Why can't GMs who dislike your character concept just tell you "No" instead of waffling around and going "Ehhhhh, I'll allow it but you'll have to take stat penalties/get ostracized in game"? Or worse, they allow it and then not so subtly dick you over in game because of the concept.
I'm flexible and can change my concept to better suit the GM's preferences, but I can't stand this passive-aggressive bullshit. Is it so hard to say "No"?
>>45770766
Depends on the person. Some people are too beta to say no, but too petty not to be a passive aggressive little shit.
Try finding a different group.
>>45770766
Why can't my players who's character concept I veto just say "No" instead of waffling around online and going "but I can't stand this passive-aggressive bullshit."? Or worse, they don't and silently stew with hidden anger and resentment
I'm flexible and can work with my players to better their characters to suit the setting, but I can't stand this passive-aggressive bullshit. Is it so hard to say "No"?
Seriously though whining on the internet doesn't help you. Have you considered talking to your DM?
>>45770861
Yes.
>>45770766
>>45770861
>>45770916
Also it doesn't help if it's a repeating case across different online GMs.
>>45770766
Some GM:s, like me, are beta as fuck. They cannot straight up say no to players most of the time. Depending on the context, those three "punishments" have very different connotations and different levels of dickery.
1) Stat penalties
The one I can get behind best. I understand that sometimes a character concept can go beyond the realm of the rules, or tiptoe on the edges of them. Then, just to balance things out, the GM has a choice to either possibly break the game and make one character OP, or issue stat penalties to probably make the character weaker than it would've been had it been executed by the rules. This leaves the player two choices: Believe in the character or try to optimize different.
I am the type who doesn't care about stat penalties, I don't play the character for numbers, I play them for the concept. But playing otherwise is understandable.
There's nothing inherently wrong with trying to balance the game. The problem is usually with miscommunication between the GM and the player, so establishing a connection should be the first step.
2) Ostracizing characters.
This happens either of miscommunication of the GM and the player, or the player's willingness to play against the norm. Every setting has their rules, and starting to bend them is usually not pretty. One of my great mistakes of my current game is the fact that I never remember to take into account the fact that one of the players is a mutant in a world where mutants are pretty feared. Making complicated characters possibly changes the entirety of the game if the GM is hardworking and observant enough, which I am not.
3) Being a subtle dick
This is usually the result of the GM either expecting that the players have foreknowledge of the game (And usually, players SHOULD read at least the parts of the book that involve their characters' major aspects), but being a dick about it? Bad GM says I. This, of course, is a type of miscommunication, but it is also dependent on the GM.
>>45770766
I've said it once, and I'll say it again.
I'd trust speshul snowflakes more if their execution wasn't consistently botched all to hell.
>>45772027
Continuing:
On the second point, the mutant character is also the party face, in all fucking irony of the sense. But it was already the second character I had to make with the player (I do characters in private, head to head), and the last one was three times as ridiculous, so I had to run with it.
Of course, making a game where someone is that ostracized would get annoying, simply because I would have to plan every single encounter around the fact that "And there's a 8 foot tall giant mutant", I simply forget to take it into account most of the time.
And if I did take it to account every time, how would the other players feel? The centerpiece of every encounter is the jackass who decided to make an absolutely ridiculous character.
The DnD5e GMs guide suggest that GMs should work with the players where possible to fit their concepts within the world.
GMs who insist on having sole authority over their world are behind the times. Games, and the worlds they're played in, are for the benefit of everyone, not being the GMs puppets all aboard the sandboxed railroad.
>>45772228
sameguy:
Not to imply that 5e is being innovative - in fact, it's the opposite. Even such a conservative, regressive game like fucking DnD5e, a game that literally went back on many improvements from the past two editions, got with the times on this point.
It's like Republicans and gay marriage, only the most retarded people are still raging against it.
>>45770766
I've started working on doing that.
I'm a very "Yes, and" type of GM, I try my darndest to allow any kind of player input to go forward in some manner in the game. So when someone comes to me with a wacky idea they seem excited for, I try to find a way to make it work.
Recently, I've realized that it's better to just nip things in the bud and talk out why I don't think an idea will work.
>>45770766
>Why can't GMs who dislike your character concept just tell you "No"
BECAUSE YOU CRY
YOU THROW TEMPER TANTRUMS
YOU FLIP TABLES
YOU BADGER EVERYONE ABOUT HOW THE GAME IS UNFAIR AND EVERYONE IS AGAINST YOU.
>In b4 you say you won't cry when your precious character idea gets vetoed.
>>45770931
>Signs you might be That Guy
>>45772339
I why are you playing with this hypothetical person if you aren't running a game in a daycare?
>>45770766
Some dms are just pussy little shits, they hate saying no or their players are children who get upset over not getting things their way all of the time.
I joined a friend's group once to dm rogue trader and had one of the players ask for +3 toughness in exchange for 100xp, when i said "no, sorry" they got triggered as shit and we had to end the session early.
Tell dm to man up or just leave.
Alternatively, you could offer to dm or provide tips as to what is fair, what is fun, and what balances both.
>>45772339
>ln b4 you say you won't cry when your precious character idea gets vetoed.
I won't, considering I already have three more concepts lined up that I just need to stat.
Case by case.
Usually there's a reason a character is bad. If that's the case I'll tell you what that reason is and tell you to fix it.
If it's inherently fucked, like built around a clearly gamebreaking munchkin build, I'll tell you no.
That's not passive-aggression, it's compromise because I take no joy in looking at something someone's invested time and energy into and going 'hahaha no'.
>>45770766
It helps if you understand their logic.
First, your desire to play those characters is a form of "feelings". Despite what most people believe, human emotions or "fee-fees" are worth less than nothing. It is right to attack them, and wrong to respect or announce them, because they are shameful, pathetic, and an oppressive transgression against Free Speech.
Your GM's passive-aggressive scorn for the characters, by contrast, is not based on "feelings". Rather, your character is being picked on because it's retarded, shitty, autistic, whiny, douchebaggy, magical realm, and/or a variety of other pejoratives; these might seem like ways of saying your GM feels unhappy about your character, but in fact there are no feelings involved; your character is bad, and there is no "because".
Because of these two viewpoints, it is also wrong of you to object to mistreatment. If you try to argue with or even acknowledge it, you are a) trying to imply that your feelings matter, which is a wrong opinion, b) denying the non-opinion-based truth of your character's awfulness, and c) opposing free speech by implying that there is such as thing as "bad" social interaction.
>>45770766
Find a DM with a spine
>>45772445
Your whole rant is based around the idea that all GMs are objective people who can make proper judgements without their personal bias getting in the way or trying to take control of a player's character because said character doesn't fit into the kind of story they want to run despite the character being consistent with the setting and the GM never explaining what kind of game they want to run in the first place.
>>45772562
I have a feeling that anon is being sarcastic.
>>45772586
If >>45772445 is not sarcastic I feel like he might have bigger problems than whiny PCs.
>come up with an idea for a custom class
>run the idea by my GM
>he's tentatively on board but wants more than just an abstract concept
>spend a few weeks tweaking the class here and there
>keep running into a roadblock where I want a certain thing for the class, but the DM keeps saying he can't bend
>start flipping out internally because this class absolutely needs that thing.
>Wait. Haven't actually created a need for the class. Why do they do what they do? Why can't another class do it?
>realize that the class doesn't actually need that thing to function
>draw up background for the class
>create class again
>create character for that class with a twenty-page backstory including family tree, political affiliations, general attitudes towards other races and factions and how it fits into his world.
>spend days trying the class out at various levels under different scenarios
>GM agrees to the class and character
>GM gives me some bonus XP to start with because I took all that time to develop the class and character
>a few days before the game was to commence someone offers magical realm snowflake character
>GM flat veotes and requests something more sensible within the boundaries of his world.
>player leaves the group.
I dunno, I have a pretty solid GM that I've run with under different campaigns and modules for the past fifteen years or so, and I've found that as long as you're not fucking off into magical realm or mary sue unique snowflake shit, (or barring that, willing to work with him) he'll permit just about whatever.
>>45770766
>want to make a character who body swaps when he is about to die like captain ginyu
>DM hates bodyswap and bans it from game
>want to transfer soul into golem and become super spell casting golem
>says I need a gem holding my soul like
>basically makes me one of those bosses with the huge glowing point that says shoot here
>want to become immortal
>will send every goddamn thing in the game that has to do with death after me
I understand that he wants balance, but goddamn this is becoming no fun allowed.
>>45770766
They're too used to other players flipping the table and throwing their shit at the GM and spreading it on the walls while screeching and such in response to their character concept getting denied, so they don't want it to happen again and trigger the ptsd from last time.
>>45770766
i had to repeatedly tell a player that his character concept wouldn't work in a black crusade game. player kept wanting to make a human character. he was joining a solo campaign between me and another player that was entirely geared for a marine adventure.
>he wouldn't understand how often his character would die until i pointed it out.
Because we don't want to shut down your interest and the effort you put in. If we can salvage it to make it work we'd rather do that.
>>45772816
>salvage
>intentionally crippling
These two things are not entirely compatible. Best to hack it down and start over.
>>45772027
>Some GM:s, like me, are beta as fuck.
Yeah, this. Most GMs are betamaxes who curse their unfortunate group with taking the one position that requires some shred of alphadom. Providing direction, setting boundaries, holding people to standards, all of these are things that actually require a little more testicles in your ball sack than none at all.
>>45770766
Sorry, but I want interesting/fitting/things that I like in my story. I am the one making it and bothering to orquestate it after all, so at least I demand some control in it.
> mfw when some dude in a discussion for a nationwide TTRPG group says "games are not for you when you GM"
>>45770861
This one is my niggerest of negroest brothers.
>Level 1 starting group
>A player wants to play a half dragon barbarian with a CR2 adjustment
>I agree to let him play the half dragon with reduced stats until the party hits level three at which point he gets full normal stats
>Party hits level three
>player properly has the CR adjustment
>everyone is happy
oh boy, I guess stat adjustments can't work at all. I'll keep that in mind for next time.
>>45772354
Pretty compelling signs.
>>45770766
You should probably learn to to take a hint.
>>45770766
Because so often every RPG book and every GM advice thread here will say that the sign of a good GM is that they don't say no if they don't know how to handle something, they compromise.
Sometimes it makes a man do stupid things.
>>45770766
>give DM character concept
>it is blatantly cheesy, overpowered, or drastically clashes with the setting
>the Dm, being a nice enough fellow, tries to find some compromise through either mechanical or roleplaying means since you seem to like the idea of that character, and being a DM is all about having your players enjoy themselves
>FUCK THAT GUY
What is wrong with you OP? If you really are flexible and can change your concept to better suit the GM's preference, why don;t you just speak up about it when he says "Eeehhhh, I'll allow it but". The onus is on you to change your character, while the onus on the DM is to allow for a both some semblance of game balance, and enjoyment for all players.
>>45773996
Why not go "Sorry, I don't think this concept will work in the game" instead of "You can play it but you'll take a penalty to all stats"?
>>45770766
>tfw you've said NO to multiple character ideas.
>>45774165
>since you seem to like the idea of that character, and being a DM is all about having your players enjoy themselves
If you go up to a DM and bring a character concept that you obviously put time and effort into, it would be rude to just veto it outright. DM's have to assume that each player holds some attachment to their character, as the concept they made will have to carry them through possible years of playing. As such, a DM trying to promote their players having a good time would not simply say no to an idea they hold in high regard or are excited about, they would open a dialogue over it. "I'll allow this, but only if we change this aspect" is the first step in a bartering discussion, if the terms that the DM puts forth are not agreeable, it is up to the player to argue back until either an agreement is met, or the player or Dm simply says "no, this concept will not work, compromise is not possible"
What you are suggesting is to skip to the worst outcome as soon as possible, which is assuming that both the player and the Dm are unwilling to compromise, i.e. both huge assholes.
>>45772445
>Your GM's passive-aggressive scorn for the characters, by contrast, is not based on "feelings".
>>45772228
That is bullshit, if someone chooses to bring a character that does not fit the world the GM wants to run then he should fully expect it to be vetoed.
And he is being a dick. You cannot get away with justifying shitty, lazy players with 'its 2016 man!'
>>45774391
>Not preparing a campaign guide for your game and holding a session zero.
>>45772228
>GMs who insist on having sole authority over their world are behind the times.
I think discussing your concept with the DM is still something that should happen with the DM being finale arbiter on whats allowed. When you get into the world your actions belong to you, the thoughts of your character in your backstory belong to you as well as your characters attempted actions, the results of those actions and how the world reacts to them belong to the DM to interpret, expand upon, veto, or approve.
Your character can "think" hes the reincarnation of a god, your character can "think" he killed the previous king, and your character can "think" he holds Excalibur in his hands but that doesn't make it true.
>>45770766
I'll allow close to any character concept as long as it is physically possible to accomplish within the metaphysics of the setting, but I'll always give a fair warning if it will lead to the character being ostracized in-game.
>>45774460
While the holding a session zero has no bearing on the arguments, as all the discussion I was referring to would ideally happen during a session zero, the campaign guide does bring up an interesting counterpoint.
If a DM has made a campaign guide, and the player has outright ignored it in favour of playing a character that clashes with the game world, or is playing a class that is outright banned, it is well within the DM's right to ban that character from play. The reason behind this is that the DM has made the first move in the character discussion, such as banning a class. It is now up to the player to ask if he can play that class, albeit with some restrictions, or to simply follow what the DM has written. Some Dm's will be uncompromising with their rulings of banned classes, but even that is still acceptable as the player has been given warning about what not to play BEFORE he has made his character concept, effectively eliminating the source of the problem: the fact that the player really wants to play his character and would be sad if he couldn't.
Now if the player knows that a concept is banned, makes a character like that anyway, and then proposes it, he is the asshole, not the DM.
As you said, writing a campaign guide really helps solve the big issues with this dilemma, but as the OP said nothing on the subject, my original argument was under the assumption that a campaign guide was not made.
>>45774538
That implies the DM is somehow an asshole for vetoing concepts that do not fit his game unless he circulates a ban list before they even sit down to discuss the game and what will work. .
>>45770824
>Depends on the person. Some people are too beta to say no, but too petty not to be a passive aggressive little shit.
>I'm flexible and can change my concept to better suit the GM's preferences,
Oh god. This is the reason right here. If you are actually a fucking person and know how NOT to get offended over a game. Prepare the NOPE-Wage! We're gonna eventually have a good time!
>Would play with.
>>45770766
Because few are as flexible as you are and its easier to compromise than it is to deal with some manbaby throwing a fit at your table
>>45770766
Because I fucking hate you for wanting to play that character, and I want you to choke on them.
>>45770861
How is saying "no" passive aggressive bullshit?
You just reworded his post to be lel so funy XD without actually thinking about it.
>>45772339
Well, if they do that, then they're a shitty player and shouldn't be in your game at all.
Seriously, just tell the fucker no.
"No, you can't play that character."
"No, you can't be in my game."
I'd rather have a DM that just cut me off in a momentary act of dickishness and let all of us get on with our lives than yank my chain around for three months because he's too much of a beta faggot to put his foot down.
Fucking grow a pair. Jesus.
>>45772027
>2) Ostracizing characters. This happens either of miscommunication of the GM and the player, or the player's willingness to play against the norm. Every setting has their rules, and starting to bend them is usually not pretty. One of my great mistakes of my current game is the fact that I never remember to take into account the fact that one of the players is a mutant in a world where mutants are pretty feared. Making complicated characters possibly changes the entirety of the game if the GM is hardworking and observant enough, which I am not.
Honestly, as someone who likes making characters "Special snowflake" unique, in having a lot of recognizable things about them, either from having strange clothes, to incorporating weird colours or eye-catching accessories.
Most GMs make me more easily recognizable to their NPCs. But I had one GM who went full on retard.
I made a Monk character who wore a bright red rope, had coloured his hair in a very red colour, and a pair of gloves with a fire motif. He also had a pair of claws hanging on his belt, which was his primary weapon.
Because of this, whenever I was dressed like this, I took a -3 to charisma to any NPC (Which he didn't bother telling me about for 6 whole sessions, he just calculated my new stat, and adjusted it accordingly without my knowledge), I was straight up not allowed inside places where they didn't want combat to take place (Despite allowing the hulking Barbarian inside while half naked and covered in strange tattoes.) and gave me a -1 to hit because I fought in an impractical rope meant to look good, and not for combat, again, without telling me about it.
Furthermore, he kept making up stupid shit like "The enemies using fire goes for you first, because your entire appearance signals you want to be set on fire" and "The penalty to encumberance is doubled for being soaked, because it weakens you far more than anyone else".
>>45775414
I wonder if you'd gone full unarmed if he would've not let you into places without a pair of oven mitts on.
>>45774968
I don't think you read that right
>>45775414
Well, that seems like a GM no one likes. With an easily recognizable characters, if the appearance is like literally the only thing, then I just make them more recognizable to NPC:s (Though, I suck at remembering things, so kek).
What I mean is, there's a fine line of recognizable character and a character so alien or feared that the whole focus of the game is shifted. Your example is nowhere near to that line, so that GM is most probably just a dick.
Making appearance-wise special snowflake characters isn't that bad, I literally play a human who believes they're an computer in Eclipse Phase. They just vacated their mind into a quantum computer, and truly believe they're a computer. Even having fake ID of being an AI, not even an AGI, but an AI.
>>45775493
>I wonder if you'd gone full unarmed if he would've not let you into places without a pair of oven mitts on.
With everything else he piled on, I left. If he is just slapping me with pointless penalties without affecting everyone else who looks as stereotypical as you possibly can (Half naked barbarian with tattoes, Wizard with a robe and a staff and a large beard, Rogue with a tight leather armour, daggers in his pouch, and a black cloak with a hood that covers him as much as possible) while not even telling me about it, I wouldn't have done *anything* to try fixing this.
The worst part is that he tried keeping me in the game by telling me to "reroll a new character, keeping gear, money and exp from my old one!", so he didn't even want me gone from the game. But honestly? If a GM wants to play this fucking passive aggressive without telling me a word about any problems with it, then I can find myself some better games. Or even no game at all, because that's preferable.
As a GM, my thing is that I'll allow ideas that typically make me squirm or may be shaky in the setting, I don't do stat nerfs, but if you're going to be something freaky and unnatural, you'll be treated as such, and I'm always very transparent with my players about that. I won't stop a player from doing something I don't necessarily like, but I'll offer them suggestions to mesh better with the party, and stuff like that.
>>45775968
>but I'll offer them suggestions to mesh better with the party, and stuff like that.
I straight up don't allow PvP. Fuck you and your edgy piece of shit, you are not going to ruin the fun of everyone else at the table. So whenever some faggot makes a backstabbing faggot who clearly has intentions that are directly opposite of the rest of the party, I will give you one warning, and then let the players throw you out of the group themselves, and actively encourage them to do so if the faggot constantly tries fucking with the rest of the party.
You are not being clever and funny by backstabbing your party. You are being an anti-social fuckwit who are trying to ruin the game for no good reason. So stop the whole "I Join the badguy, lelelelelelel so funny xDDDDD" stupidity, because I WILL have the bad guy destroy you as his first priority.
>>45770766
one simple answer OP, which i bet was told you a thousand times over, for a autistic faggot saying no is impossible. These people yre not good to play with, just look for a great group in a big city. preferably guys and or girls with jobs and a life. someone you or one of your friends know.
>>45770766
>shit, this guy's character concept is pretty awful
>I don't really want to just stomp out whatever he wants to play, though
>alright, maybe if I can get him to tweak it a little, I can make this work out ok
Or maybe the GM's a passive-aggressive asshole.
>>45772131
And define botched.
I take exception to the speshul snowflake label, because it doesn't matter how oddball a character is if the player plays them straight.
In a game that recently ended, I got dispension from the gm to play a dragonmanthing race that didn't exist in the setting, total good guy descended of angels and good guys and all that happy shit.
Then, to balance it out, my pc was the fuck up who wasn't a fighter, wasn't willing to rise to the occasion, and only by his family enemies finding him did he ever willingly take up the mantle and fight.
Beyond initial description, I never mentioned anything about my physical form, never expected anyone to pander to me, just did good guy things knowing that I got a second chance to do right.
What exactly is actually snowflake about this character, outside the kneejerk reaction hurr half dragon that never actually came up in game except when I had to describe myself to someone?
>>45776163
Anon, at no point did the guy mention any of that, and in fact said he tries to guide the group together for a harmonious time.
Why are you sperging out?
>>45776379
I was adding to his post, not attacking him.
I know far too many idiots who will deliberately do anything to make their character as far detached from the rest of the group as possible. It's the same faggot who insists on being evil in a purely good party, and the same asshole who will invariably take a class that CAN fuck up his party members without them IC having much of a chance at fighting back, like a wizard or warlock, Rogue, or similar archetypes.
I just don't get why they do it, and often it's the same people who will completely ignore the suggestions to make their character actually fit into the group. And we are not even talking about class and abilities here. We are taking raw personality and motivations. Why would you deliberately make a character with a personality that clashes as much as possible with the group, and why would you ever pair that up with a motivation that is the direct opposite as well? I wish someone could give a proper answer, but all I ever get out of them is "It's funney, hurr hurr xDDDD" like some super autistic fuckwit.
The absolutely only reason I allow it in the first place, is because I know a few who CAN pull off shit like this properly, so I want to give them the chance. They just fuck it up so damn often, and they always bitch and moan about "BUT YOU CAN'T THROW ME OUT, I AM A PC!" as if that meta knowledge is a free get-out-of-jail card that works even after backstabbing the party, leaving them to die, or outright attacking someone and failing to kill them.
>>45774499
>Your character can "think" hes the reincarnation of a god, your character can "think" he killed the previous king, and your character can "think" he holds Excalibur in his hands but that doesn't make it true.
Honestly those sound more interesting than the character actually being any of those things.
>>45776462
>It's the same faggot who insists on being evil in a purely good party, and the same asshole who will invariably take a class that CAN fuck up his party members without them IC having much of a chance at fighting back, like a wizard or warlock, Rogue, or similar archetypes.
This says you need to stop playing 3.pf, man, seriously.
>I wish someone could give a proper answer, but all I ever get out of them is "It's funney, hurr hurr xDDDD" like some super autistic fuckwit.
I have gotten serious answers out of people about shit like this, and I always level with them and say:
1. The group does NOT need to keep you around.
2. I, the GM, will not force them to do anything their characters wouldn't do, just like you.
3. If the game assumes teamwork by the group, and you are refusing it, then YOU are the problem, not the game or the group, and you may be removed if the problem continues. Find a reason to follow the game's assumptions, which also are MINE, and we move on. Do not, and we move on without you.
>>45772027
>1) Stat penalties
I don't see the point of this. If the character concept is essentially all fluff, why assign stat penalties at all? You're basically encouraging your players to have boring fluff in order to avoid getting whacked with the penalty stick.
>>45772445
This is a joke, right?
>>45770766
>I'm flexible and can change my concept to better suit the GM's preferences, but I can't stand this passive-aggressive bullshit. Is it so hard to say "No"?
See, you say you're flexible, but claim the GM is being passive-aggressive when he asks you to be flexible with your character concept
So which is it?.
>>45777036
I think he might be talking about concepts that involve things that would impart some statistical benefits or playing a class that doesn't fit the idea or theme of the game he is playing such as an industrial revolution game where the players are part of a musketeers like unit and that one player plays as a class that is technically part of a faction such as a monk or druid.
>>45776163
>>45776462
I never have a problem with this since all my tabletop friends are good RPers with respect for one another, as well as respect for me as a GM, and respect for the world and storytelling.
If your players are doing this kind of shit, chances are serious tabletop just ain't for them. (>>45775968 here btw)
>>45777240
To continue my train of thought , there are a few situations where PvP is acceptable, but that's usually a huge event horizon, face-heel-turn, or just in general a result of legitimate character/plot development.
>>45777036
>boring fluff
So only characters that don't actually fit a setting or game can be interesting?
>>45777809
If it doesn't fit with the setting, then why are you allowing it at all? Nerfs won't make it fit with the setting better, they'll just make playing it less fun.
>>45770766
>Or worse, they allow it and then not so subtly dick you over in game because of the concept.
Actually one of my friends tried running a bloodseeker character just because he thought the concept was cool. 5 minutes in he was chomping on the party's face because of a paper cut.His next character was a shapeshifting skill monkey.Due to not being able into combat he quit GURPS all together
It's not about how you suit GM's preferences, but rather about making mistakes so that you could improve later on.
Because they are pussies who are afraid of being labeled as gm power abusers
>>45777276
I once challenged another player to singles combat due to our ideologies clashing.
I had discussed with my GM beforehand why I was doing it, and what I hoped to gain from it. To that end, I hoped the other player would beat me, because it would mean his ideology was strong enough to be successful, for the good of all. I had no intention of it being to the death.
>however, upon being challenged, the other player pulled his sword and started swinging for blood
>fortunately, I had anticipated this, and had the foresight to prepare for him to come after my life
>I proceeded to beat him down, then patched him up and told him next time, don't try to kill me, and his rematch would be whenever he called for it
>>45778036
This.
This is passive aggressive bullshit at it's core. Rather than telling the player straight that it won't work as is, make playing it so much unfun they scrap it and the game
>>45770766
>>45777036
>>45777136
I think this was in response to >>45759495 and things like
>Player: "I want to play a wizard who's a child prodigy"
>DM: "In my world an adventuring party would need exceptional reasons to accept a child as a member, such as that child being as strong as an adult wizard due to developing their magic early."
>Player: "Well yeah, that's the idea."
>DM: "Therefore, to represent that you are a normal child you must take extra penalties which make you far weaker than an adult wizard. I'm sorry, this is the only way it makes sense for the party to hire you."
>Player: "?"
>>45779251
That is also relying on "realism" in a game that generally dispenses with realism as a core idea, however.
If !realism is an accepted part of the game, I will chafe at having realism applied to me because the GM thinks it should in my case, but not in others.
>>45770766
Why do you make a character concept which, while decent would get huge penalties/be ostracised in every concievable society and then bitch about 'passive-agressiveness' when the inevitable and logical conclusion happens?
>>45779544
>inevitable and logical conclusion happens?
It's usually not logical or inevitable, it's the GM choosing to throw them at you. >>45775493 and >>45775414 are perfect examples of this, because it is not "logical" as there are other types that if the same standard were applied, would be just as poorly off, if not worse.
The GM was choosing to do it, to a single player, because they didn't like what they were doing, but didn't TELL them so.
>responding to bait
>oh well, I'm bored, and the gin is good
>>45770861
Once again, fat anime-watching retards BTFO'd
OP, be a fucking man and say something to his face instead of crying like a little bitch to us about.
>>45777036
My personal take is that the stat penalties are only applied when game balance is concerned. Otherwise the character should be level with the party.
>>45779251
Ironically, my current party has a child prodigy, who is level with the rest of the party. I issued no penalties because I saw no point in issuing them. I can bend realism where a child can be as adept as an adult, as long as said player doesn't whine about not getting bonuses for starting as a child.
That's why I explicitly made rules for making characters of different ages for my "main system". But for otherwise incompatible characters I could make some kind of rule to balance them out.
>>45779594
To be fair both>>45775414 and his DM were retards whom I'd never play with.
Also OP complained about getting penalties/ostracized not these things being a secret until the character encountered them.
So please go back to the bait and take it properly this time.
>>45779878
>So please go back to the bait and take it properly this time.
Naw, I'm enjoying myself.
To wit, what exactly is wrong with >>45775414?
At most, he has said he was dressed ostentatiously and was a monk. This says nothing about his rp, and as long as he didn't constantly highlight his odd dress or expect better treatment due to it, it doesn't hurt the game a wit, outside of him being more memorable.
The DM, however, went full retard, and started applying penalties without telling the player, which would earn all manner of umbrage from me, as I expect transparency on such things if they are a factor.
I was in a SW game were someone was playing a wookie during the Empire age, and when it started getting in my face, I called for it's owner to tell it to back off. This was entirely IC and appropriate for the setting, but another player got mad at me for "insulting the player". I told him, no, I'm not insulting the player, I am acting like I live in a time where, if you see a wookie, they were owned by someone for manual labor. Another pc told me ic that the wookie was free, and while I was skeptical, I let it go.
>I did however, try to sell him to a slaver I knew for big bucks later on
>>45780076
I guess I just dislike the type of guy who is unique just to be unique. If the player had a good reason for his character to behave this way, I would let it slide, but if he said something like 'that's just how character is' I don't think I would invite him next time.
The other alternative is to make a REALLY silly campaign where everybody is playing shit like half-dragon bards with electric guitars, but in that case fancy clothes are just not enough. So >>45775414 just kinda sits in that awkward place where it's too crazy for a 'normal' game and not quite crazy enough for a balls to the walls crazy one.
>>45780210
>I guess I just dislike the type of guy who is unique just to be unique
There is a difference between being unique because the character is flamboyant (plenty of people like that irl) and one that does it because they want to have the spotlight.
That's why I have a difference between someone doing it to display their character's personality, and someone that expects shit because it is there.
That said, if it's something that doesn't work with the theme or tone of the game I'm running, I'll shoot it down. I had a player once make a very edge case character when I explicitly asked for everyday people, and I shot it down.
>>45774867
That is what I am implying. If you tell players you are hosting a game, and they go about making their character in ignorance of the restrictions you will put on the setting, you are an asshole for saying no to concepts the player did not know was wrong. If a player had no way of knowing the character he worked on was not allowed, and as a DM it is entirely your fault for his ignorance on the subject as you literally make up what is allowed and what isn't, you definitely are a dick for banning a character concept.
You literally make up a rule that no-one knows about and then punish a person for not knowing it by disallowing his character.
Again, this is assuming that a campaign guide does not exist (as per your somewhat misguided example of the ban list). A good player if given a campaign guide that says medieval fantasy won't make a gunslinger. Ergo, if a player makes a gunslinger they are most likely a bad player, or just being an asshole, and in both of these discussions opening a dialogue with the player will result in a better game: I'll allow the gunslinger, but he has to use crossbows instead, but his class abilities will apply to them". The bad or misguided player should offer up his opinions on the matter, whether he feels the changes are balanced or relevant, until a compromise is reached, or the character gets banned after both party's discover it won't work. The asshole layer will just skip to the last stage, as compromise with a player like that is nearly impossible.
In either situation, offering some sort of compromise benefits the player more than outright vetoing it, as at the very least the player has been given another option to consider, and has been given the chance to talk with the DM about what will and won't work in the game.
>>45780423
The thing is, being flamboyant works with certain characters, and not with others. You want a flamboyant bard or noble? No questions asked. You want a flamboyant monk, like >>45775414 ? I hope you have a very very good backstory for that.
>>45780513
>flamboyant monk
>what he described
As far as I can tell, he pretty much described Akuma from street fighter with a slight fire motif and claws. You are taking the monk moniker too literally, monks are martial artists dedicated to perfecting themselves, they don't have to act like monks in real life. His character design fits perfectly with any monk that takes an elemental fist style feat, or even just hails from a firey land that wants to show off his martial arts and homeland pride at the same time. There are so many simple ways it could be properly explained that there is no point in even asking for a reason.
>>45780513
>You want a flamboyant monk
Avatar, man. Fire Nation.
>>45780606
See, one of the principal things about the eastern fighting flicks the monk class takes inspiration is that the proud guy in fancy clothes gets his ass handed to him. This is like playing knight in spiky black armor. You are screaming 'I am a bad guy, fuck my shit up!' Don't expect more mercy for your (relatively) flamboyant monk than you would for your piggy-kicking antipaladin.
>>45780811
Cao Cao is also a perennial evil guy in Chinese pop media.
Didn't stop him from being the most successful conqueror of his time, and one of the most respected minds of his era.
>>45780811
>in game, I will punish a person who dresses differently the same as a person who literally cannot commit a good act.
I really don't think you are getting it, what if he made a grapple monk instead and dressed up like a wrestler? Are you going to punish him because he is still technically a "monk" even when he is playing a completely different character concept? The problem I have with how you are taking this is that you feel that since he is a monk, he MUST be a monk. What if he is just a guy who likes punching things and the monk class gave him the best options for it? What if, like >>45780667
pointed out, he is part of a culture that is very nationalistic and has fire motifs? What if he's just playing the character like a kickboxer, costumed image and all?
You're limiting yourself and your players to follow the rules to an almost autistically literal sense, just because he is playing a monk CLASS doesn't mean his character is literally a monk, or even has to take any bearing from easter fighting movies.
>>45780930
I'm not saying you can't be successful with an evil character. I'm saying that if you behave like an evil character you'll have a harder time.
>>45770766
Because they're petulant children who think being told that you're not allowed to do something you want to do is the worst thing in the world, and thus act like children instead of being an adult and saying "No" like mommy does.
>>45780969
What I'm saying is
>then >>45780960 happened
He beat me to it. He is playing a character, not a class, and your own preconceptions of what something has to be should not be enforced on the party, or used to limit their creativity.
>>45780960
I think you don't get it. The problem is not that he deviates from the class stereotype, it's that he chooses an 'evil sterotype, which people usually don't trust.
If he was playing a wrestler his troubles would be based around weather he acts like a face or a heel. If he goes around bragging and dishonoring his opponents, he'll be hated and gets the negative modifyers to his social rolls. If he acts nice, visits sick children in hospitals, etc. he won't.
Also you and >>45780667 seem to have missed how the Fire nation were the bad guys in Avatar. So yeah, if you have a nationalistic fire monk you won't be generally well liked. Just as if you were an openly elf-hating dwarf in an elf colony. Or a cleric of Pelor in Menzoberranzan.
>>45770766
Fuck off mate. When someone comes up to me and says "Can I play this?" I allowed it, and the world reacts as logically as possible.
Want to be a prancing oaf who gets in fights? People will treat you like a tard, and toss you in the drunk tank when you get rowdy enough that "authority" has to be called in. You wanted to be that guy, now sit in the jail cell while the other actual players play.
Go fuck yourself and learn to play a better character.
>>45781032
>He is playing a character, not a class, and your own preconceptions of what something has to be should not be enforced on the party, or used to limit their creativity.
Let me guess, if your character gets shanked in Menzoberranzan (or how the fuck ever it is spelled) for brandishing Pelor's holy symbol, you would say I'm limiting your creativity. Fantasy worlds should have internal logic. If your character wants to go against it, he will suffer the consequences. I'm not saying nationalistic fire monks will be killed, but they will be viewed with suspicion outside their country.
>>45781123
Now you're generalizing a character by how they dress, you are assuming that everyone in the game world thinks like you do: in that a person who dresses in a way you deem flamboyant is perceived as evil. If you cannot comprehend that hundreds of NPC's in your game think differently, and while one may be as prejudice as you towards fancy dress, many would not be. You are also assuming that all these NPC's would have had access to all this media: specifically media that shows people with grandiose clothing as evil.
You are assuming that most NPC's would see a person in finer clothing and think "Wow this guy is evil!", when a more appropriate steriotype that is even more historically accurate if for an NPC to think "Wow, this guy is fucking rich!"
>>45781387
>Let me guess, if your character gets shanked in Menzoberranzan (or how the fuck ever it is spelled) for brandishing Pelor's holy symbol, you would say I'm limiting your creativity
No, because the nature of Menxoberrazan supplants the DM's personal biases.
>I'm not saying nationalistic fire monks will be killed, but they will be viewed with suspicion outside their country
This is entirely your personal bias, which is why several anon, including yourself, are calling you out. Would you do the same to the animal pelt wearing, tatted up barbarian that thuds in to a inn and demands a room?
If the answer isn't yes, then you are being a shit gm.
>>45781387
You are making a false analogy, you are describing a specific instance and implying it is relevant to the general problem. If they monk in question wore his fire motif clothing into a town that is at war with a fire nation, yes he would be perceived as bad, because his dress is specifically relevant to something that is viewed negatively. Now, if you apply that specific situation to every single fucking NPC on the entire planet, you become an asshole. Not only that, but the original players DM DIDN'T EVEN TELL HIM that such dress would be ostracized, which is a critical miscommunication about the game world. You can't even use the argument that his character wouldn't know, as he is a monk, with assumed high wisdom and sense motive, he should have gotten "the feeling from another's behavior that something is wrong" which is a direct quote from the sense motive skill.
So even if your rather bad metaphor, the DM is still at fault for not letting the player know out of character, or with a knowledge religion roll that "Hey, brandishing this holy symbol in this highly religious place will get you killed"
>>45770766
Because you're a faggot.
Seriously, you came up with a bad or inappropriate character and the GM doesn't think you have the emotional maturity to deal with being told "no" and wants you to rethink your character without making you throw a tantrum.
>>45772445
2/10 made me respond
>>45772339
>acting like a passive-aggressive faggot and fucking up the game for everyone makes it somehow better than the guy who totally exists who throws temper tantrums and literally flips tables whenever he can't play something (but somehow is still playing in the group)
>inb4 dumb excuse like 'b-but he's a friend'
>>45781454
>you are assuming that everyone in the game world thinks like you do
Where in the world did I write that? Every culture has preconceptions about people. I just assumed that the players were in a 'standard' fantasy nation, where modern values are more-or-less held. And it is fucking obvious not everyone is going to react the same. The artsy nobles will be all over his fancy monk ass. The problem is that since the characters will most likely interact more with the common folk (whose only source of information about monks* are the legends in which the fancy dressed ones are the bad ones), they will percieve it as a negative modifyer.
>>45781476
>No, because the nature of Menxoberrazan supplants the DM's personal biases.
>This is entirely your personal bias, which is why several anon, including yourself, are calling you out.
Wait, so if it's my personal bias it's not okay, but if it's the writer's personal bias it's okay?
Or from another angle: if I make the world so that 99% of the flamboyant monks really are evil, is that shit? And if it is why is saying that 99% of the drow populace is evil not shit?
>Would you do the same to the animal pelt wearing, tatted up barbarian that thuds in to a inn and demands a room?
Of fucking course. Also your druid either binds his wolf's mouth shut or he's not getting into town.
*I always say that people can usually guess your class by watching you. The won't be able to tell that you are a Sunfist Monk, but they'll know you are a deadly unarmed fighter.
>>45781826
But in the original premise, the thing you're arguing about, that didn't happen. The DM just fudged the monk's dice rolls and make everything worse for him because he's a fucking autist who hates the color red.
>>45781626
See
>>45779878
I don't want to defend the DM, I'm just pointing out why the player should have expected a negative reaction to his character from NPCs.
>>45781906
>I'm just pointing out why the player should have expected a negative reaction to his character from NPCs.
But the player shouldn't, because nothing in the setting gave sign that it did, and it was entirely the GM's bias that prompted it.
>>45781826
>this whole post
Ugh, I'm getting too drunk to continue arguing with you, there are other anon who can in my stead.
Have fun gents.
>>45781873
Like I said in >>45779878 the DM was retarded. I'm just pointing out that if you go and make a WOW, SO UNIQUE character plenty of NPCs will have a negative attitude towards your character. I've also said that OP is a retard for not expecting this.
>>45781959
Have fun!
>>45772445
I just sent your post to the Feds for code-breaking
>>45781972
Oh, well, yeah. You should definitely pick your audience. You wouldn't chat up a seedy tavern in a three piece suit, and you probably wouldn't walk into a throne room and present to the king without hosing the filth off your armor (or at least throwing on an illusion).
>>45781826
>whose only source of information about monks* are the legends in which the fancy dressed ones are the bad ones
We're back to this again. Just because he is playing a monk class does not mean he is playing a monk character. All these supposed stories that these peasant villagers are somehow hearing mean nothing if they lack the ability to intrinsically know what a monk is. Using claws as weapons is not a monk only trait, nor is not wearing armor, or having a rope to tie off your waist. Those are all pretty common for barbarians, pugilists, fire focused druids, certain rogues, witches, and many many archetypes of other classes.
The implication that all the villagers know the mythos of well dressed monks being evil, can identify that the character is in fact a monk, AND have the forethought to put two and two together is insulting. Any peasant worth his salt would see this guy rolling up with his group, a fighter with fullplate, the monk in question with his dyed hair and unique dress, the wizard looking quite magical, and the rogue looking inconspicuous and think: Oh shit, these are either A: Adventurers who are loaded compared to us, or B: well equipped raiders whoa re going to fuck us over.
In either situation, the most reasonable course of action is to kiss ass to try and either get some of their gold, or kiss ass to try and appease them so they don't burn your village. Acting prejudice against them is only a logical course of action if the peasant is so stupid as to not notice that they are clearly powerful and rich, and assumes that they are not evil and willing to burn down the town out of spite.
Your very example destroys itself: if the peasant was knowledgeable enough to know about the mythos of well dressed monks being evil, he would be knowledgeable enough to know to not piss off a group of wealthy adventurers, and if he was stupid enough to piss them off, he is almost assuredly ignorant of such stereotypes about a foreign culture.
>>45782125
I think the issue is that it was a blanket penalty. If it only applied to high class social situations it would be reasonable, but it applied to literally everything (if the original story is to be believed), and that is completely unacceptable.
>>45782247
Ok, first of all: core classes are not something rare and nearly unique. An average peasant would have at least cursory knowledge of them, just as peasants in real life had cursory knowledge about knights, merchants and doctors.
The peasant's reaction depends mainly on the powerlevel of the game. Namely whether or not four to six well-armed adventurers can win against thirty to a hundred pitchfork-wealding peasants. If the answer is yes, you are correct. If the answer is no, the peasants are more likely to tell them to piss off, especially since the adventurers might be wealthy, but their wealth is stored mainly in magical items, gems and gold, which are useless to a peasant (gold or gems is too strong of a currency for them to use and magical items are obviously useless to them).
>>45779829
>My personal take is that the stat penalties are only applied when game balance is concerned. Otherwise the character should be level with the party.
What my group does is it just the XP rate until the party is all roughly equal in power/usefulness, it's how we can have regular classes and gestalt classes in the same party
>>45782500
In a non-high fantasy game, core classes are supposed to be rare. They are Player Character classes, and are mostly reserved for powerful NPC's, recurring NPC's, and player characters. Most soldiers in an army are simple warriors, most magicians are adepts, and most craftsmen are experts. In a high powered fantasy game, there are far more NPC's with player classes around, but when player classes become common, so do strange manners of dress and people with the power to alter reality, and therefor so does the acceptance of such unique mannerisms.
Your assumption that gold is too strong a currency for most peasants is also incorrect if the game is pathfinder (which this argument has been assuming). A single night in the shittiest Inn coasts 2 silver, a doctor costs 1 gold, a simple cart to ship farmgoods is 15 gold, and a pig is 3 gold. Any local smith, farmer, or innkeeper would absolutely deal in gold, and those are 3 of the most common people for adventurers to interact with in any given village
>>45781972
God forbid a hero be recognizable.
>>45775414
Please tell me you meant robe. Just a rope would justify that charisma drop.
>>45779471
I lost an arm in a Pathfinder game. The GM was pretty lenient; he only gave me penalties to strength-based skill checks, like climbing or swimming. He reasoned I could still swing a sword as good with one arm as the other, and losing the AC from my shield was penalty enough.
But another player would insist that I take more penalties. He argued how losing an arm would throw off a person's sense of balance, and how badly it should affect dexterity, and how even assuming my character was ambidextrous it would be harder to hit because balance problems, and he would often just say that I should just retire or kill off the character.
Point is, realism is a bitch when it's used to punish a player harshly when they've already taken punishments and penalties.
>>45781123
You wouldn't be well liked as a nationalistic fire monk...if you were in Avatar.
This isn't Avatar, as far as we know.
>>45770766
I never understood why dm's care what the players want to be. the dm got upset with your characters because he probably had a party already in mind and was hoping you would all make those characters. but you aren't telling us the whole story either, what exactly were you trying to do? make an ogre into a rogue or some gay shit like that? I would allow anything but I would definitely call you a retard when applicable.
>>45784176
You know how a wooden ship begins to rot as soon as they actually put it in the ocean?
A GM's excitement and desire for a game begins to rot away the moment he hears what characters the players are bringing. He has to swallow his pride, realize they don't care about his story and world, but theirs, and try to be the best goddamn GM he can so that way they all have fun.
>>45784269
makes sense but If you expected to have a party of people magically understand what you wanted them to do it wouldn't be much of an adventure, you might as well just sit in a room by yourself and rp your own story.
>>45784336
That's what that last sentence is for. Some GMs aren't good at understanding that they're not there to create a story, but to let the players make their own. And that starts at the basics.
Sure, they may start with really gimmicky starts, or nothing but a quirk, but good players should build that into something cool.
i built a dex based grapple/CM monk in my first campaign and i guess the GM didnt like our encounter with a bear being trivialized by my monk grappling and pinning it with some lucky rolls.
so GM changed the grappling rules,replacing them with a strength check,basically making all my grapple-related feats useless and fucking my character concept.
he messed with alot of rules.including but not limited to taking out 5 foot steps,not allowing move actions after an attack(i would scorpion strike to reduce targets movespeed then run away if i thought i was in danger,as if provoking aoo half the time wasnt enough)
>>45780960
gms hatin on dat grapple monk master race
