Is campaign flavour sacrosanct in your game?

[Odhanan]

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

Well, he did say "BUT I need to approve them them first", didn't he? I don't see what kind of point you're trying to make, RC.

 

[Aus_Snow]

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. . .

Likewise.

In fact, as far as is humanly possible for me to determine, players in my games - and in other GMs' games locally - seem to *like* those kinds of rules alterations and restrictions (i.e., ones that make sense and that are there for good reasons.)

So this. . .

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

. . . is something I just don't come across in real life.

 

[The Thayan Menace]

Logos!

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".

You sir, are the illest!

-MC Asad is the TPKillah!

 

[Greg K]

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. . .

Pretty much the same for me other than having more people interested than I can handle (which was the case when I used to actively look for new players or let others know that I run the game). However, I do have a group of people that I have been playing with for nearly a decade. Interestingly, despite having several DMs in the group and my running the campaign with the most restrictions, I am the one everyone prefers to have DM.

 

[Blair Goatsblood]

DAmn straight campaign flavour is sancrosanct in my campaign.

My campaign is very pulp swords & sorcery/weird tales.

RE Howard, CA Smith, Fritz Lieber, Warlord comics, Beastmaster, etc.

A halfling paladin in spiked armor with a spiked chain....just doesn't work for that. (okay...the spiked chain/armor would work for a warlord comic...)

 

[Raven Crowking]

Well, he did say "BUT I need to approve them them first", didn't he? I don't see what kind of point you're trying to make, RC.

That's exactly the point I am making.

"Everyone restricts, to some degree, what they allow in the game, and this is almost universally due to either flavour or rules concerns, IMHO."

 

[Cadfan]

I want to amend my previous comment to a much shorter one.

"Yes, it is ok to restrict character creation options in the name of flavor, but unless that flavor is actually experienced by the players in the actual game enough so that they understand why you chose to ban certain things, they have every right to think you're a horrible, self centered DM."

There. I think that adequately expresses my opinion on this subject.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I want to amend my previous comment to a much shorter one.

"Yes, it is ok to restrict character creation options in the name of flavor, but unless that flavor is actually experienced by the players in the actual game enough so that they understand why you chose to ban certain things, they have every right to think you're a horrible, self centered DM."

There. I think that adequately expresses my opinion on this subject.

They have every right to think that anyway.

 

[Greg K]

I want to amend my previous comment to a much shorter one.

"Yes, it is ok to restrict character creation options in the name of flavor, but unless that flavor is actually experienced by the players in the actual game enough so that they understand why you chose to ban certain things, they have every right to think you're a horrible, self centered DM."

There. I think that adequately expresses my opinion on this subject.

Thats okay. I have similar thought about that DMs, who allow the proverbial kitchen sink. Unless the DM can give me a good reason for allowing any class (or race, feat, spell, etc.) , I think that they are lazy, have no backbone, have not really put much thought into their campaign setting or any combination of the above- and I do not consider either " the player wanted to play that combination" or "it was published by WOTC (or some other publisher)" to be a good reason for allowing something. Then again, I want the DM to think about cultures and how they influence characters and the starting choices available to them and, in my experience, not enough DMs do this.

 

[Sound of Azure]

I want to amend my previous comment to a much shorter one.

"Yes, it is ok to restrict character creation options in the name of flavor, but unless that flavor is actually experienced by the players in the actual game enough so that they understand why you chose to ban certain things, they have every right to think you're a horrible, self centered DM."

There. I think that adequately expresses my opinion on this subject.

Hey, thanks for the amended comment. It seems an entirely fair comment to make. It can be a difficult battle to have the players as engaged in a homebrew "flavoured" setting, especially if their favoured class or feat or tactic is unviable. The simple fact remains that they likely do not belong in that game (barring some compromises on either side). Not every game is for every player, as I have recently learned.

Hopefully with a "buy in session", as referenced by Rel, above players not interested in the restricted game won't attend. And all is well.

I think the important thing is that the the "flavour" is consisted, applicable to both PCs and NPCs, and has an important (and positive) impact on play. Otherwise you just end up with dissatisfied players.