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

[hong]

For example, in my group I've made it clear that my game is roleplaying oriented

So is mine. When a player wants his character to hit an orc with his sword, he rolls a die to hit. If the roll succeeds, he rolls a die for damage.

This is roleplaying. It's taking on the role of someone else, _while using the dice to adjudicate the success or failure of your actions._ The actions just happen to be in the situation of combat. Using the exact same logic, using the dice to adjudicate the success or failure of your actions _out of combat_, is similarly roleplaying.

Without the dice, and without a rules framework within which to interpret the outcome of your die rolls, you are playing a LARP. The fact that LARP is roleplaying doesn't mean that non-LARP is not roleplaying, at least not according to most usage of the word "roleplaying" that I've seen. Therefore, just because you prefer to do without dice doesn't mean your campaign is "roleplaying oriented", any more than the fact you're playing a fantasy campaign rather than SF or horror means it's "roleplaying oriented".

Now the question is, how much _player interaction_ do you want in your game to accompany those die rolls, and clearly some people prefer more personal interaction than others. However, let's stop with the canard that a campaign is "roleplaying oriented" just because you prefer character interaction to involve a significant degree of player interaction as well. It's nonsense, it does a disservice to a large percentage of the gaming community, and it reflects a skewed point of view as to what "roleplaying" is about. Or I will be forced to resort to big words.

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.

Fair enough, although it does limit the range of options for possible characters, if you're not in fact a reasonable speaker. Since one of the fundamental reasons for playing RPGs in the first place is to pretend to be someone else, this seems a strange impost. After all, nobody ever seems to mind that an overweight, unfit geek can pretend to be the most competent warrior in the land, but they do seem to mind that a shy, tongue-tied geek can pretend to be the most persuasive diplomat.

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).

That's ridiculous. The DM doesn't have to roleplay his/her ass off any more than the players have to do the same, even if they want their character interaction to be predominantly determined by the dice. The DM is perfectly free to say "you are struck by the baron's strong personality and presence", or "the used potion salesman is a weaselly sort of guy with a grating voice". You then trust the player to have his character react accordingly, just as the player trusts the DM to have NPCs react accordingly.

Recall that a great success on a Diplomacy roll doesn't mean that the NPC is mind controlled. It just means the NPC is now favourably predisposed to the PC, whereas they might not have been before. Similarly, just because an NPC is described as really slick doesn't mean a PC has to act in a prescribed manner. It does mean that the player should take it into account when describing his PC's reactions. If the player doesn't do that, then that's just poor roleplaying no matter how you define it.

 

[Buttercup]

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...

I lean more toward the "crackdown method" in things that affect campaign balance and flavor. When it's a question of a wonky rule, we frequently decide together how we think something should be fixed. Naturally I want my players to enjoy the game. But I'm the one spending hours each week creating the world, so it stands to reason there are some things that are solely my decision.

 

[Buttercup]

Every now and then somebody says this, and I can never figure it out.

No, all you need to play is not just the SRD. Are people still not aware that the SRD is missing some critical information?

(Of course, if the people who say this just mean it from the player's side of things (as opposed to everyone/DM), then I agree. However, people who say such things often forget to qualify it...

I didn't qualify it. I have two players who only have the SRD, and another who has a PHB that I gave her on long-term loan. Every one of them could afford to buy an actual paper copy, and they're serious enough about the hobby that it wouldn't be a waste of money by anyone's definition. And yet, they don't.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

There's a host of supplementary material to use, so I see no reason to expand the horizon to the unknown.

And a gosh darn good stance to make. Stand your ground on this.

While it's been stated that there is ground for agreement between Player/GM, some folks seem to be missing something: The Player wants exactly what he wants and he isn't accepting "no" for an answer (an answer with reasons that are valid). The parameters were set when the game began (just like anyone wanting to join a game in progress has to deal with the parameters already set). Now he doesn't want to accept it.

Of course, the good news for the Player is that he doesn't have to.

He can leave or he can GM and find out what it's like to have every screw-ball combo thrown at him instead. I've found more than once that such Players, once handed the proverbial "keys to the car", change their minds about how to drive very quickly after one or two collisions.

 

[reapersaurus]

Instead we seem to have more resource books that ever and players who want to customize their characters straight into munchkin land.

Currently I'm having a minor argument over what a social character is supposed to look like. 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. Well, the thing is that he feels there isn't anything there worth taking, and creating a social character requires something more than what the core books and various Scarred Lands supplements can offer.

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 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!".

Should we just all sit around and mumble these "secret incantations" to each other and roll dice when confronted with a problem?

WOW.

I am really surprised at how so many people are mindlessly reading what the DM is spouting here, and not reading between the lines.

Seavimogy and billd91 have it exactly right - this isn't a tough read:
This DM has not even considered this players requests - he's out-and-out dictatorially saying "No, a social character simply uses skillrolls."
He hasn't even had the guts to tell us what PrC the player thinks has abilities that more match the kind of character that he'd like to play.
And if the DM doesn't know the name of the PrC, that's even more telling, in that he can't bother to think twice about something the player has gone to lengths to research and provide to the DM.

You can take your dictatorial DM'ing style, people, and shove it.
My group(s) have, and always will, use a COLLABORATIVE gaming style, not a DM-is-god one.
The DM is just one person in a GROUP.
RPGing is about a DM leading around a group of players that contribute to the game, NOT about the players shrinking into nothing behind the DM's lordly inability or non-desire to incorporate any ideas other than his own.

Many people have pointed out how the DM's final word is law.
Well DUH.
Noone has remotely suggested otherwise. It's interesting to note that when people pointed out how the DM should consider a player's points, many people immediately said "The DM must have final word."

Guys, there's a HUGE difference between a DM having final word on what goes in 'his' world, and a player's input simply being considered.

Is there no middle ground with many DM'S?
Do they HAVE to be so intractable about what is allowed in their world?
Why can't they simply listen to the players requests, and try to accomodate them?
The player hasn't done any of the things that some people have said that they have done (that I could see). They haven't refused the DM's final word on anything - they haven't been unreasonable in asking for the moon, or proved that they are munchkin.
There's a huge difference between trying to get a couple unique abilities that (god forbid) might be FUN to play for the player, and trying to invent new rules and cheat their way to "winning the game" (a.k.a. a "munchkin").

BTW: DM's would do well to remember that the player only has one character that they invest quite a bit of thought and effort and enjoyment into bringing to life - the DM has tons of NPC's that he can bring to life.
Therefore, the players should have more leeway in making memorable characters than your NPC's (this presumes that the players are playing memorable, heroic-type characters).

Also - the original poster himself contradicted himself in saying he thinks roleplaying should be used, not some "cheesy special effect" that he rolls for.
Umm... didn't he himself advocate for the use of feats and skills, which just boils down to a (boring) skill roll of the dice? So he said the answer to the player's problem was to roll a dice. But when the player presents a PrC that has something more interesting than a simple roll of the dice, the DM won't even consider it. He doesn't even have concrete reasons as to WHY he didn't allow it.

This seems like an obvious example of a bad DM, not being flexible in trying to make the game fun for his players. It doesn't sound like a player who is being unreasonable.

 

[Hjorimir]

/shrug

I see no issue with a DM saying no to outside rules. I don't see how that makes him (or her) a bad DM at all. The DM has to maintain balance and continuity as well (or one player's "fun" could ruin the fun for others).

 

[Whitey]

Whitey grumps in 3 2 1:

Whatever happened to the individual in D&D? The unique, characterful character that enriches the whole playing group just by being and doing what they are? That's not defined by a dice roll, PrC, or even class/class levels.

As a character progresses, both in levels and in terms of their concept and personality, they become more novel, not less - the skills, feats and items they'll have, along with their adventuring experiences, shape what they can do and how they'll go about doing it. The notion that (to pick one possible combination) anyone with wizard and fighter levels must become EK, investing in X feats and Y spell combos to stay competitive, really hinders play. It's advantageous in terms of some numbers. It might also be completely contradictory to the character's concept. Who wants to game with a glorified algebra equation at the table?

By itself, a PrC isn't such a horrible idea. It's a reward, one that empowers the player. The empowered, committed player empowers the rest of the party - and the game as a whole. Happy players game better. That being said, Whitey also thinks it fair to say there are some horribly br0key PrCs out there. If one is to be a reward, a special thing for that specially capable and meritorious character, it can't simultaneously be a blunt weapon to be employed against the rules or devised to unbalance play. Anything that can be so employed should get more than a little scrutiny.
[/grump]

In the end, a bad RPer is a bad RPer. No dice roll can remedy that. The cure there is time, understanding, and some nudges in the right direction by the rest of the group. Using skill bonuses, rules loopholes, or the dreaded DM Fiat one way or the other can only mask the central issue - RPGs need good RP to be their best.

 

[Telperion]

WOW.

I am really surprised at how so many people are mindlessly reading what the DM is spouting here, and not reading between the lines.

Seavimogy and billd91 have it exactly right - this isn't a tough read:
This DM has not even considered this players requests - he's out-and-out dictatorially saying "No, a social character simply uses skillrolls."
He hasn't even had the guts to tell us what PrC the player thinks has abilities that more match the kind of character that he'd like to play.
And if the DM doesn't know the name of the PrC, that's even more telling, in that he can't bother to think twice about something the player has gone to lengths to research and provide to the DM.

You can take your dictatorial DM'ing style, people, and shove it.
My group(s) have, and always will, use a COLLABORATIVE gaming style, not a DM-is-god one.
The DM is just one person in a GROUP.
RPGing is about a DM leading around a group of players that contribute to the game, NOT about the players shrinking into nothing behind the DM's lordly inability or non-desire to incorporate any ideas other than his own.

Many people have pointed out how the DM's final word is law.
Well DUH.
Noone has remotely suggested otherwise. It's interesting to note that when people pointed out how the DM should consider a player's points, many people immediately said "The DM must have final word."

Guys, there's a HUGE difference between a DM having final word on what goes in 'his' world, and a player's input simply being considered.

Is there no middle ground with many DM'S?
Do they HAVE to be so intractable about what is allowed in their world?
Why can't they simply listen to the players requests, and try to accomodate them?
The player hasn't done any of the things that some people have said that they have done (that I could see). They haven't refused the DM's final word on anything - they haven't been unreasonable in asking for the moon, or proved that they are munchkin.
There's a huge difference between trying to get a couple unique abilities that (god forbid) might be FUN to play for the player, and trying to invent new rules and cheat their way to "winning the game" (a.k.a. a "munchkin").

BTW: DM's would do well to remember that the player only has one character that they invest quite a bit of thought and effort and enjoyment into bringing to life - the DM has tons of NPC's that he can bring to life.
Therefore, the players should have more leeway in making memorable characters than your NPC's (this presumes that the players are playing memorable, heroic-type characters).

Also - the original poster himself contradicted himself in saying he thinks roleplaying should be used, not some "cheesy special effect" that he rolls for.
Umm... didn't he himself advocate for the use of feats and skills, which just boils down to a (boring) skill roll of the dice? So he said the answer to the player's problem was to roll a dice. But when the player presents a PrC that has something more interesting than a simple roll of the dice, the DM won't even consider it. He doesn't even have concrete reasons as to WHY he didn't allow it.

This seems like an obvious example of a bad DM, not being flexible in trying to make the game fun for his players. It doesn't sound like a player who is being unreasonable.

1. Yes, it was a rant. Says so on the first line.

2. What do you think would happen when a player suddenly starts bringing in books from various 3rd party publishers, and then demanding that they be game-material? What happens when another player throws up his hands, and leaves, because he doesn't have the money to compete with the first players resource book collection?

3. As I stated earlier I'm not limiting my players to the core books and those five Player's Guides. There are also 16 other books that I use to give my players extra stuff. Some of them really earn the right to plunder, and some of the don't. Period.

4. I'm considering player input. But they know very little about the game world. Although I gave every players a 100 page thick gazetteer to read, that goes trough the main points of the campaign world, there is still about 2000 pages of campaign specific material that they haven't read. And I have. Point made.

5. Yes, there is a middle ground. If there wasn't, this thread wouldn't exist. You see: every PrC is controlled/dominated/used by some faction, social group or guild that controls who knows their secrets and how much they know. In a world that is thightly controlled by god's every bit and piece of information is vital. If you give it to the enemy you are a dead man. So, by all rights I could ban all prestige classes, and that would be that. Instead I'm listening to my players spin interesting tales about how they enter a secret & feared ring of assassins, infiltrate it and very slowly gain their trust. In the end one of them is accepted into their society and thaught 1st level of Assassin.

Now here comes the player with the new cool book of from a 3rd party publisher. It contains a prestige class that he would like to play, and so I'm very tempted to tell him: no.

6. Yes, the PC's are truly extraordinary. They have more magic items than a good sized kingdom, they could basically buy countries if they wanted and they control enough spells & fighting capabilities to take on a large army. Now in which part of this description do you see a need to give them more variety/power? Of course this only happens at higher levels (15+), but then again: they can do it, while 99,999...% of the world cannot. Get it?

7. * yawn * I did not contradict myself. You just want to twist my words.
- Having good social skills & abilities & suitable feats is a requirement to roleplaying a character with good social skills / abilities. Buck the Butcher isn't going to show up in the King's court and start discussing theology and citing poetry. Why should the PC's be any different? That isn't to say that a player should restrict himself. Instead if he starts being very diplomatic and well-spoken then I highly recommend taking some Diplomacy, Perform and other social skills. Shouldn't be too hard to understand. Bob the Barbarian can speak to his tribe elder better after some practice, but I still wouldn't let him open his mouth in-front of civilized people.

8. Nice rant. Thank you. Have a nice day .

 

[Turjan]

Now here comes the player with the new cool book of from a 3rd party publisher. It contains a prestige class that he would like to play, and so I'm very tempted to tell him: no.

Just out of curiosity, what PrC was that?

 

[Orius]

I am sorry, maybe I should claify. I do not Rail Road or use the Plot Wagon on players.

What about driving a DM Fiat?

What I don't like is players who do the following:

- You Panethon sucks because your gods don't have the right Domain Combos.

- What do you mean there are no Drow, your game sucks.

- Why can't we play humaniods? I want to play an Half Dragon-Ogre!

- What do you mean no Prestige Classes????

- What do you mean that Elves can't be clerics and Humans can't be Wizards?! That sucks !!?? What kinda of Dm are you!

- What no Half-orcs and No Barbarians. Come on man I want to run my fav , Grog the Destoyer again

- We can only use the core books!?! Forget it, I spent all of this money on D&D stuff and I want to use it.

Oh, I totally agree. I set up the campaign I want to run. Now it can be helpful to know what the players like and would like to do in the world. It is their game too, and player input can be helpful. It gives them stuff they like, and I may add something that enriches my campaign that I had previously not considered. However, I don't want Drizzt clones, I don't want characters that half so many half-races they look like mad scientist's experiment, and I don't want to be coerced into using material with which I am unfamiliar.