Is campaign flavour sacrosanct in your game?

[Odhanan]

If some player feels that having to make a character that fits into my world is "going to screw up his artistry" then just maybe its time for him to find an art that doesn't require other people's input in order for it to work...something a little less collaborative than a game.

Alright, players collaborating with the DM. *nod*

Now, what about the DM collaborating with the players? "Collaboration" doesn't mean "my way or no way". It isn't just a one way "exchange".

In my opinion, when you have a guy that really likes martial arts and monks and really wants to play a sort of ninja in the campaign, it'd be a bad idea to refuse. It would be missing a good opportunity to have the guy have fun: If the guy's enthusiastic about his character, that's priority #1 for a player to have fun that's fulfilled. Then, for me, would follow an exchange between me and the player to make the character's concept work out in the game.

Sure, everyone, players and DM, restrict available options in a game to some degree. Doesn't mean you have to go to the other extreme and be an ass to your players under the excuse that you want to "protect the integrity of your game world".

As far as I'm concerned, if the "integrity of the game world" comes in the way of having a fulfilling, entertaining D&D campaign, it can be damned. It means to me that the world and its "integrity" were badly conceptualized in the first place.

If a game world isn't designed to play the game and allow the players to have a maximum entertainment value out of it, then it shouldn't be a game world in the first place. If that happens, maybe it's time for the DM to think about another, less collaborative, art that would fulfill more his or her novelist ambitions.

 

[DonTadow]

I'm big on theme in my world of Chrystaria and limitations (and inclusions) help make that. There are risks to casting magic, races are condensed to only a few and classes are restricted to 9. Character have to include an element from either egyptian mythology or final fantasy culture into their character build.

Do I make exceptions, yes. I have a standing rule. If a player can give me a heck of a good backstory, I'd let them play a kung-fu midget. Of course the kung-fu midget might have to wear a red hat. This means that if you come to me with a well thought out chracter and you've found a place for him in the world, I'll allow it though you might have to comprimose on some things. Case in point, I've bene recruiting for a new player in my campaign for a few months. One guy almost made it when he gave me a wonderful background for htis psionic forged. Psionics are forbiden by players, let alone one whom specializes in summoning. But the background was so though out that wit hminor tweaking it fit in.

The guy brings the character and the first game he nixes all the tweaks, which had the other players wondering how he was doing some things (there was a penalty for psionic casting he was ignoring and was ignoring hte limitations on the summons).

I feel its my roll as a DM to try to make the player happy by bending the world rules if its that important to the player, but only if the player is willing to make concessions as well.

Like with the ninja example, I think Raven, you had a thread a while ago talking about the prehistoric ninja guy, and there were some really good ideas that came out of that thread. Essentically it proved that just about any character can fit in anywhere with some modification, tweaking or renaming.

 

[Arnwyn]

Doesn't mean you have to go to the other extreme and be an ass to your players under the excuse that you want to "protect the integrity of your game world".

This is twice I've seen this kind of statement in this thread. I wonder where this talk about ludicrous extremes is coming from, since there's no evidence of such positions in this thread...

 

[Raven Crowking]

Sure, everyone, players and DM, restrict available options in a game to some degree. Doesn't mean you have to go to the other extreme and be an ass to your players under the excuse that you want to "protect the integrity of your game world".

Yes, but "being an ass" and making campaign choices are simply not synonmous.

While some groups might have a shared world, which they take equal time in developing, and which they take turns DMing, this isn't generally the case IME. The DM is asked to devise backdrop and adventures as well as run the game. This is a lot of work, and a lot of fun, and requires making choices. It requires making choices even if the group does it together. If one adventure shows that Trill look like Ambassador Odan and then the next Trill looks like Dax, you either have to explain the difference or lose some credibility. Likewise, if one of the beginning ideas of the world was "No elves exist" you ought to think long and hard before violating that rule, whether you devised it as a DM working alone at home or as the group around a table.

The player is asked to make a character that fits into the world and have fun. If the world is badly conceptualized (and I mean a real stinker here, not simply a world missing your favourite trope), then this could be difficult. You can generally determine this by seeing whether or not the other players have made characters and are having fun, or if the DM is sitting all alone with a pizza wondering where everyone else went.

In the average campaign world, whether designed by DM or committee, it is the player that is unable to make an appropriate character who is being an ass, not the DM.

As far as I'm concerned, if the "integrity of the game world" comes in the way of having a fulfilling, entertaining D&D campaign, it can be damned.

I agree. It is just that in my overwhelming experience, the integrity of the game world is one of the chief reasons why I have so many players, and so many who are on the waiting list. Far from getting in the way, campaign integrity is the way.

YMMV.


RC

 

[el-remmen]

Yeah...or you could let the players create it. Sorry, I just don't get the sense of proprietorship that a lot of you guys are talking about. Last I checked, there was more guys sitting around the table than just me.

From my perspective as a DM, I need to enjoy the campaign theme and where things are going to go in order to have the enthusiasm necessary to prep for the game each week and brainstorm events in the campaign, and have a sense of how to tie the characters to the setting so that things gel.

I am always open to other people's ideas, but within the scope of what I lay out as what the campaign is going to be, and I am open to being convinced to make an exception, or to see something as not as much of an exception as it might initially seem to be.

Basically, if I am not having fun running the game, then in all likelihood there will not be a game to be run for much longer. While if one player isn't having fun and decides to leave the game, that will not be as obstructive to the others, as we can continue without them. On the other hand, if the DM leaves, well it doesn't matter how much the other players like the idea.

Essentially, my themes and restrictions are my way of ensuring that *I* am having fun, so that the campaign has enough longevity and depth to give the players the fun I know they like.

Of course, if absolutely no one likes the idea, then I will either tweak it or come up with something new (and the players can give suggestions), but still it is my province to do so.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Great post, el-remmen!

 

[DonTadow]

The main idea is to have balance. The integreity of the world is important to establishing consistancy among the players and produces the atmosphere of the game. However, players need to be comfortable with the character they are playing. The DM should try to make sure there are options available to fit his players needs.

For instance, I have a player whom likes to play foresty type characters, but the world I'm building has its forests burned out years ago. THus, the ranger would probably be a forbidden class. The solution would be to provide a replacement class such as scout or some other types of utility class.

Or say I have a set number of classes (in my game only the iron hero classes are allowed), but I have a player whom wants to be another class. The DM should work with the player to find feats and skills suitable for the players end goal of the character. For instance, I had a player whom wanted to be a dervish, but I don't allow the class in my game. I asked the player what they like about that character, and suggested feats, a generic class (man-at-arms) and some role playing tips and the character is working out fine.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The main idea is to have balance. The integreity of the world is important to establishing consistancy among the players and produces the atmosphere of the game. However, players need to be comfortable with the character they are playing. The DM should try to make sure there are options available to fit his players needs.

A campaign world that allows for a wider variety of options will appeal to a wider group of players.

Or say I have a set number of classes (in my game only the iron hero classes are allowed), but I have a player whom wants to be another class. The DM should work with the player to find feats and skills suitable for the players end goal of the character.

Maybe. Or, maybe, the player can look at the available materials, and choose skills and feats himself. Or, if that player is inexperienced, perhaps he could ask one of the other players for help making a character, and she could help him.

The creation and updating of characters is the only out-of-game responsibility that players have. If I want to I may help them work out difficult character concepts, or suggest ways in which the rules can be used creatively. It is not my job to be the babysitter, though. It is not my job to make their characters for them. When I help a player make a character, I do so as a friend, not as the DM. When a player runs a character concept past me (either complete or before deciding to do the work), then I am the DM.


RC

 

[DonTadow]

A campaign world that allows for a wider variety of options will appeal to a wider group of players.



Maybe. Or, maybe, the player can look at the available materials, and choose skills and feats himself. Or, if that player is inexperienced, perhaps he could ask one of the other players for help making a character, and she could help him.

The creation and updating of characters is the only out-of-game responsibility that players have. If I want to I may help them work out difficult character concepts, or suggest ways in which the rules can be used creatively. It is not my job to be the babysitter, though. It is not my job to make their characters for them. When I help a player make a character, I do so as a friend, not as the DM. When a player runs a character concept past me (either complete or before deciding to do the work), then I am the DM.


RC

True true, but I'm sure you have met those players whom need hand holding every step of the way sometimes. I'm a sap (and it bites me all the time) and I'll put extra effort in to help that one player out whom seems stuck on stupid. My GF says I should stop but sometimes you hope that the person is learning something when you're showing them.

I won't go as far as building the character, (thats just player laziness) but if I have time I'll give them suggestions. Part of it is that I remember a ton of useless classes, feats and skill uses and 9 times out of 10 osmeone will say something to me and I'll instantly be reminded of where I saw something similiar.

 

[kigmatzomat]

Now, what about the DM collaborating with the players? "Collaboration" doesn't mean "my way or no way". It isn't just a one way "exchange".

That happens in-game for the most part. Character creation is a one-time event that is an infinitesimal portion of the campaign. The story and setting should evolve as a result of PC actions. If someone wants a ninja in my 13th century Cherokee Nation campaign, they better plan a long trip via the Bering Strait. Maybe they can convince the shogunate of the value in trading with the Cherokee and start regular relations.

In my opinion, when you have a guy that really likes martial arts and monks and really wants to play a sort of ninja in the campaign, it'd be a bad idea to refuse. It would be missing a good opportunity to have the guy have fun: If the guy's enthusiastic about his character, that's priority #1 for a player to have fun that's fulfilled.

See, I disagree. If the guy who plays the cleric is unhappy and leaves, you may wind up with an NPC cleric. If the DM is unhappy and stops playing, you wind up with nothin'. Hence, it is priority #1 for the DM to have fun and be fulfilled. DMs who lose sight of that burn out. Quickly.

Good GMs will recognize when their campaign world is not really what the players want and will make whatever concessions they can without breaking Priority #1. Maybe they make that trip to Asia, maybe they start another game entirely, someone else runs a game, they continue with the less than ideal campaign until someone comes up with something better, or the group takes a vacation from gaming.

Sometimes it really comes down to "I hate chocolate, let's have vanilla" vs. "I hate vanilla, let's have chocolate" and no one gets any candy.