An Examination of Differences between Editions

[molonel]

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.

Feral minotaurs, warforged ninjas and Red Wizard of Thay circlejerks are ALWAYS more work for the DM. I'm sorry, but at this point, I have to fall back on experience.

I'm a powergamer, man. I just don't sit around dreaming up novels to push my PCs through. I confess that walking through rulesbooks finding little combinations of game elements that break the game puts me at half mast below the equator, or better.

And I've even MADE the big, tearful puppy dog eyes you're making right now about the warforged ninja.

As a DM, I simply have to draw the line somewhere. And the whole warforged ninja in a 7th Sea campaign is one of those situations that smacks of other players getting their human rogues or human fighters overshadowed. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong, but I've seen it happen too many times, and quite frankly, I trust my gut on this one.

One of my strengths, as a DM, and my players have commented on this without nudging from me, is my ability to make sure ALL of the players are participants in the story. Party balance is an important factor in this, in my opinion.

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.

Is this where I cue Bon Jovi's "Shot Down in a Blaze of Glory?"

It's that whole "not mechnically broken" thing that I disagree with. Whether or not the warforged is mechanically broken is a matter of some disagreement among gamers.

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.

Shrug. Okay, so I'm arrogant. When a player wants to play something inappropriate for the setting I'm running, that is a conflict that needs to be resolved. I already know I run a good game, and if that's a deal breaker for the PC, I've also said that I'm willing to let that infinitely creative PC take the driver's seat and DM the game.

The truth is, I'm actually an EXTREMELY lenient DM/GM. But even I have my limits. And, truthfully, so do you.

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.

That's a nice sentiment, but I both agree and disagree. I have a STRONG player emphasis in my games. I've played with the DMs who wouldn't allow players to interrupt the novel they were writing in their mind. I @#$#@ing hate that kind of DMing. The reason I usually deny things like the warforged ninja is because there are certain sorts of character concepts that tend to overshadow the group.

The warforged are also a character race from a very specific D&D setting. I've been told they play a part in the backstory of that world. Great. If I'm playing Eberron, I think I'd have to allow it because the race plays a part in that world. But no, they really don't fit in my fantasy homebrewed world. I've had half-dragon shadowdancer monks who studied mystical secrets at the feet of gold dragon mentors and half-celestial barbarian/fighter spiked-chain wielding monsters with feats from Sean K. Reynolds's Anger of Angels. But warforged just doesn't fit in my game.

If that makes me uncreative and arrogant, oh well. My players don't seem to mind.

 

[molonel]

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".

We had a game where the DM told us to search out any material we wanted. It was called the "No Holds Barred" campaign. Any book, any setting, any published material was allowed.

We barely made it the fourth session before the game started to unravel into absurdity. We used template class levels, so I played a gestalted monk-half-dragon-fighter-half-celestial-OA Shaman with I don't even remember what. I do remember that at level 10 I had an AC of 70-ish because I was getting my Wisdom (twice), Dexterity, Charisma bonuses to AC. I was right next to a vow of poverty dwarf from Arcanis gestalted fighter-some kind of weird prestige monk-half-dragon-wereboar who was immune to nearly everything, and Hindu-themed 10-armed creature who used the alternate rules from Savage Species where you could swing a weapon with 8 hands and get x4.5 your strength bonus for damage.

It was extremely imaginative. All of us had good backstories. The game still sucked, though.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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

Just because it's a stinker doesn't mean it's not creative. Creativity has no promise of quality in it, after all. A lot of five year olds are more creative than I, but I'd like to think I can write a better story.

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.

There's a lot of avenues for creativity in the game. Limiting them is saying "no" to certain kinds of creativity. Creating an all-human world is creative in some ways, but not in others. It's limiting of creativity (which, really, all D&D games are to a lesser or greater extent).

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.

Only if you're talking about creating *within* the framework. I don't think Renaissance artists were any more creative than Andy Warhol just because they had to work within the bounds of biblical stories and he wasn't bound by that. In fact, their creativity was limited. It didn't stop them from being creative in the ways they could, but it did say "no" to certain types of creativity.

I mean, even the most open and accepting swashbuckling pirate setting is still created in a framework of ships, pirates, rapiers, acrobatics, and courtly intrigue. A time-traveling FBI agent from the future who wields uzis and flies in a jetpack and references lines from Bruce Willis movies might be very creative, if you can make it work in that setting. I'm more than willing to concede that *I* couldn't make it work, though I might give a player a shot if they think they can. I'd more than likely just be saying "no" to that, limiting my setting and avoiding problems that come with creativity that I don't really want to deal with. I can do that. I'm the DM. It's part of what I have a responsibility to do, if something's too out there for me to handle reliably and enjoyably.

I'm sure some DM somewhere could make that work, and good for her. I couldn't. I'm not that creative. That's not a problem unless one of my players *really* is.

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?

This "slippery slope" argument scuttles the assumption that the group wants to play a swashbucklnig adventure 7th sea game. If they don't want to play that game (as it looks like they don't, with their asian reptile hentai party), we can play something else. And if I didn't want the mental athletics of running it, someone else could. And none of that is really a problem. Sometimes people are more in the mood for something totally new.

I don't need to fit those into 7th Sea, I just need to concede that 7th Sea really isn't what they're interested in playing at the moment. Maybe they've had enough of swashbuckling adventure if I've been running the same game for 15 years. Let Todd run his "Sewers of Tokyo" robots-and-lizards boy fantasy campaign, it'll be fun, at least for a change of pace. And maybe Pete will get his Warforged Ninja out of his system and I won't have to work it into 7th sea.

This is only my perspective, of course. My games are not sacrosanct to me. Heck, just *talking* abut TMNT, Sauraian Samurai, and Warforged Ninja in the sewers of Tokyo makes me want to go out and run it this weekend. Or, heck, I'd play in it even faster.

You don't have to run anything. As a DM, you're never forced to accept anything. You could always give up the big chair for a night and let someone else do it if the group isn't that interested in your game at the moment. And if they want you to DM, then they'll limit themselves to what you want.

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.

He could also say "Okay, let me DM a game with warforged ninjae in it!"

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

It's not about quality, as far as I am concerned, it's about quantity. More isn't always better, and this applies to creativity, too. There should be limits that everyone at the table is comfortable with, wherever those limits lie. Creativity can be limited, that doesn't make the creativity that exists any better or worse than that which is excluded, it just means fewer areas in which you can exercise creativity.

 

[Raven Crowking]

He could also say "Okay, let me DM a game with warforged ninjae in it!"

Who is stopping him?!?


EDIT: Or are you suggesting that I stop my game because he wants to run his?

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

If barring Omanko the Nijna Tin Man and Optimus Prime from my pirate-themed game makes someone call me arrogant and uncreative, well, I'm willing to live with that. Somehow, I don't think I'll be losing any sleep over it. (And the other players will thank me for it, too.)

If the group *wants* to run a looser, kitchen-sink type of game, then that's fine. Pretty much anything goes, and I think it would be a lot of fun seeing what players came up with and making things work together. However, that's not usually where you see this issue come up. Usually it comes up when the game has a tighter theme with some genre limitations spelled out or assumed. I don't think there's anything arrogant or uncreative in saying no, and enforcing/explaining the genre limitations and assumptions. In fact, I think the GM has a responsibility to say no, in that case. And I think the players have a responsibility to exercise their creativity in a way that works within the limitations of the campaign theme/setting/etc. Everyone contributes, of course, but ultimately the DM sets those limits, for the good of the group.

Perhaps the charges of uncreativeness, and especially arrogance, might apply better to a prima donna player that wants what he wants, and be-damned to the opinions of everyone else that wants to play a "boring and cliche" pirate-game, and can't see his creative genius ("...but Omanko *fits* in the pirate game, don't you see...").

 

[I'm A Banana]

Who is stopping him?!?

No one, but it's an option you left out.

EDIT: Or are you suggesting that I stop my game because he wants to run his?

Well, the usual scenario I've seen is similar to this: you gathered everyone over in Kathy's basement for a game of D&D, assuming Ryan would run his 7th sea adventure. Todd mentions he'd like to play a Warforged Ninja. Then Bob, Billy, and Kathy all pipe up with their ideas. Ryan says "Hm...doesn't sound like a 7th sea game anymore." Todd says "Okay, let me DM a game with warforged ninjae in it!" Ryan says "sure" and creates a character to play in Todd's game. Ryan, Todd, Bob, Billy, and Kathy all spend their night playing Todd's Tokyo Sewers campaign.

Next week comes, everyone gathers in Kathy's basement again. Ryan's game was fun, but the only thing the group has been talking about for the past week was how awesome Todd's game was. Even Ryan.

7th Sea goes bye-bye, the group adopts Tokyo Sewers, and life is joyful for all. At least, until Todd's game gets old and people want to jump into 7th Sea again, or maybe they just saw this new Dungeon Crawl Classics adventure they want to play in D&D, or maybe Kathy has been working really hard on her Mecha vs. Kaiju T20 campaign, or whatever.

I mean, Ryan could be a jerk and say "Unless we're playing MY 7th Sea game, I'm leaving and finding someone who will!" but everyone here is friends and they game as much to hang out together as to role play. It's just about the only time all five of them are together for a night.

Who would Ryan play with? Would he find another group and slot them into his busy schedule on "game night" ignoring his four other friends? Just because of a penchant for flamboyant musketeers over ninja mutants and robots?

Ryan could also be a jerk and say "We're all playing my 7th sea game because that's the reason we're all here and if you want to play your Tokyo Sewers you can do it some other time, but this time it's for my 7th Sea game." But then he's pretty much ignoring what the rest of the group wants. And maybe they'll go along with it to humor him, because it's important to him, because they're friends with him, but Billy will always press for material from the Book of Erotic Fantasy.

This, of course, is an assumption about how a gaming group is composed, but for busy adults, this seems to be *the* way it's composed.

 

[Raven Crowking]

No one, but it's an option you left out.

I also left out that he could go to 7-11 and buy ice cream. Which is, IMHO, about as relevant. I don't think that anyone needs to spell out that someone else can run their own game (although, it has been spelled out upthread).

In fact, I think I mentioned more than once that an idea not appropriate for this campaign might be appropriate for another. I didn't say who was running that other game.

Well, the usual scenario I've seen is similar to this: you gathered everyone over in Kathy's basement for a game of D&D, assuming Ryan would run his 7th sea adventure. Todd mentions he'd like to play a Warforged Ninja. Then Bob, Billy, and Kathy all pipe up with their ideas. Ryan says "Hm...doesn't sound like a 7th sea game anymore." Todd says "Okay, let me DM a game with warforged ninjae in it!" Ryan says "sure" and creates a character to play in Todd's game. Ryan, Todd, Bob, Billy, and Kathy all spend their night playing Todd's Tokyo Sewers campaign.

Next week comes, everyone gathers in Kathy's basement again. Ryan's game was fun, but the only thing the group has been talking about for the past week was how awesome Todd's game was. Even Ryan.

This is a problem why?

In your example, if Ryan insisted on his game, he'd be sitting alone. And, honestly, that is how it should be. No one has a right to have the DM cater to them; no one has the right to have the players cater to him. The DM creates a desire for the players to play the game he presents, or he does not. If he does not, then he shouldn't be DMing (or at least not DMing for that group).

Of course, your example assumes that Todd is the best GM for that group. If that's the case, then why wouldn't the group let Todd GM?

OTOH, the usual scenario I've seen is similar to this: you gathered in your home for a game of D&D, assuming Ryan would run his ongoing 7th Sea campaign. Todd is this new guy that works with Kathy. Todd mentions he'd like to play a Warforged Ninja. Bob, Billy, and Kathy are all playing "normal" characters, but they decide to support Todd's "creativity" and the DM consents to the character.

Within one to four sessions, Bob notices that his human rogue can't hold a candle to Todd's character. So he decides to create something that can.

Shortly thereafter, Billy notices that everyone is paying attention to Todd's and Bob's characters (What in the seven hells are those things?!?!), so he chimes in with his character. His BOEF character is a shocker, no doubt, and one that the NPCs literally cannot ignore! And the DM, having said Yes to Todd and Bob really doesn't feel that he can say No to Billy.

Finally, Kathy pipes up....I mean, after all, she's the only non-freak in a party of freaks, and the least effective character to boot.

At some point someone, Ryan or Bob, or Billy, or Kathy, usually, says "Hm...doesn't sound like a 7th sea game anymore." Todd doesn't care, because what he really wanted was a campaign with warforged ninjas in it! However, Ryan no longer cares about the game. Nor does Bob, or Billy, or kathy. And it collapses.

Shortly thereafter, Todd starts his Warforged Ninjas game. And, because Todd didn't care about the group when he wanted to play the Warforged Ninja in the first place, he doesn't care now either. What he really wants to do is show off his Kewl DM-PCs. His game folds fast, and Todd leaves in a sulk.

Ryan, Bob, Billy, and Kathy are left with the wreckage. Inevitably, Bob, Billy, and Kathy ask Ryan, "Why didn't you just say No to that Warforged Ninja crap in the first place?" Hopefully, they manage to pull together a good game again, but Ryan might be done with it for a while. Maybe one of the others is a competent DM, maybe not. Ryan takes up fishing.


RC

 

[S'mon]

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?

Is it a "purely flavour issue" when the peasants scream "Ah! Golem! Get the pitch forks!" whenever the PC shows up? I'm supposed to change my world so a Warforged Ninja is playable within it? Or let the player change it for me?

 

[S'mon]

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.


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

QFT!!!

 

[Raven Crowking]

I mean, Ryan could be a jerk and say "Unless we're playing MY 7th Sea game, I'm leaving and finding someone who will!" but everyone here is friends and they game as much to hang out together as to role play. It's just about the only time all five of them are together for a night.

Out of curiosity, why would Ryan be a jerk for finding a group more conducive to his needs?

Also, if these people are all friends, why is this the only time they hang out?

My Mileage Obviously Varies a lot from yours.