The Power of "NO". Banned Races and Classes?

[Celebrim]

I don't want to sound disrespectful or confrontational...

But you will anyway.

I mean seriously people, whenever you hear yourself saying that you don't want to do something, what's really going on here is that you know you are being disrespectful and confrontational but you don't want to admit to yourself that that is what you are doing. I think maybe you are thinking to yourself that by saying, "I don't want to.... whatever" that you are softening the harsh, but you are actually heightening it. Better would be, "I know this will sound disrespectful and confrontational, but please don't take it that way." Better yet would be, "I beg your pardon for being disrespectful and confrontational, but..."

but if you put a 600 pages document in front of me which you claim is the be all, end all of character options -and leaving a door closed to more- I don't really think I can trust you having a fair sense of variety when I'm kind of used to have 1200+ (2e), 1800+(3.5) or 1500+(4e) pages of options and even then they aren't enough.

It's pretty pathetic that 1500 or 1800 pages of character generation rules aren't enough isn't it? When I say to you that I honestly think that I cover core fantasy archetypes better than 3.X as a whole with fewer pages, I mean it quite sincerely. There are only two archetypes I can't quite yet cover under my rules, and its solely because nothing in 3.X covers them to my satisfaction either. One is the 'Sherlock Holmes' character with mundane powers of divination, and the other is the 'Saka' type character who lacks easily definable skills and yet manages to always make himself useful to characters that are in theory far more powerful than him. But seriously, everything else you can think of that doesn't fall into the 'Stone Giant Lycanthrope Monk' category is covered.

So much of the chargen space in 3.X is just absolutely wasted and so many of the solutions that they adopt like PrC's are so inefficient in terms of space. Each PrC for example provides a fixed series of progression in class abilities tied to single highly narrow concept. That means that you basically need one PrC for each possible character concept. So of course they needed a massive amount of rules and of course it was never enough. They didn't really care. Page bloat was to a certain extent a feature in the WotC 3.X business model rather than a bug. They didn't print tons of rules for chargen because they needed tons of rules. They printed rules to sell books.

Look, honestly, systems like HERO far more space efficiently cover far more concepts even than I intend to cover, but there is nothing inherently unreasonable in suggesting, "Even though I've got fewer pages than 3.X, I actually cover nearly as much conceptual space." Where 3.X has me beat hands down I'll admit is in, "There is more than one way to do things." They've got 3-6 overlapping classes for every concept, each defined by very minor mechanical variations in the theme. Where I typically would get a disappointed player compared to 3.X is in the guy that optimizes by splashing a few levels of 3-6 overlapping classes to get overlapping stacking front loaded abilities. But you know what? That's intentional as well. The possibilities of mechanical synergy compared to 3.X aren't there by design. But in terms of the actual concepts, it's every bit as broad you just might have to accept using a different mechanic to represent the same thing compared to what you are used to. Ultimately though, I cover more things by default that 3.X should have covered - paladins of every alignment for every diety, for example - than 3.X did using less space and ultimately I think that there are more truly viable concepts. To some extent in core 3.X, if you weren't playing one of the tier 1 classes or equivalent 'tier 1' builds, you were intentionally hampering yourself. With what I think is superior balance compared to unmodified 3.X, you are freer to just play the concept rather than worry about the mechanics.

I mean that kind of rings a bell or two too.

I can't be responsible for your past experiences or what they've done to your trust.

It tells me that as a DM a) you could be rigid and unapproachable not to mention closed to change,

If on day one you tell me I got to change, then yeah, you are likely to find me pretty darn rigid and intolerant. If on the other hand you outline a character concept, and ask what you could do by the rules to implement it, if the concept is reasonable at all either I'm going to find you a way to do it or create you one.

this could be a sign you like to micromanage player characters too much (and my worst experiences come from micromanaging DMs, so rather that mistrust this translates into fear)

Again, I can't be reasonable for your past experiences and insecurities or how that prompts you to respond to people. I think I'm pretty firmly hands off micromanaging PC's if I understand your meaning rightly. As much as I demand you respect my setting, I reciprocate by respecting your right to play your PC however the heck you like.

and c) if this is the "most fun" version you could think of, it most likely means you cut down all of the "badwrongfun" (and I thrive and enjoy the most lots of fringe concepts, and I work hard to make them work.).

You know, I have no idea what you are talking about. I hate generalities. It is more than possible that what you think is a fringe concept is so mainstream that its mechanically supported in my rules. Most things I think are 'fringe' I think so either because they inherently can't be balanced, can't pull enough weight, or are inherently anti-social - not because they are weird. You are unlikely to want anything that I find too weird to be a character.

but I'm moody, even slightly flighty, I cannot know what kind of character I will enjoy next, without seeing them I don't know if those 600 pages would be enough for me in the long run.

If you can exhaust the options, then I'll make new ones, but I bet you can't.

 

[Hussar]

Hey [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION], what's wrong with minotaurs? I like minotaur characters. They're a blast to play. Been either playing one or have had one in games since 1e with Krynn. Where's the beef with minotaurs?

 

[Lord Xcapobl]

Basically, if I choose to ban a race or class, it simply has to do with the campaign setting. I don't care how you want to justify your Drow having come to Athas, even if she is a level 18 wizard, level 20 sorceress, level 14 bard, level 2 fighter multiclass character. Neither would I allow a native from one of the Athasian city-states to become a paladin. But on that same train of thought I might just use the Advanced Race Guide and the Races of Ansalon to emulate you playing a Baaz Draconian in an Age of Mortals campaign set on Krynn.

 

[Celebrim]

Hey [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION], what's wrong with minotaurs? I like minotaur characters. They're a blast to play. Been either playing one or have had one in games since 1e with Krynn. Where's the beef with minotaurs?

I suppose if you could come up with one that was LA +0 and had no racial HD I'd be ok mechanically with them being a PC. If they had something like no racial HD and LA +1, I could probably balance them with standard races using the same sort of tools that I balance Orine and Idreth with. Among other things that means that they certainly couldn't be large or have a +8 STR bonus.

But there is a bigger thematic problem with them in my setting. The Seven Free Peoples of Korrel don't just believe that they are fundamentally different than all the other races of the universe, they really are. Those seven and only seven free peoples are: fey, goblinkin, elves, humans, orine, dwaves, and idreth. The fey were the first free peoples - the small gods. The other six were modeled after them jointly by the gods in a special act of creation that could only be replicated by all the gods again working together. Virtually all other races on Korrel - and they are all also comparatively rare - were the creation of 1 or 2 deities and completely lack in the gift of free will. They unavoidably resemble and serve their creators. They cannot choose to worship any other gods, they never differ markedly from the alignment and personality of their creator, they unswervingly obey their creator, and they cannot advance in power (gain XP) without the permission of their creator. For this reason they are called Lesser Servitors. Lesser Servitors are not treated as people by the Free Peoples, but as emissaries or agents of a god because that's what they are. If the god doesn't have standing in the community, they'd treat the Lesser Servitor as a monster. If the god does have standing, they'd expect the Lesser Servitor to confine itself to matters belonging to that god.

Minotaurs are therefore always evil, and have no freedom in the sense that PC races have, and as such any player playing them outside their trope is simply doing it wrong. Anything else is a violation of the cosmology of the setting. Further, no civilized area is just going to shrug and say, "Heh, sure, the minotaur can drink in the bar." They are either going to go, "Monster!", or "Where is the cleric responsible for minding this thing, and what are you doing outside the temple grounds?" This could not possibly IMO be a fun situation for a player. It would require an amazing RPer with an amazing idea and a deep knowledge of my setting from years of playing in it for me to consider something like a minotaur character, and only if they were willing to have Minotaurs implemented as LA +0 races with no racial HD. Your average player who wants something like a 7' muscular dangerous character would be better off with an Orine or playing a human and taking the Massive trait.

I'm frankly not all convinced that even though you've played Minotaurs that there is something so unique and special to the biology of a Minotaur that you can't get the experience elsewhere. What is it about Minotaurs that is biologically and psychologically distinct from all other possibilities that makes them special to you? What in particular about them makes them a blast to play?

Now, there are some examples of things that aren't the above seven races that would have the characteristics of free peoples, and could theoretically exist in the cosmology, but which aren't on the official approved PC race list. These include many varieties of fey that are off mostly because I don't have a +0 LA template for them and can't at the moment conceive what you could do with a +0 LA template that you couldn't do with a Pixie, Changling or Sidhe. However, one possibility that immediately comes to mind is a Genasi character. The genie are in fact free peoples, being simply the elemental cousins of the fey. The genie have at time bred with both the Gods - creating the race of giants - and with free peoples, creating various varieties of sorcerers. I might be inclined to consider a Genasi character if the PC knew what he was getting into, had a great idea for a character, and did not want to play a sorcerer. Playing a sorcerer is normally how you convey 'I'm not quite human' under the rules, and with pretty flexible multi-classing its pretty easy to dip sorcerer and have that just work (in fact dipping spellcasters is just about broken in that its easy to get more back than you paid for and thus highly encouraged under my rules). But conceivably there could be a concept that that wasn't right for that and I might consider a one off genasi PC.

 

[Elf Witch]

I've been trying to avoid directly contradicting you on that, but fundamentally, I just don't. You don't have to justify to me why you don't want a PC to suddenly pick up training in being a wizard, if in your campaign it normally takes an 8 year apprenticeship. I get it. But you know, if you didn't want rogues in your campaign, or banned elves because well they are elves, I'd be all understanding about that too. That's true even if and especially if I don't do the same at my table.



What this amounts to in my opinion is the claim that "My reasons or valid, but your reasons are at the least suspect and quite possibly invalid."



And my response is, "So?" It's their game. I hate Peter Jackson's work myself, and I'm sufficiently not a fan of gnomes that I banned them (well, technically, but since you could skin a Sidhe as a gnome or pretty much any other 'little people, that point is moot).



Again, so. If you think they are wrong, gain their trust and then see if you can't after that argue them over to your point of view. Otherwise, give them some respect.



Sure. But you certainly don't start out on a respectful position if you tell a DM that he's got to run his table to suit you.

No I am not saying that your opinions are invalid and mine are valid. I have gone out of my way to not do that.


Yes it is the DM table and it is right to do what he wants but I can have an opinion that he is wrong or being a jerk or whatever and choose not to play.

Sorry I am not going to work to gain a DMs trust been there tried that and found it pointless because I have found that if they feel that strongly nothing I do will change their mind. So I will save us both the grief and choose not to play with him. And that is totally different than arguing with him to change his opinion. And it is showing respect when I choose to walk away I am showing respect to him by acknowledging his table his rules.



As a DM I am upfront with players that I will fudge if I think it benefits the play and if that is an issue and you don't trust me to know when to do it or you don't like it then as a player you are not a good fit for my table and it is better that you find a DM more suited to you.

That is what the crux that is being said here the freedom to choose not to play with someone who you think will not be a good fit. And one big warning sign to me is a DM with a lot of hates towards classes and races. Because in my experience that goes hand in hand with being rigid and uncompromising.



I will be honest here if I meet a DM who has advertised looking for players for say 3E DnD then I meet him and he shows me a 600 page house rule booklet I am going to be annoyed because at that point you are not playing 3E DnD. I have meet DMs like that and I always ask why they just didn't advertise that they were looking for players to play in a game system that has been heavily modified.

 

[Nergal Pendragon]

and the other is the 'Saka' type character who lacks easily definable skills and yet manages to always make himself useful to characters that are in theory far more powerful than him.

Try building it with a Commoner. I did that by accident one day with a goofy character intended to die quickly.

 

[Celebrim]

Try building it with a Commoner. I did that by accident one day with a goofy character intended to die quickly.

The idea is to implement the concept in such a way it would be balanced with rogues, fighters, wizards, sorcerers, etc.

I have a concept for doing it ('Paragon'), but I'm still working on the mechanics/balance. Essentially, the idea is a character of great potential that is lucky/destined and can always be counted on to come through in a pinch. Mechanically, the character would have some light narrativist powers usable a certain number of times per day depending on class level. The basic framework is already present in my rules, I just need to figure out how to make the class truly robust and diverse. Balance issues are hard because it really doesn't have any powers directly comparable to any other class. It's basically a slightly weak skill monkey with the ability to push a 'I win' button a certain number of times per day. But it would be useful for portraying certain character types from fantasy literature particularly when you have party ensembles where some characters are much more overtly powerful than another character in the party but the weaker party member is equivalently important to the story - Gandalf and Pippin for example.

 

[MoonSong]

No I am not saying that your opinions are invalid and mine are valid. I have gone out of my way to not do that.

I also want to add, that at least I have an internal filter that makes me realize some of my reasons to ban things are just silly or outright childish, and thus I get the selfcontrol not to act on them. Otherwise I would get nobody to play with, if I don't like something I rather compromise and pay a blind eye to it if it improves the experience for all involved.

Yes it is the DM table and it is right to do what he wants but I can have an opinion that he is wrong or being a jerk or whatever and choose not to play.

I'm more of the opinion the table is the whole group's. When I DM I may have a kind of experience/storyline in mind, but the game isn't mine and mine alone I end up being some kind of authority, but I always look for consent of the players. Heck I even ask the existing players their opinion on new players and where to take things to.

Sorry I am not going to work to gain a DMs trust been there tried that and found it pointless because I have found that if they feel that strongly nothing I do will change their mind. So I will save us both the grief and choose not to play with him. And that is totally different than arguing with him to change his opinion. And it is showing respect when I choose to walk away I am showing respect to him by acknowledging his table his rules.

And one big warning sign to me is a DM with a lot of hates towards classes and races. Because in my experience that goes hand in hand with being rigid and uncompromising.

This. Not because I want to change people, but I like people who can compromise and avoid people who can't.

I will be honest here if I meet a DM who has advertised looking for players for say 3E DnD then I meet him and he shows me a 600 page house rule booklet I am going to be annoyed because at that point you are not playing 3E DnD. I have meet DMs like that and I always ask why they just didn't advertise that they were looking for players to play in a game system that has been heavily modified.

Yes, the 600 pages of houserules are a big warning sign. And I'm still skeptic on those 600 pages having enough, I mean they don't even have gnomes.

 

[Emerikol]

This is actually very close to the default way that 13th Age envisions monks: they are either assassins or resistance fighters (although not necessarily spies, but who knows?).

I think 13th Age has some good fluff. I just dislike their mechanical approach. Well it would be better to say I dislike elements of their mechanical approach. Some of what they did are things I had thought of doing myself when designing a class.