Advice Sought for New Player in My Campaign

[Falcon]

Hey Everyone.

I am turning to the experts for some advice.

The current campaign I DM is almost a year old, from a world I developed seven years ago, complete with all kinds of maps, legends, comsology, history, etc., etc. I have run one 2-year IRL campaign thorugh it, and have used that basis for this campaign.

The current campaign centers on the remnant of an ancient empire that closed itself off to the outside world after the Great Sack. It is surrounded by near-impenetrable mountains named the Eagle-Rocks and the Bear-Claws, which have guardian elementals and, yes durn powerful animals in them.
The religious and social traditions have been kept true by the Warden and the Writ of the High King, and some of the powerful, old families of the area.

The setting is very specific in terms of what works and doesn't, and it is based on the integrity of the campaign world and history. I listed the classes, alignments, multiclassing rules, the basis wherefor(e), and the current party composition.

The new person really wants to play in my campaign and I like him, and he is trying to persuade me to accept a 1/2 orc barbarian/ranger/druid. The backstory is really well developed, but:

1) Druids and Barbarians are not class options
2) Mutliclassing beyond 2 classes is not allowed, unless there is A BIG reason for it, and you need to take at least 2 levels in each class taken
3) Orcs are pretty much killed on the spot. The only reason the current party wouldn't kill the PC is because they know it is a player. And he won't survive the first series of sessions, despite the high charisma his 1/2 orc would have, simply because of what has happened recently in the world where he will be joining the party.
4) I want to maintain the integrity of my campaign and campaign world.
5) I want him to enjoy gaming with our group.

I could suggest to him a human or an elven ranger/cleric combination and a backstory that will copy what he wrote, as he would be the cleric of a nature diety that would allow him access to certain domain granted powers that would satisfy his concept.

I am rambling, I know, and I am groping for answers. If this were a new campaign, I would allow him to progress with the character. However, I will not allow new players access to classes and abilities that I didn't allow the "orginals" in the first place.

I know I can't post all the emails I have exchanged, and I hope I haven't been too vague. The bottom line is he really likes my campaign setting and his character doesn't fit it, where the campaign story is now, and he is a great guy who I want in my campaign.


Ideas?

 

[babomb]

I'd like to tell you to stick to your guns, but I don't know if that's going to work very well. Some people would be okay with it, some would just not play, and some would play but resent it.

So try to compromise.

I think the best thing to do first is to ask him about the ranger/cleric option you mentioned.

If he doesn't agree to that, don't sacrifice the integrity of your world, but try to throw him a bone. Making some sort of consolation shows him that it's nothing personal (some people think that, even if you have the guidelines for everyone) and that you're doing the best you can to let him play what he wants. The problem is where to throw him a bone:

(1)I don't know why (specifically) you don't have Druids and Barbarians, but I'm sure there's a good reason in your setting.

(2)The multiclassing rule is reasonable enough.

(3)The fact that orcs are killed on sight is not unusual by any means, is plausable, realistic, and part of your world's integrity.

(4)Sacrificing your world's integrity is not an option, in my opinion.

(5)If he doesn't like what his character is, he may be bored or angry. In my group, one player got angry and stormed out of the room -- more than once -- because his psion had switched bodies with the fighter, and he hated playing the fighter. I think he rather overreacted, but you never know how other people think.

Without knowing much detail, all I can come up with if he doesn't like the ranger/cleric are:

(1) Is it possible you could let him play a barbarian/ranger? You may have to change something, but maybe you could make that change into a plot hook of some sort. I don't know anything about your world, but I would think that barbarians would be easier to work in than druids. Of course, barbarian/ranger might be really off from what he wants; I don't know. Of course if one of the other players had wanted to play a restricted class before, they might accuse you of favoritism.

(2) If he finds some other combination of classes that suits him well enough and requires more than two classes, cut him some slack.

(3) Offer to swap out a few abilities or give him a magic item that grants an ability he wants (such as a sword that lets him rage).

(4) Learn to cast suggestion for real and tell him that he really wants to play a ranger/cleric.

 

[mirzabah]

I know I can't post all the emails I have exchanged, and I hope I haven't been too vague. The bottom line is he really likes my campaign setting and his character doesn't fit it, where the campaign story is now, and he is a great guy who I want in my campaign.

I don't have any suggestions, but I do agree with your assessment of the situation - his character doesn't fit your campaign and it's likely to end in tears. Another potential danger you haven't mentioned is the thin-end-of-the-wedge effect that this will have on your game. If you allow this guy's character, then your other players will say "if he can have that, then you have to give me this" and you'll be hard pressed to refuse them. Goodbye carefully developed setting.

Basically I think you should put your foot down. Tell him what your house rules are and that he should develop a character that fits them. I wouldn't try suggesting alternative character options - leave that up to him. The problem with suggesting ways he can make his character conform is that it dilutes his involvement in the character.

The half-orc thing doesn't sound like so much of a rule in your game as a mandatory option . Perhaps you should walk him through the consequences of being a half-orc in your setting. Once he is discovered (and he will be discovered sooner or later), he will be hunted down and killed. This will be unpleasant enough for him, but more importantly, it may also have negative repercussions for the other PCs.

If he really likes your setting, then he won't have a problem developing a character that suits.

 

[mirzabah]

If he doesn't agree to that, don't sacrifice the integrity of your world, but try to throw him a bone. Making some sort of consolation shows him that it's nothing personal (some people think that, even if you have the guidelines for everyone) and that you're doing the best you can to let him play what he wants. The problem is where to throw him a bone:

Actually I don't think you should throw him a bone at all. Like I said, if he really likes the setting, then he shouldn't have a problem developing a character to suit.

On the other hand, if he refuses to let go of his half-orc character, or needs "compensations" in order to accept a compromise, then it is probable he doesn't really care that much about the setting and is just buttering you up.

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Hello there Falcon! Oakland, CA, huh? I love the Bay Area. I'm originally from Northern California, despite currently living here in Southern California. Do you live close to the Bay Bridge? I and my wife went to the Bay Area for vacation just a year or so back, and we had a great time! I love it.

Anyways, on to your campaign, sir. I would say that though the person might be very cool, and he may be a certain role-playing asset to the group, you can't allow him to play all of these things that are incongrious to your campaign world. It seems that one item after another, he is out of step with the way you have carefully designed things. Now, I have a campaign that has been in development and play for over 14 years--not all 3E of course, but the campaign essentials have been there. And it's a special thing that I have noticed--that is the Campaign Integrity is all-important. No one player--no matter how nice, or how belliegrent and insufferable that some can choose to be--is worth compromising your carefully and painstakingly designed campaign setting.

Some things, that might be small, can sometimes be worked with, and integrated. Other things--even ones that the *players* sometimes see as *minor*--but you, as the DM, know that it is very significant--just cannot be compromised. The classes sound big to me, but also the race. In my own campaign, in many areas, particularly in many civilized kingdoms and empires, Half-Orcs would be slaughtered on sight. Those who chose to defend the Half-Orc character would be dragged to a harsh trial, and then burned at the stake for heresy and consorting with demons. That's just the way it is. It isn't nice, it isn't pretty, and it isn't necessarily fair--but the campaign integrity demands it. To do otherwise would violate the consistency and the integrity of the campaign. It just wouldn't work, and a player who simply demanded to play such an unworkable character wouldn't be happy with the results. Sorry, but that is the way it goes. I suspect it may be similar in your own campaign.

I think it is important to work with characters on creative concepts--don't get me wrong--because it is important. However, the DM has designed a campaign setting to specific standards and guidelines. Players should at least on the first character in the campaign world--submit to your guidelines and design a character within your prescribed parameters. I have some players for example, that have been playing with me for years, and they have run many characters in the same campaign world. Thus, when they say, hey, asking me nicely, can I try this kind of wierd-unusual-heretical-dangerous character, I know they know what's going on, and they will work with me on it, so I can sometimes work it into something acceptable. However, I personally would probably never make such exceptions for first-time players/characters in the campaign. There is simply too much riding on that well-organized and detailed campaign integrity.

In closing, I would say that you should explain to him that he must work within the parameters that you have established. Period. You're not being a jerk, you are being a consistent, and responsible DM who is seeking to maintain the integrity of the campaign, the other player's respect for that campaign, and in the long run, his respect for that campaign integrity as well.

I hope this has helped you Falcon! I haven't read many of your posts here at EN-World, but I would like to welcome you here! The few posts I've seen of yours have been very interesting!

Take care,

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[S'mon]

If he wants to be the half orc for the stats, you could let him play one who can pass as human (in 1e PHB EGG mentions that all PC half orcs belong to the 10% who can pass as human). Or you could let him be a human but with +2 STR, -2 CHA & -2 INT (and maybe -2 WIS as well, if you let him get the human bonus extra feat & skill points).

 

[David Argall]

different newbie

"The new person really wants to play in my campaign and I like him, and he is trying to persuade me to accept a 1/2 orc barbarian/ranger/druid.
1) Druids and Barbarians are not class options"

Here and elsewhere, you might want to reconsider your rules, not especially because the newbie wants to violate them, but because they are not all that good. Neither class comes close to being unbalancing. Now you may have set this empire up as super civilizied and lacking a location for druids or barbarians, but this is a poor design.

"2) Mutliclassing beyond 2 classes is not allowed,"
It is likely nothing for you to discourage. The jack of all trades is a master of none. If he is content to be the party 2nd string, it is no problem for you or the others.


"3) Orcs are pretty much killed on the spot."
A bad policy in any case. & frankly it does not fit your picutre of a cut off empire.


"4) I want to maintain the integrity of my campaign and campaign world."
Of course, but there is no great virtue to maintaining integrity when it just gets in everybody's way. If you had rashly let 1st levels get hold of +10 swords of sharpness, integrity calls for keeping them. Common sense calls for throwing them out of the game. integrity is only a lesser value.

"5) I want him to enjoy gaming with our group."
Much more important, and since what he wants seems reasonable, it is likely best to give it to him.

"I could suggest to him a human or an elven ranger/cleric "
A ranger implies both barbarians and druids. Again, keeping the limitation seems out of place.



" I will not allow new players access to classes and abilities that I didn't allow the "orginals" in the first place."
This amounts to saying "because I have screwed people in the past, I must continue to do so." If a rule is bad, get rid of it. The player who got hurt last time at least now will not get hurt again.


Sounds to me like you should do what he wants.

 

[Dave Blewer]

Hmmm...

How about letting play a Half Orc who has had a high level illusion spell cast over him that makes him appear like a very big human?

- He doesn't know who did it or why

- He radiates as magical which could cause big problems in some situations

- You have an interesting plot hook that you can use at a later date.

Why do you disallow Barbarians? Is it the cultural thing?

If that is the case, just call the class a berserker or something change the skills to a Fighters skills and points and your good to go...

Why do you disallow Druids though? I am curious especially considering the Elemental nature of the mountains...

 

[Codragon]

Disallowing Core Races/Classes can add Flavor

You should stick to the integrity of your world. It's not Greyhawk. It's not FR. It's not "core PHB". It's your world. This isn't some WotC contest where such restrictions are discouraged. It is well within your rights to not allow core PHB races / classes. It is of utmost importance that you do not compromise on this and allow the players to play races/classes that you have explicitly disallowed. Why? Because then the campaign world is no longer yours. This brings down the world's integrity and may ruin suspension of disbelief.

A second point I'd like to add is that most people look at DMs disallowing X race or Y class and look at and cry heresy, esp. when it pertains to PHB core rules. I think it can be more fun to have restrictions. Examples: The PCs are all members of a military order and can only start out as fighters or rangers. That would be cool. Or most spells don't work on your would (gasp), unless you are an evil necromancer or thaumaturge (see Armies of the Abyss). Perhaps a long term campaign goal is the discovery of ancient secrets which reveal how goodly folk can cast arcane spells. Or in Star Wars, having a party of only Jedis and their droids - straight out of the training academy. Etc. The possibilities are endless!

 

[Tewligan]

Re: different newbie

Sounds to me like you should do what he wants.

Pish and tosh. If I had a campaign world that I started developing seven years ago, with its own world-specific restrictions and quirks, I certainly wouldn't just throw out my campaign standards because a new player was too inflexible to adapt his concept. If there are no barbarians or druids, you can't be one. If half-orcs are killed on sight, you can't be one. If you can't have three classes, you can only take two. These aren't "bad" choices to make in your campaign, they're flavor choices to make a world different from worlds X, Y, and Z. Just because something's in the books doesn't mean you have to cram everything into your setting. The new edition is flexible enough with skills and feats and whatnot that he should be able to stay extremely close to his original character concept and be in line with the particular campaign rules.

Whoopsie - had to fix up a couple partial sentences that were all garbly.