This is where I draw the line. The player showed no respect for you or the game. Had they come to me before game day I would let him plead his case from a role playing standpoint, but as it was I’d either have the character killed in a fit of racial bias in game or tell the player to stick to the list or find another game.
When someone plays something you don't like
- Thread starter Rechan
- Start date
This is where I draw the line. The player showed no respect for you or the game. Had they come to me before game day I would let him plead his case from a role playing standpoint, but as it was I’d either have the character killed in a fit of racial bias in game or tell the player to stick to the list or find another game.
tvknight415
Explorer
Announce the campaign and have a set of rules for PC generation. Have allowable races/classes/feats, limits on multiclassing, starting equipment, and so on.
Then, I add the caveat that if you want to play something that's not on the list, write up a bit about the character concept and present it to me, and I'll take it under advisement. If the world has no tieflings, then the tiefling paladin is out no matter how much I like or dislike the concept. On the other hand, if the campaign is going to focus on fiends from the lower planes and someone comes up with an interesting tiefling paladin, not only will it be geen-lit, but it may end up as being a major plot focus in the campaign (and that's not necessarily a good thing muhahahaha)
Then, I add the caveat that if you want to play something that's not on the list, write up a bit about the character concept and present it to me, and I'll take it under advisement. If the world has no tieflings, then the tiefling paladin is out no matter how much I like or dislike the concept. On the other hand, if the campaign is going to focus on fiends from the lower planes and someone comes up with an interesting tiefling paladin, not only will it be geen-lit, but it may end up as being a major plot focus in the campaign (and that's not necessarily a good thing muhahahaha)
Fallen Seraph
First Post
What I do is I set up a basis for the setting, campaign, etc. Obviously since I am the one setting this up it will be more to my taste.
Then we all get-together and we tear what I wrote down apart, discuss what we like, dislike, etc. So we do that till we come to a agreement, if there is something that doesn't fit either because of dislike or doesn't fit campaign style, themes, etc. If this happens we either refluff (most of the time), or eliminate it.
Then I go back recreate the game with what we discussed and then we play. So once it gets to the time of play there is usually no unwanted surprises.
Then we all get-together and we tear what I wrote down apart, discuss what we like, dislike, etc. So we do that till we come to a agreement, if there is something that doesn't fit either because of dislike or doesn't fit campaign style, themes, etc. If this happens we either refluff (most of the time), or eliminate it.
Then I go back recreate the game with what we discussed and then we play. So once it gets to the time of play there is usually no unwanted surprises.
QFT.
Sounds like (potential) fun to me, at least...
An Anthropomorphic Animal with a Construct or Half-construct template, perhaps?
aboyd
Explorer
Yeah, I'm somewhere along that line myself. I would like to avoid passive-aggressive solutions, and I'm pretty comfortable telling people, "No." However, sometimes players just don't pay attention to house rules and then pitch a fit. In those cases, I typically find it's best to illuminate the reasons why they should not have picked that race/class combo.
So for example, that bugbear would have been barred from entering any cities (or towns, or villages, or any location with guards and walls). The other players would enter towns without Mr. Bugbear, and that player would sit at the table for possibly hours doing nothing (or very little) while everyone else role-plays. I suspect at some point, due to NPC reaction tables in the DMG, that bugbear would eventually walk up to the city gates of a very hostile place and end up running from a hail of arrows. He might not live. If the player did not like this, I would explain that I am not prepared to provide bugbear-friendly modules or role playing, and that is why I advised everyone to use approved characters. However, if he appreciates the quality role-playing provided by having a character skulk around the edges of a forest near town, waiting for everyone else, then by all means, role play that.
Starbuck_II
Explorer
I'm assumew this is one of the below:
a. a low magic world
b. Player doesn't have 1800 gp to spend on a hat of disguise
c. Hat was banned.
Hat of Disguise is really the solution.
Since bugbears have a. LA, b. HD. How did he not get his full wealth per level?
I blame the DM and ther player.
DM should explained that towns would do that if he played the Bugbear, and I blame the player for not attempting to use Core items to circumvent these obstacles.
Ktulu
First Post
Yup
Did not have money and magic items are actually all artifact-like in my game. Can't buy them.
4e Bugbears don't have the level adjustment.
In the game I'm running, it wasn't that the Bugbear was "not allowed", it was more that they "didn't exist". The player picked the statistic combination to best suit his class.
However, the racial implication of Bugbear was handled in his backstory (currently awaiting execution for murder), and was needed for his skills.
He is treated poorly everywhere he goes based on his race/religion preferences, and fully plays it.
So, in the end, while I was irritated at his going outside the restrictions I had originally placed, my post and point was the character was played masterfully and has found a niche within the game-world to grow and become a beloved character.
Had I just simply ban-hammered the character, we would have lost out on what turned out to be a great character and a lot of plot devices.
So, in closing, please blame me; I deserve it. My caution in reacting improved my campaign, imho.
Crazy Jerome
First Post
I generally don't have this come up, because our group discusses what is allowed and not allowed in the campaign before we start it. If I'm running it, and I usually am, then I do get considerable say, due to the greater effort that I am putting in.
This works, because all of us take the attitude that our include/ban stuff has to be prioritized, and has less weight the further down the list you go. So for example, if we've agreed on a campaign world/idea, and my number one priority is that bards make no sense in that world, then unless someone really wants a bard enough to make that there #1 priority, then there are no bards. If people have competing, equal weight priorities, we opt for inclusion. (And in that example, the player got his #1 priority, include bards, and my #2 priority moves up to #1.)
Most people have no more than 1-3 things that they feel this strongly about, and probably half the group is usually in the zero to 1 range. And then the final rule is that people who didn't get what they want in the previous campaign deserve a bias in their favor. If we had a campaign where bards didn't fit, then the next campaign may or may not have a bard PC in it, but nothing in the nature of the setting will scream, "no Bards".
This works, because all of us take the attitude that our include/ban stuff has to be prioritized, and has less weight the further down the list you go. So for example, if we've agreed on a campaign world/idea, and my number one priority is that bards make no sense in that world, then unless someone really wants a bard enough to make that there #1 priority, then there are no bards. If people have competing, equal weight priorities, we opt for inclusion. (And in that example, the player got his #1 priority, include bards, and my #2 priority moves up to #1.)
Most people have no more than 1-3 things that they feel this strongly about, and probably half the group is usually in the zero to 1 range. And then the final rule is that people who didn't get what they want in the previous campaign deserve a bias in their favor. If we had a campaign where bards didn't fit, then the next campaign may or may not have a bard PC in it, but nothing in the nature of the setting will scream, "no Bards".
Last edited:
cignus_pfaccari
First Post
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
Similar Threads
