DerHauptman
First Post
Reading some of the emphatically restrictive DM responses here I am not really surprised, I have a hard time finding games I'd like to play in because I will not play with a restrictive DM at all and it’s been a while since I played with one who was not a player of mine.
I find that a person with the inability to imagine that in a world with potentially billions or more beings on the material plane alone let alone on the outer, transient and elemental planes that almost any class or skill set could potentially exist is too closed minded for me.
I think there are various reasons for the decisions people make to limit concepts, classes, equipment and spells. They are as varied as the people who make them. I find there is almost universally a way to find a rational solution, work around or argument for the excuses they make to cover their simple lack of effort or prejudice towards a particular idea.
Here are some issues I have heard in games offered to me: (all opted out of)
Issue: If I don't own the book you can't use it cause I won't be able to have access.
Solution: Um, duh its called a copier - 10c a page and almost anyone can "own" any part or even all of a book if one think its necessary to have the whole book to use one feat, class or race. If you are poor I’ll pay for it.
Issue: It just doesn't fit in with my campaign world.
Solution: It's pretend, make up the place, or background required for it to exist. It doesn't have to be common, perhaps its an exceptionally rare, race dieing out, or a unique class that only comes from a region far away and inaccessible. Or, it’s a unique combination of skills (class) to a single person, who is self taught – plausible. Classes are just a set of skills packaged with a name. Why do they even need names other than to tag them for easy reference? I am a soldier in real life but I don’t introduce myself as a soldier all the time – I say “hi, I’m Bill, what’s your name?” Also, the character could have just walked through, no real “fit” required. A Yankee in King Arthur’s Court, the 13th Warrior (Arab in Scandinavia), A Dutch Navigator in the Asian Game (SAMAURI), there are countless examples of a single character out of place in the scenario –it’s not that hard to envision. Bottom line for me is, ff you are too lazy or busy to make it up have the player do it to your satisfaction prior to start of game.
Issue: The class doesn't fit the type game. I.E. no ninjas in a Celtic setting, etc.
Solution: This is just a lack of imagination here - don't call it a NINJA then, talk to the player tell him it’s a Celtic game, change the name of the class to Clan MAC Leonard Stealth Warrior (or something you like better). OK so this clan has historically been stealthy warriors for hire, they guard kings and chiefs and do assassinations and stealth missions the other clans find dishonorable - Ironically the honor of these warriors is beyond reproach within their own ranks they willing die for a superior and never fail a mission and if they do they kill themselves rather than live in disgrace. They use a sword that is light and curved called a XXXXX and caltrops and steel disks sharpened to fine points covered in poison from berries. Some of this could be for samurai too. Monks in a Pseudo-European game: Not monks make up some name for them say special warriors trained for defensive duties of kings in courts where weapons are not allowed. Special schools for kids of nobility who need to defend themselves without weapons (now with money shortage anyone can get in).
Issue: I don't allow evil because it destroys parties; the game of D&D is designed for heroes, and according to the rules the players have to be good; if a player goes evil they have to be an NPC; one evil guy in a good group will spell disaster, etc...
Solution: Remove the detection of alignment spells from the game, replace it with something else so the player can group with the paladin and do his evil elsewhere. Just hold the player (through his character) responsible for his actions in a justifiably, objective and equitable manner. I had one guy say I never allow evil then say ok we can try it. I tried to run a scam on an orphanage (a poor one at that) and they had an amazing pool of high level assets and protections for their little one room orphanage (in a Hamlet no less), permanent zones of truth, forbiddance spells, amazing sense motive checks and an on call army of warriors to respond to any problem. Any little time I tried to do anything evil it failed; there were never any drunks in the alley, rich patrons alone at night, never any thief’s guilds in any towns, no fences for goods etc. He would gloss over any detail of anything evil I tried to do (“you can’t seem to find the seedy part of town, no one will buy your prisoners as slaves the market is weak – in every town every time yet slavery was legal in the world). I'd have respected him more if he said evil makes me feel weird and I can't DM it. Evil is not stupid, evil is hard to Dm to play well and to provide adventures for. I see it as a lazy DM issue myself. If it's honestly just a personal inability to deal with the idea of people you play with having evil thoughts or your inability to speak of, make up and respond to fantasy evil why you are willing to play the bad NPC's. Are all your bad guys Neutral (it’s plausible and possible to do well - trust me)? If not you are lying to yourself and your players about having a morality issue with it in game. You just don’t want to…there is no reason and I guess if its your game and you run it as solely your game you don’t need one.
I could go on with issues like these for a long time but I think I make my point....
It has been my experience that people use issues like the above to justify their own lack of flexibility, laziness, and their own personal prejudice against certain classes or concepts etc.
Instead, I think just being honest enough with themselves and their players to say..."while I think I could work out some way to play it, allow it to be played, or to include it - it's too much work for me to do and I'm just not going to", would earn the Dm in question more mileage.
I respect it more when a DM just says I don't like X so you can't play them - bottom line.
Regarding the balanced and (I hate the phrase) "broken" races, classes, items and concepts, again I think its all personal opinion. In a game of pretend I can let someone play any class, use any piece of equipment, and race or concept and still challenge them and the group. Remember, as Dm I can cheat and make up
on the fly! Its just harder to adjudicate and harder to plan for and harder to balance the encounters so that each has her respective role, spotlight time and doesn't die in one hit so the others are challenged.
Having said that it can be done, should it have to be done? Not all the time. If a player has his heart set on something particular though I'll work with the player to make some changes in a class to make it more balanced with the group but remain in the sprit of the character the player wants.
Surprisingly players are more appreciative of being allowed to dialog to find that balance or solution with a DM instead of summarily dismissed out of hand with something like "not in my game", “that is broken, no way" "nope don't fit" and even taunting words and laughter as had happened once to me about something outside the RAW that had no in game effect whatsoever. It was a +1 LA race equal to an Air Genasi but "looked like" an orc in its outward appearance instead of humanlike. Inflexible is one thing dismissive is another.
Now, as for rolling stats vs. point buy...
Hate to break it to the point buy folks but having the same stat point pool does not, never has nor will it ever "balance" the game for each player. We all know the classes are not balanced, some races are inherently better than others and that certain feats blow the balance of the game out the window.
At first level a wizard is not equal to a fighter, a cleric is not equal to a thief and a druid is not equal to a sorcerer. They fill different roles and regardless of having an equal stat point pool they will never be absolutely equal. They play different roles in the game and therefore are not balanced at all. When levels are taken into consideration, some classes balance with regard to the others will change on the power scale the higher they get. All the even stat point pool does is shut-up the whiney players who must have the strongest, smartest or “whatever” type character in the group.
I allow my players to pick their stats, they appreciate the trust, the ability to play any class they want because of that choice and have a decent character. We know that with some point buy spreads one can not have a decent paladin, monk, or bard. To be decent these require a more than 2 high scores but the typical 28 pt buy will not provide the points for that.
The players are actually very thoughtful when assigning a score; most take a penalty score to balance their character with a (often severe) flaw. Point buy almost assures that no one will have to endure a penalty below 1. My players enjoy the weakness and it allows great role play opportunities. The negative stigma one must endure from the group the first time they pick all 18's is way more restrictive than any limitation I can put on as a DM. I had one guy do that the first time he played with us...he asked to change his stats after the 2nd session because of the jibes. I had a guy do it after playing a while and since he had a reputation as a fair guy the group allowed it and came together around the character and created a rich story for the party with the character as the “chosen one” of his tribe, they played all druids and barbarians and we had a great military campaign for the chosen one to conquer, unite and win his kingdom. It was his destiny and that king is a major NPC today in all our games. I let the player make the choices still on what direction the kingdom goes on issues.
The bottom line here is that I empower them with choice and they make the right ones. I think just like with raising kids if you make excessive restrictions it often creates an adversarial relationship. Players, in this case are not kids and instead of staying out late - they rebel and try to push the limit and bend the rules with loop holes and power builds and BS like that. Mine don't, they make the right choices cause they know they don't have to find power somewhere in the rules they already have it in their choices.
The same goes with classes and combos, equipment and items...I let them choose, and try almost anything and if it becomes a problem in the game guess what? Because they got to choose and I let them try it…they bring it up to me - I don't have to limit it they realize on their own its a whacked out class and is pissing the others off. They will then make a suggestion to scale it down or just to remake a new character. However, if I limit the choice I will get resentment?
As DM I allow almost anything.
My philosophy is that my players will be more involved with and immersed in the game if I allow them to play exactly the race, class, stats, and feats they want to try out. While sometimes it is a challenge and takes some more work on my part in the end I have better games because of the choices I allow. No one feels limited; they don't feel cheated if they buy a new book and can't at least try it out somewhere. That's what players resent -closed mindedness.
My impression and experience is that the game is cooperative in nature, yea I am DM but they are just as involved as I am. They buy books and minis (which I include in sessions so they feel included and like they are spending money wisely) the minis sometimes; honestly don't "fit" in what we are doing that session. However, damn it I'll find a way to use it within a week or so just so they stay encouraged to buy more minis. More minis = more choices for us both – player and DM alike. It is the same principle with books and such. Their purchases are important to our collective game as a resource, we trade, borrow and share them and we all learn new things because of it. I’ll try anything once. I don’t over analyze new material for weeks before I let it in. Some DM’s have the attitude they must dissect any new product like a new virus before it hits the table – that BS has been done by folks that get paid to do it. Sure no one is perfect and WOTC makes bad stuff…. Damn, Its a game of pretend, if it turns out bad, lame or just silly we can take it out. We can even (shocker!) go back and undo bad outcomes because of the inclusion of some bad material.
Choice, choice, choice is the key in my game....
I allow almost anything in my games as DM and if I come to play with anyone else I expect at least that they are honest and don't hide their personal choice behind some silly justification.
If you are going to limit my choices just say what my Dad used to "I am the DAD (DM) and I say no!" It easy, if not a little undignified, but its at least the truth and respectable.
I may not play, and I never bought the "because I'm the Dad" line when I was a kid but I respected it.
DH.
I find that a person with the inability to imagine that in a world with potentially billions or more beings on the material plane alone let alone on the outer, transient and elemental planes that almost any class or skill set could potentially exist is too closed minded for me.
I think there are various reasons for the decisions people make to limit concepts, classes, equipment and spells. They are as varied as the people who make them. I find there is almost universally a way to find a rational solution, work around or argument for the excuses they make to cover their simple lack of effort or prejudice towards a particular idea.
Here are some issues I have heard in games offered to me: (all opted out of)
Issue: If I don't own the book you can't use it cause I won't be able to have access.
Solution: Um, duh its called a copier - 10c a page and almost anyone can "own" any part or even all of a book if one think its necessary to have the whole book to use one feat, class or race. If you are poor I’ll pay for it.
Issue: It just doesn't fit in with my campaign world.
Solution: It's pretend, make up the place, or background required for it to exist. It doesn't have to be common, perhaps its an exceptionally rare, race dieing out, or a unique class that only comes from a region far away and inaccessible. Or, it’s a unique combination of skills (class) to a single person, who is self taught – plausible. Classes are just a set of skills packaged with a name. Why do they even need names other than to tag them for easy reference? I am a soldier in real life but I don’t introduce myself as a soldier all the time – I say “hi, I’m Bill, what’s your name?” Also, the character could have just walked through, no real “fit” required. A Yankee in King Arthur’s Court, the 13th Warrior (Arab in Scandinavia), A Dutch Navigator in the Asian Game (SAMAURI), there are countless examples of a single character out of place in the scenario –it’s not that hard to envision. Bottom line for me is, ff you are too lazy or busy to make it up have the player do it to your satisfaction prior to start of game.
Issue: The class doesn't fit the type game. I.E. no ninjas in a Celtic setting, etc.
Solution: This is just a lack of imagination here - don't call it a NINJA then, talk to the player tell him it’s a Celtic game, change the name of the class to Clan MAC Leonard Stealth Warrior (or something you like better). OK so this clan has historically been stealthy warriors for hire, they guard kings and chiefs and do assassinations and stealth missions the other clans find dishonorable - Ironically the honor of these warriors is beyond reproach within their own ranks they willing die for a superior and never fail a mission and if they do they kill themselves rather than live in disgrace. They use a sword that is light and curved called a XXXXX and caltrops and steel disks sharpened to fine points covered in poison from berries. Some of this could be for samurai too. Monks in a Pseudo-European game: Not monks make up some name for them say special warriors trained for defensive duties of kings in courts where weapons are not allowed. Special schools for kids of nobility who need to defend themselves without weapons (now with money shortage anyone can get in).
Issue: I don't allow evil because it destroys parties; the game of D&D is designed for heroes, and according to the rules the players have to be good; if a player goes evil they have to be an NPC; one evil guy in a good group will spell disaster, etc...
Solution: Remove the detection of alignment spells from the game, replace it with something else so the player can group with the paladin and do his evil elsewhere. Just hold the player (through his character) responsible for his actions in a justifiably, objective and equitable manner. I had one guy say I never allow evil then say ok we can try it. I tried to run a scam on an orphanage (a poor one at that) and they had an amazing pool of high level assets and protections for their little one room orphanage (in a Hamlet no less), permanent zones of truth, forbiddance spells, amazing sense motive checks and an on call army of warriors to respond to any problem. Any little time I tried to do anything evil it failed; there were never any drunks in the alley, rich patrons alone at night, never any thief’s guilds in any towns, no fences for goods etc. He would gloss over any detail of anything evil I tried to do (“you can’t seem to find the seedy part of town, no one will buy your prisoners as slaves the market is weak – in every town every time yet slavery was legal in the world). I'd have respected him more if he said evil makes me feel weird and I can't DM it. Evil is not stupid, evil is hard to Dm to play well and to provide adventures for. I see it as a lazy DM issue myself. If it's honestly just a personal inability to deal with the idea of people you play with having evil thoughts or your inability to speak of, make up and respond to fantasy evil why you are willing to play the bad NPC's. Are all your bad guys Neutral (it’s plausible and possible to do well - trust me)? If not you are lying to yourself and your players about having a morality issue with it in game. You just don’t want to…there is no reason and I guess if its your game and you run it as solely your game you don’t need one.
I could go on with issues like these for a long time but I think I make my point....
It has been my experience that people use issues like the above to justify their own lack of flexibility, laziness, and their own personal prejudice against certain classes or concepts etc.
Instead, I think just being honest enough with themselves and their players to say..."while I think I could work out some way to play it, allow it to be played, or to include it - it's too much work for me to do and I'm just not going to", would earn the Dm in question more mileage.
I respect it more when a DM just says I don't like X so you can't play them - bottom line.
Regarding the balanced and (I hate the phrase) "broken" races, classes, items and concepts, again I think its all personal opinion. In a game of pretend I can let someone play any class, use any piece of equipment, and race or concept and still challenge them and the group. Remember, as Dm I can cheat and make up
on the fly! Its just harder to adjudicate and harder to plan for and harder to balance the encounters so that each has her respective role, spotlight time and doesn't die in one hit so the others are challenged. Having said that it can be done, should it have to be done? Not all the time. If a player has his heart set on something particular though I'll work with the player to make some changes in a class to make it more balanced with the group but remain in the sprit of the character the player wants.
Surprisingly players are more appreciative of being allowed to dialog to find that balance or solution with a DM instead of summarily dismissed out of hand with something like "not in my game", “that is broken, no way" "nope don't fit" and even taunting words and laughter as had happened once to me about something outside the RAW that had no in game effect whatsoever. It was a +1 LA race equal to an Air Genasi but "looked like" an orc in its outward appearance instead of humanlike. Inflexible is one thing dismissive is another.
Now, as for rolling stats vs. point buy...
Hate to break it to the point buy folks but having the same stat point pool does not, never has nor will it ever "balance" the game for each player. We all know the classes are not balanced, some races are inherently better than others and that certain feats blow the balance of the game out the window.
At first level a wizard is not equal to a fighter, a cleric is not equal to a thief and a druid is not equal to a sorcerer. They fill different roles and regardless of having an equal stat point pool they will never be absolutely equal. They play different roles in the game and therefore are not balanced at all. When levels are taken into consideration, some classes balance with regard to the others will change on the power scale the higher they get. All the even stat point pool does is shut-up the whiney players who must have the strongest, smartest or “whatever” type character in the group.
I allow my players to pick their stats, they appreciate the trust, the ability to play any class they want because of that choice and have a decent character. We know that with some point buy spreads one can not have a decent paladin, monk, or bard. To be decent these require a more than 2 high scores but the typical 28 pt buy will not provide the points for that.
The players are actually very thoughtful when assigning a score; most take a penalty score to balance their character with a (often severe) flaw. Point buy almost assures that no one will have to endure a penalty below 1. My players enjoy the weakness and it allows great role play opportunities. The negative stigma one must endure from the group the first time they pick all 18's is way more restrictive than any limitation I can put on as a DM. I had one guy do that the first time he played with us...he asked to change his stats after the 2nd session because of the jibes. I had a guy do it after playing a while and since he had a reputation as a fair guy the group allowed it and came together around the character and created a rich story for the party with the character as the “chosen one” of his tribe, they played all druids and barbarians and we had a great military campaign for the chosen one to conquer, unite and win his kingdom. It was his destiny and that king is a major NPC today in all our games. I let the player make the choices still on what direction the kingdom goes on issues.
The bottom line here is that I empower them with choice and they make the right ones. I think just like with raising kids if you make excessive restrictions it often creates an adversarial relationship. Players, in this case are not kids and instead of staying out late - they rebel and try to push the limit and bend the rules with loop holes and power builds and BS like that. Mine don't, they make the right choices cause they know they don't have to find power somewhere in the rules they already have it in their choices.
The same goes with classes and combos, equipment and items...I let them choose, and try almost anything and if it becomes a problem in the game guess what? Because they got to choose and I let them try it…they bring it up to me - I don't have to limit it they realize on their own its a whacked out class and is pissing the others off. They will then make a suggestion to scale it down or just to remake a new character. However, if I limit the choice I will get resentment?
As DM I allow almost anything.
My philosophy is that my players will be more involved with and immersed in the game if I allow them to play exactly the race, class, stats, and feats they want to try out. While sometimes it is a challenge and takes some more work on my part in the end I have better games because of the choices I allow. No one feels limited; they don't feel cheated if they buy a new book and can't at least try it out somewhere. That's what players resent -closed mindedness.
My impression and experience is that the game is cooperative in nature, yea I am DM but they are just as involved as I am. They buy books and minis (which I include in sessions so they feel included and like they are spending money wisely) the minis sometimes; honestly don't "fit" in what we are doing that session. However, damn it I'll find a way to use it within a week or so just so they stay encouraged to buy more minis. More minis = more choices for us both – player and DM alike. It is the same principle with books and such. Their purchases are important to our collective game as a resource, we trade, borrow and share them and we all learn new things because of it. I’ll try anything once. I don’t over analyze new material for weeks before I let it in. Some DM’s have the attitude they must dissect any new product like a new virus before it hits the table – that BS has been done by folks that get paid to do it. Sure no one is perfect and WOTC makes bad stuff…. Damn, Its a game of pretend, if it turns out bad, lame or just silly we can take it out. We can even (shocker!) go back and undo bad outcomes because of the inclusion of some bad material.
Choice, choice, choice is the key in my game....
I allow almost anything in my games as DM and if I come to play with anyone else I expect at least that they are honest and don't hide their personal choice behind some silly justification.
If you are going to limit my choices just say what my Dad used to "I am the DAD (DM) and I say no!" It easy, if not a little undignified, but its at least the truth and respectable.
I may not play, and I never bought the "because I'm the Dad" line when I was a kid but I respected it.
DH.
Heck, no! Anything that reduces my work as the DM is what I go for. 
