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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Arial Black" data-source="post: 6769284" data-attributes="member: 6799649">I think I owe you an apology here: that conversation didn't take place. The point I was trying to make is that it would be absurd for a DM to disallow a PC when:-a.) every single rule set by the game and the DM has been followed to the letter, andb.) the 'reason' it is disallowed is the absurd idea that the characters in the game know about the game mechanics.This conversation (up to the absurd last line) could have taken place, as each line is a true thing about this PC's creation, but it didn't play out as a single conversation in reality.In reality, this was for the organised play of Princes of the Apocalypse. This campaign is set in the Forgotten Realms, a setting I've been familiar with for decades. Since 1st edition. The DM didn't have to give me a two-page summary of 'his' world; I've read literally thousands of pages about this 'campaign world'.The specifics of the campaign world in this published campaign, as far as character creation are concerned, are available to me. I read what it said about the Elves of the High Forest faction; taking that as my faction needed no more DM approval than taking any of the other factions available to players of this campaign. Although a DM in a home game could arbitrarily limit our faction choices, he can't do that in organised play.Oh, and I didn't actually write down my backstory; the DM and I spoke about it at length. I could easily write it down if I wanted, though.Yeah, I made up the Lachrymae Shevarash. The DM could've nixed that if he wanted to. But why would he? According to the rules for the Criminal background, they get a Criminal Contact. Since Spy is an official variant of Criminal, it seems that Criminal Contact would actually be Spy Contact, but as a game feature I don't expect one to be more 'powerful' an advantage than the other. In fact, it gives the DM power over me, and I'm okay about that because I chose to give him that form of power.But who has the authority over background? In one way, the DM has the authority over everything in his game, but if he extends this to the PCs then he might as well be playing Magic Story Time, hand out pre-gens and make all the decisions on behalf of the player so that everything stays under his control.When a player makes up a backstory, guess what? He makes stuff up!Player: Hey DM, my backstory is that, when I was around 12 years old, my father...DM: Father? What are you talking about? I didn't give you permission to alter MY world by adding NPCs that YOU made up! What about the delicate balance of my world? And what have you written on your character sheet? 'Right handed'? In MY world, ALL elves are left handed! Wait, what colour hair...!(No, this isn't a real conversation, just pointing out an absurd extreme to illustrate that just because it's  the DM's world doesn't mean the players have no part in the creation of their own PC)Of course, if the player says that his PC is actually King of the Elves, well, shoot it down. Fire at will!So, to what extent should players be allowed to invent? It's a judgement call, but the player should not invent something that messes with the established way things work in the world, without getting the DM on board. With my elven spy, nothing about the Lachrymae Shevarash impacts the campaign unless the DM wants it to. He can just treat it as any other Elves of the High Forest faction; it's just flavour. But isn't flavour an essential part of elevating what could be essentially a really complex board game into a Role-Playing Game? And now to the relevance of the infamous 'last line' to this thread: there are lots of good reasons for a DM to intervene in the character creation process, but 'monks only come from monasteries' is, in context, absurd.First, on its face, the building isn't the person. If a monastery-trained monk learned that his monastery had been destroyed, would he lose his class abilities?Next, in game, a 'monk' can be a person trained in a monastery, but that relates to the Acolyte background, not a limit on the game mechanics of characters raised there. They could be a Commoner, Cleric, Fighter, Paladin, even *gasp* monk in terms of game mechanics, but creatures in the game can have no concept of game mechanics.Whether or not a PC with levels in the Monk class actually identifies as a 'monk' in game is up to the player, not the DM! The DM does not exercise mind control! He is not the Thought Police! What the player thinks is up to him.The fluff in the class descriptions are not rules, they are mere examples to get your imaginations flowing. Stereotypes can be useful, but there is no rule limiting players to one of the three stereotypes in the descriptions for each class.In game, there may well be an organisation that calls itself 'Shadow Monks', but the creatures in the game cannot know the game mechanics of other creatures. It's possible that non-monks (in terms of class levels) are Shadow Monks in game, by using other means that resemble those abilities. And just because one group calls itself Shadow Monks in game does not limit anyone else from taking shadow monk class levels and fluffing a backstory that doesn't involve the in game Shadow Monks in any way.</blockquote>

Verification