D&D 5E When lore and PC options collide…

[GMforPowergamers]

I think it’s pretty clear deciding on the character you’re going to play before thereMs even a game to play is a mistake. It’s the player assuming all options are on the table. That might be the case, but it might not. Then the player gets mad about some options being restricted.

mistake or not it is common on these boards (I can't say how common in person cause my group is always called out as an outlier)

The two solutions to this are: 1) referees never restrict player options, which is a non-starter for a lot of games, referees, and settings, or; 2) players never decide on a character before there’s a game to play them in.

or 3... when the referee restricts AND it comes in conflict AND the player cares enough (so 3 conditions) the referee has to have a good enough reason for the player and/or work with the player on a compromise.

Note that second one is not “do not make characters” nor is it “do not fiddle with character creation” nor is it “do not daydream about characters.” It is do not decide on a character before there’s a game to play them in.” Just like you wouldn’t bring a social-focused fast-talker to a dungeon crawl or a noble with lots of city connections to a hex crawl, don’t decide on a character before you know what game they’ll be in.

again I get told my style is an outlier (and I may start a new thread since I was just asked for advice this morning) but I focus my games on what the players want

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I think most of these threads have many of us at least finding the common ground that there's usually something in the middle to make both people happy. As you mentioned somewhere else, you gave restrictions but didn't get too worked up about them and just said have fun and people generally worked within your stated limits, while the other DM you knew was more adversarial about it and people looked for ways to test the limits out of spite. I've ran stuff with restrictions but stressed I'll work with anyone asking for something different to try to make it work anyhow and if I can't, I'll at least explain what the problem ends up being to see if the player can see something I don't. I sincerely hope most tables are friends trying to make sure everyone at the table enjoys the game being played.

yeah that's about where I am...

 

[Xamnam]

I think it’s pretty clear deciding on the character you’re going to play before there’s even a game to play is a mistake. It’s the player assuming all options are on the table. That might be the case, but it might not. Then the player gets mad about some options being restricted. It’s the definition of a self-inflicted wound.

Admittedly, I'm hoping for miscommunication generally being the reason for that sort of issue. Either the player missed the line, or the DM thought they made it clearer than they did.

Note that second one is not “do not make characters” nor is it “do not fiddle with character creation” nor is it “do not daydream about characters.” It is do not decide on a character before there’s a game to play them in.” Just like you wouldn’t bring a social-focused fast-talker to a dungeon crawl or a noble with lots of city connections to a hex crawl, don’t decide on a character before you know what game they’ll be in.

I'll admit, I'm the guy who has a vague idea at the ready for every single class, so while I might come in with an idea that I'm hoping is a good fit, it's usually very easy for me to pivot to something more suitable if the first turns out to be out of step with the table. That's actually what happened at a session zero last week for me. The happy go lucky halfling monk was better both tonally and compositionally than the questioning the meaning of existence warforged warlock I've been antsy for.

 

[overgeeked]

I'll admit, I'm the guy who has a vague idea at the ready for every single class, so while I might come in with an idea that I'm hoping is a good fit, it's usually very easy for me to pivot to something more suitable if the first turns out to be out of step with the table. That's actually what happened at a session zero last week for me. The happy go lucky halfling monk was better both tonally and compositionally than the questioning the meaning of existence warforged warlock I've been antsy for.

Yeah, it’s weird to me how many of the calls for “compromise” involve the referee simply changing their mind. Or how the referee “must have” a good reason for not running a kitchen sink. “I don’t want every game to be a kitchen sink” is a good reason. “I want to run an X setting game that goes by the lore of that setting” is a good reason. Players who argue about that were likely going to be problematic in some other way so best to weed them out early.

 

[Maxperson]

since the important part is the race I don't know why you want proof of class... but it's weird.

Assassins are more banned on Krynn than orcs or half-orcs, that's why. There's an actual ban on the class, but not the race. But if race is what you are pointing at, then you are pointing at something unimportant, because it's not some new lore at all. Half-orcs have always been allowed on Krynn. They just weren't born there.

 

[Maxperson]

then sad part is all my posts about Soth, and Death Dragons, and Flying fortresses have gotten little to no traction... me pointing out it didn't look like the wizard robes would be color coded to alignment got a little (but more at nit picking the exact wording then actualy talking about it) and this is ALL people want to engage on.

For me Lord Soth will just be....................Lord Soth. He'll have his banshees. He'll have some undead legions. But he won't have undead dragons or the tarrasque in his basement. He's cool, but this need that they have to keep making him more powerful and outrageous is over the top for me. That's why I didn't get into it really when you brought it up.

As for the robes, I don't care what they do. My Krynn will always have the robes color coded to ideals(alignment sort of). People who are just, noble and good will choose white. Those who don't care one way or the other will choose red. And right nasty bastards will choose black.

 

[Bill Zebub]

maybe we shouldn't be ignoreing posts... and we for sure should not be making it personal by TALKING about ignoreing people

Ignoring a post is not synonymous with ignoring a person.

 

[Maxperson]

mistake or not it is common on these boards (I can't say how common in person cause my group is always called out as an outlier)

In my experience, people will come to the games with characters that fit the concept of the campaign as the DM laid it out. I've seen a small handful of cases where that didn't happen and each time it was the player being a douche and picking a concept for the purpose of creating a conflict.

or 3... when the referee restricts AND it comes in conflict AND the player cares enough (so 3 conditions) the referee has to have a good enough reason for the player and/or work with the player on a compromise.

If the campaign has been set ahead of time and the player shows up to the game to create a conflict, he's being a douche. If the player for whatever reason only has one possible character concept he can ever have fun with(something I've never seen), he needs to explain that to the DM before the first game and see if the DM can make an exception.

Why does the DM have to compromise with the player and not the other way around? I can tell you that in my personal game with friends, if there was a major issue like this(there wouldn't be), then I'd work with the player. Whereas, if I were running a convention or store game and some random person insisted that I change my setting to allow something that didn't exist in the world, he'd be wandering off to play something else. That sort of self-centered behavior is a major red flag and that player would surely be causing all sorts of other issues in the game.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Or how the referee “must have” a good reason for not running a kitchen sink.

This right here is the disconnect.

The DM doesn't have to run a kitchen sink. They can simply allow just this one deviation and not make a big deal about it.

They don't need to make new lore, just accept this one thing is weird. Like all PCs.

 

[MGibster]

I'd bet that if a DM pitched a campaign proposal and generated enough interest, 95% or more of the time players would come back with PCs compliant with outlined restrictions.

There is something of the squeaky wheel syndrom here in that we tend to notice and remember those that make the most noise. I've had a few instances where I pitched a Vampire the Masqurade campaign where the players enthusiastically agreed to, and the vast majority of them will make appropriate characters, but sometimes I get the guy who insists on making a werewolf or a mage. He's the one I remember the most, not the other players who made character that fit the campaign.