An Examination of Differences between Editions

[I'm A Banana]

If a player told me I was being uncreative because I didn't want a warforged ninja in my 7th Sea campaign, honestly, I'd shrug and say, "Oh well, I guess I'm uncreative. I readily concede the point."

Then I'd turn my baseball cap around, get my books, and say, "So! I guess that means I'm playing a warforged ninja in YOUR 7th Sea campaign. Let's go!"

Well, it's not a contest, but sure. Let's go! Step #1: Be creative. Explain him. I promise I'll be accepting as long as he fits the swashbuckling adventure and dramatic flair of the setting.

If your only purpose for that is to prove a point, though, I am dubious as to how long you'll enjoy playin' the guy.

 

[molonel]

Well, it's not a contest, but sure. Let's go!

Cool. Because playing a character requires a substantially smaller investment of my time and effort in a game. You just cut my prep time down to nearly zero.

Enjoy the driver's seat.

If your only purpose for that is to prove a point, though, I am dubious as to how long you'll enjoy playin' the guy.

Ultimately, my only "point" is to have fun gaming.

I've had players who tried to pimpslap my gaming style, and honestly, my first reaction is to say, "You can play the game and acknowledge that I'm the DM, or you can let the door smack you on the ass on the way out." If I invited someone else to take the driver's seat, it would only be if I was done DMing, or sick of running the game.

I see what you're saying, but I've also noticed a STRONG correlation between extremely creative backstories, and warforged ninjas, or feral minotaurs, or Red Wizards of Thay with cohorts who are also Red Wizards so that they can do the whole Red Wizard circlejerk, etc. etc. ad nauseum. I do my best to listen to player requests, and I'm probably more lenient than most, in fact, especially when the choices have flavor and bite.

But a warforged ninja? Yeah, pardon me for being nonplussed.

 

[Raven Crowking]

If something is out of theme the DM has every right to smack it down before it enters play: "You want to play a Samurai on my world that has no Oriental-like culture? Sorry..."

However, once it *does* enter play the DM in all fairness has to allow it again if someone else wants to run out the same concept in the same campaign...either that, or come up with an ironclad in-game rationale for why this character was so unique (and then be wide open to charges of favouritism).

Lanefan

Well put.

Having a world that hangs together (and therefore excludes certain concepts) isn't a sign that the DM lacks creativity. Being unable to create a character within that framework (as long as that framework is made explicit, such as by player handouts, or "Core Rules Only", or similar) is a sign that the player lacks creativity.

If you don't tell the players what you're doing before character creation, it's your own fault when the Warforged Ninjas show up. If you tell the players, it is their fault if they bring characters that violate the guidelines....assuming, of course, that your guidelines are clear.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

If the objections are purely flavour based, such as Molonel's objections to my WF Ninja, then, it is the DM saying that the player's imagination isn't good enough.

No, it is a simple statement that the flavour of the character doesn't match that of the campaign. There is no ordering of whose imagination is "better" inherent in that proposition. There is an ordering of whose vision takes precedence, but that is a very different animal.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Cool. Because playing a character requires a substantially smaller investment of my time and effort in a game. You just cut my prep time down to nearly zero.

QFT.

I've had players who tried to pimpslap my gaming style, and honestly, my first reaction is to say, "You can play the game and acknowledge that I'm the DM, or you can let the door smack you on the ass on the way out." If I invited someone else to take the driver's seat, it would only be if I was done DMing, or sick of running the game.

QFT

I see what you're saying, but I've also noticed a STRONG correlation between extremely creative backstories, and warforged ninjas, or feral minotaurs, or Red Wizards of Thay with cohorts who are also Red Wizards so that they can do the whole Red Wizard circlejerk, etc. etc. ad nauseum. I do my best to listen to player requests, and I'm probably more lenient than most, in fact, especially when the choices have flavor and bite.

QFMFT!

Seriously, can you write a post I agree with more?

 

[S'mon]

To me the trouble with the Warforged Ninja type players is that they want to dominate the game by bringing in the weirdest, kewlest, moster powerful PC. Everyone else is playing elves, dwarves and humans in a Tolkienesque setting, then this warforged ninja PC shows up.

I think a campaign centred on a _group_ of warforged ninja PCs could be great - I used to love the "ABC Warriors" comic strip about a group of battle robots, one of whom, Joe Pineapples, is essentially a Warforged Ninja - a stealth sniper assassin robot. I can certainly see running this in some kind of post apocalypse setting, where ancient battle golems/robots/warforged roam the blasted wastelands, struggling to survive. Maybe a Western type theme as they roam the wastelands from isolated settlement to settlement, meeting people, battling marauders, mutants, sorcerers and warlords, but never able to truly settle down and belong in the human communities. But that kind of thing needs to be agreed from the ground up, by GM and players working together. In reality, Mr Warforged Ninja always seems to be the guy who turns up 6 sessions into a campaign and expects the campaign to be bent to fit around his idea, not vice versa.

 

[S'mon]

Dismissing a warforged ninja in a doughty pirate setting is dismissing some creativity. The DM is telling them: "It can't work in a way that will satisfy me." That's not a failure of creativity on the player's part (trying to make a warforged ninja work in a doughty pirate setting is certainly a very creative exercise), but it might be on the DM's part.

I love how all the burden here falls on the GM. The player has the right to 'creatively' come up with whatever they feel like, and the GM has the duty to make it work, somehow. :\

 

[Hussar]

I sgree. There's no issue of creativity here, jst preferences and playstyles. Thinking that you're more creative than the GM because you can instantly think of -- and request -- a character concept that runs entirely contrary to what the GM just sat down and explained the campaign was supposed to be about isn't creativity: it is being a pain in the ass.

QFT.

(IMO, there's not much "creative" about requesting a warforged ninja, in any case, regardless of campaign setting. No more so that requesting a human fighter.)

*snip*

But a warforged ninja? Yeah, pardon me for being nonplussed.

I think you guys have pretty much showed my point very well. All of the above are simply different ways of saying, "Sorry, your imagination isn't good enough for my game." Note, I did say at the outset to assume the player isn't being an asshat. He truly wants to play this concept and has gone out of his way to conform his concept to the setting you have laid out.

What reaction does he get? Snorts of derision and being told that, not only is he not being creative enough, but, he's not being creative at all. Just because you think it's not creative, doesn't mean that he doesn't. In his mind, he's come up with a unique concept that really interests him. But, despite attempts to mold it to the setting and meet the DM halfway, he still gets shut down.

How is this not stomping on his creativity? He's not asking the DM to rewrite the entire campaign. If he was asking to add House Cannith to 7th Sea, then I could see the DM flatly refusing. It's simply a question of work. But, in this case, there's no extra work for the DM.

This goes back to what RC was talking about with a stronger Rule 0. How much stronger could the idea of DM power get than what you see right here? Player comes up with a concept that is not mechanically broken. Player attempts to fit the concept into the setting with a good backstory. Player gets shot down in a burst of flames.

To me, Rule 0 is one of the most abused concepts in D&D. IMO, Rule 0 was put in place as a means of conflict resolution. When something came up in play that covered by the rules, Rule 0 gave the DM permission to make a final decision. Unfortunately, since Rule 0 hit the streets, DM's have used it to strongarm players, and browbeat them into submission to follow their vision. "Play in the game I want to play in or I won't DM" is the message Molonel just posted. "If you don't like my game, there's the door" is another one. How is that not incredibly arrogant of the DM? And Rule 0 is right there, patting the DM on the back for doing so.

To me, my campaign is not mine. Sure, I run the show, but, like a director, it's not MINE, it belongs to my group. Again, like a director, there are some times I have to step in and veto something, but, at no point do I simply say, "Hey, this is my game." To me, it's our game. When a player comes up with a concept and gives me a bit of effort to slot it into the setting, I'll usually go for it unless there is some mechanical reason not to.

Getting back to what RFisher said earlier about players inputting time into the campaign, well, I think I've nicely proven how effective that might be. I can input all the time I like, so long as I don't stray from the clear guidelines handed down by the DM in some games.

 

[Hussar]

I love how all the burden here falls on the GM. The player has the right to 'creatively' come up with whatever they feel like, and the GM has the duty to make it work, somehow. :\

No, that's not true. I already posted a brief background on how to fit the character into the setting without the DM having to do any work whatsoever.

 

[S'mon]

No, that's not true. I already posted a brief background on how to fit the character into the setting without the DM having to do any work whatsoever.

I wasn't talking to you or addressing your post, Hussar.

I will address your post immediately above - "the campaign isn't mine". Sure, it's not the GM's alone, but the GM has a duty to all the players, all the group. This is one of the toughest parts of GMing, to prevent Mr Warforged Ninja overshadowing Miss Talks-to-Bunnies, the shy retiring player who can be great, but is easily overshadowed by the pushy extrovert powergamer. Since I run a long-running campaign world Ea that's been played in by dozens of player groups I also have to consider my duty to players past (who may still be interested in the future of the campaign world their PCs helped create) and players future. Maybe a warforged ninja PC would fit in to my Wilderlands game (as a Markab device left over from the Uttermost War, say) but not into my Ea game. I'm not a bad GM for saying so. I've let players create entire new civilisations for Ea, where they inspired me and fitted into the setting. Conversely I've disallowed PC concepts that didn't fit an didn't inspire me. One thing I took from Ron Edwards' "Sorcerer & Sword" was the vital importance of PCs seeming cool - cool to the GM as well as to the player.