Raven Crowking
First Post
In this instance, I endorse and acknowledge the Wisdom of Hong.
RC
RC
When someone plays something you don't like
- Thread starter Rechan
- Start date
Jeff Wilder
First Post
The monk. Cannot stand them. Got nothing against an unarmed warrior, but the monk, samurai, ninja, and so far in D&D just get on my last nerve and have since they've been in the game. (I do ban them, BTW.) For my game, I created a brawler class that worked well.
Oh, I also can't stand "paladins" of alignments other than LG, although I feel like I'm on much shakier grounds on that one.
Oh, I also can't stand "paladins" of alignments other than LG, although I feel like I'm on much shakier grounds on that one.
Last edited:
Terramotus
First Post
IMO, there are a few different answers for this. The best way to handle it is to play with people who are similarly-minded and to set expectations before the character creation even happens.
1) Silly Characters - We don't allow silly/ridiculous characters. These are usually made by players whose main joy is to self-destruct campaigns. By group agreement, we're not running a comedy game, so, if the player who once made a halfling monk/chef, who used spoons as a monk weapon, and would constantly blow off the plot to go in search of more recipes hadn't left the group, I would have asked him to change his character.
2) Missing Races - The DM decides on the campaign, and the players usually know what they're getting into, because they always have to sign off on it before the game starts, in our group. So they know that such-and-such race doesn't exist. As long as clear expectations are set, it isn't an issue. However, compromise can be reached.
IMC, halflings are gone, killed off in the Great Apocalypse. They either died, or bred into the human cultures, to the point that one of the modern kingdoms has some qualities informed by the halfling outlook. If a player had wanted to play one for mechanical reasons, I would have let him play one re-skinned as a smallish human with "Quickling Blood".
3) Kender - There are some races that are abominations, IMO tailor-made for players who like nothing better than to self-destruct campaigns. Among these are tinker gnomes, kender, and gully dwarves. I ban them, and on the occasions that I play, won't play in a game that has them. Needless to say, I'll never be playing in a Dragonlance game.
4) Obsessions - There are sometimes some players who are so attached to a concept, they can't even play a character that lacks it. My main experience with this is furries. Some of them won't play a character that doesn't have some shapeshifting power.
In these cases, I find the best thing to do is shunt them into something that's pretty cool and make them play with the existing fluff around that race/class's niche in the world, thus making them branch out, avoiding playing the same character every time without the player feeling pinched by it. In FR 3.5 there were the lycanthrope Silverstars of Selune, in Eberron there's shifters, and there's always the idea of playing the Drizzt of the Gnoll world, or even a rakshasa that's a reskinned shifter or something like that.
1) Silly Characters - We don't allow silly/ridiculous characters. These are usually made by players whose main joy is to self-destruct campaigns. By group agreement, we're not running a comedy game, so, if the player who once made a halfling monk/chef, who used spoons as a monk weapon, and would constantly blow off the plot to go in search of more recipes hadn't left the group, I would have asked him to change his character.
2) Missing Races - The DM decides on the campaign, and the players usually know what they're getting into, because they always have to sign off on it before the game starts, in our group. So they know that such-and-such race doesn't exist. As long as clear expectations are set, it isn't an issue. However, compromise can be reached.
IMC, halflings are gone, killed off in the Great Apocalypse. They either died, or bred into the human cultures, to the point that one of the modern kingdoms has some qualities informed by the halfling outlook. If a player had wanted to play one for mechanical reasons, I would have let him play one re-skinned as a smallish human with "Quickling Blood".
3) Kender - There are some races that are abominations, IMO tailor-made for players who like nothing better than to self-destruct campaigns. Among these are tinker gnomes, kender, and gully dwarves. I ban them, and on the occasions that I play, won't play in a game that has them. Needless to say, I'll never be playing in a Dragonlance game.
4) Obsessions - There are sometimes some players who are so attached to a concept, they can't even play a character that lacks it. My main experience with this is furries. Some of them won't play a character that doesn't have some shapeshifting power.
In these cases, I find the best thing to do is shunt them into something that's pretty cool and make them play with the existing fluff around that race/class's niche in the world, thus making them branch out, avoiding playing the same character every time without the player feeling pinched by it. In FR 3.5 there were the lycanthrope Silverstars of Selune, in Eberron there's shifters, and there's always the idea of playing the Drizzt of the Gnoll world, or even a rakshasa that's a reskinned shifter or something like that.
Personally, I would ban a DM for being ridiculously picky 
Banning "monster" races from the MM? Sure, I could see that. The people of Loudwater may not allow a bugbear into their city. But again, maybe they would... the point is that the MM player races are just an "ad-on" anyway, and they may not be appropriate in general gaming situations.
Same thing with playing evil characters.
But banning core races or classes (such as the Bard)?
I'd ban the DM. Seriously, I don't think I could put my trust as a player into the hands of someone who's starting out by making arbitrary decisions based on his/her specific tastes. I hate dwarves, so you can't play one! Really?
Unless the GM was creating a "themed" campaign. I'm cool with that, but playing generic DnD sans core classes/races becuase of a personal dislike? Sorry... next table, please.
Banning "monster" races from the MM? Sure, I could see that. The people of Loudwater may not allow a bugbear into their city. But again, maybe they would... the point is that the MM player races are just an "ad-on" anyway, and they may not be appropriate in general gaming situations.
Same thing with playing evil characters.
But banning core races or classes (such as the Bard)?
I'd ban the DM. Seriously, I don't think I could put my trust as a player into the hands of someone who's starting out by making arbitrary decisions based on his/her specific tastes. I hate dwarves, so you can't play one! Really?
Unless the GM was creating a "themed" campaign. I'm cool with that, but playing generic DnD sans core classes/races becuase of a personal dislike? Sorry... next table, please.
Doug McCrae
Legend
One of my pet hates is DnD characters in superhero games. There's a player in my group whose last three superhero PCs were a minotaur, a steel predator and a demon. He does seem to have stopped though, thankfully, his current PC is a John Steed type who can manipulate space-time.
Doug McCrae
Legend
That's passive-aggressive. It would be better for both the player and the game if you said no at the start.
Tinker Gnome
Adventurer
Agreed.
The player will notice eventually that he or she is being targetted.
Treebore, I like you as a poster, but I hope you really do not do these things.
Betote
First Post
I prefer outright banning concepts I don't like to allowing them just to keep harassing that character. I think it's better for everyone's fun if I'm a big jerk once than if I'm a regular-sized jerk every time that character shows up.
As a player, I feel less cheated if the DM tells me "no, you can't have that" at the beginning of the campaign than if he allows me anything just to have later every bad thing "casually" happening to my character.
As a player, I feel less cheated if the DM tells me "no, you can't have that" at the beginning of the campaign than if he allows me anything just to have later every bad thing "casually" happening to my character.
Similar Threads
