DM's forfeit power

[ashockney]

What if...

What if in a model like third edition...

Assuming a typical campaign goes 20 levels, has 200,000gpv worth of treasure, and has stats from a 28 point buy.

What if a DM had control of 5 levels, 100,000gpv worth of treasure and 4 points of point buy. All prestige classes. All magic items of gpv 50,000 and over, and any spell of 5th level and above.

During organic character development, you might get a template, you might start the game with a unique race, you might get a holy avenger, you might become the smartest man alive...

But you won't know until you try...

 

[Hussar]

To reply to Ashockney.

My character is MINE. You're the DM. You get to control 99.99 per cent of the campaign. You create the situations, you create the background, you create every possible detail in the campaign including base requirements for participating in the campaign (like disallowing warforged ninjas frex).

Why can't DM's keep their grubby paws off my character?

Assume for a moment that I'm a reasonable player and I'm not out to screw the campaign. I create a character that fits with the tone and setting and I don't go beyond the bounds set by the DM - ie. no new books or whatnot. I'm a pretty good guy to play with.

Now, what is wrong with me, within the bounds of the campaign, thinking that I'll take x feat at y level which leads me to taking Z feat at three levels later? Why is it a bad thing that I am aiming for a particular PrC from level 1? It's MY character. He'll grow how I want him to. If you want to play a character, play your own.

I'm really confused as to why DM's feel threatened by this. Sure, if my character has goals that the DM isn't planning on, it might require some concessions both ways, but, really, the DM should keep his fingers off my character.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

I have wanted to play a dervish sense cw came out, but i have been playing a druid for about 2 years now. We are starting a new game, Am I bad for wanting to be one and plan him out so i can get into dervish as early as possible, while aslo makeing it effective, and usefull? i dont think im sacraficing roleplaying, or spontnaity. I dont think its your class that defines you. I tend to beleave that its you who defines your class.

 

[Kishin]

To reply to Ashockney.

My character is MINE. You're the DM. You get to control 99.99 per cent of the campaign. You create the situations, you create the background, you create every possible detail in the campaign including base requirements for participating in the campaign (like disallowing warforged ninjas frex).

Why can't DM's keep their grubby paws off my character?

Assume for a moment that I'm a reasonable player and I'm not out to screw the campaign. I create a character that fits with the tone and setting and I don't go beyond the bounds set by the DM - ie. no new books or whatnot. I'm a pretty good guy to play with.

Now, what is wrong with me, within the bounds of the campaign, thinking that I'll take x feat at y level which leads me to taking Z feat at three levels later? Why is it a bad thing that I am aiming for a particular PrC from level 1? It's MY character. He'll grow how I want him to. If you want to play a character, play your own.

I'm really confused as to why DM's feel threatened by this. Sure, if my character has goals that the DM isn't planning on, it might require some concessions both ways, but, really, the DM should keep his fingers off my character.

QFT. If you're going to tell your players what to play and how to play it, write a novel.

 

[Whisper72]

Hmm.... I wonder to which extend the planning of characters coincides with the planning of campaigns by DMs? In most campaigns I run as a DM, sure there is some overarching plot, sure there are plenty subplots. However, even I myself do not know what is going to happen and how things are going to unfold. I leave a lot up to what PC's do or do not do. But the flip side of that is that, although theinput of the PC's is important for the unfolding of the campaign, it is less possible for them to plan ahead, in the sense that they do not know what skills etc. will be most useful for the campaign ahead.

When the campaign has been pretty much 'set in stone', then the PC's also have sort of an idea of what the mood of the campaign is like and will be for the next 20 levels.

Just a thought...

 

[MerricB]

Hmm.... I wonder to which extend the planning of characters coincides with the planning of campaigns by DMs?

I can say that in my campaigns, the selection of prestige classes *definitely* impacts upon the course of the campaign.

In my first 3e campaign, one of the players wanted to play a Shadowdancer. As a result, a big plot thread was introduced into the campaign that made the Shadowdancers (servants of Xan Yae) very important. At the point at which that player had inadvertently betrayed the shadowdancers to their enemies, there was a real sense of great story in the campaign.

In my current 3.5e campaign, the choice of an Arcane Hierophant and a Fochluchan Lyrist have modified my plans for how the bardic college and church of Ehlonna interact in the campaign. There's a bunch of stuff I've created because the players chose what they did, which wouldn't otherwise have seen the light of day - and I believe the campaign is better for it.

D&D is a co-operative venture to me. As the DM, I control a lot of what happens in the campaign (such as saying "no half-orcs, monks or barbarians, they don't fit the campaign"), but for concepts that fit within it and extend its boundaries, I'm more than happy to see them.

If the players are entertaining me and surprising me with their good play, in addition to them enjoying what I'm throwing at them, then things are going well.

Cheers!

 

[Hussar]

On the other side of the coin. How is planning 20 levels of a character any different than how it worked in other editions?

I mean, in 1e or 2e, if you took class X, you knew exactly what your character would look like mechanically at level 20. The charts told you. Unless you dual classed which was exceedingly rare. If you took a Magic User at 1st level, you knew that at 18th level, you would cast 9th level spells. The entire class was mapped out for you and there was little you could do to change that.

Is it really so different if I plan to play a Mystic Theurge in a game where it is not out of place? My MT is going to have 3 levels of Cleric, 3 of Wizard (likely) and then take levels of MT. I've got 16 levels of class planned out in my head at level 1. Where's the problem?

 

[Moon-Lancer]

I very much agree with the above. Go old school and plan that charicter... dont forget the backstory.

 

[Numion]

Why can't DM's keep their grubby paws off my character?

W3RD

Realizing, as a DM, that forcing my input on PCs is not really required for the players to enjoy their characters, was one of the milestones of becoming a better DM, for me at least.

I do give ideas sometimes for background, like "You wanna play a psychic warrior but have no idea for history? Hmm .. say he's a some kind of escaped Illithid test subject with amnesia - I can make an adventure out of that later on".

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, I can get on board with that. For my World's Largest Dungeon camp, about the only limitations to new characters were that I had to at least be able to read the character class and it didn't try to do an end run around some or all of the restrictions of the WLD. Ie. No Vow of Poverty since that pretty much allowed the PC to ignore the problems of resource management.

With my Shelzar campaign previously, the only restrictions I had was that the character had to fit with Scarred Lands. So, that knocked out a number of the campaign specific stuff for Greyhawk or FR. Again, not a huge problem.

I have no problems with the DM saying "NO". I have huge problems with the DM saying, "You must..."