Shooting down LEGIT character concepts

[Dessert Nomad]

Again, as experienced players, we know that isn't the case. Nobody has done anything wrong. But, the new player doesn't know that, so they turn to the most experienced player, or the person who seems like they have the most experience and asks what is up. That's generally the DM. They could also turn to the person who brought them to the game, and then that person may talk to the DM.

The comment that I responded to originally directly contradicts what you said here; rather than saying "as experienced players, we know that isn't the case. Nobody has done anything wrong" it explicitly and clearly stated that we 'know' that is the case and that the other player had done something wrong. "Had I been the DM, I would have pointed out to him before game how that stepped on the toes of another player rather heavily, and suggested he take something else." Your long example of a genuinely confused newbie who is wondering stuff is simply not what I have been talking about.

If you think I object to new players who are confused and trying to learn, please quote any instance of me saying anything at all bad about a person new to the game who "asks what is up". What I have objected to is the new player deciding that they own a game concept and declaring that other players are 'stealing', and the explicit endorsement of that concept of 'ownership' of basic game mechanics in the original comment. I have at no point said that there is anything wrong with asking questions to learn about the game, or with feeling confused. What I have a problem with is players who want to decide "I get to be the only warlock, archer, wizard, user of the hex spell, or some other thing" and expect other players to fall in line, and with pandering to that attitude as experessed in the post I originally disagreed with.

Humans undertaking a new experience are, typically, a little unsure and insecure. This is normal, and human, and you should perhaps cut them some slack. It takes time and experience for a player to discover what they find fun in games. If you are not going to be willing to give them some space to do that, then yes, they shouldn't be at their table, but not because of some flaw on their part.

The problem is that what 'cut them some slack' actually refers to is 'tell other players that they are bad for creating the characters they want to create that are worse at a thing the new player does, and set up additional character creation rules to enforce the idea that no other characters can have similar abilities to this person's character'. If another player spending 1/3 of their characters feats they will get by tenth level to gain the ability to do something like what that character does, but distinctly inferior, is a problem for a particular human, then I'm perfectly willing to say that yes, that human has a flaw of being controlling and difficult to get along with.

Oddly enough, I have found that actual people in the real world undertaking a new experience who are a little unsure and insecure don't actually try to tell other people what to do. They end up being cool with 'oh, we're both archers' or 'oh, we do a similar thing but I do it much better and keep getting better at it' once you explain how the game works.

If you are going to brand *new* people with negative personal traits for failing to grasp more advanced game dynamics... they are not the problem in the scenario.

"You aren't the only one who can be an archer, or warlock, or have a particular spell" is not an advanced game dynamic.

 

[Savage Wombat]

So after a good while I hop back on the website and discover my little post has created a huge argument.

I'm sorry that you feel the way you do about my statement. In my personal experience, which in no means is everyone's - I have seen over and over how players in my group, and myself, feel frustrated if they build a character with a particular intent, only to have someone else create a character that thwarts that intent. Examples (not necessarily my own):

"I built a character wanting her to be a brilliant ace pilot." "Well, I built a character whose particular race and stat combo makes him a better pilot, despite not having intended the character as a pilot in the first place."
"I intended my character to be alluring and seductive." "Oh really? My character happens to have much greater Charisma and skills than yours, so I'd be better at doing that stuff."
"I built my character as a master thief." "Sorry, my character is a clairvoyant telekinetic teleporter, so I can do all the thiefy stuff better."

So I tend to assume that if someone says "I want to play a warlock" they don't want another player to come along and do the exact same stuff. Your experience may be different.

I feel from your tone that what you particularly dislike is based in the "don't tell me what I can and can't play" feeling. That's never been a problem in my groups, but I've heard tales of other people's war with that particular problem, so I can understand. It reminds me of a lot of arguments I've read here on ENWorld - a battle of DMs who struggle to control disorderly players, pitted against players striving to throw off the chains of tyrannous DMs.

In any event - I think a lot of ink and e-ink has been spilt in writing that RPG campaigns are a cooperative exercise, and that groups need to discuss with each other what they want from the game, how they'd like to interact, and what sort of campaign they're hoping to experience. Haven't all D&D players, at some point, rolled up a cleric just because the party needs one?

 

[Greg K]

Haven't all D&D players, at some point, rolled up a cleric just because the party needs one?

I know that it happens. However, personally, no group with whom I have played/DM'd with the exception of my very earliest AD&D days has had someone roll "up a cleric just because the party needs one." I have been a part of groups in which someone said, "I would like to be play a cleric" prior to discussing character generation or "The cleric of that deity sounds cool. I would like to try one. " I have been part of /run campaigns with no clerics and in which the healer role was filled by druids, paladins, and/or third party shaman or witch classes. On occasion, I have even run a few games with no healer in the party!
Having a player create a cleric just to have a cleric in the party? Again, it is something that is no longer done in my gaming circles.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Haven't all D&D players, at some point, rolled up a cleric just because the party needs one?

From 1977 up until shortly before Obama took the oath of office, my answer would have been “No.”. Not that I didn’t play clerics, because I enjoyed playing clerics. I just never played one to fill a gap.

But in one group, we had a little bit of player turnover. The guy playing the single-classed Cleric in a medium-high level 3.5Ed game moved out of state for a job. In our next session- a couple weeks later- a new player joined the group, playing a single classed Druid. Between him, the Ftr(N)/Clc(1), and buying every healing wand & potion we could find, we did OK for healing.

After several months, the Druid player moved, also, and the Ftr/Clc had only taken Ftr levels. So I retired my PC and made a Geomancer...and he was a blast.

 

[Older Beholder]

I don't think I'd let someone play a necromancer again, undead thralls were fun for a while but began to bog things down after a while. Of course if they had a fantastic concept I aim to be open to anything the player wants to try.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The comment that I responded to originally directly contradicts what you said here; rather than saying "as experienced players, we know that isn't the case. Nobody has done anything wrong" it explicitly and clearly stated that we 'know' that is the case and that the other player had done something wrong. "Had I been the DM, I would have pointed out to him before game how that stepped on the toes of another player rather heavily, and suggested he take something else." Your long example of a genuinely confused newbie who is wondering stuff is simply not what I have been talking about.

If you think I object to new players who are confused and trying to learn, please quote any instance of me saying anything at all bad about a person new to the game who "asks what is up". What I have objected to is the new player deciding that they own a game concept and declaring that other players are 'stealing', and the explicit endorsement of that concept of 'ownership' of basic game mechanics in the original comment. I have at no point said that there is anything wrong with asking questions to learn about the game, or with feeling confused. What I have a problem with is players who want to decide "I get to be the only warlock, archer, wizard, user of the hex spell, or some other thing" and expect other players to fall in line, and with pandering to that attitude as experessed in the post I originally disagreed with.

Here I think we have a difference of connotation.

In saying "Had I been the DM, I would have pointed out to him before game how that stepped on the toes of another player rather heavily, and suggested he take something else." I don't see them saying that was the person did was "wrong" in the way I'm thinking about it.

Wrong to me implies that they did something they weren't supposed to do, that they broke some rule either social or mechanical. That isn't how I see the above statement. They didn't do anything wrong by overlappnig concepts and stepping on toes, but it might be something that because of the table dynamics people would prefer not to happen.

I don't think I'd let someone play a necromancer again, undead thralls were fun for a while but began to bog things down after a while. Of course if they had a fantastic concept I aim to be open to anything the player wants to try.

Yeah, any sort of concept based on "I flood the board with minions" is going to be a hard sell, just because it bogs down combat so much as to make it unfun for the people who don't get to take 20 turns in a row.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Yeah, any sort of concept based on "I flood the board with minions" is going to be a hard sell, just because it bogs down combat so much as to make it unfun for the people who don't get to take 20 turns in a row.

I guess that varies from table to table. We LOVED our Druid summoning critters.

 

[Satyrn]

I guess that varies from table to table. We LOVED our Druid summoning critters.

Were they kittens? I'd love any druid who summoned kittens.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The striped ones may have been, but the one with the tentacles was most definitely not.

 

[Oofta]

Were they kittens? I'd love any druid who summoned kittens.

Next character concept. Check. Behold the might of the chaotic clowder of kittens and tremble!