Shooting down LEGIT character concepts

[Chaosmancer]

I used to allow anything. The a guy played seven foot tall albino elf who a pacifist who didn't have any weapons (not even sure he had a class). His character concept was that people were frightened of him, but gave no mechanical reason whatsoever. He lasted one game. Then when another guy wanted to play a half dragon half vampire I realized I had to start setting down some ground rules.

So before people join my campaign I send a link to some campaign ground rules and make sure everyone is on the same page. I have some racial and sub-class restrictions for thematic reasons.

In addition I have a a basic don't be evil or an antisocial emo loner who doesn't believe in working with anyone else because you want "room to grow" (but only if the other players read your mind and do exactly what you think they should). It's not that everybody has to be all rainbows and sunshine all the time, but some people think the entire campaign should revolve around their character. In other words, don't be a jerk and work with the group to come up with concepts that will work together.

So do I shoot down character concepts? I guess I do. I just let people know ahead of time.

Mildly funny story (it is funnier looking back)

The same group where I had the monk/druid ended up producing 4 characters who were anti-social and wore masks to hide their identities (one was a changeling so the mask was metaphorical).

About halfway through that game we were having a ton of table issues, players just getting angry and frustrated all the time. I pointed out that we had created a dynamic where everyone wanted to be alone and not support the other players, and that was the source of a lot of this conflict.

Everyone kind of just looked around and said "oh".

Things went a lot smoother after that realization and they started thinking a little more like a team.

 

[Oofta]

Mildly funny story (it is funnier looking back)

The same group where I had the monk/druid ended up producing 4 characters who were anti-social and wore masks to hide their identities (one was a changeling so the mask was metaphorical).

About halfway through that game we were having a ton of table issues, players just getting angry and frustrated all the time. I pointed out that we had created a dynamic where everyone wanted to be alone and not support the other players, and that was the source of a lot of this conflict.

Everyone kind of just looked around and said "oh".

Things went a lot smoother after that realization and they started thinking a little more like a team.

I always thought it would be obvious that if you play a group game that you would write up a character that, I don't know, wants to work with a group. But then the same guy wanted to run an anti-social hermit again. After devolving the previous campaign into PVP (I wasn't the DM) because of an imagined slight by another PC because the other PC made a perfectly legitimate observation. The player of the anti-social guy refused to say what the problem was or accept an apology because "it was realistic to hold a grudge".

Sometimes "don't be a jerk" needs to be clarified. I don't mind different opinions or PCs having conflicting goals, but I have to put up with enough politics at work I don't need it during a game too.

 

[Satyrn]

Two words.

Chaotic Evil.

I chose to interpret this as you saying you randomly shoot down legit character concepts just to be a dick.

 

[Laurefindel]

Sometimes "don't be a jerk" needs to be clarified. I don't mind different opinions or PCs having conflicting goals, but I have to put up with enough politics at work I don't need it during a game too.

Eh, too true

And I would add that what is fine with some people isn’t with others, and what doesn’t fly with some groups is just fine with other groups. We’re all somebody else’s dick at one point, if only by accident.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Did the OP show us on the doll where...umm, I mean...did he ever tell us what his "LEGIT" concept is that got shot down?

 

[Kurotowa]

I think these sorts of questions have a lot of unstated assumptions about what your play group is like.

For example, if your group is pulled from a pre-existing circle of friends who devote a night every week or two to D&D? It's really easy for the DM to sit down with players individually and talk about what sort of character they want to play, what reservations the DM might have, and how to craft a result that makes everyone happy.

On the other hand, if we're talking about an open shop game, or a group of mostly strangers assembled through adverts? Then you're in a situation where people don't know or trust each other the same way. That's when you're more likely to have a situation where a DM is getting blind submissions they have to either accept or veto. That's where you see players more casual about doing disruptive things at the table, and where DMs are more on their guard against players trying to take advantage of them.

For my part, most of my games in the last 10 years have been with friends. Not once in that time has a DM straight up shot down a character concept. Asked for some tweaks, collaborated on some fine tuning, sure. But the DM is always someone I know so we're starting from a position of trust. If I think back to my earlier groups? Gods, some of those people were complete jerks, and we never met outside of game day. It was a cutthroat environment and much more adversarial between players and DMs. Some of the things they played should have been shot down and weren't, to the early demise of more than one campaign.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Because it might be broken? No

Because it doesn’t respect the themes of the campaign; yes

Ditto. These, though?

Because it plays at the expense of other players; yes

Because it’s disruptive to the game; yes

Because the player is using this concept to justify being a dick; yes

I might talk to you about it in private, but I won’t ban the character.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

On a side note about the title, because you capitalized the word LEGIT, every time I browse the forum and see this thread, my brain sees LGBT instead of LEGIT, and I wonder what your problem is. lol

On the topic, if someone makes a character that is legit by-the-rules, but violates my campaign houserules/restrictions, then yes, it will get rejected if it is not modified to fit in. But otherwise, I do not do a detailed inspection of everything about the character other than to make sure the math is correct.

 

[MechaPilot]

On a side note about the title, because you capitalized the word LEGIT, every time I browse the forum and see this thread, my brain sees LGBT instead of LEGIT, and I wonder what your problem is. lol

I've misread the title that way a couple times myself. I just assumed it was a subconscious thing because I fall under the LGBT umbrella.

 

[cmad1977]

Depends.