An Examination of Differences between Editions

[RFisher]

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?

That's a side-issue in this discussion to me. If I've accepted a concept for a PC, I can come up with mechanics (or tweak or turn down the mechanics suggested by the player) to support that that I'll be willing to accept. The real issue is whether I should allow the concept in the first place.

The issue with playing a demihuman cleric in my classic D&D campaign isn't mechanical, it's that the demihumans in my world don't worship deities. A concept for an elfin PC that is predicated on the long life spans of elves will be a problem because my elves don't have longer lifespans than humans. A female dwarf concept will be a problem because my dwarves are asexual.

Of course, ideally I communicate every detail that could have such an impact to the players before they start creating character concepts. The problem is that there's probably an infinite number of such details. Also, things seldom go so orderly that I have such info complete & ready & the players can take sufficient time to read & digest all of it before they start developing concepts.

&, if I try, it doesn't take me long to come up with solutions to almost any concept/campaign mismatch.

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).

If I had to specifically OK a PC concept, it should be obvious that I might not (probably will not) allow a duplicate of that concept. A one-off approval is a one-off. If you think I'm being unfair, you're welcome to take the DM chair yourself or leave the group. Or come up with your own idea. I'm not going to allow such considerations keep me from OKing an interesting one-off.

I think some people tend to confuse or conflate creativity with unfettered fancy. In my experience they are not the same thing at all.

True. Indeed, I tend to think being able to work within a structure requires more creativity.

But it isn't always black & white. When is it OK to break the structure a little to add richness to the work? When is it not? Or rather, if I break the structure for this bit, does it improve or detract from the whole?

As for "unfettered fancy"... The thing is that although I always avoid this--& while that may be for the best because it may be good only in limited doses--the kitchen sink games I've played have possibly been the best ones.

Although--& touches on similar ground as the Delver's question--I think it can depend upon the rules. Gurps 3/e + Fantasy Folk were pretty good rules for a kitchen sink game. (There were some problems, but they were fixable.) Toon seems to do OK at it as well. (Probably because the areas in which it most encourages you to unfetter your fancy aren't treated mechanically.) I can see how it could be a disaster under other rules.

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.

Well, there's principle & there's practice. My principle is that the DM has the final say. That the DM wants player input is a given. After all, what's the point of involving other people if you don't want to involve other people? The absolute wording of the principle is not to suggest absolute practice, but to leave it up to the DM to figure out the balance.

 

[Ourph]

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.

That varies from my experience pretty sharply. IME the scenario goes more like this....

You gathered 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, why don't one of you guys run a game where these kinds of characters will fit in." Todd, Bob, Billy and Kathy all get uncomfortable looks on their faces and fall all over themselves telling Ryan how great his DMing skills are and how they always really love his games because the last thing Todd, Bob, Billy and Kathy want to do is give up their seat as a player and put in the work that it takes to sit in the DM's chair. So, Ryan says, "Well, I'm happy to play in any game you guys want to run, but if I'm putting in the work to run the game, I'm going to run 7th Sea... and Warforged Ninjae aren't a PC option." Todd, Bob, Billy and Kathy all shut up and roll up appropriately themed characters. Bob, Billy and Kathy do so good-naturedly, because they're just happy to be playing and Ryan always runs a really fun game.

Todd harbours bitter resentment in his heart at not getting to play the cool new character concept he came up with and takes it out on Ryan by being kind of a prick for the rest of the campaign and posting rants about him under a pseudonym at ENWorld.

YMMV. (And I hope for your sake it does. )

 

[Shroomy]

I don't think a powergamer is going to choose a warforged ninja since it is a suboptimal choice given the warforged's -2 racial modifier to Wisdom and the ninja's dependence on the attribute.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I don't think a powergamer is going to choose a warforged ninja since it is a suboptimal choice given the warforged's -2 racial modifier to Wisdom and the ninja's dependence on the attribute.

LOL. Well, I'm sure that while we're tweaking, we can change that to better fit the character idea. Stop stepping on my creativity, man!

 

[I'm A Banana]

This is a problem why?

I never implied it was a problem, did I? I certainly don't think it is.

...
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.

Yeah, can't say I've ever seen that scenario. It's pretty much impossible in every group I've been a part of. Because the groups I've been a part of are pretty much people who want to hang out together, and who also like games. A new member of the group, like any new friend, needs to be able to get along with everyone else. If they can't, they're out. This Todd obviously can't. It's not about the game, it's about the time spent with friends (and the game is something to do).

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?

Busy people busy schedules. Kathy works as a barrista, Ryan has a suit-and-tie deal downtown, Billy's in med school, Bob's got a kid, and Todd just moved two counties away for a job. They might hang out separately, when they can, maybe even play WoW together once in a while (especially Todd, who has to drive two hours if he wants to chill), but once or twice a month they specifically make time for each other. That's a pretty strong friendship.

Which is why Ryan would be kind of a jerk for skipping out on them, finding a new group, or otherwise being "busy on game night." Just because people didn't want to play his game, he'd stop hanging out with his friends?

I mean, if he could find another group and still manage to show up to the bi-monthly game sessions, bonus, but the bi-monthly game sessions are not about his 7th Sea game. They're about friends having fun together. Which is part of the reason the rest might agree to play his 7th Sea game even though they're not in the mood -- if it's the price they pay for getting to see Ryan, they're willing to pay it.

You gathered 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, why don't one of you guys run a game where these kinds of characters will fit in." Todd, Bob, Billy and Kathy all get uncomfortable looks on their faces and fall all over themselves telling Ryan how great his DMing skills are and how they always really love his games because the last thing Todd, Bob, Billy and Kathy want to do is give up their seat as a player and put in the work that it takes to sit in the DM's chair. So, Ryan says, "Well, I'm happy to play in any game you guys want to run, but if I'm putting in the work to run the game, I'm going to run 7th Sea... and Warforged Ninjae aren't a PC option." Todd, Bob, Billy and Kathy all shut up and roll up appropriately themed characters. Bob, Billy and Kathy do so good-naturedly, because they're just happy to be playing and Ryan always runs a really fun game.

Hehe, that's a decent way to go about it too, other than Todd's being a jerk. Again, the important thing is that everyone's basically on the same page. If there's only one guy who can DM the group, obviously the options are basically to play in his game, or learn how to DM yourself.

It's kind of why I think that making everyone who plays D&D a possible DM (as much as possible) is a good idea.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I never implied it was a problem, did I? I certainly don't think it is.

Good. Me neither.

Yeah, can't say I've ever seen that scenario.

I spent 4 years in the US Army, moving from state to state. I've seen it a lot, although I've never been the DM for it. I know how to say No. I can also spot that sort of Todd a mile off.

Busy people busy schedules. Kathy works as a barrista, Ryan has a suit-and-tie deal downtown, Billy's in med school, Bob's got a kid, and Todd just moved two counties away for a job.

Then why are they still playing in Kathy's basement?!?

If there's only one guy who can DM the group, obviously the options are basically to play in his game, or learn how to DM yourself.

In all of the groups I have been in, once I've taken a turn at the plate, no one else wanted me to step down. Moreover, no one else was willing to step up for more than a session or two. One of my players is planning a new game using house rules from my game, and has asked me to play, so maybe that curse will finally be lifted.

I enjoy DMing. I enjoy playing, too. I just seldom get the chance.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I spent 4 years in the US Army, moving from state to state. I've seen it a lot, although I've never been the DM for it. I know how to say No.

Either extreme leads to a lot of unhappy players, though. What Hussar is saying (feeling like the DM is saying their imagination is better than the players') might not be what you've experienced, but it's a story I've certainly heard before. A DM who feels that any little departure from their one true vision is going to destroy the game, and who tenaciously clings to a very narrow outline of what can and cannot be, using their authority like a bludgeon and not a guiderail. I've also heard the story about a DM who allows anything and then can't pull it all together, who throws in the kitchen sink and who just can't motivate anything from it, who refuses to use his authority as a guiderail, leaving the players adrift in a sea of nothingness without any sort of unified tone, feel, or setting.

Again, it's just important to find what works for each group, or even for each game (I've alternated between the restrictive and permissive styles myself with the same group, depending on what I wanted).

 

[molonel]

... and who tenaciously clings to a very narrow outline of what can and cannot be, using their authority like a bludgeon and not a guiderail.

I know that, personally, I find myself clinging for dear life to a very narrow outline of what I'll allow, and feel threatened by creative players with their new-fangled warforged ninjas.

I'd shake my fist at the heavens, and curse such infinite wells of creativity and individuality, but I might fall if I did!

....

 

[I'm A Banana]

I know that, personally, I find myself clinging for dear life to a very narrow outline of what I'll allow, and feel threatened by creative players with their new-fangled warforged ninjas.

If you've found a group that likes it, more power to ya.

The creativity discussion is pretty independent of the discussion of what a DM should do for a good game.

 

[molonel]

If you've found a group that likes it, more power to ya.

I've actually never encountered a gamer that argued he should be allowed to use anything and everything from any setting he liked in a game, or called me uncreative for disallowing things like the warforged outside of their setting, except on the internet.