DM's forfeit power

[Gold Roger]

Nope. The DM's creative input is labeled creative input. What the players do to a DM who is abusing his position by irrationally flinging fiat and whim like so much monkey poo upon his gaming group is surely what the DM deserves. Don't nitpick or you lose the importance of the sentiment. (And I'm looking at you, too, Gold Roger! Though, a happy belated B-Day to you, all the same . . . )

Uhu. Really, my so called nitpick was just an example for a different position. It carries little overall importance to my eventual point, nor did I quote it to single your position.

Sure, the DM's creative input is important and shouldn't be completely opposed by the players. But my point is, when you have players quoting rules to gain power over the DM, you've got a problem, a power conflict in the group, and not a problem with the rules.

The only point of my quote was that the sentiment of ultimate DM empowerment can be just as detrimental to the game as any power struggle in the group.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

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

Because some people use the rules to create half-flumph half-clam chowder ranger/druid/paladin/mage/sorceror/bards with their favourite min/maxed feat combination, others create the perfect roleplaying Tragic Heroine with the long floaty dress but no skills relevant to the campaign, others create the dreaded misunderstood drow with the pair of scimitars, and nobody's willing to be the cleric despite the fact that the DM's spent $120 and six months of preparation time on a game entitled "Megadungeon of the Living Dead."

 

[ashockney]

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?

The difference being that in 1st Edition, the characters were essentially vanilla. You knew your role when rolling up a character...I'll be the tank, but the random component of your attributes helped to decide what kind of tank - Fighter/Ranger/Paladin/Cavalier. Once this was set, you were pretty much clear where you were going to end up. These abilities were essentially "vanilla" concepts that matched the concept of "tank". In my own experience, at least, however, in 1st Edition the random traeasures, random abilities, and lack of prestige classes, templates, feats, etc made it such that you and your DM would react to the events that happened in the campaign to change and alter your character, beyond what was in the book. I had two fighters who fought side by side from 1st through 15th level. They started looking and fighting very, very similiarly, but by the end of the campaign, they were monumentally different.

 

[Melan]

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

The claimant attitude does it. It is as if I "owe" it to the player so his character gets there. I am not willing to make such guarantees.

 

[Numion]

The claimant attitude does it. It is as if I "owe" it to the player so his character gets there. I am not willing to make such guarantees.

I think hussar was saying there's no harm in planning. It is you who took it as meaning 'owing' something. That's not the case.

I've got my RttToEE binder full of scrapped character plans - i.e. dead PCs that got killed in it. I had no trouble allowing their planned (or not) characters, they still had to face the adventure.

When I said that I control the world and players control the PCs, I meant that I also control all the nasty stuff that can kill PCs. That Black Pudding (or whatever) is not interested in plans. It's just hungry.

 

[Hussar]

Because some people use the rules to create half-flumph half-clam chowder ranger/druid/paladin/mage/sorceror/bards with their favourite min/maxed feat combination, others create the perfect roleplaying Tragic Heroine with the long floaty dress but no skills relevant to the campaign, others create the dreaded misunderstood drow with the pair of scimitars, and nobody's willing to be the cleric despite the fact that the DM's spent $120 and six months of preparation time on a game entitled "Megadungeon of the Living Dead."

But, that's a player issue. Like I said in my post, assume for a second that the player isn't out to screw over the campaign. The player is willing to take characters which fit in the campaign setting. In other words, I'm willing to assume that most players are fairly reasonable.

Tossing up straw men isn't really helping your case very much. If the DM says that he wants to run "Megadungeon of the Living Dead", part of the social contract between the players and DM is that they actually want to play in this game.

However, just because the DM doesn't happen to like my character concept, so long as it fits within the parameters of the campaign, he can take a jump in the lake if he thinks that his vision for my character should trump my own. Note, there is the proviso there of the character actually fitting within the campaign setting. That's a given. If I'm deliberately trying to play characters that don't fit within the setting, that's a player issue and needs to be dealt with.

But, if the campaign is set in Faerun and there are no particular in game reasons why not, what's the problem with me playing a Drizz't clone?

The claimant attitude does it. It is as if I "owe" it to the player so his character gets there. I am not willing to make such guarantees.

But, there is no claimant attitude at all. I'm planning in my head that IF I get to level X, I will take Class A. If I get to level Y, I will take a level in Class B. There's no owing here at all, implicit or otherwise. It's no different than the fighter player thinking, "Hey, when I hit 9th level, I get all those juicy followers". It's not a case of entitlement beyond what's actually encoded in the rules.

Or is there something wrong with my fighter character saving up money so he can construct a keep and get followers?

 

[Umbran]

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

There are a few legitimate reasons why a GM might not want the pre-planning. The two that come to mind most quickly are:

The GM may not want such a strong focus on the mechanics that might preclude free reaction to events in the campaign.

If some of the players are not particularly good at or interested in powergaming, the preplanned character may not be balanced with the rest of the party.

Assume for a moment that I'm a reasonable player and I'm not out to screw the campaign.

Note that you don't have to intend to screw the game up to achieve that end. Simply wanting the best you can personally manage for yourself can occasionally throw things out of kilter. Please remember that a good GM has more than you in mind when decisions like this are made.

I'm really confused as to why DM's feel threatened by this.

Well, by phrasing it that way, you're kind of assuming that the GM looks upon it as an adversarial thing. If you're willing to assume it, why shouldn't they? The behavior is entirely logical if everyone is in GM vs Players mode of thought...

 

[Henry]

But, there is no claimant attitude at all. I'm planning in my head that IF I get to level X, I will take Class A. If I get to level Y, I will take a level in Class B. There's no owing here at all, implicit or otherwise. It's no different than the fighter player thinking, "Hey, when I hit 9th level, I get all those juicy followers". It's not a case of entitlement beyond what's actually encoded in the rules.

As long as this assumes it's a class that the DM has not denied for reasons of overpowerment, then there wouldn't be anything wrong with it. Alternately, if it's not a class that he hasn't denied for flavor reasons ("Master of Double-Sword" in a world where he vetoed Two-Bladed swords because of their lack of real-world precedent) there there's no problem. You've noted a willingness to accept DM strictures on classes/feats/PrC's, but not all do.

It's when a player wants something outside the parameters the DM has set that conflict usually arises. I have not in 25 years seen a DM who rejected a character for picking a class that was permitted at the start of the campaign. I have, however, seen rejection of a class at the start for balance or flavor reasons. Not everything WotC publishes is balanced for all campaigns, and although one player may know this, not all do and assume the DM is trying to screw them out of their fun. No matter the ruleset, lack of DM-player trust will screw a game, because the DM wins in an adversarial game, hands down; and then everybody loses.

 

[Greg K]

Reasons, I might say no

1. You decided to have your character accompany the others to a remote area of the continent where they have spent the past several months adventuring. Unfortunately, the PRC that you want for your character is only available in one country located clear across the continent.

2. Your character has no idea that the PrC exists.

 

[Hussar]

Oh, hey, as I said, there's no problems with the DM saying "No." I actually specifically said this. The DM's campaign is his and elements within the game should fit. Thus, when the Forsaken elf player in my Scarred Lands campaign wanted a PrC that gave his barbarian divine rage, I said no. Forsaken Elves are forsaken because they don't have access to a diety. It didn't fit with established elements in the game.

But, again, this is world's apart from the DM saying, "You must". When the DM decides that his version of my character is better than my own, that's a problem.

To give a personal example again. In my World's Largest Dungeon game, a player who had gone through four characters in six sessions came up with a new concept. The ultimate saving machine. A monk/paladin/Pious Templar (eventually) with saving throws absolutely through the roof. Can't fight worth spit, but, man, he never fails a saving throw.

Now, I was rather blunt and said that this character isn't all that good. Sure, it makes saving throws, but, it can't do any damage, which is usually considered a bad thing for a fighting character. Poor BAB compared to a single classed paly, bad monk abilities, it's just a watered down concept. But, the player stuck to his guns and ran with it. And, considering that it wasn't actually violating anything established in the campaign, I let it come in.

Sir Alex the Lucky has become a pretty solid character. Took a bit of creativity from the player, but, he's actually not too shabby at holding his own. Definitely not a bad second stringer. And, he makes the ultimate trap finder. He's happy, he found a niche and a character that's actually managed to survive a surprisingly long time.

It's his character. So long as he's happy, why should I care? I don't change my adventures to suit the players. They are what they are. It's up to them to figure out how to get their square pegs through my round holes. (Oh man did that come out wrong.)

Now, I'll admit that my game's a fair bit looser than many. I don't have a particular campaign setting really, so, flavour issues are less of a concern. But, I've really learned in the last year or so that my opinions of a given character could quite possibly be wrong and the person running the PC probably knows it better than I do.