Why do I alwaus get one player......

[ShadowDenizen]

There's always one..
In the last D+D game I played, (Midnight campaign setting) we had someone who wanted to play a Legate. His argument? "Well, Legates don't HAVE to be evil. I could be a double-agent."

Thankfully, in the 2nd Edition, they made Legates an NPC class.

 

[billd91]

I found myself in this situation when we started our Greyhawk campaign. I didn't want to play a heavy fighter type because I play that in our Kalamar game. There was already a bard, rogue , cleric and wizard and the pressure was placed on me to play a fighter type because "we needed one". I finally picked a warlock. I still get some guilt placed on me by one of the other players because he is worried about the party getting wiped out because we don't have a tank.

Don't allow yourself to feel guilty. I always tell my players to play the PC they want to play as long as it fits within the campaign. But, if they find they made a sub-optimal choice and the party is having some difficulty, they'll have to think up a solution themselves.
So in this case, if some other player keeps harping on needing a fighter, he should do something about it. He should hire one. What good is money if you don't use it to get the things you need?

 

[billd91]

Wow, this is very controlling of you. THe players should have some input into the game they are going to be playing in, the DM needs to be able to take his players into account when running a game. If you chase off all the players, you have no game. Even games where the player reluctantly play what they are being forced to play is not as fun as the games the players really want to play in.

I don't think it's unfairly controlling if there's a good reason for the DM to limit the choices. Maintaining the integrity of the setting is sufficient reason to limit the choices. But even choosing between limited racial backgrounds still leaves lots of leeway in profession, outlook, personality, and so on.

What I don't like is a DM saying "can't" just because they don't happen to like something. That's different from having a cogent reason.

 

[Voadam]

After having a player make a deep gnome fighter, call him "dough boy" and pattern him after a hip hop street thug and my not enjoying the roleplaying that resulted I started reconsidering my "play whatever you want" policy and started giving myself veto powers on character ideas and concepts for my games with a little DM guidance on the theme of the campaign. Later when a player came up with two concepts for my ravenloft evil PC game I rejected his demon lord trapped in a parrot form character concept and approved his pirate wizard one. It worked out well and added to the game while I feel the "whacky concept" he came up with would have been too silly and not allowed me to run the game style I enjoy running.

 

[Voadam]

What I don't like is a DM saying "can't" just because they don't happen to like something. That's different from having a cogent reason.

I think that's a valid reason to not allow something. I don't like half races or little people ones. In my campaigns they are not PC options and the half races are not in the world at all. I change the world from the default to remove things I don't like and to change it so that it is something I like better.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

After having a player make a deep gnome fighter, call him "dough boy" and pattern him after a hip hop street thug ::SNIP::

Oh my. This reminds me of a friend of mine's game, oddly enough.

REALLY good game. But we came across some goblins who were generally causing trouble in their warrens ... I was playing a goblin myself (fun character, if totally useless). We came in, he described them as wearing strange outfits, with prominent holy symbols in jewels and precious metals on thick gold chains ... we tried to talk to them and got:

"Yo, yo, you ain't the boss a' me. You ain't my daddy. We be kickin' it, old school, for Maglubiyet. This our turf now, homeslice. Can I get a whut whut?!"

"Fo' rizzle, my gizzle."

I nearly shot diet coke out of my nose. We eventually had to cast Comprehend Languages.

--fje

 

[Chimera]

Players and DMs should be able to work together to get a campaign that everyone can have fun with.

Bollocks. This is as much of a straightjacket as the other extreme. Because you're saying that I as a GM have to cater to the lowest denominator in the group - the one fool who refuses to play the setting as given.

Sure, If I have no players, then there is no game. Fine. But sometimes I'd rather have no game than be forced to allow that half-celestial 1/4 troll 1/4 Robot Ninja/Space Marine in my Arthurian Saga (to give one example).

I can change the channel of my TV. I don't have to watch crap. I can determine the setting of my game. I don't have to run crap. You want something else, seek it elsewhere. Don't have a game or enough players? You aren't looking hard enough. (Or there is something terribly wrong with you and you should do a little self-examination.)

 

[Harmon]

Sadly, this tactic doesn't always work. On several occasion I have asked the GM what kind of campaign it would be so I could determine what kind of character would be appropriate. THe response was often as not 'oh, make whatever you want, I'll make sure it fits in the game.' About half the time, what followed was a campaign that had a very definate theme and no effort was made by the GM to fit in characters that didn't fit the theme. :\
I mean, I ASKED...

That would be a GM that seems to be looking to have a failed campaign. :\

GMs and Players should be willing to work together in character creation and development. A GM that thinks the group would be well suited to have a Druid PC should pipe up and say- "someone play a Druid." At the same time a Player that wants to Play a certain type character should pipe up and say- "would a Druid be a good choice for this campaign?"

Failure to speak does not help the campaign, it only henders.

(Note that "Fish Out of Water" campaigns are one of my favorite to GM, but I would never have- allow, the Players make up characters that are utterly useless.)

 

[NCSUCodeMonkey]

Bollocks. This is as much of a straightjacket as the other extreme. Because you're saying that I as a GM have to cater to the lowest denominator in the group - the one fool who refuses to play the setting as given.

Sure, If I have no players, then there is no game. Fine. But sometimes I'd rather have no game than be forced to allow that half-celestial 1/4 troll 1/4 Robot Ninja/Space Marine in my Arthurian Saga (to give one example).

I can change the channel of my TV. I don't have to watch crap. I can determine the setting of my game. I don't have to run crap. You want something else, seek it elsewhere. Don't have a game or enough players? You aren't looking hard enough. (Or there is something terribly wrong with you and you should do a little self-examination.)

I get where you're coming from, but taking that stance is almost as bad as the player type that started this thread . The idea that this is the "GM's game" and the "GM's setting" rubs me the wrong way. With most of the groups that I've been in, the DM and player can work out some sort of happy median. The player presents a concept, the DM tries his/her best to interpret it with respect to the campaign, and everyone goes home happy. I have to admit, however, that those players who refuse to play anything but the 1/4 troll 1/4 Robot Ninja/Space Marine belong elsewhere...like a padded room

For me, it's all about making sure that everyone has fun. That means at least attempting to cater to those players who are very devoted to a character concept.

 

[Chimera]

The idea that this is the "GM's game" and the "GM's setting" rubs me the wrong way.

But it is "my" game from the standpoint that I'm the one who puts in all the effort to put the pieces together and run it. I have to be happy with it, first and foremost.

For the example of my 'Human or Dwarves Only' campaign, that was the setting that I was working on. Any other race simply wouldn't work. As I said, Gnomes and Halflings could be run, but would be very interesting, RP wise. Everything else is an enemy. I admit that I also had some limitations on PC classes, such as requiring it to be a group decision to let someone play a Paladin.

But hey, it didn't bother me in the least to have someone say that they didn't want to play that game. Their choice and I fully respect it. In my case, it was going to be a new group made up of bits of several other groups. Those who wanted to play were welcome, those who didn't, oh well, maybe next time.

I never did get that game off the ground because of my divorce. But I still have the stuff on my computer and still occasionally think of running it. Limitations intact, with whoever I can get to play it.

For the games I play in (two currently), I respect the GM's efforts to be true to their settings, one of which is Ravenloft and the other Homebrew. I wouldn't dream of conflicting with either GM over a mad desire to play something that doesn't fit. It would seem incredibly arrogant and insane to me to insist that they let me play something like that.