Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ClaytonCross" data-source="post: 7469023" data-attributes="member: 6880599">I totally agree. But that also means this is Table buy in that players have to know and agree to. Where this comes up here a lot on the forums is GMs say they are going RAW make the character you want... then the player shows up with a character the GM doesn't like for their own reason but doesn't want to say "No because I said so" and be the "bad guy" after playing saying play what you want. So the will use fluff to justify "roleplay regulations" that are supposedly a requirement that comes from fluff and try enforce it on players as "RAW" so that they can call the player breaking RAW, making the player the "bad guy" for "knowingly stepping out of line". A GM is not wrong for defining his table rules and world then create rule of play for their campaign. Where the friction is created is a player hearing a "Its RAW" roleplay regulation when they can see its not and have a character idea they try to argue the rules they agreed too. If the GM just comes out and says "I don't like it and want to do it differently at my table" I think its usually works better. Some GMs have dug in on the "Its RAW" argument so long and so deep that they come to the forums saying it like that's how it is only to run into the same augments that jaded them in the first place.I have run into this first hand. Usually it stems from a GM who thinks he is willing to let players build "any character you want to play" only to find out their is a combination the GM doesn't like for real world mechanic reasons (Gnome with a 6ft battle axe, longsword instead of short sword while wielding a shield), conflict with GM setting vision (Rapiers are often considered renaissance era 14th-17th centuries and makes GMs think three musketeers instead medieval  era 5th-15th centuries which is commonly the basis for fantasy stories, while they overlap the rapier is only a late 1500 century weapon, Also, Races: GM: If is not human, dwarf, elf, gnome, or halfling its evil! Player: That's fine I am playing a Drow/Duragar/Deep Gnome GM: 0.0 EVIL!!! Payer: But you said...), old version change reasons (old classes had hard rules for oaths etc that don't exist the current game so the player is following current rules and doesn't fallow old edition rules that the GM expects even though they were removed for a reason), unforeseen player vs player conflicts they don't want to deal with (taking few levels in class to be good at skill another character considers theirs like dipping rogue and having a rogue in the group or DPR competitions instead of fighting as a team), or simply not being fully aware of all the classes and subclass to the degree of the player who made it (GM:Your warlock is evil because your patron is evil!!! Player: Er… My Patron is an Arch Fey tree hugger who values all life and sent me on a mission to stop one warlord and end this war so it would not burn down its forest to forge weapons and needlessly kill thousands of peasants who don't want to fight...GM: What that's not a thing... you know what a witch is? Player: well according to PHB I can be a nature based good witch I don't have to be a demon worshiper".Basically, GMs need to review player characters to see if they fit their campaign. If they have an issue with something say "ok, Sorry to cramp your style BUT in my campaign I don't want this but this is ok" It does not have to be RAW or RAI then just let players know as soon as possible so they don't settle on a character and show up to the table only to have issues with the group / GM then passive aggressive attempts to "fix" this issue after the fact make it a much bigger issue than it had to be. Its the player being to told to change their character or the rules don't allow their character after the player is invested in it that usually makes this a real debate in my experience. Don't tell me to play anything then on the first session tell the paladin he has a strong desire to kill me because I showed up with a demon spawn tiefling and in this campaign they are considered evil and kill on sight even if they aren't evil. Just let me know in advance, Tieflings are not allowed as player characters in this campaign setting. I will build a different character. The same applies to multi-classing etc. I need to find a trainer for a few session before I can multiclass? Sure, just don't let ne try to multi-class for 3 session and invest in the idea to tell me I am failing to multi-class because I am a warlock and my patron is preventing me from communicating with Deities and becoming a cleric. If you tell me before I multi-class so I don't show up with character I can't player and you don't waste 3 sessions of playing to find out it was never and option I can make other plans. If your letting your players "attempt" to multi-class for multiple sessions, then put a roll in it and let them know a rough odds IRL, so that they don't waste time on Zero chance endeavors only to found out and argue later.Table party group planning with GM character review. I recommend it.</blockquote>

Verification