DM interference - how much is too much?

I think it’s perfectly acceptable for a DM to veto certain options that clash with their world, or have previously been established as verboten, or work with the player to come to a harmonious middle ground. If I say all elves wear masks in my world because they get bored looking at the same face for centuries, you either have to have your elf wear a mask, or come up with why they’re different and deal with the consequences.

But this seems to be none of those things. A DM can't just make your character for you (unless asked to do so). As others have said, I’d recommend just talking to the DM about this.

We’ve all known plenty of DMs that have more of an interest in just narrating a story than allowing free choice – it’s not always easy to let go of that at first, but ultimately working together to tell the tale is far more fun, as the PCs can take “your story” in wonderfully unexpected directions. Because really, it's everyone's story at the table.

WolfWhale said:

..my DM has dictated that I must:

-Be a cheery character

Click to expand...

This right here is too much DM control. I reserve my right to play a grumpy .

Everything else is fine though.

Just say no. The DM should know better.

So he wants:

• Cheery, impoverished noble with wanderlust/thirst for adventure whose backstory can't exceed 1-2 sentences.
• LG human Paladin (Devotion) of Bahamut/Tyr/Torm.
• Can't choose to take a feat for being human or for 4th level.
• Uses a two-handed weapon chosen from readily available starting gear.

That's an oddly specific character - maybe he wants someone who's able to use some powerful, possibly intelligent, holy two-handed weapon that will feature in his campaign? As others have said, it's probably best to ask him why he wants this.

Personally, if someone asked me this, I actually might offer to take over the campaign so he can play this character he seems to be so interested in. *shrug*

So, looking at his list that I found unreasonable, here is what I think could be reasonable:

"Be a character with a heroic motivation (if every other character in the party had a heroic motivation or a heroic plotline was ongoing)"
"Have a motivation for adventuring."
"Be of a race that is plausible the setting where you are being introduced."
"Use the same rules every other PC is using."
"Be a useful character that contributes something to party success."
"Be of an alignment that is compatible with the alignment of the rest of the group."
"Have no expectations that your backstory alone will yield a tangible mechanical benefit or some large net positive social benefit. Have no expectations that your backstory will take precedence in party goals over shared goals or the main ongoing story."
"Make mechanical choices that are justified by your background. Have no expectation that unusual backstory allows you to break any rules of the game or qualifies you for some unusual perk or variation not already provided for by the rules."
"Have only gear that a starting character might have, plus any gear that the DM selects as appropriate to a character of your level. Have no expectation that you can pick your own unusual or customized gear without discussing it with the DM."
"Must worship deities common to the region, and compatible with your alignment and the general ethos of the group."

If confronted with a DM with far more stringent requirements than that, I'd expect some sort of reasonable explanation. Its not unknown when joining an established group for the DM to hand you the character sheet of a former NPC and say something like, "Right now the group is in the 83rd layer of the Abyss, and there really aren't a lot of options for a random stranger to just join the party in a plausible manner. However, you can play the NPC Lord Brightshield..." But that doesn't really sound like the situation described by the OP.

While the DM may restric choices, what he's doing is preventing choices.

I'd say, discuss it, if he won't budge, walk.

That said, many people don't like playing with non-happy characters in the party.

Where others see a meddling DM, I see an epic opportunity to create a two page long sentence.

Then I would tell off the DM and create a PC I actually want to play.

What you should do:

Talk to your DM, and explain that you don't like him making your character for you.

What you should NOT do:

Be vindictive, agree to play the character and get the character killed ASAP. That is disruptive. If you don't want to play the character, then refuse to play him.

Depending on your group, character creation can be a collaborative process. But there are limits to how much a DM should be involved with it. This is obviously way over that line.

It sounds more like a pregen the GM should be creating.

I would say ask him why he wants this, and only play if he gives a satisfactory answer.