Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 2888140" data-attributes="member: 22424">As DM, you are entirely within your rights to constrain character creation however you want. If you want to insist everyone plays a 1st level Commoner built with 20-point buy, you can. The players have the option to try to talk you out of it or, if you are unwilling to budge, to play something else. (I don't recommend the Commoner campaign just described - I expect you'd find it hard to find players.) You can't be expected to run a campaign you're not comfortable with, and neither should players be expected to play in a campaign they're not comfortable with.Saying "Core-only" is an entirely reasonable thing to do. And what another DM would do in the situation is really irrelevant - you're running the game, and you'll do it your way. Again, the players can try to talk you out of it, or play something else.Once the rules for character generation are fixed, any player who is still playing should follow them. No excuses and no exceptions. To do otherwise is just plain rude. The kind of nonsense described by the OP is totally unacceptable.Now, how to handle the situation going forward...Having approved the character, even for the one session, I think you're stuck with it now. You can try to argue the point, but I suspect it'll just kill your campaign. Better to accept it and move on. I strongly disagree with any suggestion to kill the character. Either accept it and move on, or force the issue. Going out of your way to kill the character is a cowardly way to deal with it.Should the character meet with death during the normal events of the campaign (or any other character meet with the same), enforce your initial rule regarding "PHB-only". If called on it, state that the one character was an exception you reluctantly accepted to keep the game together.Note: IME it is better for the DM to provide a list of available options (or, alternatively, a list of banned options) up-front, rather than doing the whole "check with me" thing. Having a fixed list means that you know the entirety of your 'option space' ahead of time, and can plan accordingly. It also protects you from charges of favouritism, so that when Bob asks if he can play a Psychic Warrior and you say no, he can't turn around and complain, "But you let Bill play a Goliath Swashbuckler". I also find that a fixed list of options makes it easier to build the flavour of the campaign to suit myself, since I choose those options appropriately, where the players probably don't know what I'm aiming for with the campaign.About the Host: the host of a game has a couple of priviledges that don't apply to any other member of the group. He can choose who is on the guest list for the campaign. What this means is that if he wants a player gone, then that player is gone. Likewise, if he wants his buddy/girlfriend/boss there on game night, you're stuck with it (you do not, however, have to let them play). And, if he wants to remove the game from his home, he can do so. (The host also cannot be removed from the game group for obvious reasons. In theory, you could not let him play, but doing so would as a practical matter require finding a new host.) Being the host, he is free to exercise these rights at any time, and does not have to justify himself to you. If he wants Bob gone, then Bob's gone, and although you can ask why, the host does not have to tell you. You can try to talk him round, but if you fail you either play on without Bob, or find a new host.The host does not, however, have any right to control the internal handling of the campaign. He can't tell you to use specific supplements, to move the campaign to Ravenloft, or declare that his character has just found a Holy Avenger. Those things are the DM's to control.</blockquote>

Verification