Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="RFisher" data-source="post: 3456946" data-attributes="member: 3608">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.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.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.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.</blockquote>

Verification