I could use some advice

[DWARF]

I'm doing things just like Forceuser's DM, but that's just out of neccessity. Since all of my group (and myself) are all in Universtiy, time is limited. So it's tough enough to get them to read the combat rules and think about a character. So I end up making characters for them. It's just easier both ways, and they just enjoy playing!

If one of them dies and wants to make their own, great! Less work for me!

 

[Numion]

Reality being that a game can go on with a missing player, but not a missing DM, you ForceUser shouldn't go up against the DM with 'shields up'. You should see what he has in store before you leave the group. (And that is whats going to happen. If a player is unhappy, he leaves. Not the DM.)


In a way I agree with DrMidnight. I wouldn't try to force ready PCs to my players, but I decide what kind of campaign we play. This is my hobby, I don't get paid for it, and I'm not going to bother hours of planning/doing work for some campaign I don't like/am not interested in. So yes, the DMs grande 'vision' really is more important than your feat selection or any other stuff on your character sheet.

If some player told me that he doesn't like the campaign I'm starting (like you did to your DM, ForceUser), of course I'd say to him 'Fine. Don't play then.' In my experience it takes tens of hours for the DM to prepare for a new campaign. Player manages in a half hour. (of which most is spent on optimization of feats etc.., and background is added as an afterthought / justification for all the wacky mechanical stuff).

 

[The Kender]

Am I the only sane person here? I think the most fun part about D&D is creating your own character and watching him or her grow to become(insert dream/goal here). I say either the DM should change or you should quit. The game isn't about "The DM's priceless novel where everything goes his way." It's about a group of people getting together and having fun. It sounds like the DM is having fun and the rest of you are stuck hanging around.

* The Kender casts Protection from Control Freak DM's as a 20th level caster *

 

[Zhure]

I wish now I'd checked out this thread earlier.

I positively hate control-freak DMs. It's one thing to tell your players the parameters of the campaign world, the house rules and what you expect of their characters.

(Example from current campaign: characters have to have a reason to be at the main setting of the campaig and a strong reason to not up and leave. Lots of options presented, choose or design your own.)

It's another thing for the DM to dictate every aspect of the character.

(Like race, class, alignment, deity, weapons used, feats, skills and name.)

In the first case, the DM wants to build a story arc set in a certain area. Another perfectly viable option would be to declare all characters are part of the military, because that's the main thrust of the campaign. In the second case, delineating the characters' name, rank and serial number is just the DM being a control freak.

I've seen it happen before from other DMs and there's always a consequence to this sort of maniacal dictatorial micromanagement. Normally it's a rebellion on the part of the players. Since the character isn't truly their character, there's no caring and the character gets played as if they were foolish, suicidal or insane.

"No, Timmy! Blort the mage wouldn't magic missile the guard! Instead Blort will throw his dagger." Eventually Timmy just has Blort do random nonsensical things, or throws his dagger at inopportune moments. Timmy eventually leaves, convinced the DM is a powerhungry fool.

It's happened to me; I've seen it happen to others. I won't let it happen in my campaigns.

If I have requirements for characters, or house rules I want to impart a certain flavor to my world or cast to my story arc, I let the players know in advance and let them generate within those parameters. If they feel too constrained by those rules, I want them to not play so we'll all be happy, or I want them to offer alternatives for discussion.

If there's some sort of DM smokescreen or complex plot element I'm going to handle during the campaign, I tell them in advance..

"Hey, generate an NPC fighter at 10th level, human. He'll show up at some point for dramatic reasons" (Actual event from last night's game.) The player has fun creating characters (I wouldn't ask someone who didn't like to create characters), I get a useful NPC for later use, and the players have an unconscious empathy with an NPC later who has a scripted role.

My suspicions are the original poster's DM either is running two identical groups and either wants to experiment with some sort of mixture to see the results, wants to minimize his bookkeeping by having two identical groups, or wants to pit two groups against each other. All three sound really fun to DMs... but generally only the control freaks. Those would all be great convention games where you aren't supposed to have huge amounts of empathy for your character, but are awful for home games where both the players and the DM spend hours of their entertainment times in crafting a mutually created world and story.

My advice, after this long-winded diatribe. Politely pick up your dice and walk away. It's the odd's-on favorite the rest of the group will follow you in a week or two. Plenty of time to prepare your own campaign. Learn a lesson from the person ruining... erm, I mean running... that game and remember your players are part of the creators of the world, too.

Greg

 

[Ashtal]

Lots of ways to play the game...

...and they are all fun to different people.

I think that if you've enjoyed playing with this DM before, you should give it a try with an open mind. Yes, making characters rocks. I have the most fun doing that, too, but I can jive on a pre-gen character, too.

Maybe your GM has a neato-cool idea, maybe he's had a bad experience and wants to make sure everything is balanced a certain way, maybe he has a campaign that requires this (all fighters, all mages, yada yada yada).

Is he your bud? Has he DMed well before? Give him a chance. Worst case scenario, you kill a few afternoons and then politely tell him, "Look, I really am having a hard time identifying with this character. I gave it a fair shot, but I am not having any fun. Is there any way I can make my own character, maybe with your guidance?" By then, if there is a 'gimmick' to the campaign, you'll be better able to create a character that will fit the world and the DM may be more inclined to let you do it.

But certainly don't go in, as another poster suggested on page one of the thread, and do your best to be a suicidal jerk. Either play or pass, but don't go in and be disruptive just because you can. That will only create bad feelings, he'll get angry at you, he won't be likely to change his mind, and you may not get invited back at all.

Give it a shot. He may have something really neat up his sleave, a campaign that requires a special group to pull it off and he doesn't want to ruin the surprise. Just give it an honest chance, and post back once you've started playing! It'd be interesting to see how this goes down.


Ashtal

 

[Numion]

Am I the only sane person here? I think the most fun part about D&D is creating your own character and watching him or her grow to become(insert dream/goal here). I say either the DM should change or you should quit. The game isn't about "The DM's priceless novel where everything goes his way." It's about a group of people getting together and having fun. It sounds like the DM is having fun and the rest of you are stuck hanging around.

* The Kender casts Protection from Control Freak DM's as a 20th level caster *

I wasn't saying that character development wasn't important; after all, the character is the only part of the game that is 'his own', and shouldn't be taken away from players. I was, however, saying that players really can't give the DM ultimatums. (Okay, they can give, but only one: Do this or I'll leave)

No matter how much players whine and b***h, the DM still has the final say what goes in the game. (So read between the lines: stop whining. It wont do you any good.)

 

[Pielorinho]

Am I the only sane person here?

Well, since some of us are describing different styles of play;
Since some of us allow that creative DMs can sometimes tweak the format, not just the content, of the game;
Since some of us don't reject out of hand the idea of giving the DM the benefit of the doubt;

Then yes, that would be the only logical conclusion.

Daniel

 

[ForceUser]

Well, I've been informed what my character is and the nature of the general campaign concept. Seems interesting. The DM is very excited about it. The campaign starts in two weeks; I'll let you know how the first session turns out.

 

[Ashtal]

Excellent! We can't wait to hear about it.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

I have to put my two cents in here: First off, I'm generally in Dr. Midnight's corner - if you don't like the parameters I've set for my game, you know where the door is, and I won't cry over you leaving. On the other hand I've never tried to dictate a PC's NAME! to the player. Micromanagement on the level implied here is hard to imagine, and I'm not sure I would stand for it.

Now, there may be a cool reason for all of this. Maybe the initial characters are designed to be figures from history, and then later the players will create their own PC's and have to deal with the consequences of their actions... something like that could be very cool.

If I were in this situation, I'd be keeping the game on a real short leash. If it gets too controlling with no sign of a letup, I wouldn't stick with it very long. I've got better things to do with my time. I'd give it a chance since it seems like this guy is (otherwise) a quality DM, and see where it goes, while reserving the right to step out.

All this is predicated on the idea that we're receiving an unbiased view of the situation, of course. We're hearing one side only, and not to sound accusatory, but people have tried to trump their DM's by airing grievances here before.