Just because people have no other options does not mean that the should be playing. Thinking otherwise is giving in to "geek fallacy". Sometimes people should not be playing together regardless of how good friends they are. My best friend does not play in my fantasy campaign. Why? He has a hard time playing a heroic character. If someone pisses off his character, he will attack that offending character regardless of the offense. I am not willing to run for psychotic PCs. Only once did he play a character that fit the group- a barbarian that was kept in check by the party druid whom was a religious leader among his people and capable of elevating the barbarian's status or ruining the barbarian's eventual goal of leading his people. It made great comic relief. However, it was a struggle for my friend not to cut loose (The running joke is that no matter how often he plays Baldur's Gate, he can start off with LG characters and part way they will be hunted for atrocities. He also takes pride in that).
D&D 5E World-Building DMs
Just because people have no other options does not mean that the should be playing. Thinking otherwise is giving in to "geek fallacy". Sometimes people should not be playing together regardless of how good friends they are. My best friend does not play in my fantasy campaign. Why? He has a hard time playing a heroic character. If someone pisses off his character, he will attack that offending character regardless of the offense. I am not willing to run for psychotic PCs. Only once did he play a character that fit the group- a barbarian that was kept in check by the party druid whom was a religious leader among his people and capable of elevating the barbarian's status or ruining the barbarian's eventual goal of leading his people. It made great comic relief. However, it was a struggle for my friend not to cut loose (The running joke is that no matter how often he plays Baldur's Gate, he can start off with LG characters and part way they will be hunted for atrocities. He also takes pride in that).
Celebrim
Legend
This I never understand. Why do you pitch mechanics as your character? Why are you devoted to particular game mechanics?
I run a very tight campaign in terms of mechanical options, and the campaign is in that 5-10 year phase you mention.
If you come to me and say, "I want to play this dragon-guy with scales, fire-breathing, and mind powers.", I'm going to be like, "Ok, we can do that. No problem. Here's how you get started with that concept, and here is a plan for getting all the stuff you want in a reasonable time frame."
But if you come to me and say, "I want to play this character that uses a point based magic, and gets a bonus to strength.", I'm going to be like, "That's not even a character. That's just a collection of numbers. What do you actually want to play?" I feel under some obligation to make available the components for a reasonably broad selection of archetypes and character concepts. I don't really feel under the obligation as a DM to make available any particular mechanic for implementing a character, as long as their is some mechanic. Are you really saying you are loyal to the mechanics, or are you just thinking it would be cool to play someone scaly with draconic heritage?
I mean, I guess in theory I can see someone having this awesome idea for a character only he just absolutely has to come from a whole race of humanoid dragonkin or it just doesn't work, but right at the moment I can't think of what idea that might be.
Mostly I find some characters are just dial fiddlers that like playing around with the system as a game of itself. They are the sort of player that has 2 backup characters already created just because they play character creation as it was a stand alone game. And in my experience, so long as you give them enough dials to turn, they are happy. You don't have to give them specific dials to turn, just a sufficiently bewildering array of them. At least, I haven't run into a character that was like, "Gosh darn it, I'm standing on this mechanic."
Or if you say, "I want to play a gnome bard.", I'm going to be like, "So, you want to play a 3' tall, charming, bearded, trickster forest inhabitant with affinity for burrowing animals and some minor magical powers? That's just fine, but does it have to be called a 'gnome'?"
For me, the real sticking point as a DM that I wrestle with the most is whether to offer a 'monk' type character as a legitimate option. I just cringe at the whole 'I beat things with my fists, because they work better than weapons' archetype. It drives me nuts. But some players are like really into the whole, "I'm a guy in a gi running around punching things." idea. It's sort of available in the rules, but it just isn't quite there. You'll never be as competent at beating things down as a guy that invests in doing the same thing while holding pointy bits of metal, or who says, "I can beat things up, because... magic." And I know it makes some of my players disappointed. And I likewise know that I could just allow a PC and ignore the implications for the world. But it is a bridge too far for me.... so far. I don't feel remotely bad at saying, "No gnomes, no halflings, no drow, no dragonborn, no half-orcs... I've got some homebrew races you can look at." But no 'monks' does make me feel slightly guilty.
Chaosmancer
Legend
This is something I don't get. It just doesn't compute, perhaps because I never got a chance to actually play DnD until 4e (DM ran Darksun) so most of those races seem standard DnD to me.
Let's take my current character. I wanted to play a Tiefling Storm Sorcerer who was a jeweler (using the Unearthed Arcana Storm Sorcerer). Started life as a street rat, broke into a shop and got a magic gem embedded into his hand that was a shard of elemental power, owner of the shop trained him to be a jeweler. I liked the idea of the gem accident giving me magic, so perhaps the Tiefling part wasn't core to my concept, but it has played an important part of my characters development and relationships.
If I'd gone to your campaign and pitched this idea, and you'd said no, I'd probably ask "Why?" If your answer was I don't allow Tieflings in my game I'd ask why again. If your answer was because I don't like them, I'd be quite taken aback, if it is an issue with their demonic lineage I might have offered suggestions to make it work. I could play a different character, I generally have a few concepts bouncing around, but to approach a table and have my character summarily dismissed over their race, when I'm not going out and finding obscure 3rd party lore no one has heard of, seems utterly alien to me.
Why take a packaged concept and tear it apart to its component parts? If I pitch my Gnome Cleric idea (my next character if I get the chance) it isn't because I want to play "a charming 3 ft tall forest trickster with fey heritage and divine magic powers". It's because I want to play a Gnome and explore the ideas of the Gnomish pantheon and the "Lost Sisters".
I also like the mechanics. The advantage against all mental magics makes my character very difficult to befuddle or confuse, and fits greatly into my concept of a very devout individual who is highly resistant to mind altering effects. Once I have a concept I marry mechanics with lore and backgrounds. For example, this particular idea needed an explanation for why my cleric has a dex with a negative modifier. I decided a childhood accident crushed one of his legs (thinking he got ran over by a farm wagon, but it could also be a tinkering or mining accident) which led to him not being able to work as his family expected. This led to his teacher taking him in as a hermit and follower of a different sect of the pantheon with some odd beliefs.
Mechanics leads to fluff leads to mechanics. There doesn't need to be a stark divide of "the player wants these abilities" and "the player wants this lore", in my experience they go hand in hand.
L
lowkey13
Guest
*Deleted by user*
Hussar
Legend
Lowkey said:
See, but, here's the rub - why does that have to be 100% on the players? Why is it the players have to learn to accept "no"? Isn't there some point where the DM should put aside his ego and let the player have what the player wants? It's all very well and good to talk about "respect for the DM", but, that's a two way street. Again, presuming everyone is acting in good faith, the player isn't trying to "pull a fast one" when he asks to play a gnome in the game. The player has a concept that the player feels fits with the campaign.
Now, there's certainly reasons that are a lot easier to accept than others. If I'm running a specific setting, for example, and that setting doesn't have gnomes, or has very specific gnomes, then sure, no worries. I mean, if someone pitched a cannibal halting in my Forgotten Realms game, it would be a pretty hard sell. OTOH, if the PC fits within the campaign, but the DM is simply vetoing it because the DM doesn't like it, then I generally don't feel comfortable with that.
Then again, as a DM, given the choice between having an enthusiastic player who is engaged with his character and protecting the setting, I'll get out the magic eraser and change my setting at the drop of a hat. Does not bother me in the slightest. Settings are there to serve the characters, not the other way around.
L
lowkey13
Guest
*Deleted by user*
TwoSix
Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer
I think that whether the game world or the characters are the focus of the game is a pretty powerful aesthetic consideration that drives a lot of the fundamental differences in the various camps of play styles.
Absolutely the DM has to learn to accept "no". As soon as the DM has too few players willing to play the game he has set up, he has to accept "no" from his player base and pitch something new.
L
lowkey13
Guest
*Deleted by user*
Although it is true there are almost always more players than DMs and filling a table isn't too difficult in areas where gamers can be found, the time it becomes more relevant is when the DM is picky about which players he wants to DM for. If you really want to include a specific person then you best make sure that person wants to play your current offering.
