Is campaign flavour sacrosanct in your game?

[The Thayan Menace]

GMs Über Alles!

Great post, el-remmen!

I wholeheartedly concur.

It also reminds me of this POLL ....

-Samir

 

[Thurbane]

Interesting in that poll, though, that both "The Players" and "Me" scored more hits than "The GM".

 

[wayne62682]

I've been giving this thread some more thought since it highlighted what I think was the problem with my last gaming group:

D&D is a collaborative game; we can all agree on this I believe. But where do you draw the line? My experience has been similar to the following:

• DM suggests a campaign (we actually would vote on campaign ideas and the winner got to run their ideas)
• DM sends out an email with synopsis of the campaign (expanding on the few sentences they submitted for the vote) and any specifics for character creation.
• Players make characters at home (we never do creation sessions much to my chagrin), bring them to the DM for review on "game day" and we start playing.
• At least two players end up making characters that are incompatible (lawful good cleric and Necromancer, for example, or paladin of god of justice and rob you blind Rogue) or everyone at the group makes PCs that would never logically adventure with each other, but nontheless we ignore it since that's what everyone wanted to play.
• Game quickly becomes boring for me since there is no flavor or cohesion.

The issue of "flavor" comes up when a player only wants to play a certain thing.. for sake of weirdness we'll say Drow (assuming LA 0 variant for sake of argument) Rogue and/or Ninja. This player ONLY has fun playing this sort of character, but is a good friend. You can't just tell this person they can't play in the campaign because that's quite rude to do to a friend. So you have to fit in that sort of "flavor" to ensure that this person will have fun and not become bored because they can't play what they enjoy.

The question becomes at what point does the DM have to relent "flavor" for sake of the players enjoying themselves (since the game is supposed to be fun for EVERYBODY), and at what point is the player selfish because they refuse to play any flavor that "limits" what they can play (i.e. doesn't let them play the one and only thing they usually choose to play)?

 

[Rel]

[*]At least two players end up making characters that are incompatible (lawful good cleric and Necromancer, for example, or paladin of god of justice and rob you blind Rogue) or everyone at the group makes PCs that would never logically adventure with each other, but nontheless we ignore it since that's what everyone wanted to play.

This by itself is a good enough reason to insist that you do a colaborative character creation session.

 

[Sound of Azure]

The issue of "flavor" comes up when a player only wants to play a certain thing.. for sake of weirdness we'll say Drow (assuming LA 0 variant for sake of argument) Rogue and/or Ninja. This player ONLY has fun playing this sort of character, but is a good friend. You can't just tell this person they can't play in the campaign because that's quite rude to do to a friend. So you have to fit in that sort of "flavor" to ensure that this person will have fun and not become bored because they can't play what they enjoy.

The question becomes at what point does the DM have to relent "flavor" for sake of the players enjoying themselves (since the game is supposed to be fun for EVERYBODY), and at what point is the player selfish because they refuse to play any flavor that "limits" what they can play (i.e. doesn't let them play the one and only thing they usually choose to play)?

You're probably right about it being rude to say that to a friend. That being said, you'd have to be frank with your friend that (if the restriction against drow ninjas is absolute) he likely wouldn't have much fun in your game with his niche gone.

I try not to put my friends in situations where they're not going to enjoy themselves, so I'd steer my friend away from my game if there was no way to accomodate his niche. On the other hand I might deribe the fun another player is having paying something similar (such as a halfing sorcerer focusing on stealth magic and illusion).

I don't know. It's really hard to call, sometimes.

 

[wayne62682]

This by itself is a good enough reason to insist that you do a colaborative character creation session.

Oh I agree. However when I brought it up I got "Creation sessions are useless." and a tirade about how they stifle player creativity because if someone plays that Lawful Good Cleric and you were dead set on the Necromancer, which of you "caves in"? My old group... nobody wanted to compromise and say that they wouldn't play the Necromancer and play a good wizard instead, because they were so dead set on playing the Necromancer that they wouldn't enjoy the game at all if they weren't allowed to play it.

 

[DonTadow]

You're probably right about it being rude to say that to a friend. That being said, you'd have to be frank with your friend that (if the restriction against drow ninjas is absolute) he likely wouldn't have much fun in your game with his niche gone.

I try not to put my friends in situations where they're not going to enjoy themselves, so I'd steer my friend away from my game if there was no way to accomodate his niche. On the other hand I might deribe the fun another player is having paying something similar (such as a halfing sorcerer focusing on stealth magic and illusion).

I don't know. It's really hard to call, sometimes.

Its tough but this is sometimes the best course of action. I have about 5 or 6 friends whom I met playing d and d, love playing d and d with, but would never invite to a game I DM. They love playing far out characters like blinkdogs and LA races and it would never fit into my game.

The ball is in the court of the majority. If the rest of the group wants this flavor and agreed to this, then the minority either has to confirm and work wit hthe DM or not play. Theres a girl in my campaign whom is obsessed with playing wierd characters like weretigers or drow, which obviously doesnt work in my IH game. Playing wit hfriends was more important than playing some wild creature with her. I think a player should look and say to himself does he want to play with friends or does he want to play these characters. It's like going to play life and wanting to play the thimble. Not happening. If you want to play get you a car with little peg holes in it like everyone else did.

 

[Rel]

Oh I agree. However when I brought it up I got "Creation sessions are useless." and a tirade about how they stifle player creativity because if someone plays that Lawful Good Cleric and you were dead set on the Necromancer, which of you "caves in"? My old group... nobody wanted to compromise and say that they wouldn't play the Necromancer and play a good wizard instead, because they were so dead set on playing the Necromancer that they wouldn't enjoy the game at all if they weren't allowed to play it.

If everybody in the group were so dead set against compromise then I would not be inclined to GM for them anyway. Unless every single person in the group is on exactly the same page with regard to playstyle (and they NEVER are IME) then Compromise should be the foremost consideration, not something that is off the table entirely.

My position is that if my hobby is causing me stress then it is really serving no function in a life that has plenty of other stressors. If my players are that uncompromising to the point that it is causing me stress (and boredom) because of a lack of party unity or being able to portray a cohesive feel for the setting then I'd rather just play poker or boardgames.

 

[The Thayan Menace]

RBDMs Über Alles!

Interesting in that poll, though, that both "The Players" and "Me" scored more hits than "The GM".

True dat, but that's hardly surprising.

-Samir Asad is RBDM Core

 

[Odhanan]

This by itself is a good enough reason to insist that you do a colaborative character creation session.

Utterly agreed. This is why I always have a character creation session unless I, as the DM, create all the PCs for a one shot (that happens when I get back to France and run a one shot game with my old friends), and even then, we have at least a couple of hours of discussion and exchanges to get the players to read their backgrounds, asks all the questions to me or the other players they want, and discuss group dynamics prior to the game.

I found that the character creation session avoids most of the trappings you find in lots of threads on gaming boards talking about this or that incompatible character concepts or player gaming styles around the table, because after this briefing, the playstyle, the characters involved and the group dynamics have been brainstormed extensively around the table with beer, pizza and casual socializing involved as well. By then, we have a group dynamics, in and out of the game, already going on before we actually gather to play the first session. Saves a lot of trouble.