I don't usually have a problem with a GM saying no...my problem comes when I give them my concept, they say yes, and then specifically set out to nerf my character or otherwise dramatically alter my concept.

Before I start a new campaign I try to spell out what is/isn't acceptable for character ideas. If after that a player still comes to me with an idea that is patently at odds with the new campaign I usually assume I failed to explain it clearly enough and offer a compromise in some way.

A good example of this is when we started out my new Bushido campaign. I have a standing rule that there are no pc ninjas in my Bushido campaign. The reason I do this is because I have found that ninja pcs always work at cross purposes to the other players. For example, ninjas work outside of the honor system that the other players have to adhere to (there are sizable penalties to taking a hit to your honor stat) this places the ninja player into direct opposition with every other member of the party. These sorts of conflicts in the past have completely destroyed parties. So in my standard Bushido campaign I don't allow ninjas. If the players request, I have in the past run all-ninja games. Those work well enough, but as you can imagine, they are nasty, brutish and short.

I've found that offering a player a chance to play a yakuza-type character is a good compromise. It lets the player scratch his itch to be shady but doesn't immediately set him up in opposition to the other pcs.

Quote from: IceBlinkLuck;452167A good example of this is when we started out my new Bushido campaign. I have a standing rule that there are no pc ninjas in my Bushido campaign. The reason I do this is because I have found that ninja pcs always work at cross purposes to the other players.

I've found that offering a player a chance to play a yakuza-type character is a good compromise. It lets the player scratch his itch to be shady but doesn't immediately set him up in opposition to the other pcs.

That's the sort of thing I was talking about. "No ninjas because they make for disruptive characters" is reasonable, well-argued and leaves room for compromise (i.e. "play a yakuza so you can be a non-disruptive sneaky bastard").

"No ninjas because they don't fit the beautiful story I've written in my mind and I'm eager to act out with you as my theatrical ensemble" is what irks me to no end.

It's thankfully rare -- most GMs I've gamed with are reasonable in their rulings, before, during and after character creation -- but it's happened to me in the past a couple of times.

Quote from: The Butcher;452175That's the sort of thing I was talking about. "No ninjas because they make for disruptive characters" is reasonable, well-argued and leaves room for compromise (i.e. "play a yakuza so you can be a non-disruptive sneaky bastard").

"No ninjas because they don't fit the beautiful story I've written in my mind and I'm eager to act out with you as my theatrical ensemble" is what irks me to no end.

I've hardly ever heard the second; usually when a GM prohibits character types/classes/races/whatever, its because they don't fit his focus on the campaign, or because they are annoying, or because they are too overpowered.

On the other hand, I've had players who've said "you HAVE let me play this Dragon RCC because I have this totally brilliant story background for it and its totally not just an excuse to end up with a character 20 times more powerful than any of the other players".


RPGPundit

I have few issues with Power levels but if you take my Amber games for example the PCs have to want to play Amberite characters.
This is hard in a game where the PCs can be almost anything you can think of. I try to steer PCs in some in depth character discussion but sometimes you have to say no you can not have a super skate board that can travel over any surface.

Quote from: RPGPundit;452244I've hardly ever heard the second; usually when a GM prohibits character types/classes/races/whatever, its because they don't fit his focus on the campaign, or because they are annoying, or because they are too overpowered.

I got that a couple of times, under the pretense of what you've called "campaign focus". Most playwright-GM types I know usually hand you a pregen, which can be better, or worse, depending on the GM and the character (and the player).

It is mercifully rare, though. Sadly not as rare as railroading GMs...

Any DM who denies my character concept has to beat me in a fistfight...


to the death.


People learn to love Drakninj the Wiz-Lord pretty quickly, I find.

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;452158I don't usually have a problem with a GM saying no...my problem comes when I give them my concept, they say yes, and then specifically set out to nerf my character or otherwise dramatically alter my concept.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;452158I don't usually have a problem with a GM saying no...my problem comes when I give them my concept, they say yes, and then specifically set out to nerf my character or otherwise dramatically alter my concept.

Ah, well, that's a whole other story.  Sometimes it might be attributable to misunderstanding on the part of the GM of just what your "concept" is about; but yes, sometimes it may just be intentional douchebaggery.  Sometimes douchebaggery seen (from the GM's point of view) as a response to douchebaggery on your part from some perceived notion that you are being a munchkin with your concept and so they're "teaching you a lesson"; but for me, I think that kind of thing is too passive aggressive.

I personally vastly prefer "active aggressive", so I would just tell a guy to fuck off and that no, he can't play a guy who is the best swordsman in the kingdom and was blessed with the ability to make everyone fall in love with him; rather than say "sure" and then have both your hands  immediately cut off in a freak piano-moving accident and then give you syphilis.

RPGPundit

No problem - happened to me and I just learned to use my tongue for everything...

Quote from: RPGPundit;452461Ah, well, that's a whole other story.  Sometimes it might be attributable to misunderstanding on the part of the GM of just what your "concept" is about; but yes, sometimes it may just be intentional douchebaggery.  Sometimes douchebaggery seen (from the GM's point of view) as a response to douchebaggery on your part from some perceived notion that you are being a munchkin with your concept and so they're "teaching you a lesson"; but for me, I think that kind of thing is too passive aggressive.

I personally vastly prefer "active aggressive", so I would just tell a guy to fuck off and that no, he can't play a guy who is the best swordsman in the kingdom and was blessed with the ability to make everyone fall in love with him; rather than say "sure" and then have both your hands  immediately cut off in a freak piano-moving accident and then give you syphilis.

RPGPundit

I agree. I don't like to play passive aggressive bullshit games with people...and I understand that something that sounded good on paper may not work in practice, so I tend to be a pretty reasonable guy: If my character doesn't mesh with your campaign after all, tell me so we can work it out, or I can make a new guy...don't squash my enjoyment.

Quote from: RPGPundit;452461Ah, well, that's a whole other story.  Sometimes it might be attributable to misunderstanding on the part of the GM of just what your "concept" is about; but yes, sometimes it may just be intentional douchebaggery.  Sometimes douchebaggery seen (from the GM's point of view) as a response to douchebaggery on your part from some perceived notion that you are being a munchkin with your concept and so they're "teaching you a lesson"; but for me, I think that kind of thing is too passive aggressive.

I personally vastly prefer "active aggressive", so I would just tell a guy to fuck off and that no, he can't play a guy who is the best swordsman in the kingdom and was blessed with the ability to make everyone fall in love with him; rather than say "sure" and then have both your hands  immediately cut off in a freak piano-moving accident and then give you syphilis.

RPGPundit

(; it's a matter of taste. I don't at all mind a super swordsman with high Charisma. Hell, I usually boost Charisma if that's what people want to do.

My issues with characters is more when they start giving me really stupid shit like, "raging druids that morphs into a stone wolf and nothing else," or, "pheromone control alien doctor who doesn't understand human emotions and eats sentient creatures unless he has been asked not to."

How exactly would one go passive aggressive on those?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;452461so I would just tell a guy to fuck off and that no, he can't play a guy who is the best swordsman in the kingdom and was blessed with the ability to make everyone fall in love with him;

That's my 7th Sea Castillian duellist Jose Del Fuego! You have no idea how much hysterical trouble those two traits can cause you.

Poor Jose does not mean for the count's wife and daughter to fall for him, especially when mom poisons her daughter and then tells her husband who then sends assassins but one of the assassins is female who betrays the count but dies so her brother comes to duel poor Jose...and her brother is the guy Jose has sworn to defend.

And then there's every nimrod with a sword who thinks they can be A1 if they beat poor Jose who just wants to eat a meal in peace. Of course, everyone wants to fight to the death for their honor! But poor Jose doesn't want to kill his fellow countrymen and since Castille is at war with Montaigne the King himself has asked Jose to not hurt any of their great swordsmen since they are actually needed for the war.

I love to fuck with PCs and I love GMs who have fun messing with mine. So bring on yer crazy concepts!

Yeah but there's a very fine line between "good GM productively fucking with your character to make it more interesting" and "passive-agressive pussy-GM who ruins your character now because he was too much of a wuss to just tell you that you couldn't play it earlier".

RPGPundit