Is campaign flavour sacrosanct in your game?

[Odhanan]

I'm running a Ptolus game. When we generated the PCs, we decided to go with straight D&D as a principle (not a hard rule) and expand from there. The only exception is Heinrietta Nagel who uses the Eldritch Might Sorcerer.

From there, the players are free to choose whatever feats, PrCs etc. "crunch" they want from other sources as far as character development is concerned, provided I give my approval to it.

I think that flavor mainly comes from the players loving their characters and experiencing what they want out of the game. Restricting the options will be counter-productive in many cases, because a reluctant player doesn't make for a good immersion.

 

[helium3]

Well, Whizbang and Aus seem to have covered the topic rather nicely. No need for me to elaborate further.

Well, what they didn't cover is that many players get irked when DM's prohibit certain aspects of the game. Generally, it's a good idea to tell the players what kind of a feel you're going for and to have a bit of discussion before making any final decisions about what is and is not allowed. Even then, you'll still have players that will grumble and complain.

 

[Odhanan]

enerally, it's a good idea to tell the players what kind of a feel you're going for and to have a bit of discussion before making any final decisions about what is and is not allowed.

Agreed. It is important for the players to agree to the feel of the game. I always have a session without gaming prior to the game to discuss its feel and aims, usually along with character generation. If you have players that relunctantly agree to the will of the DM, the chances of the campaign being a failure increase exponentially.

If the players don't agree with what you're aiming for prior to the game, it's necessary to change the campaign focus so that everyone ends up satisfied with the base ideas. And it's also important to not deviate from a hardly earned compromise when it is reached, i.e. running something else than what the players signed up for.

 

[el-remmen]

Yes.

I lay down the theme before a campaign and those who don't like it, don't have to play.

Generally, I have more people interested in playing than I can handle, and this "no compromise" policy I have does not seem to dissuade anyone. . .

 

[The Thayan Menace]

No Worries ....

Even then, you'll still have players that will grumble and complain.

This is a temporary inconvenience.

-Samir

 

[deltadave]

I always have allowed players to pick the classes that they want to play from any source, but they have to work the description to fit into the flavor of the campaign. For example, I had a player run a kensai in a medieval france type setting, but he had to totally rework the description to fit with the flavor of the campaign. Worked really well and created a unique character that the player loved.

IMO - if the player isn't willing to do the work, the neither am I. They can stick with the standard stuff included in the scope of a campaign.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Yes.

I lay down the theme before a campaign and those who don't like it, don't have to play.

Generally, I have more people interested in playing than I can handle, and this "no compromise" policy I have does not seem to dissuade anyone. . .

Hallelujah, brother!

Might I also add that what is not allowed is as important as what is allowed in terms of campaign flavour. Some of us might be really big fans of stew, but that doesn't mean that we put just anything into it, or that we don't strive for some balance of ingredients. Even with those who claim a lack of restrictions, the words "subject to my approval" come up fairly often, and the guy I think of as the most vocal advocate of "anything goes" (from a player's perspective) recently posted that he would have no interest in a game where the PCs included an animated Lego man, an alternate-universe Ghandi, and several Jedi......

Everyone restricts, to some degree, what they allow in the game, and this is almost universally due to either flavour or rules concerns, IMHO. How many people allow F16s into their D&D campaigns after all? M203 grenade launchers? Cowboys from Deadlands d20?

RC

 

[megamania]

With only a few rare exceptions I try not to limit classes and items BUT I need to approve them them first which I generally do and I ask for background. If a PC can explain how this item or ability is within their player's possession then I generally okay it. It helps give me an idea of what their character is about. The campaign world is not mine but ours afterall.

 

[Raven Crowking]

With only a few rare exceptions I try not to limit classes and items BUT I need to approve them them first which I generally do and I ask for background. If a PC can explain how this item or ability is within their player's possession then I generally okay it. It helps give me an idea of what their character is about. The campaign world is not mine but ours afterall.

Out of curiosity, how would you handle a player saying "My PC came from another universe driving a giant mech/with superpowers/flying an F16/armed to the teeth with modern firearms"?

IMHO, even in the most open of worlds, some form of DM discretion is mandatory. YMMV.

RC

 

[Mallus]

Out of curiosity, how would you handle a player saying "My PC came from another universe driving a giant mech/with superpowers/flying an F16/armed to the teeth with modern firearms"?

Heh... I don't need to resort to F-16's or mecha in order to make wholly inappropriate PC's... all I need is a little inspiration and a PHB.

I've yet to find a DM willing to accept my hip-hop pirate, Master Irate-P the Pirate G., aka The High Seas MC, and his "crew"; Ol' Scurvy Bastard, Inspectah Poopdeck, and the Ghostface Tillah, err, Tiller. I even have some of raps worked out... "Yo ho ho and a forty of rum. Batten down your shorties, 'cause here I come".

Forget about limiting classes, you have to start by limiting ideas.