Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Loonook" data-source="post: 4565662" data-attributes="member: 1861">No, because that is unfair to the PCs . . . somehow.Yeah, there should be some heroic NPCs who aren't names; hell, there should be regular ol' folk who have abilities beyond mortal ken.  The thing which really irritates me is that apparently 4e magically created the ability for NPCs to be greater than PCs. . . perhaps I just didn't play D&D right before 4e, but oracles, warrior-kings, and that crazy sorcerer have never been 'normal' NPCs to me.  I loved 3e because there were so many cool abilities which came pre-defined in monster descriptions . . . ahh, the wonders of not having to worry exactly how to outline X or Y ability for that one guy you were planning to use it with.  DMing has always been a job for letting your imagination run wild and make your image work somewhere where it could be interpreted by the rules, not defined in such.  There seems to be a new breed (and I mean those who came up with 3e and then went into 4e) who believe fully that there is only that which the rules define, and the way that the rules apply them must be the way it goes.Villain classes were a great way for some of these types of players to develop their ways a little better . . . and for that I love them.  3.X PHB2 with the special traits for NPCs were another great thing because they gave a definable way to do something which was somewhat balanced.But it isn't about balance really... balance is our buzzword because it makes sense.  It's about fairness more about balance.  Fairness is a great thing, but there are just sometimes where the NPCs will be on a level you're not dealing with.  You come to me with a great PC concept and we'll work with it.  You want to be a Warforged in Modern?  I can probably come up with some ideas for where you come from.  You want to be a man who was raised from a painting by the deranged psychic the PCs are currently dealing with?  Sounds awesome.  Sometimes I just can't do it because it will be too setting-breaking (if we're all playing humans you're probably not coming in as a Thri-Kreen or a Moreau) . . . but we can work around it in a lot of cases to make something mechanically and thematically which can work.  I've denied maybe 10, 15 PCs in my time . . . and they all fell under one of three categories:1.) Way off base - Sorry, a Tokugawan Shogunate samurai may not fit . . . but a highly honorable warrior who is not afraid of death and who wishes to fight for his lord can.  Unwilling to bend?  Well sorry, the game works on both of us bending.2.) Just Too Difficult to Work With - A recent denial came from this.  The player (my SO) wanted to play a spherical child's toy with no method of communication save for very limited language skills.  The character may work... for a couple of sessions.  Again, there may be ways to work with it (my avatar is of a teddy bear PC who I fell in love with and snagged as an NPC in one of my games . . . but he had arms, legs, and the ability to speak and interact) but if there's no bending...3.) Creepiness.  I don't want to deal with things that belong in a very very scary Black Dog game.  Some taboos just don't work for the group, and if you broach those as the founding principle for the character . . . no dice.  The worst example was a streetwalking mage . . . who was way below the age of consent.  That was a player issue (an invited player who was... yeah), but there come up.Outside of that there's usually some way to deal with it.  Maybe it's just the start I got in gaming with DMs who were willing to help you make stuff, or the materials I work with, but I think that the ability to be creative is highly important . . . and setting-generic.Slainte,-Loonook.</blockquote>

Verification