Saying "no" and equality

[delericho]

I can cook a better meal using a limited set of ingredients than I can if I force myself to use everything in my stores. I can paint a better mini using half a dozen colours than I can if I force myself to use every colour I have.

I can craft a better campaign with a limited range of options than I can if everything is fair game. This includes (but is not limited to) restrictions on options useable by the players.

(My players understand this. They also understand that I like a wide variety of campaign types. So while their psionic character may not fit the current game, there's probably at least one coming up where the character will fit.)

What I don't do, though, and what I strongly advise others to avoid, is selective bans. If Player A gets a psionic character, it's because the current campaign includes psionics. As such, Player B gets to play a psionic character also. To do otherwise is to leave oneself open to charges of favouritism.

 

[Zhaleskra]

When I was really, really, obsessed with PlaneScape I took the "fantasy industrial washing appliance" trope too seriously. Because everything was technically allowable, I went out of my way to buy campaign settings to only use pieces of them. Especially including campaign settings I wasn't all that interested in.

Ultimately, I think PS games should either be a party of all Planetouched or a party of material beings from the same world. Or some mix, with all the Material beings still being from the same world.

 

[Haltherrion]

One of the reasons I don't run D&D much anymore is that I am unable to run a game in a world that satisfies me, yet allows for the powers, power levels and equipment of the players in the ruleset. (Even when I do, I end up nixing a lot!) That said, one potential solution to what you have described, is to allow the class, but change the fluff. If a player is just after a set of abilities, and isn't that concerned by the concept of a psionicist (for instance) allow them to be a different sort of magician, and be done with it.

If a ref is comfortable with that, I have no issues with doing something like letting psionics in under another "skin" but one of the reasons I really don't like psionics as a ref, aside from aesthetics, at least in the D&D systems I am aware of, it introduces a different game mechanic.

There are already two magic mechanics in the game (arcane and divine spells, with their own sub-flavors such as wizard vs sorcerer). I really don't care for yet another mechanic of magic, using magic in the general sense of some spell-like thing that is beyond earth physics. In addition to pulling in yet another collection of rules, there's the issue of having to accomodate another suite of magic item types and, especially in early D&D editions, a whole collection of new monsters in order to balance and challenge the psions.

So, for such game mechanics reasons, as a ref, I would say 'no' to a reskinned psion even if the player had a proposal that addressed the aesthetics.

Full disclosure: while I play 4E I haven't read the 4E psionics rules (or monk for that matter). The reviews I saw indicated both classes introduced new rule mechanics and that was enough to nix it for me. Had they not introduced rule mechanics, I might have at least purchased the 3rd PHB and given it a look over.

 

[CuRoi]

Very intersting discusison here - I recall posting a bit in "the other" thread about not "banning" things but telling my players I am open to anything, however it may see adjustments for the campaign (I've run a low magic / bronze age Celtic mythos centered campaign for quite a while now.) The campaign also does not have dwarves, gnomes, or halflings and offers instead several other playable races. I never considered it a "ban" but just a feature of the campaign world.

From many of these threads it is plain to me that many people are not making the distinction. For instance, I've never allowed psionics - it just doesn't fit and frankly, I don't have time to monkey with the almost-but-not-quite-magic-that-renames-spells-and-uses-spell-points "originality" of it all. I'd much rather spend my time creating a world the players love to explore as opposed to a rule system the players love to explore.

I realize that this is completely not everyone's cup of tea, so I am not saying one way of playing is better than another. However, I have had hardcore rules fanatics sit down at my table and be a bit exasperated that their PC concept that relies on 6 different books outside the core will probably need to be modified to fit with the power level of the current PCs and the overall campaign. However, I've never had those players walk out of my game, and once they've played a few sessions they are usually more than happy to stick with a "vanilla" ruleset for the trade off in an actually interesting story and overall fun experience.

So, it's not in the rules that you "ban" it's how you use the ones you've got IMO.

With all that said, I'd say I would have handled the player in the original example in a slightly different way. I'd simply tell them that the other player came to me with a great psionics character concept first and I liked it so much that she is going to be the prodigal psionic in this game while we test it out. Why don't we see what kind of original idea we can come up with for your character so that PC can play his own unique role?

 

[karlindel]

For me, it really depends on the campaign.

I ran several 3e campaigns in which I allowed almost anything as long as the player gave me a photocopy of the relevant pages and gave me time to look it over to make sure that I approved. Among other things, one player played a psionicist, and another used familiar bonuses from Quintessential Wizard.

I still try to say yes to things that players want, as long as their desires will fit into the campaign (and won't break the game). I am also not averse to house ruling interesting options if I think they are unbalanced (assuming the player wants it for the flavor as opposed to the unbalancing aspects). However, I have some campaign ideas that would limit character options more than others.

I do not think that allowing options for one player but not for another is a problem in a campaign. I had one GM who ran a 2e game in which the kingdom was almost entirely human, but all of the players initially created elven characters, and he didn't like the idea of the kingdom being constantly rescued by the chelf (cheesy elf) brigade. So he allowed no more than one of any given nonhuman race in the campaign.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to only allow one character of a certain type, particularly if it is a type of character that you would normally prefer to avoid.

 

[pemerton]

I had one GM who ran a 2e game in which the kingdom was almost entirely human, but all of the players initially created elven characters, and he didn't like the idea of the kingdom being constantly rescued by the chelf (cheesy elf) brigade. So he allowed no more than one of any given nonhuman race in the campaign.

I can't comment on this particular epsiode, as I wasn't there and don't know any of the people involved.

But treating it just as an example in the abstract - if a GM wants to run a game about saving a human kingdom, and the players want to play a game in which they play the members of the chelf brigrade, then maybe there has already been a breakdown in communication/working out exactly what game the table wants to play.

 

[Coldwyn]

I can't comment on this particular epsiode, as I wasn't there and don't know any of the people involved.

But treating it just as an example in the abstract - if a GM wants to run a game about saving a human kingdom, and the players want to play a game in which they play the members of the chelf brigrade, then maybe there has already been a breakdown in communication/working out exactly what game the table wants to play.

Why, actually?
The level of homogenitie makes it perfect for a certain twist: The human kingdom believes itself to be all-powerful and the leaders and citizens believe in their own propaganda. It needs an outside view to see the real problems and you could always work the angle that it actually is a kingdom worth saving.

 

[shadzar]

But treating it just as an example in the abstract - if a GM wants to run a game about saving a human kingdom, and the players want to play a game in which they play the members of the chelf brigrade, then maybe there has already been a breakdown in communication/working out exactly what game the table wants to play.

Theodin wasn't exactly happy the chelf brigade came in to save his but either. That might have actually been the cause of the name "chelf", and the reason the DM didn't like it happening.

karlindel, as a player in said game, didn't mind at all the outcome.

Before saying it wasn't the kind of game the table wanted to play, first shouldnt we find out how karlindel's other party members and fellow players handled it?

Also seems no was said equally to multiple of a non-human race.

 

[pemerton]

Why, actually?
The level of homogenitie makes it perfect for a certain twist: The human kingdom believes itself to be all-powerful and the leaders and citizens believe in their own propaganda. It needs an outside view to see the real problems and you could always work the angle that it actually is a kingdom worth saving.

I agree fully with what you've said here. It's possible to have a great game with the chelf brigade saving the kingdom.

But that wasn't the sense I got from the post I was responding to. It suggested a clash of expectations between GM and players.

 

[karlindel]

lol I didn't expect that post to generate that much discussion.

Although I agree that the situation could indicate a clash of expectations based on the short blurb, I did not consider it significant at the time. Basically the GM had posted on the local gaming group board. He didn't go into detail other than that it was a 2e game (this was before 3e came out) and asked those interested to e-mail him and set up a time to meet to discuss details. Between the e-mails and the meeting time, the players put together some basic character concepts (elven wizard, elven fighter, etc). When we got in, the GM told us more about the campaign and setting, and that non-humans were very rare in the area we were starting in. Knowing a bit more about his setting, we players didn't have any problems with changing our characters to better fit the setting, and also incorporated some background details from his setting into our concepts (links to knightly orders, churches, and the like).