PHB2 Races = Mos Eisley Cantina

[Jack7]

By the way KM if you are any one else has interesting ideas about how to apply natural processes to game ideas/inventions/applications (or vice versa) then feel free to list or describe them in this Thread.

I'd be interested in analyzing everything from ideas about racial/species/creature capabilities to device invention/construction to process and energy control methods.

 

[Hussar]

There are some posts in threads here and many more at WOTC stating that DMs that ban are not good DMs. So, I would say that the answer to your queston is yes.

I agree that limiting does not make a bad DM and that a DM should be upfront . I also limit classes and my players not only have had a blast, but felt the limitations that I place and extra detail that I put into the thought of the setting for character generation enhance the game. The first time, I took this approach, one player happened to find his favorite class banned and was slightly reluctant- the character that he did create ended up being his favorite character in 15 years of gaming.

Despite your opinon and mine, there are players that have posted that any DM that limits races and classes is a bad DM.

GregK, as someone who has gone around a few times with you on this one, you do realize that you are massively misrepresenting what was said don't you? In none of the threads we talked about this did anyone ever state what you are saying.

What WAS stated was that DM's who feel that their personal preferences should always take precedence over those of their players MIGHT be bad DM's. Not that they always are. But that maybe, just maybe, a DM who decides that his imagination is better than his player's might be a bad DM.

Which is a VERY far cry from saying that "any DM who limits races and classes is a bad DM".

But, feel free to continue attacking a position that no one held.

 

[Greg K]

Hussar,
No. Some people never wrote "MIGHT". It was, when push comes to shove, this is my concept and, provided it was not broken, the DM should let it in regardless of the setting (even if from some other world by planar travel), because that is what the player wants to play- the DM has the rest of the world with which to play. If the DM didn't allow the character, they were a bad DM.

Then, there were a couple of people, that might have wrote might and it still came down to the DM should let the character in via planar travel so that the player could play it.

 

[Hussar]

Hussar,
No. Some people never wrote "MIGHT". It was, when push comes to shove, this is my concept and, provided it was not broken, the DM should let it in regardless of the setting (even if from some other world by planar travel), because that is what the player wants to play- the DM has the rest of the world with which to play. If the DM didn't allow the character, they were a bad DM.

Then, there were a couple of people, that might have wrote might and it still came down to the DM should let the character in via planar travel so that the player could play it.

Yup, I agree with your interpretation here.

Which is miles away from your original take. It wasn't "any DM that bans stuff is a bad DM". It was "any DM who takes his personal preferences and rams them down the player's throat without any consideration for what the player might want to play... is a bad DM."

So, yup, if a DM has no issues with a character concept OTHER than his own personal preferences (I hate X, so no X in my game), then I do think the DM should back down and let the player have his or her cake.

Just thought we should clear that up.

 

[Bohemian Ear-Spork]

Thing is, all you need to do is change the appearance a bit, if you want consistency. What a race looks like is entirely arbitary, and altering that is child's play.

Shifters? Atavistic cave-dwellers who are bonded with animal spirits in a coming-of-age ritual.

Gnomes? Read ye some Arthur Machen, man.

Halflings? Homo floresiensis.

Half-Orcs? Neandetals.

Tieflings? Hey, look, Melniboneans!

Dragonborn? See Shifters, above, but substitute dragons for animal spirits. Look completely human, too.

Warforged? As their stats are right now? Take a look at Donaldson's "Bloodguard", from the much-maligned Thomas Covenant series. Ordinary humans so driven by devotion to their Oath that they no longer need to eat, or sleep. (Seriously, the Warforged character option from the Monster Manual would be PERFECT for this.)

...and so forth, and so on.

I don't see the need to do any of this myself (although the Warforged thing is growing on me now), but it ain't hard to do.

 

[Celebrim]

So, yup, if a DM has no issues with a character concept OTHER than his own personal preferences (I hate X, so no X in my game), then I do think the DM should back down and let the player have his or her cake.

I don't.

If someone said, "Hey, I want to run 'Call of Cthulu' this weekend.", and every said, "That rocks.", and then one player said, "Ok, but I want to be an elf.", then I think the game master is well within his rights to say, "Sorry. You can't be an elf. You could be Welsh, and be an expert in occult lore, and you could be someone who thinks they are an elf. But you can't be an elf."

If someone says, "Hey, we are going to play Spycraft.", and the player said, "Ok, but I want to be a Wizard.", then I think the game master is well within his rights to say, "Sorry, magic doesn't work in this game, but you can have lots of cool spy gadgets if you like." He's under no obligation to shoe horn a magic system into a game system or setting. He can, and maybe it would be cool, but more than likely its going to be just a headache.

I don't see how, "Hey, I want to run my Homebrew D&D game this weekend." is any different and suddenly means that the game master is a bad DM because he says, "No, you can't be a half-warforged, half-dragon, red Wizard of Thay. Here are the rules we are using for character creation. You can be a red robed lawful sorcerer with dragon ancestory, and you can eventually take this feat to learn to breath fire, but that's the closest I can manage to that character concept."

I don't see how the DM is under any obligation to open up character creation infinitely. Sometimes I've run campaigns with very restrictive character creation guidelines like, 'Everyone must be an elf.', 'Everyone must begin play as a homeless vagabond', or 'Everyone must be a goblin'. I've had reasons for doing so. If people don't want to play, 'We are starting in the elvish homeland, everyone must be an elf.', then they can certainly run what they prefer. Sometimes I've done the reverse, 'Everyone send me your character concepts and I'll try to figure out what the setting is.', but anyone who can do that consistantly and make it work is I agree a better DM than I am.

I suspect however a great many DM's are going to agree that its better to exert at least some guidance over character creation than none at all. I've seen too many promising campaigns aborted (mine and others) with skilled players by open ended character creation that led to unworkable group dynamics. At the very least, I'm never going to start another campaign again without in some form saying, "Ok, you can be an anti-hero, but no villains in a hero party, no loners, no characters with flaws or drawbacks that will prevent them from being social with the other PC's, no character concepts which lack a motivation or which are actively hostile to adventuring, at least have a theory why you might get along with the other PC's, etc."

 

[Hussar]

I don't.

If someone said, "Hey, I want to run 'Call of Cthulu' this weekend.", and every said, "That rocks.", and then one player said, "Ok, but I want to be an elf.", then I think the game master is well within his rights to say, "Sorry. You can't be an elf. You could be Welsh, and be an expert in occult lore, and you could be someone who thinks they are an elf. But you can't be an elf."

Good grief. Read what I wrote again. Read it a third time. Did I at any point say, "Whatever a player wants, the GM must bow down to"? Where did I write that. Point to the place please.

What I said was, "If there is only the DM's preference in the way, the DM should back down". In your example, an elf in Cthulu would NOT BE ONLY DM PREFERENCE. And thus my point would NOT APPLY.

How many times do I have to say the EXACT THING?

If someone says, "Hey, we are going to play Spycraft.", and the player said, "Ok, but I want to be a Wizard.", then I think the game master is well within his rights to say, "Sorry, magic doesn't work in this game, but you can have lots of cool spy gadgets if you like." He's under no obligation to shoe horn a magic system into a game system or setting. He can, and maybe it would be cool, but more than likely its going to be just a headache.

Totally agreed. And if you bothered to read what I wrote instead of what you think I wrote, then you see that I totally agree with you.

I don't see how, "Hey, I want to run my Homebrew D&D game this weekend." is any different and suddenly means that the game master is a bad DM because he says, "No, you can't be a half-warforged, half-dragon, red Wizard of Thay. Here are the rules we are using for character creation. You can be a red robed lawful sorcerer with dragon ancestory, and you can eventually take this feat to learn to breath fire, but that's the closest I can manage to that character concept."

Now pause for a second. Why is the "half-warforged, half-dragon, red Wizard of Thay" off the table? Is it genre breaking? Does it not fit with the established conventions of the game at the time? Is it a balance issue? Does it break the theme of the game? If the answer to any of these questions is "yes" then I have no problem.

Again, for the umpteenth time. My only issue is when the only reason the DM has for saying no is his own personal preferences. He just doesn't like X, not for any reasons related to campaign, or theme, or story, or game mechanics, he just doesn't like X.

Is that clear enough?

I don't see how the DM is under any obligation to open up character creation infinitely. Sometimes I've run campaigns with very restrictive character creation guidelines like, 'Everyone must be an elf.', 'Everyone must begin play as a homeless vagabond', or 'Everyone must be a goblin'. I've had reasons for doing so. If people don't want to play, 'We are starting in the elvish homeland, everyone must be an elf.', then they can certainly run what they prefer. Sometimes I've done the reverse, 'Everyone send me your character concepts and I'll try to figure out what the setting is.', but anyone who can do that consistantly and make it work is I agree a better DM than I am.

And again, I totally agree.

I suspect however a great many DM's are going to agree that its better to exert at least some guidance over character creation than none at all. I've seen too many promising campaigns aborted (mine and others) with skilled players by open ended character creation that led to unworkable group dynamics. At the very least, I'm never going to start another campaign again without in some form saying, "Ok, you can be an anti-hero, but no villains in a hero party, no loners, no characters with flaws or drawbacks that will prevent them from being social with the other PC's, no character concepts which lack a motivation or which are actively hostile to adventuring, at least have a theory why you might get along with the other PC's, etc."

And, if I was advocating no DM control over chargen, then your arguement would hold a great deal of water. However, you, like GregK at first, have grossly misinterpreted what I've said in order to argue against something I'm completely not saying.

So, to sum up.

My single, solitary, lone, only, seul, hitotsu, beef here is that if a DM's only issue with a character concept is his own personal preferences, nothing more, then the DM should accede to his player's wishes. IF the DM has any other issues, such as genre, game balance, theme, the preferences of the majority at the table, whatever, then he is more than fine in saying no.

I can't make this any clearer.

 

[Klaus]

Speaking of PHB2 races, I cooked up an alternate look for the devas: http://www.enworld.org/forum/art-ga...res-painting/253244-alternate-look-devas.html

 

[Hussar]

Speaking of PHB2 races, I cooked up an alternate look for the devas: http://www.enworld.org/forum/art-ga...res-painting/253244-alternate-look-devas.html

Very cool as always Klaus.

One quibble. It looks a lot like a different colored (I'm color blind, is that blue or purple?) Firelord from the Marvel comics.

But, yeah, looking cool.

 

[Klaus]

Very cool as always Klaus.

One quibble. It looks a lot like a different colored (I'm color blind, is that blue or purple?) Firelord from the Marvel comics.

But, yeah, looking cool.

Blue. And I'm thankfully not a Marvel fan, so to me it'd look like a mix of Dr. Manhattan, Starman (from the current JSA) and Zauriel.