An Examination of Differences between Editions

[Raven Crowking]

So, you're saying that my character concept gets vetoed because there is a chance that someone else might want to play it after me? I created a character that fit within the setting. ((Actually, I'm not sure if that's true since I have only a glancing familiarity with the 7th Sea setting - however, it would work in a piratical/naval campaign set in a more standard setting))

As I said, I agree with you that the DM can set limits. However, in doing so, we are saying to our players that our vision is better than their's. That may be a big bone of contention between players and DM's.

No. I'm saying that, at the start of the campaign, I tell you what the limits are, and you either make a character within those limits or you do not. If you do, you can play. If not, not.

It has nothing to do with whether or not my vision is "better" than yours -- only with whose "vision" is going to take precedence in a game I am running.

Or, to quote molonel, "That's very creative, and very well written. And no, you STILL couldn't play a warforged ninja in my 7th Sea campaign."

EDIT: BTW, I am saddened to hear that every time you say "No" to players in order to preserve the flavor of your setting, your players become less invested in the setting. IME, setting limitations on the campaign melieu has served to increase my players investment in the setting. This is, I guess, a real YMMV.

RC

 

[Doug McCrae]

As a DM I like it when the players create bits of the world - nations, races, characters, magic items - it enriches the universe and means less work for me.

 

[Raven Crowking]

As a DM I like it when the players create bits of the world - nations, races, characters, magic items - it enriches the universe and means less work for me.

I do too, and have created specific mechanics for it. But there is a difference between creating part of the world in a way that is meant to fit into the world as presented, and creating something that has little or no place in the world presented.

It's rather like Hussar's warforged ninja -- do you reward the character for the concept by letting him (and only him) play such a misfit character, or do you resign yourself to the idea that, on this ship, everyone who shows up is going to be a misfit character?

IMC, I charge a feat slot.


RC

 

[Doug McCrae]

You're right to highlight the problem of everyone wanting to be special. I've seen that a few times. The only solution, if you allow special at all, is to do it on a first-come-first-served basis. Say there's a party of five, and elves are supposed to be very rare in your world, then only one PC can be an elf, not three.

The warforged ninja issue shows how important terminology is in roleplaying. After all rpgs aren't made of anything *but* words. A 'warforged ninja' in 7th Sea isn't acceptable but I'd say a 'stealthy killer, made of wood and metal' would be. The problems are with the word warforged which is distinctly D&Dy, and the word ninja which is oriental.

I was thinking about whether I would allow Drow PCs in the world I'm working on. My first thought was no, as drow are an enemy race. I want them to be mysterious. But then I realised it would work if the drow PC had been raised by non-drow, perhaps being snatched as an infant.

This makes me think that perhaps anything can work, in any world, if it's tweaked enough.

 

[Raven Crowking]

This makes me think that perhaps anything can work, in any world, if it's tweaked enough.

I think that this statement is far more true when discussing non-POV (point-of-view)characters than when discussing POV characters. And PCs, are by definition POV characters.

 

[thedungeondelver]

I'm a little confused about something and maybe some of y'all can help me out here:

Is it the general opinion that if someone shows up with xyz character booklet or book that the DM doesn't have or whatever that the DM "has to" let someone play it? Is that how some folks feel? That is, regardless of what the DM has going in his campaign, a warforged ninja "has to" go because it's "cool" and not allowing it is restricting or punishing the player?

I mean, I've played with a lot of various character classes in D&D and AD&D and I just don't allow certain things. Some I do, though.

Just looking for some insight.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Is it the general opinion that if someone shows up with xyz character booklet or book that the DM doesn't have or whatever that the DM "has to" let someone play it? Is that how some folks feel? That is, regardless of what the DM has going in his campaign, a warforged ninja "has to" go because it's "cool" and not allowing it is restricting or punishing the player?

I think it would be more accurate to say that some folks feel that if you pull the plug on a cool and well-written idea for a warforged ninja in an unusual campaign, you're not being a very creative DM. Or, at least, that your player is more creative than you.

Which is okay, as long as everyone's on the same page: as long as the player is okay limiting his own character design to the DM's imagination, and flexible enough to do so, he can still have fun. And if the DM is excited by the concept and loves the exceptional (but creatively designed) character and says it's okay, then they're on the same page, too.

The important thing is that the players and the DM all have a happy medium. Where that's going to lie on the freakometer is going to be different for different campaigns and different DMs with different sticking points. In most of my games, I'd only be too happy for a player to come up with a wacky background filled with such story potential, and I'd let them in graciously and change my entire world to accommodate them if need be, because I don't have a lot invested in my worlds, and half the time I think my players can come up with cooler ideas. Of course, most of my players have liked my ideas better than their own, too.

That works well for my krewe, but not everyone's cool with that. Plenty of DMs invest a lot in their worlds, and they'd be understandably upset if someone angrily demanded their "better" idea take precedence over the careful crafting of the DM.

 

[molonel]

I'm a little confused about something and maybe some of y'all can help me out here:

Is it the general opinion that if someone shows up with xyz character booklet or book that the DM doesn't have or whatever that the DM "has to" let someone play it? Is that how some folks feel? That is, regardless of what the DM has going in his campaign, a warforged ninja "has to" go because it's "cool" and not allowing it is restricting or punishing the player?

I mean, I've played with a lot of various character classes in D&D and AD&D and I just don't allow certain things. Some I do, though.

Just looking for some insight.

I think this point of view is more often put forward as fact IN SOMEONE ELSE'S GROUP than seriously, honestly held or believed.

I've HEARD about gaming groups where players act like this, but I've never seen it in action. I've seen a player whine, and a DM tell him to .... well, do something I won't repeat on a family-friendly forum. But it involved a fire hydrant, some lube and a small leather bag filled with fine-grained sand.

 

[Thurbane]

I'm a little confused about something and maybe some of y'all can help me out here:

Is it the general opinion that if someone shows up with xyz character booklet or book that the DM doesn't have or whatever that the DM "has to" let someone play it? Is that how some folks feel? That is, regardless of what the DM has going in his campaign, a warforged ninja "has to" go because it's "cool" and not allowing it is restricting or punishing the player?

I mean, I've played with a lot of various character classes in D&D and AD&D and I just don't allow certain things. Some I do, though.

Just looking for some insight.

I certainly hope there is not an expectation that a DM "has to" allow anything in his campaign, especially if it's from a supplement he's not familiar with.

I have seen firsthand what kind of difficulties this can cause, when the DM is informed of some racial or class ability that he has never previously encountered tipping an encounter, adventure or even campaign on it's ear. It also creates problems when a players ability to craft an effective and/or powerful character is directly tied to how many supplements he's gone out and bought...

 

[Hussar]

*snip*

EDIT: BTW, I am saddened to hear that every time you say "No" to players in order to preserve the flavor of your setting, your players become less invested in the setting. IME, setting limitations on the campaign melieu has served to increase my players investment in the setting. This is, I guess, a real YMMV.

RC

IME, when the DM starts shooting down player ideas, it can lead to some disconnection with the setting. The player is honestly thinking (and I'm assuming the player isn't an asshat here) that his idea fits with the setting. He's done a decent job tailoring things so that it works from the information he's been given from the DM. When the DM turns around and shoots that idea down because it doesn't fit into the DM's vision of the campaign, then the player may feel that his input isn't needed or even wanted. He's supposed to just make whatever stock character fits into the theme of the game and play away.

Not that this is necessarily true. KM hits it on the head well:

The important thing is that the players and the DM all have a happy medium. Where that's going to lie on the freakometer is going to be different for different campaigns and different DMs with different sticking points. In most of my games, I'd only be too happy for a player to come up with a wacky background filled with such story potential, and I'd let them in graciously and change my entire world to accommodate them if need be, because I don't have a lot invested in my worlds, and half the time I think my players can come up with cooler ideas. Of course, most of my players have liked my ideas better than their own, too.

If a DM ((Note the if part there)) is too inflexible in his campaign design, then the players may feel left out. Earlier it was mentioned that some players put in lots of effort into making their character and do lots of work outside of the game on their character. If that effort gets shot down, most people are going to be somewhat put off. That's just natural.

Look, I'm not advocating anything like what DungeonDelver is talking about. There will always be limitations upon any campaign. That's fine. However, there should be a happy medium, as KM says. There's nothing wrong with letting players fill in the gaps sometimes.