D&D General The Tyranny of Rarity

[Lanefan]

When I play a PC I want to inhabit that PC. I don't want to build a world.

Neither do I, though having my PC conquer and rule that world is always an option should the opportunity arise... :

 

[Lanefan]

why should the dm get veto rights? and what makes something enjoyable to run?

Second one's simple: if I'm not running a game I'd enjoy playing in, odds are extremely high I'm not going to enjoy DMing it and thus won't be DMing it for long.

As for the first one: it's the DM's game and the DM's setting. She can veto whatever she wants. If you disagree that harshly with her veto, the door is that way...

 

[Lanefan]

Years ago, you didn't need one. You had 5-6 different races (sometimes those races were classes as well( and spent all your time in a dungeon.

Is a session 0 dedicated to just making PCs or do you actually start playing the game in that session as well?

The way I do it, what you're thinking of as session 0 is more like a series of session -1s, where I talk to potential players individually at different times, pitch the setting and basic ideas, and invite them in if there's interest.

Then, once the player lineup is set we all get together for roll-up night* where everyone generates their PCs; and if that process goes smoothly we'll drop the puck right then and there and cruise right into session 1. (and last time I did this one of the PCs was already dead by evening's end)

* - anyone bringing a pre-rolled character to roll-up night is asked to toss it and start over.

 

[Oofta]

...
Why not just let everyone be a wizard? There are enough subclasses and spells that everyone would be different.

Maybe it would work in 5E, but let's just say that in 2E it was a disaster. Mages-R-Us went down in flames with when what would have been a super easy fight where they outnumbered the bad guys 2-to-1 and they were much lower level. My kid gloves finally wore out and it was a TPK.

I mean, they would have been awesome if they had survived to higher levels in theory but there's only so many "fetch the flowers ... crap ... what do you mean Fiz is practically dead because he pricked his finger on a rose bush again" I could take.

 

[Oofta]

Interesting, in that the current design trends seem to be significantly moving away from one's choice of species suggesting one class over another (example: removal of race-based ASIs).

There's a design mistake there, to be sure, but not the one you think: Goblins shouldn't be playable as PCs. They're monsters.

You could give all those Goblin-y benefits to Hobbits (Halflings) and boom - there's your Thief-y species.

Except there's not a lot there for goblins that can't be easily ignored or fixed with a halfling. Fury of the small doesn't really increase damage as a percentage of overall damage all that much and it's only once per long or short rest. Nimble escape is a duplicate feat after second level. Darkvision is nice but that's what goggles of the night (an uncommon item) if it's necessary are for. Meanwhile you lose Luck (incredible if you take the Lucky feat), being able through any creature's space that's medium or larger. Depending on subrace you can hide behind your companions or get the same +1 to constitution and resistance to poison.

I think halflings make better rogues than goblins, but there's no pleasing some people.

 

[DND_Reborn]

The same reason you play a High Elf Wizard or Half Orc Fighter.
To have a more roguish rogue or more clericy cleric.

or the The same reason you play a High Elf Righter or Half Orc Wizard.
To have a more roguish cleric or more clericy rogue.

This. Makes. No. Sense.

A Goblin Rogue is supposed to be an excellent choice as goblins are nutrally sneaky stabby thieves in the base fluff or lore.

See, that is the problem. Goblins are sneaky stabby whatevers. They don't need the class because they already are that way. Which is why they shouldn't be PCs IMO, they are "foes" typically and meant to be fillers in the world, IMO.

Trust me I know. I'm a New York Giants fan.

OH! That explains so much!!! I get it now. (j/k)

No offense, I'm getting tired of this after 20 pages. Run things the way you want. When I DM or play the game, the DM has final say on how the world works.

Right there with ya!

Later, y'all.

 

[Thomas Shey]

then just never mention it as if they want to be disruptive they will find a way to anyway?

See my #1 in the post you quoted. That's a problem by itself, and creates a lot of internal dissonance when deciding how NPCs react to the party.

 

[cbwjm]

DM didn't mention the race/class combinations based on lore until after we got the full lore dump on Session 0. We didn't know the full in game restrictions until we agreed to sit. It was a quick "These are banned" before that.

The point is my friend had 8 not-crazy PC concepts he was willing to play however the DM's setting nixed 7 of them. The DM's campaign was fun. However it was very restrictive in lore and the DM was unwilling to adjust or readjust anything to allow any of the 7 PC ideas to fit.

It was the DM's prerogative. He could do what he wanted to do. But he lost a great player because his setting has dwarven rune-priest but you can't play one.

They went with 8 and 1 worked. Sounds like it worked out.

 

[Maxperson]

Years ago, I went to a table on Session 0 with 8 character sheets for a friend that we created together. All but 1 was nixed by the DM. The friend later dropped.

The problem there is going into session 0 with characters. One of the primary reasons for session 0 is finding out what the campaign is about so you can make characters that fit.

 

[Umbran]

True, and I'm starting to see this "one true way-ism" right here in the push for player choice above all.

Just so you know, that's a rather grievous misstatement of my position.

That's the way of the internet - take what someone says, and then bit by bit extend and misstate it, until it really isn't what the other person is talking about at all.