An Examination of Differences between Editions

[Raven Crowking]

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.

Bull.

If we assume that the guy isn't being an asshat in bringing the character, let's also assume that the DM isn't being an asshat in telling him No.

RC

 

[an_idol_mind]

Personally, I like the Rule 0 that came with my first basic set of D&D:

"As a Dungeon Master, you will soon learn the rules of the Dungeons & Dragons game. No matter how many rules you remember, the most important rule of all is Be Fair! As the Dungeon Master, you must never take sides. You will play the roles of all the creatures in the dungeon. You must do so fairly, without favoring the monsters -- or the players."

I think a lot of this supposed emphasis on the DM's ultimate power is not nearly as prevalent as a lot of people assume. Outside of a very few books, I've never seen it hammered on as much as people suggest it was -- in any edition.

 

[Hussar]

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

Actually, you were. I was the one who brought up the idea of the WF ninja in a pirate campaign. When people cried about how it didn't fit into the flavour of the setting, I posted a brief background fitting it into the setting. You then posted about how it is entirely on the shoulders of the DM to fit it into his campaign.

It isn't and nor should it be. The player should be cognizant of the fact that his idea is outside the norm for the setting and should make efforts to fit it in. That's just being a good player.

What I don't really understand is why DM's feel the need to control the player's characters. I do understand mechanical issues. That I already talked about. But, when it comes to purely flavour issues, when it isn't going to be more work for the DM, why should the DM care? It's my character, I'm the one who has to play it. The DM gets to control 99.9% of the campaign, why can't I have this?

Is that a really unreasonable attitude for the player to have?

 

[Hussar]

Bull.

If we assume that the guy isn't being an asshat in bringing the character, let's also assume that the DM isn't being an asshat in telling him No.

RC

I never said the DM is being an asshat. What I'm saying is that when a DM tells a player no for purely flavour reasons, he's effectively saying that his imaginary friends are of a better quality than mine.

 

[dcas]

I think if one of my players wanted to create something, even an entire civilization, that fit into my campaign, I would let him -- less work for me.

But if he wanted something that entailed more work for me (fitting a bizarro character concept into the campaign world), then there's not much of a chance I would allow it.

What I'm saying is that when a DM tells a player no for purely flavour reasons, he's effectively saying that his imaginary friends are of a better quality than mine.

That's why he's the DM -- because his imaginary friends are better.

 

[The Shaman]

I was mostly agreeing with you until I reached this, and then you lost me completely:

So if your tastes tend to be specifically defined and immutable, they're not necessarily very creative. They can be a lot of fun, I'm certainly not intending that as a negative judgment. Just a reality of the nature of the campaign. You can still invent new rules and have cool ideas and have compelling villains and rich, detailed histories and all sorts of goodness. But the setting, because it's limited, can't be very creative. It won't generate much as a setting..

Now you're conflating taste with creativity, which is not the same thing.

You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I never said the DM is being an asshat. What I'm saying is that when a DM tells a player no for purely flavour reasons, he's effectively saying that his imaginary friends are of a better quality than mine.

No....If for no other reason than that the DM isn't saying that your WN isn't appropriate for any game, just not for this game. If the DM said that the WN wasn't any good for any game, you might have a point. As it is, you are equating A to B where A=/= B.

"Sorry, but Transformers don't fit into the LotR."

"Are you saying that LotR is better than Transformers?"

"No....I am saying that Transformers don't fit into the LotR."

I hope that you can see the difference.


At the same time, a character can fit into a setting conceptually, without being appropriate for a PC. For example, the character you described would be more appropriate as a challenge in the average 7th Sea game than as a PC.

"We're going to be playing in the world of Pirates of the Carribean."

"Cool. Can I be the Kraken?"

Again, I hope that you can see the difference.


RC

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

Okay, so if I'm the DM, I asked you to come up with a way he'd fit into a swashbuckling seafaring setting. Give me something, anything that shows you've thought creatively about his position in my 7th Sea game, and he's probably aboard. Show me you're into creating a story for this guy by explaining his presence, and, as a DM, I'll match it, helping you to create the rest of his story up until his untimely demise and/or successful retirement from adventuring.

You're well within your rights to not want warforged ninjae in your 7th Sea game, but creative, it ain't. Which is fine, again, creativity isn't the holy grail of gaming, you don't need to leave every door open for a night of enjoyable adventure.

That's really the entirety of my message: for a setting, saying "no" isn't creative. Finding a way to say "yes" is. This is for the player, too. Simply saying "warforged ninja!" or "feral minotaur!" or "red wizard wonder twins!" isn't necessarily enriching the setting, but finding a way it works in the world you know the DM is running is certainly creative. I'm not saying anyone should accept a warforged ninja, but I am saying that it would show the creativity of the DM, the player, and the setting.

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.

That's only true if both the player and the DM are on the same page as far as rewarding creative thinking goes. The DM has no obligation to the player, but he's not being creative by saying "no." It could still be a very good idea to say "no," creativity doesn't necessarily equal a good game. DMs are allowed, encouraged, to limit creativity to what they feel comfortable with.

I'm not saying the DM has to do anything, I'm just describing the traits of either decision. Accepting bizarre characters can be very creative, but if there's a lot of specificity about the feel or style of game, it might make the game worse for it, so creativity isn't always a good thing. Forbidding certain trains of thought is limiting to creativity, but only on those specific tracks, which can help players consider new tracks.

The conflict occurs when the player wants to be super really crazy creative, pulling unlikely characters and enjoying the challenge of making them work, but the DM (and the rest of the group) likes a very specific style with very specific trappings that would be ruined for them by including anything slightly alien, no matter how well-disguised in the setting. When the DM and player aren't on the same page, aren't looking for the same thing, and perhaps even enjoy different styles.

The specific, limited DM has every right (and responsibility) to say "Your creativity would hurt my game. You're not allowed to express it like this." The player can either take it and be creative in a different way, or reject it and find some group more accepting of his creativity, or offer to run the game himself.

Not every DM wants infinite potential for every game.

 

[The Shaman]

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.

You mean other than consider the effect the Tin Man joining the crew of the Black Pearl will have every time the adventurers encounter non-player characters in a roleplaying setting?

"Even'n Cap'n . . . Mr. Turner . . . Miss Swann . . . good gods, what in the Nine Hells is that thing?!?"

Some referees and players may think, "Oh cool, an interesting roleplaying challenge!" Others will think, "Great, Bob's playing another freak character that the rest of us have to work around all night." :\

 

[Raven Crowking]

That's really the entirety of my message: for a setting, saying "no" isn't creative.

Agreed.

Finding a way to say "yes" is.

Could be. Or it could be a big old stinker.

However, allowing or disallowing character types isn't the be all and end all of creativity, either. Creating a campaign world that uses only humans as PCs while otherwise maintaining the standard D&D tropes requires as much (or more) creativity as allowing the WN into the game....And this is true both for players and DMs.

Limiting PC races and/or classes doesn't prevent the game from having "infinite potential"; neither does allowing the kitchen sink into a game. The potential for creativity exists only within a contextual framework. I would argue that, the stronger that contextual framework is, the more creativity is possible.

Of course, it is equally true that creativity includes expanding and building upon that contextual framework. However, that doesn't mean that every concept expands or builds; some damage that framework. If halfway through LotR Frodo rented a minivan and drove to Mordor, the novel would come to a crashing and disconcerting halt. At least for me.

It is also true, as others have pointed out, that the responsiblity of the DM is to the group, not just to that one player. If Joe is allowed to make a WN, why isn't Bob allowed to make a Saurian Samurai? Why can't Billy make something from the Book of Erotic Fantasy? Why can't Kathy play a Teenaged Mutant Ninja Turtle?

I've run across a lot of "kitchen sink" games, and in my experience, none of them are as fun to play in as a more restricted, well-thought-out world. My last experience with a kitchen sink setting was the WLD, where I allowed any D20 character in -- we had Jedi and moderns and all those funny creatures like LEGO Men that some people love to create. Within a few sessions, the players unanimously decided that the "kitchen sink" approach sucked, and asked to get back to "the good game".

(Of course, part of this might have been due to the WLD itself, which, IMHO, needs a lot of work.)

I accept, of course, that others' experience may well be different.

So, I would say that every DM has the right (and responsibility) to say "This concept would hurt our game. Make a different character if you want to play." The player can either accept the DM's authority, and exercise his creativity to create a character that fits the campaign, or he can find some group more in tune with his character concept.

In either case, it has nothing to do with whose creativity is better than whose.


RC