PHB2 Races = Mos Eisley Cantina

[Fenes]

The real question is:

Has anyone the right to expect a DM to run a campaign that is not fun for the DM?

If a race ruins a campaign for the DM, then that race is not in the campaign, simple as that.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Ok, I'm with you so far. So, how is your point of view different from mine? Or is it different. I have a tendency I think to overstate my case, so, if you don't mind, I'd like to piggyback on yours.

I don't think it's different. Was just adding another voice to the "absolute power" vs "everything goes"

 

[Hussar]

Mustrum, I'm not trying to argue that "anything goes" and I know you know that. Unfortunately, for some reason, when people read what I write, it somehow morphs into that and I'm not sure why.

My basic point of advice for DM's is, if you decide to block something, "because I said so" is not good enough. That it might be better for everyone at the table to listen to the players and realize that the big chair does not entitle you to browbeat your players.

Fenes - I refuse to accept that the existence of one character's oddball race is going to destroy your enjoyment of the game. If your enjoyment of the game is so fragile, there are much larger issues going on than just this. Because, where does it stop?

If the DM's enjoyment is always paramount, then the DM is 100% justified in doing anything he likes. If there can be nothing in the campaign that the DM doesn't like, then any action the DM takes to ensure his own enjoyment is entirely justified.

So, in my mind, there is no difference between the DM who forces his preferences for a race on the players and a DM who forces his preferences for a particular outcome on the players.

Where is the difference? Why is it ok for the DM to have absolute power during chargen, but as soon as the game starts, he no longer has absolute power? What happens if the PC is reincarnated? Or uses shape changing magic? Is it ok if I take an approved race at chargen and then change myself into a veto'd race later? There are any number of ways I could do it in D&D.

I have a real issue with any DM trying to tell his players that he has absolute authority over all facets of the game, regardless of what the player's want.

 

[Celebrim]

It shouldn't be a combative debate where people insult each other or threaten to leave the game or not run the game or whatever.

But I think it's fair of the DM to ask the players what they want to play and give them room to play that.

Sure. But, the question becomes, is the DM obligated to provide them exactly what they want? Because, if he's a bad DM for refusing any particular request, then its the same as saying he's obligated to provide that.

I think its a given that any campaign begins with some sort of exchange where the DM provides a very basic sketch of the setting, and then begins asking the players what they want to play. As the process proceeds, the DM and the players exchange more and more information, "I want to play an elf.", "Sorry, no elves.", "Well, what can I play that's a little elf-like?", "Well, in what sense. What particularly attracts you to an elfin character?", and so forth. Eventually, the character learns enough from the DM to find a concept that suits them, and the DM learns enough from the player to guide them towards options within the available setting (flavor) and rules (crunch) that will help the player achieve their goals.

There should really be no argument here. The DM shouldn't respond to a player proposition like, "I want to play an elf.", with, "Oh, don't be so lame. Only losers play elfs.", even if the player phrased, "I want to play an elf.", as "I want to play a drow elf ranger that dual wields scimitars." The player shouldn't respond to DM information like, "Sorry, no elves." with, "What? That's not fair. Why can't I play an elf? What do you have against elfs? But elves are part of the core rules!" This is not a contest. It's a not a debate. I don't know what Hussar's experiences are like, and I suspect that the heart of our disagreement is a difference in experience, but I've seen far more players take the combative, "Why can't I play an elf?" stance, than I've seen DM's take the combatative "Your character idea is lame, think of another one." stance.

I very much think however that there is a world of difference between, "Your character idea is lame, hense you are lame." and "Your character idea isn't appropriate to the setting.", and I don't think a DM is obligated to explain in any great detail why its inappropriate or justify the choices that he made when he conceived the setting. If the player demands that the DM justify his setting choices to any degree, fundamentally, the player has taken the stance, "Your setting is lame, think of another one."

Now, that isn't to say that the DM can't justify himself if he wishes to, but frankly, I might not want to do so simply because I don't want to slow down the already dull and time consuming process of creating characters any more than is necessary. I don't want to have to explain that halflings are gone because I felt they were too tied to Tolkien's creation specifically, and that I specifically choice 7 PC races because I liked the number 7, or that initially back when I first came up with the campaign I was facinated with the idea of each of the races representing one of the 7 classical stages in the life of a man and that hobbits didn't seem to fit. In particular, I might not want to explain that last part because I never quite got it to fit, and so its a somewhat discarded idea that doesn't really reflect the campaigns cosmology as much as I would like, but that I'm still happy with 7 'free peoples'.

And in any event, whether I can justify my choices or not, I shouldn't have to. I certainly shouldn't be expected to justify my aesthetic choices to the satisfaction of someone else.

The ironic thing about this is that I consider myself to be very open to exotic character concepts. Take for example the aforementioned 'silly' idea of a half-warforged half-dragon red wizard of thay. I would have to explain, "No, sorry, there are no warforged. Half-dragons are too powerful and too rare make a good PC concept. At the least, you'd so monsterous in appearance that you couldn't survive low levels of play anyway. Finally, there is no 'Thay' and so hense no red wizards from there either." However, the concept itself of a draconic sorcerer with a golem-like body is a perfectly interesting one that is likely to entertain me, and one I'd be perfectly willing to work with a character to achieve provided that the character's motivation for wanting to play a character like that wasn't simply to achieve mechanical advantages. In other words, if what was driving the desire to play a half-warforged half-dragon red wizard of thay was the desire to create a character of with a great deal of power relative to its character level, then there isn't much I can do to help with that. I'm not going to bring something into the game whose sole purpose as far as the character is concerned is unbalancing the campaign. In my experience 90% of the time someone wants to play something exotic, mechanical advantage is the driving force behind the desire. I am though perfectly willing though to help a player explore a particular idea.

So in the case of the half-warforged, half-dragon, red wizard of thay, I'd make something like the following pitch, "Ok, there is nothing exactly like that in the campaign world. However, Sorcerer is a very flexible class, and may I draw your attention to the Draconic bloodline feats. If you take that, you can eventually breathe fire, exude dragon fear, and so forth. If you really want to play up your draconic heritage, you can take the Misanthropic disadvantage. It would seriously limit your ability to interact socially with other humaniods, but you'd basically be able to treat any unintelligent dragon as a pet, and at higher levels you can get intelligent dragons to treat you as another dragon. Finally, there is no warforged race, but there is nothing that would stop a powerful spellcaster from replacing lost body parts using golemancy. If you want a metal body, take 'craft wonderous item' when it becomes available and start making one. You'll be playing a character that is inherently an outcast but if you can steer your roleplay in such a way that you minimize as much as possible the risk that this turns into a solo campaign about you, then I'm all for the concept."

Of course there will always be situations - campaign settings - were certain things just don't fit - but of course, if a player wants to play something not fitting there, maybe he is in the wrong campaign or the DM is running the wrong campaign?

I try to be open to wierd ideas mainly because obvious hooks like that tend to make for entertaining situations. But I'm not going to disrupt the balance of play to accomodate anything, nor am I going to just accept willy nilly something that doesn't fit with the overall aethetic I'm going for (regardless of what I'm playing). If a player doesn't like my aesthetics sufficiently that they feel compelled to question or argue with them, then they are almost certainly playing with the wrong DM. There are a couple times I've said, "Thanks for the game.", and then never came back because I didn't really enjoy the game. However, I've never set and argued with a fellow DM about their campaign or how they ran the game. DMing hard enough work without them getting grief from me.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Mustrum, I'm not trying to argue that "anything goes" and I know you know that. Unfortunately, for some reason, when people read what I write, it somehow morphs into that and I'm not sure why.

I think we both have the same opinion. The extremes of this debate both suck, and it's better to find a happy middle ground where the player can ask his DM to reconsider the availability of a class, but a DM can also say that some stuff might be unavailable.

Just "because" doesn't fly for either player or DM.
A Half-Illithid/Kobold Sorcerer might require an explanation on how this fits into the campaign (especially if the campaign was sword & sorcery), as does explaining why Gnomes are strictly unavailable as player race (especially if the campaign setting contains them.)

 

[Celebrim]

Mustrum, I'm not trying to argue that "anything goes" and I know you know that. Unfortunately, for some reason, when people read what I write, it somehow morphs into that and I'm not sure why.

Because you haven't defined any sort of objective criteria that a DM could use to defend his ground. Every criteria you've used to try to define the limits of when the DM can defend his ground is effectively a restatement of "because I've said so", which you've also said cannot be a criteria. So effectively, all you've been saying is, "Preferences I agree with."

I refuse to accept that the existence of one character's oddball race is going to destroy your enjoyment of the game. If your enjoyment of the game is so fragile, there are much larger issues going on than just this. Because, where does it stop?

I refuse to accept that the non-existance of one player's oddball race is going to destroy their enjoyment of the game. If their enjoyment of the game is so fragile, there are much larger issues going on than just this. Because, where does it stop?

So, in my mind, there is no difference between the DM who forces his preferences for a race on the players and a DM who forces his preferences for a particular outcome on the players.

Really? There is no difference between saying, "No elves.", and, "Your character doesn't want to do that. He does this instead.". Really?

I'm glad you are finally being open about that. In my mind, I have no problem separating the two concepts.

Where is the difference? Why is it ok for the DM to have absolute power during chargen, but as soon as the game starts, he no longer has absolute power?

The DM always has absolute power. However, not every excercise of that power is good DMing. "No elves.", though, is not an abuse of that power, and in particular a DM that says, "No elves." is not excercising absolute control over the chargen process. I'm never going to make a player play something that they don't want to play.

And in general, anything legally constructed under the rules I present for play is 99.9% likely to get accepted. About the only exceptions I can think of off the top of my head that wouldn't is abuse of social disadvantages to the point that the character automatically turns any NPC he meets hostile, or abuse of the inept disadvantage by selecting it multiple times and taking only skills that have very little impact on the character concept (ei, fighter is inept in use rope, read lips, innuendo, scry, navigation, perform, sleight of hand, forgery, craft, knowledge, appraise, spellcraft, use magic device, handle animal, decipher script, astrology, empathy, concentration, and alchemy and then uses it to buy 4 extra starting combat feats would probably be frowned on.)

 

[Obryn]

The real question is:

Has anyone the right to expect a DM to run a campaign that is not fun for the DM?

If a race ruins a campaign for the DM, then that race is not in the campaign, simple as that.

I'd say if a single PC race ruins a game for a DM, that's the least of a group's worries.

-O

 

[Celebrim]

A Half-Illithid/Kobold Sorcerer might require an explanation on how this fits into the campaign (especially if the campaign was sword & sorcery), as does explaining why Gnomes are strictly unavailable as player race (especially if the campaign setting contains them.)

Gnomes are strictly unavailable as a player race because their very existance is treated as a campaign level secret, one that is serious enough that major dieties would take direct action to prevent its widespread revelation. If I explain why Gnomes are strictly unavailable as a player race, then I must either lie to the player or reveal to the player a campaign level secret that I would not normally reveal except during play. So, if pressed for an explanation, I'd simply refuse. "No, you can't play Gnomes. If you really want to play a small sized earthy creature, why don't you play a Dwarf and take the 'Slight' advantage. 'Forest Dwarf' captures alot of the traditional Gnomish flavor."

I am by no means required to explain anything. The fact that I don't explain things by no means implies that I don't have a reason, and I would not particularly appreciate the presumption that I don't have a reason or that I must defend it against a player inquisition.

 

[CubeKnight]

Gnomes are strictly unavailable as a player race because their very existance is treated as a campaign level secret, one that is serious enough that major dieties would take direct action to prevent its widespread revelation. If I explain why Gnomes are strictly unavailable as a player race, then I must either lie to the player or reveal to the player a campaign level secret that I would not normally reveal except during play. So, if pressed for an explanation, I'd simply refuse. "No, you can't play Gnomes. If you really want to play a small sized earthy creature, why don't you play a Dwarf and take the 'Slight' advantage. 'Forest Dwarf' captures alot of the traditional Gnomish flavor."

I am by no means required to explain anything. The fact that I don't explain things by no means implies that I don't have a reason, and I would not particularly appreciate the presumption that I don't have a reason or that I must defend it against a player inquisition.

I'd like to chip in with a small note: There's a difference between telling a player "There's a reason, but I can't tell you 'cos it'd ruin the campaign" and "No, you just can't."

Using the elves in the example, a friend of mine runs a campaign where elves are almost extinct. All his games have been in that setting. And we've managed to have a couple elven PCs, some way or another.

 

[Hussar]

Gnomes are strictly unavailable as a player race because their very existance is treated as a campaign level secret, one that is serious enough that major dieties would take direct action to prevent its widespread revelation. If I explain why Gnomes are strictly unavailable as a player race, then I must either lie to the player or reveal to the player a campaign level secret that I would not normally reveal except during play. So, if pressed for an explanation, I'd simply refuse. "No, you can't play Gnomes. If you really want to play a small sized earthy creature, why don't you play a Dwarf and take the 'Slight' advantage. 'Forest Dwarf' captures alot of the traditional Gnomish flavor."

I am by no means required to explain anything. The fact that I don't explain things by no means implies that I don't have a reason, and I would not particularly appreciate the presumption that I don't have a reason or that I must defend it against a player inquisition.

But, the thing is, you DO have a reason. You have a perfectly justifiable reason, but, because it is a campaign secret, you cannot reveal it to the player.

I have zero problem with that. Presumably, at some point down the road, after the big reveal, you turn to the player with a bit of a smile and say, "See, tolja so" .

And that's groovy. Presumably your players trust you enough that you can say, "I have a reason, but I cannot tell you now, you're just going to have to trust me."

And I have no problems with that.

I'm taking this, and always have, from the DM's perspective. If you didn't have this huge campaign secret about gnomes and you're player says, "why no gnomes", if the ONLY REASON you can come up with is, "Cos I don't like them" then perhaps it's time to reevaluate your reasons.

You continuously bring up example after example where you have perfectly valid reasons that I AGREE WITH. Like I said, 99.9% of the time, we'd have absolutely no problems. I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT SITUATIONS WHERE YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL REASONS.

Sorry about the shouting, but, jeez, after umpteen pages of me having to repeat myself time and again, I gotta wonder if you are actually reading what I'm writing.

So, one last time. If you ONLY REASON for blocking what the player wants is because you don't like it then I default to letting the player have it. Note, that's "I" default. Not you. ME. I think a good DM should.

So, when the player asks to play something, follow the following checklist:

• Does the choice violate established canon?
• Is the choice going to ruin campaign elements (such as Celebrim's gnome example above)
• Does the choice violate game rules and/or game balance?
• Is the choice going to spoil mood?
• Is the choice going to annoy the heck out of the other players?
• Is the choice being done maliciously?
• Is there any other issue at hand other than the DM's personal preference?

If the answer to ANY of the above "yes" then the DM is perfectly justified in saying no. OTOH, if the answer to all of the above is no, then, IMO, the DM is not justified in saying "No", just as he is not justified in exercising his "absolute" power after the game has started.