Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Greg K" data-source="post: 6767641" data-attributes="member: 5038">Personally. I think you are disingenuous and not arguing in good faith- especially, how you wrote this beautiful background and then way you worded the last line. It probably went more like thisPlayer: Hey, DM, do wood elves exist in your world? Can I play one? Have you added any restrictions as to what class/background they can be?DM: Yes, you can play a wood elf, and they can have any class and background.Player: So, all 11 classes are available for me to play? All their paths? All backgrounds?DM: Yes, yes and yes. You can even tweak your background in any way you want within the parameters set in the background section of the PHB. You can even create your own from scratch, but I'll need to approve it if you do.Player: Do you allow multiclassing and feats?DM: Yes to both.Player: Okay, my PC is a female wood elf rogue 1/monk 2 (you said we'd be starting at level 3). She has the 'spy' variant of the 'criminal' background. Is that all okay?DM: Solid.Then, without questioning the DM about the setting and cultures, you went off and wrote your elaborate backstory. Proudly, you handed him what you thought was a brilliant masterpiece that any DM should accept. You presented it to the DM and he said, "This is a nice background, but it doesn't fit the campaign and cultures". Since you stated in a prior post that DMs have to accept your background, because you used races, classes, and other options available in the campaign and, therefore, you have the right to determine the fluff, you probably got upset and called him a jerk.See,it can be played both ways and is not a good place to start an argument (as in a discussion).Now, that aside, let us assume that everything you stated was above board except the last line which seems intentionally designed to be prejudicial.  You asked the DM about races, classes, feats, classes and multi-classing.  That is common.  It is also a point at which many players go off and make a character.  Neither the player nor the DM brought up the limits on the setting or the limits on the player.  That would make them both wrong and to blame ( I personally, avoid this. The player gets a 1-2 page handout with the overviews of the cultures including classes,variants, and subclasses that are appropriate. Then, there are similar handouts for each culture that go into a little more indepth (the player can read it or we can talk about it covering the points).  Once the player finds a culture that they like, we can start talking about their character concept and background and work from there to make something that we can agree on (hopefully)).  However, the DM told you to make a background without real guidance. Sent off by the DM, you built a multi-page backstory in which "You intertwined published lore, adventure hooks that don't contradict published lore, adventure hooks specific to this adventure" and stuff you made up that didn't contradict published lore.  You never confirmed limits for inventing new stuff and the DM didn't give you any guidelines  (Personally, if I were the DM, there would again be plenty of discussion going on, but the DM gave you free rein). The DM gave free rein and liked your backstory. That is cool.Now, we get to the part of the monastery- In my opinion, you both are at fault for not communicating earlier.  The DM is at fault for sending you off without more discussion on acceptable limits or any other guideline. You were at fault for creating an organization (and possibly a specific culture of wood elves) for the campaign without talking to the DM).   Personally, I put much more of the blame on the DM for giving free rein and sending you off to make a character without any real guidelines and pretty much a blank state. However, it is still your responsibility, in my opinion, to communicate with the DM if you are going to do this (Kids this is why it is important for the player and DM to communicate *throughout* the character generation process. It keeps players and DMs on the same page!)Now as for your prejudicial last line.  I doubt that happens.  Either you overstepped your bounds and created a new organization and the DM does not approve and says so (again, he or she is at least partially to blame) or your background is so wonderful that  they a) allow your monastery; or b) the DM says to include some monastery incorporating the natural elements.   Either way, it is the DM's call even if I  feel the DM is at least partially or  shoulders the majority of the blame (a setting/campaign issue has priority as players are told to talk to their DM).  You as a player then have the choice to a) make the adjustment, b) choose to play something different, or c) walk.  However, if you insist that you put all that work and are playing the character without making the change, then yes the DM has the right to say, "Sorry, you are no longer welcome" (personally, I think they are wrong because they bear a large part of the responsibility by not communicating, but it is his or her campaign and final decision).</blockquote>

Verification