I could use some advice

[LostSoul]

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.)

I understand the argument that says that DMs can be a little bit restrictive when it comes to character development. But throughout this thread, it has seemed to me that there is an undercurrent of "I'm the DM; I'm always right". Which I don't agree with.

Why is the Player "whining and b***hing" if he doesn't think he's going to have a good time in the DM's game? Is the DM doing the same if he rejects the Player who says, "Actually, can I change this or this and that or that?"

 

[Quickbeam]

I wanted to check back in on this thread, and I'm glad I did. My remarks may be a bit ex post facto at this juncture, since ForceUser has decided to give his DM's campaign a whirl, but nonetheless...

Dr. Midnight:
I appreciate the sentiments behind your thoughts, and have frequently argued alongside you on these Boards, but I've never heard you so blatantly jump on someone's arse. I recognize that your tone was reined in over the course of your posts, but understand that some gamers are every bit as cheesed off by micromanaged campaigns as you clearly are by whining gamers. Just a difference in perspective and pet peeves -- nothing more, nothing less.

Kender:
I wholeheartedly agree with you, that PC creation is (IMO) the best part of D&D. Nothing in the game is more interesting or enjoyable, than designing a new character. However, I am totally willing to let a DM dictate very specific parameters for character creation if their campaign concept requires such boundaries.

Everyone Else:
An example of what I deem to be aceptable DM mandates follows. Old One in his Faded Glory setting, does not allow for elven, gnomish, dwarven, or template race PCs. He also doesn't allow some of the classes (paladin, monk)as 1st level options, but instead treats them as PrCs. I'd buy these limitations because the setting requires them according to the world design. Such restrictions still allow me as a player in this campaign to choose the gender of my PC; to name the character; and still designate race and class, albeit from a scaled down list of options.
I would also allow the DM to hand me a completed PC for a specific campaign, and do my best to roleplay said character, but not indefinitely. Perhaps that makes me a bit too demanding or controlling, but I wouldn't want my favorite part of D&D taken from me on a permanent basis. I'd play the DMs generated character for a few months, and its likely that I'd find myself enjoying a world/story so detailed in scope that the PCs had to fit an exact mold. But, after a while I'd want to play a character of my own design -- one which fit a style and type that meshed with my personal playing tastes and interests.

 

[Umbran]

Dr. Midnight did come on pretty strong. Perhaps I can re-state at least part of his position in a more reasonable way....

When I was a kid, my Mom had a rule - at mealtime, if I saw something new on my plate, I wasn't allowed to reject it until I had at least tried a few mouthfuls. After I had tried it, then I was allowed to make my own judgement, and if I didn't like a thing, my Mom would make an effort to accommodate my tastes. That was cooperation.

Yes, the game is cooperative, but that doesn't mean the DM must allow any character the player wants. Cooperation is a two-way street. Sometimes the player needs to take what the DM wants, sometimes the DM has to flex for the player. A player who insists on having his own way too often, and pitching fits when he or she is told "No", is not being cooperative. Similarly, the DM that refuses to flex at all for a player isn't being very cooperative either.

It really wouldn't be fair to the DM to reject his pre-generated character before seeing it, and hearing the setting, and playing a session or two. I'm glad to hear that ForceUser has heard the DM out, and is willing to give it a try. That's being cooperative.

To put a bit of a counterpoint to Kid Charlemagne - I actually have seen such pre-generation used before, with wonderful results. When done properly, it actually helps generate creativity, rather than squeezing off the flow. Kind of like a poet who normally only works in free verse deciding for a while to write only sonnets, to see what something else is like. Usually, when he goes back to free verse, it's with some new wisdom...

Players have habits, and sometimes games can get a bit boring if you always allow them to stick to their habits. Giving them a pre-gen can break them out of ruts, and shake them out of creative complacency. Give it a chance, and see how you like it.

 

[King_Stannis]

the dm is more important than any single player. those are just the facts. a good dm can make mediocre players excellent. even the best player is only as good as the dm's ability to complement that player with storylines and opportunity.

of course, if there is no group then there is no game. so the dm is not more important than the GROUP as a whole, but keep in mind it is always much easier to get new players than to get a quality DM. again, those are the facts.

having said that, a good dm will always allow his players to have input into the world. i think it extreme in this case that the dm wouldn't even allow players to choose their own name! but it is his progative.

i think i might be able to sense this DM's frustration as well as the frustration echoed by Doc Midnight earlier. many players are selfish. they don't ask dm's what character concepts would work in his world. instead, many just go ahead and roll up their LE Drow Assassin Bard who was raised by poodles, and then just expect the DM to come up with a reason why this twink would want to save the world. if only players would consult the dm..."i'm thinking of a darker character who looks out for himself, would this work in your 'save-the-world campaign?"...or..."my character is a do-gooder who wants to save the world. your campaign isn't going to be dark and dirty, is it?"

communication, people! dm's are free to impose whatever restrictions he wants on his game. the free market (ie player reaction) determines if those restrictions are warrented.

 

[Crispy Critter]

This thread has turned into a very interesting debate.

A DM giving players specific characters to play on one level is not so bad. There is a lot of ways to manuever and explore your characters personality and motivations as the game progresses. Someone who makes their own charcter at 1st lvl. might have a career or life-path in mind for his character at the beginning, but as the campaign goes on certain things happen to that character that possibly changes that character's personality and goals.

That being said, this DM seems to have a story in mind - instead of a campaign. His micromanagement of characters at the beginning level would cause me some alarm. It sounds like he possibly wants you to be participants in his story. Many times when this happens your character's free will is compromised greatly for the DMs plot-line. The DM might become increasingly frustrated when characters do things that he did not expect and impede the story he wants to tell.

If the campaign seems interesting and you see the possibility of creating an interesting character, then stick with it. If you see the campaign turning into a piece of fiction created by the DM with your characters as the centerpiece with no real control over their lives - then it might be time to look for a new campaign.

 

[DWARF]

About the character name thingy....

Do ANY of us have control over our birth names? Unless you changed it afterwards, no you didn't. So why is it so hard fro players to imagine the DM giving them their names? If you want a nickname, or something more defining like, "My name is Nigel Goodfellow, but you can call me Growplor the Unholy.", then the player should be allowed to make a nickname or trade name.

But personally, I'd much rather be able to chose my class and feats then name or attributes, since that's the only real choice any of us is given in life...

 

[King_Stannis]

About the character name thingy....

Do ANY of us have control over our birth names? Unless you changed it afterwards, no you didn't. So why is it so hard fro players to imagine the DM giving them their names? If you want a nickname, or something more defining like, "My name is Nigel Goodfellow, but you can call me Growplor the Unholy.", then the player should be allowed to make a nickname or trade name.

But personally, I'd much rather be able to chose my class and feats then name or attributes, since that's the only real choice any of us is given in life...

actually, that's a great point about names, dwarf.

 

[Matchstick]

the dm is more important than any single player. those are just the facts. a good dm can make mediocre players excellent. even the best player is only as good as the dm's ability to complement that player with storylines and opportunity.

of course, if there is no group then there is no game. so the dm is not more important than the GROUP as a whole, but keep in mind it is always much easier to get new players than to get a quality DM. again, those are the facts.

having said that, a good dm will always allow his players to have input into the world. i think it extreme in this case that the dm wouldn't even allow players to choose their own name! but it is his progative.

i think i might be able to sense this DM's frustration as well as the frustration echoed by Doc Midnight earlier. many players are selfish. they don't ask dm's what character concepts would work in his world. instead, many just go ahead and roll up their LE Drow Assassin Bard who was raised by poodles, and then just expect the DM to come up with a reason why this twink would want to save the world. if only players would consult the dm..."i'm thinking of a darker character who looks out for himself, would this work in your 'save-the-world campaign?"...or..."my character is a do-gooder who wants to save the world. your campaign isn't going to be dark and dirty, is it?"

communication, people! dm's are free to impose whatever restrictions he wants on his game. the free market (ie player reaction) determines if those restrictions are warrented.

I disagree with this. You could be the best DM in the world, but if you have horrible players you're out of luck. And while it may be easy to get new players, it's not so easy to get GOOD players.

I played in a Champions campaign once that was one of the best times I've had in an RPG. And the DM was fairly horrible. It was the players that made it so fun, despite the DM.

I actually think it's easier for a group of good players to have fun with a crummy DM than it is for a good DM to have fun with crummy players.

That said, and to attempt to make my post relevent , I think trying this DM's campaign can't hurt anything. I don't agree with the level of control he wants, but it can't hurt to try it. You never know, it might be really fun!

 

[LostSoul]

Do ANY of us have control over our birth names? Unless you changed it afterwards, no you didn't.

Do authors choose the names of thier characters, or do they pick them randomly?

So why is it so hard fro players to imagine the DM giving them their names?

It points to a level of DM control over a Player's area that most people are uncomfortable with.

 

[Umbran]

Really, why are names a big deal?

What's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.