Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="UltimaGabe" data-source="post: 5056203" data-attributes="member: 16019">I'll admit first off that I haven't read any of the replies in this thread so far- I'm merely posting in response to part of the original issue.I've made a promise to myself to NEVER settle for a player who claims to feel "limited" by the standard character races and classes- unless said player has played many, many different character types within the current system. I've always felt that the only way you can feel limited with any given standard set of options is when you A. lack imagination, and B. lack the experience with the current system necessary to make use of your existing imagination. What I mean is this: In 3.5, I could make a character concept out of pretty much anything. I could take a vanilla PHB human barbarian and wind up with a half-titan warlock who was imprisoned in a statue for a millenia and uses the raw power of words to obliterate anything before him. I wasn't always able to come up with interesting concepts- it came to me over the years of playing 3.5. Once 4e came out, I hit a wall, feeling limited by the "lack of options"- and then, once I became familiar with it, I now feel the same way I felt with 3.5.The reason I've sworn off of allowing new players to use non-standard options is because I made that mistake once, and, like you, it more or less ruined my game. A player I introduced to the game insisted on playing a vampire. I told him no, time and again, because in 3.5 a vampire character would be A. too powerful, and B. too restricting for the rest of the party. But he loved vampires, and the best I could do is to get him to play an Eberron Changeling (in a non-Eberron campaign) because it was the only race he found without a level adjustment that he felt was "interesting enough". So, I figured, what the heck? Fine. Be a changeling- they're not that powerful.Once we actually began playing, his character (easily the most "interesting" character- a changeling monk, compared to an elf ranger, human wizard, and human druid) was easily the least interesting when it came to character development, description, and tactics. His entire mindset during the game was "I'm a cool character". He didn't do anything particularly interesting. He never even used his racial or class abilities unless someone else suggested it. Instead, the human druid- straight out of the PHB- ended up taking the spotlight throughout the entire campaign, because the player knew how to make good use of what they had. In the end, I wound up having to build each adventure around the changeling monk (because otherwise the player complained, feeling he had no way to involve himself), and altogether fell apart after a while.It was at this point I definitely realized that the only difference between "standard" options and more "interesting" options is that someone else has already done the thinking for you. I've since been of the opinion that they need to stop coming out with new books of mechanics- no new classes, definitely no new monsters- they should instead just come out with a book of pictures (pictures of cool monsters, cool weapons, cool characters) and possible suggestions on how to use them. The starting ruleset has always since been enough for me.So, sorry to derail the topic (if anyone even bothered to read my post). You, TC, made the same mistake I made, as I'm sure lots of other people had. In the end, I'd just sit down and talk to the player in question, and tell her what it's doing. She may get annoyed, she may not like it, but either she's going to make a character on her own (and end up enjoying it moreso because of it), or she's going to leave. In either case, it'll hopefully stop singlehandedly shaping your campaign.</blockquote>

Verification