As I said earlier to others: Inspiration IRL sometimes just doesn't work that way. Sometimes one idea is just so compelling, it covers the ground like a gorram kudzu and nothing else can grow. I wish it didn't work that way; I genuinely wish that I could always spin out seven character concepts and feel equally inspired to play all of them. Sometimes it does work that way, which is great! It means if an irresolvable conflict arises, I can just try another idea instead. Sometimes it doesn't though, and no matter how awesome it would be, no matter how much I try to MAKE another idea catch hold, it won't work. I have no control over when or even whether this happens. It just does.
Think of it like writing poetry. Sometimes a particular image catches your mind and won't let go. If you asked a friend for commentary and they really didn't like that image, it's extremely difficult to just rip it out and replace it with some other "path." Not just because of the structural constraints, but because when a certain turn of phrase just HITS you, everything else pales in comparison.
Sorry Ezekiel, I generally agree with you, but I don't buy this. Not for characterization or poetry. Poets edit constantly, as do players. I understand passion. I understand being hyper-focused on an idea and seeing it through. I even understand how a passion can grip someone and not let go. But for a player to create a character it is about time and resources too. No player I know is writing Leaves of Grass for the character. (If they are, I want them at my table!) They have an idea. It might even become a passion. But the problem with all this is time:
Time spent. How long does it take for a player to imagine, create, and write down a character's history? Thirty minutes? An hour? Two? I mean, no player is spending months on their character. No player is reading an entire AP and taking notes and detailing or creating their own world and adventures for their single character. No player is purchasing a couple hundred dollars in miniatures for their single character. No player is spending days creating maps for their single character. And no player is writing out dozens of backstories on NPC's for their single character. (In fact, most I know, even if they are family members of said character, choose to leave that work up to the DM.)
So a player might be passionate about a character. Yes. A player might need to follow that passion through. Yes. But it needs to be equated to the amount of work the DM puts in. And, as I said earlier, if the DM has put in a lot of hours, then their ruling supersedes the players - whether the player has passion or not.
And when this happens, that's awesome. It doesn't always happen for me. Or maybe I do have a stable of 20 character ideas, but after hearing the pitch, one specific one immediately leaps out in front of all the others, distinguishing itself so thoroughly that nothing else feels right anymore. It's not a rational thing, inspiration. It doesn't obey tidy logic rules like "well BEFORE you heard the pitch, you thought all these ideas were great, so you should still feel good about them NOW, right?"
That is why I used the term "narrow." I agree, something might jump out. I agree, after that nothing else will feel quite right. I agree, it is not rational. It follows some weird rules no one can pin down, like a flame that dances and moves. Your logic is sound. I agree with it. But please just consider this:
Because you feel that way prior to session zero, does not mean you will feel that way after session one. It certainly does mean you will feel that way after session five. And after session ten, everything might shift again.
In my own experience, and others that I have discussed this with; we've had the experience of starting with a character that we were so-so with. And over time, that character became one of our favorites of all time.
My point is - time changes passion.
"The only story they can come up with" =/= "the only story they'll roleplay well." And even if it did, most of us aren't saying that the concept must be PERFECTLY TO THE LETTER identical. But to re-use the Waukeen-revering-Sorcerer example, it really would completely change the concept into something not only radically different but dark and evil if you substituted a demonic being in place of Waukeen. I'm not the original person, so I can't say what compromises they'd accept, but "oh you can totally have your wealth-loving patron, but they're EVIL and VIOLENT and DEBAUCHED" would absolutely be several steps too far for me. Perhaps a deity that does exist can be tweaked slightly (e.g. Erathis, goddess of invention and civilization, doesn't need much tweaking to be a goddess of wealth too). Perhaps a heterodox church of an existing deity can be employed (e.g. a church that views Moradin as a female deity, still associated with crafts, metals, wealth, etc.)
You seem to be presenting this as though the player in question cannot accept anything but one single, incredibly specific thing, and even a single dot out of place would ruin it, and that's just not true. What's being said is that there can be situations that are somewhat specific, and where some attempts at compromise (like turning a good deity of wealth into an evil demon) would fall flat. That doesn't mean every single parameter definitely has to be unchanged, because, as all of us have said repeatedly at this point, ACTUAL compromise requires ALL parties to be at least willing to CONSIDER changes, even if no changes actually happen, even if true compromise proves impossible.
To be clear, I was responding to just as much the Middle Earth comments as I was the overall theme of this debate. I just feel that when someone says we are playing a Tolkien inspired world, common sense dictates what you can make. And if you have an out-of-the-box thinker, cool. But, it shouldn't be questioned when the DM says, "I like your ent, maybe you can play it as an NPC one session. But you need to pick from this list."
And the Waukeen example: I said clearly if the DM didn't give the parameters, then the player should be allowed. If they did, and the player asks, and then the DM says no, we should assume the DM has a good reason. If, in this case, player asks, and the DM
changes their character - that's bull*#%!. Now if the DM says work with these. These are what exists. Then the player creates and can't accomplish what they want, then their is compromise. But in the end the DM has the final say.
I mean, almost all creative processes have boundaries. Design a home? The state tells you what you can and can't do. Decorate homes for a living? The clientele generally tell you color scheme and budget. Build a menu? Research should tell you what the surrounding area can afford and likes. Paint a picture? Follow the Impressionist style or or Abstraction. So creating a character is just that, building something within the boundaries of the DM's world.
And, as the above indicates, I think you are likewise being excessively narrow here about our position. As for the rest: Yes, none of us have questioned this. (Though let's be honest, making a point out of "they're the ones spending money" is a bit specious; the kind of people that go do DMing are the kind who spend money on books anyway. Nobody is demanding money out of the DM's pocket here.) But I think you point out an important consideration here, a very chicken-and-the-egg question: Who's asking who?
Regarding money. Touche! I withdraw my sentence above about miniatures.
I do think we need to be clear about the chicken or the egg. That is a great point.
Up to this point, it's very very much been presented--even by you!--as the DM offering to run games for others. Now you're presenting it as the players requesting the DM run a game for them. Those are rather different situations, with rather different expectations.
Umm... (please consider this
) My view is that both of those things work at the same time. It is not a one or the other. The players are at the table. So they want the DM to run their game. The DM is at the table. He wants to show the players his world. They both exist at the same time, with the same people. Am I mistaken? (I will consider it if I am. But I thought both of these things were true for almost all tables, with the exception of the table where everyone wants to be a player, so one person reluctantly steps up to DM. But I think that is very rare - especially for a group running an entire campaign.)
