Was I wrong?

[Dross]

I wouldn't let one players choice dictate other players possible character classes. I might've suggested that trinity of churches for a campaign idea, but I don't think my players would've gone for it. That would've been okay with me.

The reason why I think this way is that every other aspect in the game world, outside of the player characters, is controlled by me, the DM. Players only have their characters, I have everything else. So I will let them have their corner (however central it actually might be) 100% to themselves.

That's the principle - it doesn't mean I allow spiked chain wielders or any number of other overpowered aspects into my game. I mean, I give the boundaries, and try to keep them reasonably large and let them decide within those. Your setup seems too tight, IMO. Banning a weapon is OK, no doubt, but forcing a religion is a bit too much especially since it stems from just one players preference.

IMHO.

If, as a player and looking at something outside this themed campaign (which are generally good but need to be agreed to by all) I'd talk to the DM and say "Rhis is my idea, this is how it can fit into the campaign. Are you happy with that (or with modifications)?"

 

[The Thayan Menace]

Lawful Evil DMing Advice

It's your campaign. You set the boundaries on what goes and what not.

Agreed. Furthermore ... if your Social Contract is nonexistent or poorly defined, power gamers will eat you for breakfast.

-Samir

 

[Ranger REG]

Agreed. Furthermore ... if your Social Contract is nonexistent or poorly defined, power gamers will eat you for breakfast.

Better to eat them first. They may be chewy on the outside but it's all soft and juicy in their middles.

 

[iwatt]

That depends on how well a DM you are. Some are very liberal enough to accept new rules material far beyond what he owns in his collection of books. Some are very strict and must give approval first.

I disagree strictness/liberalness is ameasure of DM ability. It is probably better that a newbie DM to limit rules bloat.

But I always read that a good DM can cope with any inbalance in his games (i.e sunder, a counter disarmer, rust monsters, etc...). The fact is that those are solutions to a problem. Why is it bad DMing to avoid them cropping up in the first place?

 

[Rel]

I wouldn't let one players choice dictate other players possible character classes. I might've suggested that trinity of churches for a campaign idea, but I don't think my players would've gone for it. That would've been okay with me.

The reason why I think this way is that every other aspect in the game world, outside of the player characters, is controlled by me, the DM. Players only have their characters, I have everything else. So I will let them have their corner (however central it actually might be) 100% to themselves.

That's the principle - it doesn't mean I allow spiked chain wielders or any number of other overpowered aspects into my game. I mean, I give the boundaries, and try to keep them reasonably large and let them decide within those. Your setup seems too tight, IMO. Banning a weapon is OK, no doubt, but forcing a religion is a bit too much especially since it stems from just one players preference.

IMHO.

I agree completely. IF the campaign is going to have some overriding theme that dictates PC choices of character then it needs to be one that the whole group has agreed to and come to consensus on. Not something that is pitched by one player, adopted by the GM and then required of the other players.

In this circumstance though, assuming that all the players really DO want to play this campaign theme, I'd probably go back and say, "In light of some of the synergies here that are probably not intended by the authors of the individual feats, I'm going to disallow feat X and Y."

 

[librarius_arcana]

So, my question to you guys is this … given the situation, would I have been a cruel and heartless DM to tell him that he couldn’t play this character, or would that be stifling a player’s freedom to play the kind of character they want to play?

Yes, No, maybe, I don't know!, (joke)


Well the best thing to do is to just sit down and discuss the issue, try and get him to see where you are coming from on this point, (you may in doing so also understand his reason for his choice)


Btw that will be $300,

You wanted my opinion I didn't say it was free

(joke)

 

[fusangite]

I'm a big fan of making character background a matter negotiated between GM and player. My games tend to be quest-oriented and so characters often share a purpose as well as a background. But even I would say picking out a character's god and class for him may be going a bit far.

On the other hand, it sounds like your player is way off on the other extreme, making few concessions to commonality of purpose amongst characters and, it seems to me, attempting to change what body of rules the game is using unilaterally.

Great combat concepts should be great concepts without the necessity of importing new rules. It seems to me that you need to work collaboratively with your player to develop a fighter (small-f) he finds compelling, possibly based around the spiked chain within the current rules. With that out of the way, the next question to ask yourselves is: how can we make this guy a servant of a god/religion you think will mesh well with the other characters.

 

[Ranger REG]

I disagree strictness/liberalness is ameasure of DM ability. It is probably better that a newbie DM to limit rules bloat.

It's not a measure of DM ability. It's simply individual DM's preference for handling the rules. I'm not saying you're a bad DM if you stick to the core and not welcome new supplemental rules. Each DM should know their own limits, especially if it pertains to the flavor of their campaigns. While I would encourage them to expand their limit, it's ultimately their decision.

Granted, players are going to have some opinion about DMs, but they have two choice: accept that the DM's word is law, or go find another gaming group. As with a relationship or a friendship, find someone you're compatible with.

 

[Numion]

I don't see the spiked chain as an issue at all. Ban or don't ban - it's standard for any DM to tune the system in areas he finds unbalanced. If a DM denied me the use of this weapon it wouldn't ruin my character concept. I could use some other weapon for a tricky fighter.

I see the DM deciding the characters religions as a much bigger issue. It could wreck my whole concept. The three religions are all very stand-up sort of rackets. I get my kicks in D&D from kicking ass and taking the loot. Religion usually is chosen for the general outlook in life. I like more the casual elven song & dance religions. Good for when the characters are spending the hard-earned loot

 

[iwatt]

I'd love to play a suffering Ilmater monk. basically add martial arts to Paul bettany's character in the Da Vinci Code. Kick ass, and then "purify" with self punishment.