would not think of that as drastically altering the game world.




The point is as an example, not as you or I specifically.


A reasonable player should not expect a reasonable DM to drastically alter the world specifically to allow that player to be special.  Nor should they expect them to, in any way, make the world worse to acommodate them.


What exactly constitutes 'drastically altering the game world' is going to be different for each person.  Similarly, whether a world becomes better or worse via a specific change is going to be evaluated differently by each person.  There is nothing wrong with disagreeing here.  I'm just trying to point out that in the general case, players should not expect DMs to bend over backwards solely so they can make a PC who is extra-magically super-special, especially not if it is to the detriment of the world as a whole.

You don't need to be the last of something or the only something to be an interesting concept, and if you can't come up with an interesting concept that doesn't rely on there being no one like you, you should probably be aware that not every DM will be willing to acommodate you in every campaign.



Actually, if you think about it, the occasional cleric actually reinforces Dark Sun.  Because, even when legitimate divine power manages to leak in, the people are so disillusioned by their faith in godlessness and the crapsack world they live in that real divine power can't gain any footholds or lay down any roots.  It's like dangling hope in front of someone who's so jaded they only see it as a trick.  It's practically definitive of the bleak nature of DS.



I disagree.  Though don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that's a bad campaign, and I would likely have no objection to playing in it.  But from the perspective of the universe, it is a huge change, even if ordinary people on the ground don't see any difference.
The difference between madness and genius is determined only by degrees of success.
Using the active denial of hope to emphasize hopelessness seems like a great idea to me.
I meant that the reason it didn't matter, is the specific reason doesn't matter for my point.

I have no idea what you just said. Please reword.

You seem to believe that asking the DM means they have to give in to the player.

I've said no such thing. In fact, I'm pretty sure that I've given examples to the contrary.

Your example was terrible.

I don't think that an example that everybody has had to twist around into a strawman in order to argue against is terrible. I think that actually makes it pretty great. We've already been over this, though.

Yes, how dare anyone expect Players to play according to the accepted campaign idea in mind

Accepted and in mind by who? 'Cause if it's just the DM, that ain't nobody.

I will agree the DM had no good reason and was being stubborn.

Then why are you arguing? That was the whole point.
You can hide all you want behind calling it unrealistic, but that doesn't actually change anything. The bottom line is still that that's how people behave and that it's still regarded as normal and even justified, as plenty in this thread have demonstrated.

You have explained this, but your arguments run contrary to it.

I invite you to explain how, if you can.

DMs have preferences. Players have preferences.

Yet when DMs impose their preferences on others without consideration that's normal, but when Players stand up for their own preferences they're jerks... Yeah, I'm seeing a double standard here.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
Real Dark Sun has clerics, they just get their spells from the Elemental Planes/Powers. 

They just don't have paladins.

Someone insisting on playing a paladin in Dark Sun is engaging in rampant douchery. 
Real Dark Sun has clerics, they just get their spells from the Elemental Planes/Powers. 

They just don't have paladins.

Someone insisting on playing a paladin in Dark Sun is engaging in rampant douchery. 



It's easier to say 'cleric' than saying 'divine spellcaster who gets their spells directly from a deity'.


(And an elemental priest is technically a priest, not a cleric >.>  IIRC priest is the class group, cleric is a specific class.  Elemental priest was a type of specialty priest.)
The difference between madness and genius is determined only by degrees of success.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />In a world of magic, litterally ANYTHING is possible.  Time travel, interplanar travel, souls returning from the Realm of the Dead, magical experiment gone wrong, etc.



True.  Doesn't mean I am going to let someone play Doctor Who in my LARP session.


PvP reference ;)
I wonder if this Enormous-Thread on a seemingly Obviously-Answered question is due to the genre setting?  Because its D&D some people may come to a game with an expectation that they can play "X" but if the Referee is building their own setting, X may not be appropriate?

I usually play/run super-hero games.  Each and every one of those games starts of with a description of the world and how it came to be different from the one we are in.  It has to because there is no automatically shared genre.  I have run plenty of campaigns where I said "no powers of type X", usually for theme reasons but sometimes because I just could be bothered with the potential problems they might cause.  But whatever the reasoning behind the edict, these are the rules of the world just as much "You have to roll 3d6 to hit".

Players either want to engage in my world or not, its really that simple.  If they approached me on the lines of "How do you feel about X?" then thats fine and everyone likes decent manners, if they say "I want to play X and nothing else will do!" then they are being a child and need to grow up.

Bottom line: the Referee gets a veto on all aspects of the characters in his/her game.  Simple as that.  Everything else is just manners,
Game theory has to be the most boring topic of debate designed by mankind since organised religion.
Game theory has to be the most boring topic of debate designed by mankind since organised religion.



You obviously didn't share my lecturer on Game Theory ;)
*snip*


Rather than repeating the circular argument that has absolutely no chance of convincing either of us to change our minds, I'll rephrase my opinion as clear as I can.

A game begins when a DM has an idea for a game. That idea can be a specific story, or can just be a sandbox that the players can play in. The DM then sets the rules of character creation. This can be as simple as what Level the PCs start at, or as complicated as picking and choosing individual abilities that are allowed. Some DMs, such as Arithezoo, will set very simple rules, and even the specific rules can be compromised and negotiated. Others, such as myself, feel the idea will be stronger with certain restrictions.

If there is not enough interest in the DMs idea, it dies. This could be because the idea is terrible (and Lord knows I've had quite a few of those ), or because the restrictions of character creation are unacceptable to too many players.

If there is enough interest, then the players have to decide if the game is worth playing. If the restrictions are unacceptable, and the DM is inflexible (like myself), then the player shouldn't play. They would have no fun, and would likely be a detriment to the fun of everyone else.

That is the terms of every D&D game, ever. The DM sets the rules because they are the ones that build the game around their idea. A DM should not run a game they do not enjoy, just as a player should not play in a game they do not enjoy (it's actually worse, because I doubt anyone would be having fun in such a game). Some DMs, like myself, feel that our idea needs certain restrictions. This can be because it's integral to our story (the historical Roman Epic someone mentioned earlier), or because we don't want to deal with certain aspects of the game (Monstrous Humanoids... it's fun to RP the scene when the PC tries to enter a new town the 1st time... not so much the 100th time).

There are jerk DMs and Players out there. Generally, those people are also jerks in real life (I do know of an exception... great guy, but I cannot be in an RPG with him). What makes someone a jerk is subjective: to the person standing fast to his ideals, the other guy is the jerk, while the other guy feels the person standing fast is the jerk. When you think someone else is being a jerk, very likely they think the same about you.

I, as a DM, have never disallowed a specific Race or Class from the PHB in a game, unless it was a single Race campaign (I've done an all Human and an all Elf game, and played in an awesome all Dwarf game). The single race campaign obviously was done for story reasons. I agree that someone is being a jerk to not allow a common race and/or class just because they don't like them, but I also feel the DM has the right to do so. I just wouldn't play in said game.

As far as questioning the DM, I feel you totally have the right to question the DM's restrictions. Most DMs will work with you to make something you like. This can be Arithezoo's re-skinning or a similar idea done within the normal rules. However, if you don't agree with the reason for a restriction, that doesn't give you the right to change or ignore it.

It all goes back to the original point of the thread (which has kinda been lost along the way). There are no rights in D&D, except whether to participate or not. You're not going to play in a game you won't enjoy, and I'm not going to run a game I don't enjoy. If we cannot agree on what's enjoyable, then we should not be in the same game. If I can get enough other people who agree with me on what's enjoyable, then I have a game.
I completely disagree.  In fact, I did exactly that in my last campaign.  Not only did it NOT ruin the game, it actually made for a really cool plot line, one that I would never have thought about.

And yes, they were the only divine character in the entire world.

If you want to run a DS game with a PC cleric who is the only divine character in the world, awesome.  Go nuts.  But that is not a standard DS game, and if I tell you I'm running a standard DS game, you should not expect me to drastically alter the world just so you can be special.

I wouldn't expect YOU to, because you have made it very clear that you wouldn't.

But even if I was running a "standard" DS game, I would still allow a single player to make a cleric, and I would not think of that as drastically altering the game world.


Actually, if you think about it, the occasional cleric actually reinforces Dark Sun.  Because, even when legitimate divine power manages to leak in, the people are so disillusioned by their faith in godlessness and the crapsack world they live in that real divine power can't gain any footholds or lay down any roots.  It's like dangling hope in front of someone who's so jaded they only see it as a trick.  It's practically definitive of the bleak nature of DS.

I agree.  Nothing is quite so horrible as knowing the truth and at the same time knowing that no one will believe you.  I think it is very fitting for a Dark Sun game, but not everyone sees it that way.  No worries though, to each his own!


I agree for the most part.  I just think that a DM's first instinct ought to be "Yes, but in a way that makes sense in the bigger picture".  The player is giving you a way to engage him in your world.  He's offering story hooks built on his/her exceptional status.



The PC's already have exceptional status because they are the protagonists of the story. If someone needs more than that (especially if they are new and asking for something I've decided doesn't exist in my world), then it's a perfectly logical deduction that they need some sort of special snowflake/Mary Sue. I find that distasteful and selfish.

That exceptional status can be an exception to the norms of the world without being an exception to power curves or general level of efficacy of the characters being played.

Not every special snowflake is a mary sue.



Eh....I find that, in general, things that are unique to a game are plenty special on their own right without them having some sort of mechanical benefit over and above everyone else. That may just be me, though.

Now, I've seen it done a time or two. I've actually done it myself, in a way. I've played a character in a global-sized game (with players from literally all over the world) where he was the only one who was a member of a particular faction. However, his base template was the same as everyone else's in the game, so he really wasn't that different from everyone else. (For those familiar, it was a Werewolf: the Forsaken game, and my character had a Tribe and Auspice like everyone else, but he was the only member of his Lodge in play. That was it.)

Conversely, in my friend's Pathfinder game, I'm playing a Druid/Ranger. Run-of-the-mill character classes, nothing special about him at all, fairly standard Ability scores. The only thing setting him apart was my portrayal of the character. I based his personality somewhat off of Bradley Cooper's character in Silver Lining Playbook (which is a wonderful movie; I recommend watching it). His lack of social graces, inability to grasp certain nuances of "civilized society," and direct and to-the-point methods of problem solving set him apart from the other characters, while staying well within the class/race restrictions, and fitting perfectly into the world.

Personally, I prefer rewarding players who bring something to their role (character) that sets them apart while keeping within the boundaries of the game world and shared experience. As my group is comprised mostly of actors, this works for us and results in games with plenty of roleplaying and good times. It might not work for other groups, and that's fine for those other groups. The only thing I fervently disagree with in this thread is some folks seemingly calling down those who do things differently.

For those confused on how DDN's modular rules might work, this may provide some insight: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/11/the-world-of-darkness-shines-when-it-abandons-canon

@mikemearls: Uhhh... do you really not see all the 3e/4e that's basically the entire core system?

 

It is entirely unnecessary to denigrate someone else's approach to gaming in order to validate your own.


I've never run a truly all anthro campaign before (though it sounds like fun).  The closest I ever came to that was running an all werewolf campaign in Ravenloft.



That sounds fun, but then, if I'm going to run a werewolf game, I'm going to run Werewolf: the Forsaken. Maybe that's just me, though. ;)

For those confused on how DDN's modular rules might work, this may provide some insight: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/11/the-world-of-darkness-shines-when-it-abandons-canon

@mikemearls: Uhhh... do you really not see all the 3e/4e that's basically the entire core system?

 

It is entirely unnecessary to denigrate someone else's approach to gaming in order to validate your own.

I agree that someone is being a jerk to not allow a common race and/or class just because they don't like them

Then I don't know why you're arguing with me.

but I also feel the DM has the right to do so.

People generally do have the right to be a jerk. What they don't have is the right not to get called out on it.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
There is a sublte distinction between defining and defending your world and your vision and doing the same for your player's world.

To put it another way, are your choices and restrictions there to make the game and setting more aesthetically pleasing and enjoyable to you, or are the choices and restrictions something to make the game better for the people playing the game?

Yes, your engagment will have an impact on how much fun is had.  But so will the enagement and enjoyment of the other folk at your table.
In general, I think that

1) The DM should brief players beforehand -- before they even start thinking about characters.  Sometimes what sounds cool to you may sound intolerable to the table.  Mass negative feedback to the brief is an indication to change something about it.

2) A player who's ok with the briefing and then comes to the table with a concept that ignores it does not need to be accomodated.  A DM may choose to invent or allow some contrived workaround, but is under no obligation to do so.  Most people have a wellspring of ideas deeper than one character, and it's no shame to ask them to draw upon it when they come to the table knowing that thing X is not OK.


(Probably the best example of this is a 3.x game I'm playing in.  The game is psionics-themed, and neither elves nor arcane casters exist in the ordinary sense, nor are avaliable as player characters.  You could not be a sorcerer, wizard, bard, duskblade, hexblade, wu-jen or the like.  Warlocks might have been ok and artificers would have been, though nobody tried that since part of the point we all agreed to was messing around with Psionics.  The reason for this was a big plot point: the elves in this world are fey creatures and masters of arcane magic, as well as being one of the main sets of antagonists.  It never came up, but if it had, the DM would have been within her rights to forbid someone who wanted to come to the table with an elf wizard, since that's not how this world works.  Could a PC elf wizard be a planar traveller or other one off occurance?  Maybe, but there is nothing inherantly wrong with saying 'no'.)

"Enjoy your screams, Sarpadia - they will soon be muffled beneath snow and ice."

 

Follow me to No Goblins Allowed

A M:tG/D&D message board with a good community and usable software

 


THE COALITION WAR GAME -Phyrexian Chief Praetor
Round 1: (4-1-2, 1 kill)
Round 2: (16-8-2, 4 kills)
Round 3: (18-9-2, 1 kill)
Round 4: (22-10-0, 2 kills)
Round 5: (56-16-3, 9 kills)
Round 6: (8-7-1)

Last Edited by Ralph on blank, 1920


I agree for the most part.  I just think that a DM's first instinct ought to be "Yes, but in a way that makes sense in the bigger picture".  The player is giving you a way to engage him in your world.  He's offering story hooks built on his/her exceptional status.



The PC's already have exceptional status because they are the protagonists of the story. If someone needs more than that (especially if they are new and asking for something I've decided doesn't exist in my world), then it's a perfectly logical deduction that they need some sort of special snowflake/Mary Sue. I find that distasteful and selfish.



Asking to be an exception to your 'not allowed' list does not automaticaly equate to asking to exist abouve the power curve for your campaign. 

I think its distasteful and selfish to reject something out of hand rather than to try and work to create a memorable campaign.


That exceptional status can be an exception to the norms of the world without being an exception to power curves or general level of efficacy of the characters being played.

Not every special snowflake is a mary sue.



Eh....I find that, in general, things that are unique to a game are plenty special on their own right without them having some sort of mechanical benefit over and above everyone else. That may just be me, though.


Are you incapable as a DM of counter proposing something that satisfies the disires of the player requesting X but doesn't provide a mechanical benefit over and above everyone else? 


Now, I've seen it done a time or two. I've actually done it myself, in a way. I've played a character in a global-sized game (with players from literally all over the world) where he was the only one who was a member of a particular faction. However, his base template was the same as everyone else's in the game, so he really wasn't that different from everyone else. (For those familiar, it was a Werewolf: the Forsaken game, and my character had a Tribe and Auspice like everyone else, but he was the only member of his Lodge in play. That was it.)


If you had a special attachement to that Lodge, and it was generally banned, I would hope that a GM would encourage request it and find a way to work it into the game if doing so would make you more involved in the game.



Conversely, in my friend's Pathfinder game, I'm playing a Druid/Ranger. Run-of-the-mill character classes, nothing special about him at all, fairly standard Ability scores. The only thing setting him apart was my portrayal of the character. I based his personality somewhat off of Bradley Cooper's character in Silver Lining Playbook (which is a wonderful movie; I recommend watching it). His lack of social graces, inability to grasp certain nuances of "civilized society," and direct and to-the-point methods of problem solving set him apart from the other characters, while staying well within the class/race restrictions, and fitting perfectly into the world.


I once played an Archivist who was agnostic approaching athiestic.  She was however a collector of lore and had a quiet contemplative nature that allowed her to understand the 'technology' of the magic inside the religious ritual.   The general rules for the setting required a divine patron for all divine spell casting.  The DM waved that requirement for my character, and the campaign was better for it.


Personally, I prefer rewarding players who bring something to their role (character) that sets them apart while keeping within the boundaries of the game world and shared experience. As my group is comprised mostly of actors, this works for us and results in games with plenty of roleplaying and good times. It might not work for other groups, and that's fine for those other groups. The only thing I fervently disagree with in this thread is some folks seemingly calling down those who do things differently.




Not every special request is game breaking.  Many that seem imbalanced at first have a compromise that validates the player's desires while not disturbing the setting or game balance . . . if you bother to look for it.

Sign In to post comments