I gave a little, and now they want...

[Pyske]

The two traditional extremes for this issue are:
(i) Do it all by role-playing, [...]
(ii) Do it all by roll-playing, [...]
One alternative way of handling things is to roll off at the start and then role-play through the result.

Nice post, Luke, and a good summary.

Another option is to provide secrets or other social "powerups" based on the roll of the dice or invocation of a power. This is the same principle as allowing Sense Motive to detect lies. Several of the Spycraft abilities provide similar bonuses, such as the feat which allow you to judge which skill an opponent is best at among a list of three.

The idea here is to give the PC tools to work with in their RP. Rather than saying the PC figures out what is going on, you give hints or clues for the PC to dig at through RP. Knowing which skill the NPC is best at tells the player what approach is likely to work better (intimidate, bluff, charm, taunt). Pointing out flaws in the merchandise through an Appraisal roll gives the PC bargaining points.

The drawback is that these require more preparation or improv that a simple "you succeed / you fail" result. Then again, it sounds like that's what people want: ways for mechanics to matter without undermining the RP.

These are also the sort of abilities that a social class can give to a character without eliminating RP. In fact, my experience is that the extra prompting enhances RP, especially for newer or less socially confident players.

. . . . . . . -- Eric

 

[Evil Eli]

This is what i say when my players start whining about wanting an PrC!

 

[billd91]

All you need are the base classes. Heck, you don't even need all of those. You most assuredly don't need Prestige Classes.

It has made things simple. All you need to play is the SRD, which is free. You don't have to buy any of the source books. If your players are munchkins, that isn't a problem with D20.

Your player is wrong. Further, you are the DM. Tell him no. And then tell him that when he DMs a game, he can pick the sourcebooks allowed, and you will play happily by his rules.

I'm going to take a different tack on this. The player is not necessarily wrong. It's not just your game. You do not and should not have all the power as DM. This is a cooperative venture between you and your players. The set up of the game does put a preponderance of power and responsibility on the DM's shoulders but wielding dictatorial power is a non-starter. You and your player need to come to an agreement on what is appropriate for the campaign.

In this case, I think you still should be firm about avoiding too much outside stuff from other sources. That's what I do. I have a set of prestige class that I allow and have publicized to my players. But if they want to try something else, I won't necessarily reject it out of hand. They have to provide me with the source material for me to review and see how it fits within the campaign I'm running. If it can fit and seems balanced, I'll generally allow it. If not, I will be firm. If it's close but can be modified, we'll modify it as written.

Make him show you what he's proposing to play and explain why and how his character might have gotten on that path. If it makes sense and doesn't offend your ideas of play balance, what does it hurt you to use it? Or investigate some of the ideas from d20 Modern as suggested. Let the player come up with creative ways of developing his character but help him channel it in a way that fits with the campaign.

The way these debates go, they seem to either go with carte blanche for players or an absolute crackdown. There's a middle way here. And you should explain that to the player. If he's still obstinate after that about what he will or will not play, then he's just a problem player who has cooperation issues.

 

[Trixster]

I guess maybe I am a jerk or something to my players but I tell them before we start with new charector's that if they want to shoot for something out of a splat book or other resource that it better be something I have read. And if it's something I have not read they must provide me with the book and let me have a couple of days to read it and find out whether or not it's going to shift the balance of my campaign. If I find out that it's fine and that I have no problem with it, then I let them shoot for that (doesn't always mean they are going to make it), if I think it's too powerful or I don't want to deal with it, I simply say no.

 

[MGibster]

Minor rant warning!

It seems that to me that D&D isn't about playing base classes anymore. You need a prestige class to play a character, and also about a half a’ dozen player guides and various resource books. The 3. edition was supposed to make things simple, or so I have heard. Instead we seem to have more resource books that ever (thanks to the Open Game license) and players who want to customize their characters straight into munchkin land.

I like having many resources at my disposal when I'm a player. Tools that help me build the kind of character I want, or as a DM my players want, is generally beneficial to the enjoyment of all. My biggest gripe about PrCs is that players practically have to map out their character's progression from day one.

The player wants to pull some PrC from a book I have never heard of and use in my campaign. I don't like the idea and told him to stick to the Scarred Lands and core books.

Did you at least take a look at the PrC? You can always check it out and if you don't like it say no. I've been in the same situation as you and I've said no to PrC classes I thought were unbalanced.

I told him to stock up on social skills, and also supplied him with a lengthy list of PHB 3.5 feats, which are aimed at social interaction. The problem seems to be that those feats don't offer any cheesy "special effects", but simply give a bonus on two skills.

I don't have 3.5 but most of the Feats in 3.0 that offered a skill bonus weren't worth taking. At least not when compared to Feats that aided in combat, spells, or other areas (if there are other areas).

I don't want my game to lose its appeal because social encounters are handled with dice rolling and mouthing secret incantations like "I have 10 lvl's of PrC X, so I know all your secrets!".

That's certainly something I can understand. Take into account that we're often playing characters who are smarter, stronger, wiser, and more charismatic then we are in real life. There are some people who might have a difficult time interacting at the level their character should. I might not know how to behave in a high elven court but my elf paladin with ranks in etiquette probably would.

So, what do I say to this player? How do I convince him that the best way to go is with old-fashioned role-playing, accompanied with suitable skill selection? I feel rather frustrated at the moment, so I'll leave the more colorful comments to some other time...

If you're dead set against outside PrCs being used just say so. You could allow him to take a regular class and replace some of his class skills with others.

Marc

 

[Evil Eli]

The player is not necessarily wrong. It's not just your game. You do not and should not have all the power as DM. This is a cooperative venture between you and your players.

Sorry Bub, The DM is one telling the story and running the game. NOT the players! The DM is the final judge and his is the final opinion that matters!

The set up of the game does put a preponderance of power and responsibility on the DM's shoulders but wielding dictatorial power is a non-starter. You and your player need to come to an agreement on what is appropriate for the campaign.

I will damned if I let a group of RPG players tell what my campaign (That I wrote and run) should and should not be!

I have a set of prestige class that I allow and have publicized to my players.

Good Idea, It is what I do!

But if they want to try something else, I won't necessarily reject it out of hand. They have to provide me with the source material for me to review and see how it fits within the campaign I'm running. If it can fit and seems balanced, I'll generally allow it. If not, I will be firm. If it's close but can be modified, we'll modify it as written.

Catering to the players whims and wants will eventually ruining any half way decent campaign and I speak from experince!

 

[Hjorimir]

Let the player ask...review the option...make the decision. Yes, it is okay to take input from a player (but they often lack the inside knowledge of your campaign to be truely qualified to argue what is and is not appropriate... and you shouldn't have to explain it to them and thus reveal inside knoweldge the character just doesn't deserve). Be the DM, make the call, stick to it.

Besides, if they love the PrC that much, they can include it when they DM.

 

[Grazzt]

I'm going to take a different tack on this. The player is not necessarily wrong. It's not just your game.

True- to a point. It is everyone's game (everyone in the group, that is). But someone has to have the final word. It isnt (or shouldnt be) a committee that determines what goes in or is disallowed in a campaign world. Its the DM.

You do not and should not have all the power as DM. This is a cooperative venture between you and your players.

Incorrect (at least the part about not having all the power as DM, IMHO). The DM is the one that controls the world, what happens, the goings on, etc., etc. (I'm not saying the player's can't influence what happens in the world, that has nothing to do with it.) Been that way since 1e (and before, AFAIK).

The DM is the one that has final say in his campaign. If a player wants to play something inappropriate (for that campaign) and the DM says no...then that's it. I'm not saying the DM should totally block out any input from the player's, and should even discuss allowing something new in campaign, if that is what he wants to do...but in the end, the DM is the one that makes the final ruling. If something just doesnt fit the concept or campaign the DM has laid out, then there shouldnt be any discussion or whatever about it. The DM's final word....law.

For example, in my campaign, no halflings or gnomes exist. Never have....never will. No player in my group, no NPCS, and no new player that comes to the table will play either of those races in my campaign. There is no "bartering" or discussing it. They simply do not exist. (Same goes for monks too.)

 

[Arnwyn]

It seems that to me that D&D isn't about playing base classes anymore. You need a prestige class to play a character, and also about a half a’ dozen player guides and various resource books. The 3. edition was supposed to make things simple, or so I have heard. Instead we seem to have more resource books that ever (thanks to the Open Game license) and players who want to customize their characters straight into munchkin land.

As others have said - it's as simple as you want it to be. Some players will always go out and grab the "latest and greatest"... things haven't changed there, and never ever will.

The player wants to pull some PrC from a book I have never heard of and use in my campaign. I don't like the idea and told him to stick to the Scarred Lands and core books.

And well you should. I'm surprised more people don't have policies in place - this is clearly an area that needs it. For example, one of my policies for the game is that "any book that the DM does not own is not allowed". No exceptions.

I don't want my game to lose its appeal because social encounters are handled with dice rolling and mouthing secret incantations like "I have 10 lvl's of PrC X, so I know all your secrets!".

This is another area that needs to be worked out clearly with everyone. Social skills have been debated here before, with never any conclusions and always poor results. Some think that because the player is poor at roleplaying, but has taken a lot of social skills for his character, then he shouldn't be penalized. Others prefer a more roleplaying-oriented game, and that the player should make some effort instead of just rolling the dice.

The way that you go has to be something that you and your group agree on. For example, in my group I've made it clear that my game is roleplaying oriented, so if you take social skills, you better be a reasonably competent speaker and be able to at least make an effort. If this isn't the case, my game probably isn't for you.

Alternately, if the players think that they can roll all their social skills to affect NPCs, then clearly the NPCs should be able to roll to affect the PCs (why should the PCs get to simply roll because they're incompetent speakers, but the DM has to roleplay his ass off and any NPC social skills are completely wasted? I don't think so). It goes both ways.

So, what do I say to this player? How do I convince him that the best way to go is with old-fashioned role-playing, accompanied with suitable skill selection? I feel rather frustrated at the moment, so I'll leave the more colorful comments to some other time...

Two things to say:
1) "No."
2) Discuss with your players what you find fun in the game, then listen to what they find fun, and then set up some policies.

And that brings up an interesting question: is role-playing getting old fashioned? Should we just all sit around and mumble these "secret incantations" to each other and roll dice when confronted with a problem?

In some groups it has. In others it hasn't.

 

[Grazzt]

I have a set of prestige class that I allow and have publicized to my players. But if they want to try something else, I won't necessarily reject it out of hand. They have to provide me with the source material for me to review and see how it fits within the campaign I'm running. If it can fit and seems balanced, I'll generally allow it. If not, I will be firm. If it's close but can be modified, we'll modify it as written.

Exactly. And excellent idea on the list of PrC. That is what I do as well. And I dont firmly/flatly disallow d20/3rd-party stuff, but I do look it over, check it out, review it, whatever, and then determine if it fits the campaign. If so, its cool, and its in (likely with some tweaking or whatever). If not...then that's it. It doesnt come into play.

The way these debates go, they seem to either go with carte blanche for players or an absolute crackdown. There's a middle way here. And you should explain that to the player. If he's still obstinate after that about what he will or will not play, then he's just a problem player who has cooperation issues.

Agreed. And while I lean more toward the "crackdown" method (as evident in my above post), I am not above talking with the players and reaching some sort of agreement...as I said above, I check out new ideas or suggestions from my players, and if it fits (or can be made to fit)...great. If not, then that's it. Some things however I wont budge on (like the above post, no gnomes or halflings).