Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pming" data-source="post: 7490466" data-attributes="member: 45197">Hiya!Sorry Arial, I just had to comment on this. DM pride talking here...No, it's not up to the Player for this kind of world-changing "fluff". This kind of fluff, imnsho, it would be the Player that is being "the jerk". What "character" does the DM get to play? The world. Yes, he runs the NPC's, Monsters, magical talking doors, etc, but it's the WORLD, the "Campaign Setting" that is the DM's main "character". The DM shapes it and comes up with the "fluff". Not the player. At least not to anywhere near the same degree.A player who comes to me with this (and I do have one...had, he moved farther south) gets the "groan and stink-eye". I don't like it for multiple reasons. The first of which is that the player is, basically, trying to "over ride" my creative outlet as a DM. The second is that now I have the unhappy task of saying no and the almost unavoidable "compromise" (or argument if it's a hard NO...but I am almost always flexible enough to work something into the world that lets the player get what he envisioned without completely messing up my world).The specific things in the Barbarian/Warlord that I would have a problem with:1. It assumes the barbarians Rage is just "He's really angry". Might be fine in some campaigns, but in mine that is a no-go. It's not just "anger"...there is a physical, mental and spiritual change. Supernaturally based. The "spirits of his ancestors take root", or "the Demon of Rage is let into the barbarians soul". Not just "fluff"; this is the basis upon which other world-specific fluff and rulings can be made.2. It sets up a precedent of were-creatures "infecting" others without needing to bite them. This is in direct opposition to what a players reach should be in the rules from a purely rules point of view.Now, I may be able to work with the first point. Maybe the character just THINKS he gets 'really mad', when, in fact, he actually IS being connected to the spirits of old. He's civilized and was never told anything different...wherein if he was born in a barbaric society it would have been "obvious" to the shaman what was going on. The second one, however, is going to have to be a hard NO! At least from the simple explanation given in the description. Again, might be able to work with it by assuming the PC is just outright wrong about how he came to be. Maybe his mother/father, step mom/dad, or whomever raised him told him about his circumstances of birth...but that was to keep the horrible truth from him.Both my "concessions" would work in terms of world-fluff while maintaining the PC's belief of what happened. If the player was willing to go with that...that the PC's background isn't the "whole story" so to speak (or outright wrong)...we're off to the races. But a player that refuses and tries to pull a "It's MY character and MY fluff, so that's the way it is!" is going to be...."dissappointed" with the end result.I'd actually be more accepting of "I'm the King" than "I'm part were-wolf". Because being a king doesn't change anything in my world's core "bedrock". Saying "I'm King" is a problem, sure, but it's less of a problem than deciding how lycanthropy works for the entire campaign world.I know you're trying to just use it as an example, but there has always been a problem with the "Noble PC". I remember debates about this and how a DM should/could handle it going on back in the old print days of The Dragon (I'm sure you do to!). But as I said...a player choosing to say his PC is a noble is something that needs to have the DM's input. Most players know this and understand it, and want the DM's guidance in how to best integrate it to make a cool and playable character for a D&D game. A DM that just says "No, no Nobility past just minor status...like a Sir or maybe 'son of the Lord of the land'"...is not being a jerk. He's setting limits for his game world so that he can run the campaign as he sees it and as he wants to run. Now, DM's that try and decide what a Player can/can't choose...after the DM has said "All PHB classes"...that's being a jerk. "Oh, Bill, you can't be a Beastmaster because I don't really want to deal with pets and stuff. Sorry. Make a different guy" after Bill has already created the character; that is being a jerk. Or at the very least, indicative of a DM who doesn't know what he's doing.And I would be right behind you 100%. However, to me at least, there is a HUGE difference between "You COULD have given him more, so loose your paladin powers" and "No, lycanthropy doesn't work that way in my world".I only semi-agree with you here though. This is going to be very much a "style preference" of D&D. I, personally, see a Class as being a lot more than just a set of skills and abilities that one can 'learn easily'. In my mind, a Class is something that the character is actually BORN into. In my games the vast majority of NPC's are just commoners with no capability to be much more than that. They can learn skills, they can even become rulers (to some extent)...but they will never be "destined for greatness". A farm boy who joins the militia, then the kings army, and advances through the ranks is very likely still a "common, 0-level NPC", but with a bonus to hit and damage with some particular weapon. Or maybe he is a 1st or 2nd level Fighter (in 5e here). But that's it. He can fight in wars and participate in killing monsters...but he will never gain any levels past what he has. Ever. Because he wasn't "born" to be a Fighter.But this is a style thing. Obviously yours is different, which is cool! Helps keep the game interesting, hearing other peoples side of things. From that aspect, I totally get why you would think a DM is being a 'jerk' for over-ruling your PC's background fluff. From my point of view it's the opposite; the Player was the one being a jerk for subsuming the DM's role as world-creator.^_^Paul L. Ming</blockquote>

Verification