Optional vs. "Optional"

[Dornam]

Outside of organized play the word "optional" has no meaning. Either the Dm allows it or not, period.

In regards to 5e I always assumed that there will be optional rules that replce basic rules for more flavor and possibilities.

So an option in 5e would not be a new class or more skills but instead handling classes/skills somehow different.

This would do away with the aforementioned problem.

 

[AeroDm]

And who am I as DM to judge that? I've seen stupid character concepts turned into awesome, and I've seen perfectly average character concepts ruined by mediocrity.

Not sure I've ever seen this posted here, but it's never been quite so relevant.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Who are you to judge that? You're the DM! By allowing you to DM, your players cede you the authority to judge all sorts of things. You just have to pick the right battles to fight so that your players continue to be satisfied, make the compromises you need to make, and enforce the restrictions you need to enforce for the good of the game.

Over in another thread on whether or not classes need to be balanced, a couple of posters are relating "horror" stories of PC that, through their players' build choices, were one dimensional and ineffective outside of that dimension. Well, that partly stems from the attitude above - who are you to judge? You're the guy who's supposed to be helping the game work. You're the one who should be telling PCs that a concept won't work, that they need to pick up some better offense for their own good, that they need to work together with their fellow players. This is of critical importance with any game system highly responsive to player choices from point-buy systems like Champions and Mutants and Masterminds to class-based systems that nevertheless have lots of options like D&D.

It may well be that playing a leopard man won't have a whole lot of impact on mechanical balance nor on social interactions. In that case, it's OK to bend as DM even if you don't particularly like leopard men or think they're kind of silly. But if the player wants to stack up a paladin/monk/<whatever else gives out ridiculous save bonuses> to utterly redline his saves but leave his offense about the level of a toddler with a wet noodle, it's probably time to step up and judge and tell him to cut it out.

I can't give you any more XP so: spot on!

Not everyone's concept is going to work in every game. I will tell my players up front if that concept is going to be good or bad. If they insist on playing it then I make sure I inform them not to whine because I told you so. I don't bend the game to fit someone's concept, I propose the game and I leave it up to them to develop a concept around the campaign that I build. If they want a concept that doesn't work and they expect me to change everything then they have another thing coming.

 

[billd91]

[MENTION=44640]bill[/MENTION] D: I haven't seen that kind of problem in a game I run in, I don't know, a decade. Could be that in my area players tend to be late 20ies to mid 30ies, and the casual type just in it for a few hours away from work, wife and maybe kids. I just don't need to tell them how to run their PCs. If someone's a flake, it's easier to just remove them from the group than deal with the crap in-game.

Oh, I don't see it very often either. But it sure does come up on these boards. That suggests that either the poster is using a lot of hyperbole or some DMs are doing a poor job of helping their players be successful and I think the attitude you were espousing - who are you to judge - or - it's their character - plays into that. Too much of that sentiment and not enough willingness to intervene and you can get PCs that are in need of fixing.

Sure, sometimes someone is new to a system or to busy to read all the stuff. In that case, I sit down with the player and walk them through the options. But that's about what they want, not what I want.

In my case, it's also about what I want. I want my players to be successful when they play, both on their own and as a member of a group whether they're new players or experienced. It's a slightly different philosophical approach, I think, from yours. But then, I've played quite a few point-based games (particularly with superheroes) in which GM participation and approval were important elements of building a character that would work out. So maybe it's a case of being socialized by the types of games I've played and run into taking that approach.

I actually do wonder sometimes if too many DMs just leave their players hanging out there without enough guidance. Back in the days of 1e when there were relatively few choices to make, you could leave well enough alone. But with thousands of feats to choose from in 3e/PF/4e, that gets to be a problem. D&D flavors have become much more sensitive to PC build choices over time. Some things synergize better than others. Some thing simply don't fit in with a campaign. DMs should be willing to jump in and help players who aren't fitting in to fit in, by recommending better choices and discouraging ones that may frustrate.

 

[Frostmarrow]

What I really find weird with Prestige Classes is how very specific the prerequisites are. Many prestige classes rests on a specific build of a specific class at a specific level to be viable. As such no one in the world will ever play it (unless it's broken too).
Prestige classes and the like should be open to anybody with an inkling to play the concept. You shouldn't have to plan eight levels ahead or start a new character just so you can wear fancy clothes for a spell. In fact prestige classes should be as easy to drop as an ill-fitting suit and just as easy getting into.

 

[billd91]

What I really find weird with Prestige Classes is how very specific the prerequisites are. Many prestige classes rests on a specific build of a specific class at a specific level to be viable. As such no one in the world will ever play it (unless it's broken too).
Prestige classes and the like should be open to anybody with an inkling to play the concept. You shouldn't have to plan eight levels ahead or start a new character just so you can wear fancy clothes for a spell. In fact prestige classes should be as easy to drop as an ill-fitting suit and just as easy getting into.

I think there are a couple of things going on here. The idea behind prestige classes was that you could qualify for them from a variety of backgrounds, just at different times. If any were designed that broke that, I would say they were poorly designed prestige classes.

Regarding planning out your build, there are simply people so obsessed with their plans, you'll get that no matter how easy a prestige class is to qualify for. Someone will get it into their heads that they have to qualify for it at the first possible moment and will obsessively plan their build around it to eke out every iota of ability and power. You really can't blame the prestige classes or system for that. That's all on the players.